An editorial note: What happened during the process in which Sino-Russian relations evolved from "suspicion" to "seeking common ground"? Why can't the West's persistent attempt to "ally with Russia to resist China" be realized?
From March 31 to April 1, the Eurasia Group session of the 2025 Valdai Discussion Club was held at East China Normal University. During a discussion session titled "Russia and China: Strategic Partnership in a Multipolar World," Yu Bin, professor of Political Science at Ursinus College, senior researcher at Shanghai American Studies Association and the Russian Research Center of East China Normal University, delivered a speech titled "The Connotation and Extension of Normal Sino-Russian Relations," addressing the above questions. Guancha.cn has compiled this article for readers to exchange and share.
Yu Bin:
An equal, stable, mutually beneficial coexistence between Russia and China began during the bipolar Cold War system, transcended the post-Cold War unipolar structure, and is now entering a brave and grave new world of multipolarity.
In May 1989, Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev visited China, normalizing Sino-Soviet relations.
The Challenges of Normal Sino-Russian Relations
In the 36 years since the normalization of Sino-Russian relations in 1989, the general trend of bilateral relations has been gradual progress and mutual adaptation. From "suspicion" to "seeking common ground," both sides have strived for their own well-being while taking into account each other's interests, continuously expanding the depth and breadth of multilateral cooperation. In my opinion, this positioning of normal relations depends on at least three coordinates.
Firstly, normal Sino-Russian relations differ from the hot-and-cold, dramatic ups and downs, emotional, and ideologically driven bilateral relations of the Cold War era. Secondly, traditional military alliances' "automatic interlocking mechanisms" have been excluded and surpassed in Sino-Russian bilateral relations. Thirdly, after experiencing an asymmetrical and sometimes zero-sum relationship in modern historical exchanges, as two ultra-large civilizations with independent foreign and military strategies, both Russia and China are willing and capable of acting according to their own interests.
If we exclude some common extensions of recent years in Sino-Russian bilateral relations, such as "constructive," "comprehensive," "strategic coordination," or "partnership for the 21st century," etc., the core of Sino-Russian relations is a normal relationship. It's like the Putin Matryoshka dolls sold in Russian markets; the outer layer is President Putin, and peeling away layer by layer reveals Peter the Great inside.
By the way, in the English-speaking world, I was the first person to use the term "Putin the Great." When Putin was re-elected president in 2004, I used the phrase "Putin the Great" in an article published in the Summer 2004 issue of the Harvard International Review.
Later, an American Army general asked me why I used the term "Putin the Great." In his view, it should be "Putin the Terrible." My response was that it depends on how one views President Putin. Whether Putin's achievements are good or bad is not only judged by Western standards but also seen through Russian eyes. In 2004, when Putin was re-elected with 71% of the vote, this showed that the majority of Russians supported Putin. The general had no further response.
Returning to Sino-Russian relations, various extensions derived from the normalization of Sino-Russian relations since then, such as the recent official Chinese description of "a new era comprehensive strategic partnership of coordination between China and Russia." Professor Zhao Huasheng of Fudan University believes this represents a higher level of normal relations, which I fully agree with. Teacher Xing Guangcheng also mentioned the continuous addition of various extensions with deepening and expanding dimensions, which is a very accurate expression. In this sense, the potential for deepening and expanding normal Sino-Russian relations is enormous, virtually limitless and boundless.
The Arrogance and Prejudice of Western Theories
The development of normal Sino-Russian relations today is not only driven by strong internal forces and expansion potential but also challenges the shortsightedness and blind spots in Western theoretical and policy perspectives. The persistent intention of the West to ally with Russia against China is not only a continuation of the West's divide-and-rule strategy towards non-Western worlds but also reveals the arrogance and prejudice of major Western international relations theory paradigms.
For example, Western liberalism holds that countries with different ideologies and social systems cannot coexist peacefully, and lasting peace can only be achieved among democratic nations, known as the "Democratic Peace Theory." Western realism, on the other hand, argues that the rise and fall of national power inevitably lead to disputes and conflicts between nations. For instance, Professor Mearsheimer's theory of great power conflict and Professor Graham Allison's "Thucydides' Trap" theory from Harvard Kennedy School, etc.
A statue of Thucydides, whose analysis of the causes of the Peloponnesian War—"the rise of Athens and the resulting fear it caused Sparta, making war inevitable"—has been abstracted by modern scholars into the "Thucydides Trap."
In the vast ocean of books on Sino-Russian relations studied in the West, there are basically two schools of thought: one advocating "limited Sino-Russian relations," and the other promoting the "Sino-Russian threat." Rarely is there an intermediate stance.
On one hand, limited-relation theorists believe that due to the significant differences between Russia and China in history, culture, political systems, national strength, and even race, any improvement in their relations is temporary and limited, providing endless imagination space for so-called "alliance with Russia to contain China." Some very excellent scholars also support this viewpoint. For instance, Bobo Lo supports this perspective. In his book *The Axis of Convenience*, he puts "normal relations" in quotation marks, i.e., "so-called normal relations." Bobo Lo's writing is superb and highly readable. However, within this framework of thinking, regardless of how Sino-Russian relations improve, they are limited. Perhaps because of this, in Trump's or American conservative eyes, splitting Russia and China is not just a theoretical issue but also has practical feasibility.
On the other hand, the "China Threat Theory" believes that any interaction between Russia and China is a joint action against the West, which must not be taken lightly and must be destroyed at all costs.
Due to this extreme mindset, these two schools studying Sino-Russian relations lack basic realism and fall into a "binary logic" of either-or, friend-or-enemy, ignoring and excluding broad middle grounds. They do not believe that Sino-Russian relations can achieve equality, friendship, and coexistence on a policy level and are committed to slandering and disrupting normal Sino-Russian relations.
The Way of Coexistence for Major Powers/Civilizations
However, from a non-Western-centric "third eye," I believe that Sino-Russian relations are normal. The fact proves that in the 21st century filled with risks and wars, the expansion and deepening of normal Sino-Russian relations not only defy Western will but also provide a beneficial and feasible example for exploring the coexistence of different civilizations and shaping a normal, stable international order.
Mutual respect and support are the core essence of Sino-Russian relations.
For example, the thorough resolution of border issues that have troubled Sino-Russian relations for over 300 years is precisely the result of both sides' pragmatic cooperation policies in the post-Cold War period. Around the time the Cold War ended, Russia's long borders to the east and west were almost in similarly uncertain states. Since the collapse of the great empire had a tremendous impact on its surroundings, and the former Soviet Union was a multi-ethnic state.
Today, Russia's eastern and western borders are two completely different worlds: no warfare in the east, while the west is embroiled in conflict. Why are the fates of Russia's eastern and western borders so different? Why is a Russia striving to integrate into the West being pushed into a corner, unwilling to back down and risking war, yet now unable to stop?!
Why has China, while steadily rising in the east, chosen to befriend its neighbors and live in peace rather than take advantage of others' misfortunes? How have two largest yet entirely different civilizational carriers on the Eurasian continent achieved the most equal and normal state-to-state relations since the 17th century amidst a chaotic world dominated by the West? Both are dedicated to regional stability and harmonious coexistence. All of this is beyond the reach of Western-centric theories and something Western theories neither answer nor wish to confront.
Returning to the year 2004 when I proposed the term "Putin the Great," I wrote the following words about normal Sino-Russian relations in a journal edited by Wang Jisi at Peking University's *International Political Studies*, which remain relevant today:
The greatest challenge for Sino-Russian relations in the 21st century may well be the hard-won normal relations themselves. No matter what, during the Cold War, the deterioration of Sino-Soviet relations from "honeymoon" to estrangement, though bitter-sweet, was swift and decisive. Compared to the passionate highs and tragic lows of the Cold War era, the current normal "everyday life" relationship between the two countries is a more resilient struggle. After fifteen years of "adjustment," maintaining peaceful coexistence and treating each other well in the new century remains a daunting task for both countries.
International relations and romantic relationships share many similarities, both are complex and difficult to manage. Just as Professor Feng Shaolei mentioned, Churchill once said, "I have spent immense effort studying my close allies, but this pales in comparison to the efforts young lovers put into understanding each other's myriad thoughts during their infatuation." This kind of "young couple" relationship is romantic yet unstable.
Normal marital relationships, while more stable, are also more challenging because at this stage, we see each other not based on appearances or the pursuit of an imagined perfect partner, but as real individuals. I believe this is what Professor Feng refers to as mature relationships. Therefore, maintaining a long-lasting, normal Sino-Russian relationship—this "daily life" relationship—is likely even more challenging and complex.
Looking Ahead: Making America and the West Safer for the World
Twenty years later, I still believe that maintaining and developing normal Sino-Russian relations is no easy feat, but I must revise my conclusion from my 2004 article: Sino-Russian relations need not merely maintain peace and treat each other well; they must also look to the world and take a high-level perspective. Because the stable and normal bilateral relations between Russia and China are not only for the well-being of two great civilizations and their peoples but also because such normal great power relations are a complete rejection of the social Darwinism of the survival of the fittest that the West has become accustomed to since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648.
Ceremony confirming the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648
Finally, I would like to borrow a phrase from U.S. President Wilson's 1917 address to Congress urging the United States to declare war on Germany: "To make the world safe for democracy." But I intend to go against the grain. Not only do China and Russia need to constantly expand and deepen their equal, mutually beneficial, non-allied normal relations, but they should also set an example with a stable and normal Sino-Russian relationship to influence the direction of international relations, especially great power relations, aiming to "make America and the West safer for the world."
Here, I am merely offering a vision to spark further discussion. Although I may be the first in the world to raise this issue, achieving this goal does not depend solely on the strength of the two countries but also requires sophisticated diplomatic artistry.
In a new world where weapons of mass destruction and artificial intelligence pose extreme dangers, this might be the only option for harmonious coexistence in the international community.
Thank you all.
This article is an exclusive contribution from Guancha.cn. The content purely reflects the author's personal views and does not necessarily represent the platform's stance. Unauthorized reproduction is prohibited, and legal responsibility will be pursued. Follow us on WeChat at guanchacn for daily engaging articles.
Original source: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7491939307851334170/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and welcome your feedback via the "Like/Dislike" buttons below.