Yet, with the benefit of hindsight, it now seems clear that the seeds were planted during those years for the culminating moment of 2013, when Xi visited Moscow to so much political pomp and ceremony. By the time they met in Moscow, Xi and Putin were seeking more than just expressions of friendship. They were pursuing a substantive agenda of cooperation and partnership, signing at least 35 agreements covering a range of issues—economics, travel and tourism, agriculture, banking, science and technology, military technology, and geopolitical cooperation. These agreements represent only the latest illustration of a Russian-Chinese collaboration that has been deepening for years—most of it in opposition to U.S. interests. Let’s take a look at the key areas.
FACILITATING ROGUE REGIMES AND FORGING A “LEAGUE OF AUTOCRACIES”
Vladimir Putin was riding high in February 2014, as Russia hosted the Winter Olympics in Sochi. It was the first time Russia had ever hosted a Winter Games, and Putin was determined to revel in every minute of it. And so he hosted a lavish reception in the Atrium ballroom of the Rus Sanatorium, a structure that dates to the Stalin era. Yet, as the Wall Street Journal put it drily, “Mr. Putin’s guest list ha[d] some big gaps.” While most prominent Western leaders stayed away, Putin entertained President Xi along with then-President Viktor Yanukovych of Ukraine, President Aleksander Lukashenko of Belarus—and North Korea’s second-highest-ranking official, even though Pyongyang was sending no delegation of athletes to Sochi.8 If, as the old saying has it, we know someone by his friends, Putin’s Olympic reception provided a fresh reminder.
“It takes time for societies and policymakers to understand that a major shift in global affairs is afoot. But what we see clearly, in recent months, is the emergence of a new constellation of powers,” wrote William C. Martel in The Diplomat. The new grouping includes China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Syria, and Venezuela. On the surface, these nations are surely distinct; in some cases, indeed, they have conflicting interests. But for the most part, they are united in that their economic and geostrategic goals are inimical to U.S. interests. “There are two common fears that animate the policies of these authoritarian governments,” Martel noted. “One is their apparent fear of democracy, freedom, and liberty, which each of these societies work aggressively to curtail. Second, these authoritarian regimes fear the power and influence of the United States and the West.”9 Thus, they are eager to work together when possible, or at minimum stay out of one another’s way. As Russian Foreign Minister Dmitri Lavrov said of China: “We appreciate Beijing’s measured and impartial stance on the Ukrainian crisis, as well as China’s manifest understanding of all its manifold aspects, including the historic ones.”10
Russia and China are both directly and indirectly supporting and facilitating the efforts of U.S. adversaries around the world—especially the Iranian and North Korean nuclear programs. Russia provides technical assistance and nuclear know-how to Tehran and has sold advanced weapons to defend Iran’s nuclear sites from air strikes. Russia is Iran’s biggest provider of foreign weapons, supplying $3.442 billion in total arms sales since 1991.11 The Russians have also assisted Iran in constructing its Bushehr I nuclear reactor, which critics say is abetting Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear bomb. The Russians have used their position on the UN Security Council to argue against a military strike on Iran or the imposition of harsh sanctions.12 That stance seemed to soften in 2012, when both Russia and China voted in favor of UN sanctions against Iran. On the surface, it looked as if they had finally come around to seeing things the West’s way. In reality, the action was almost certainly motivated by a common desire on the part of Russia and China to keep Iran from ever aligning with the United States. Permanent enmity between the U.S. and Iran, in their thinking, is the best way to keep the Americans out of Central Asia.
Under the terms of an “interim” six-month agreement reached in Geneva in November 2013, Iran pledged to freeze and even curb some nuclear activities in exchange for an easing of economic sanctions. The Obama administration trumpeted the accords as a major step forward, and they are—for Iran. As John Bolton, a former UN ambassador, wrote, the deal accomplished three major Iranian goals: First, it “bought time to continue all aspects of its nuclear-weapons program the agreement does not cover.” These include centrifuge manufacture, weaponization research, and the ballistic-missile program—hardly trivial areas. Second, Iran “gained legitimacy” by being welcomed back into the international community. And third, Tehran has escaped, perhaps forever, the crippling impact of U.S. economic sanctions; the more time passes, the more difficult it will be to reimpose them.13 The lessening of U.S. sanctions will wind up boosting the Iranian economy by at least $7 billion, and perhaps much more. In short, the agreement is woefully, dangerously inadequate. It fails to rein in the Iranians’ ability to enrich uranium; nor does it force them to get rid of their centrifuges or even to slow their heavy-water reactor. For all practical purposes, the Iranian program carries on.
Time will tell whether opponents of the agreement in Washington can mend the damage done. A bipartisan majority in Congress wants tighter sanctions against Iran now, but President Obama opposes them. Polls show that the American public has deep reservations about the deal and overwhelmingly mistrusts the Iranian government as partners in any agreement.14 If something positive is to be salvaged from these dealings, the U.S. will have to rediscover its negotiating power. Certainly it cannot count on the Russians to halt their support of Iran’s nuclear program, despite Moscow’s role in the negotiations as a member of the P5+1.15
China does business with Iran as well and singlehandedly props up a North Korean regime that seems to be ever more volatile and dangerous. The Chinese have refused to discourage Pyongyang from building up its stockpile of nuclear warheads or from developing even more sophisticated and deadly nuclear weapons that could hit Alaska or the U.S. West Coast.
While China positions itself as a supporter of sanctions against North Korea, it does nothing to help enforce them. At heart, China doesn’t want the North Korean problem resolved. An intimidating, unpredictable North Korea keeps South Korea in check and the Americans off balance in the Far East, while terrifying such staunch American allies as Japan and the Philippines. This is all to the good, from the Chinese perspective. More recently, it is true, the North Koreans got too provocative even for China’s tastes, and the Chinese have been working behind the scenes to rein them in. But they do this to protect their strategic interests, not out of solidarity with the West.
China’s facilitation is also essential to perhaps the most disturbing alliance of all: the long-running Iran–North Korea “axis of proliferation,” as Claudia Rosett calls it in Forbes. In this weapons trade, North Korea for the most part is the seller and Iran the buyer, though the two rogue nations also work together on developing missile technology.16
All of these efforts are part of a broader Russian-Chinese goal: to build a counter-Western alliance of antidemocratic nations, what might be called a League of Autocracies—quite the opposite of the “League of Democracies” John McCain has called for.17 These autocratic nations include not only North Korea and Iran but also Syria, Venezuela, Sudan, and Myanmar (Burma), among others. Both Russia and China sell arms to state sponsors of terrorism and have strengthened the hand of such terrorist groups as Hamas, Hezbollah, and even al-Qaeda affiliates in hopes of weakening the United States and thwarting its strategic goals.
In one of the deadliest places in the world—Syria—the Russians and the Chinese are, again, strongly aligned with each other and against the U.S. and Western powers. The Russians have a base in Syria and came under fire from the international community in 2013 for supplying weapons to the Bashar al-Assad government as it continued to suppress a rebellion, although Russia’s representatives defended their actions by claiming the U.S. was supporting the rebels. It’s becoming increasingly clear that the Russians will do just about anything to discredit the American view. To this end, in an op-ed in the New York Times after Assad used chemical weapons against his own people, Putin pleaded for “caution” from the U.S. as he argued for delaying a military strike. He wrote: “From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop