Relations between Russia and China after February 2022: Common Interest but Different Values and Visions

The evolving relationship between Russia and China, especially after Russia’s large-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, has stirred global concern. This study challenges the idea of a “no-limits friendship” between the two nations, highlighting their lack of mutual trust and shared visions. Using a Constructivist theory of International Relations, it examines Moscow and Beijing’s divergent perspectives on partnership and explores the complexities of their interactions. Through content analysis of various sources, such as official documents and expert assessments, the study reveals a nuanced understanding of their collaboration. Russia views its partnership with China as a means to enhance its global influence but faces difficulty in articulating a clear vision for the future world order it aims to shape. China sees Russia as a strategic partner to counterbalance the US. However, historical tensions and differing global aspirations force China to approach this partnership with caution. Despite official declarations of harmony, present-day realities differ. For instance, Russia is not officially a part of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), and differences in infrastructure projects underscore ongoing tensions. Russia’s gas plans for China (Power of Siberia 1 and the potential Power of Siberia 2 pipeline) expose mutual dependencies and uncertainties. Central Asia emerges as a sensitive area, with China gaining ground as Russia’s influence wanes. The First China-Central Asia summit in 2022, which excluded Russia, underscores these shifting power dynamics. Other focal points, including joint ventures such as the CR929 aircraft programme, display disagreements. Russia’s withdrawal due to differing approaches to international suppliers highlights the discord between its present focus and China’s forward-looking perspective. While Russia grapples with immediate challenges, China prioritizes long-term strategies for stability and influence, showcasing a critical divergence in their approaches and priorities. Merely countering the US cannot reconcile these fundamental differences.