Skip to main content

Sino-Russian Logrolling and the Future of Great Power Competition

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The United States and Contemporary China-Russia Relations
  • 801 Accesses

Abstract

How will American relative decline impact security cooperation between Russia and China? The conventional wisdom holds that the Sino-Russian “strategic partnership” is largely a “marriage of convenience” held together only by shared antipathy toward the US-led international order. From a traditional balance of power perspective, given their lack of a shared vision for global and regional order, we should expect Sino-Russian cooperation to deteriorate as US relative power recedes. I suggest, to the contrary, that Sino-Russian cooperation could remain quite durable throughout a prolonged period of American decline and retrenchment. I apply theories of bureaucratic and legislative “logrolling” to demonstrate how China and Russia each have incentives to support one another’s revisionist actions in their respective home regions. An underlying asymmetry of regional importance—China’s prioritization of East Asia, and Russia’s prioritization of Europe—enables this logrolling dynamic. Thus, I argue that while there are few shared interests between them, Russia and China could well maintain a limited but highly consequential cooperative relationship over the medium to long term. As such, the Sino-Russian threat to US-led order comes not from a coordinated balancing effort, but from reciprocal support of one another’s region-specific revisionist actions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    This coordinated revisionism differs from simple balancing primarily in that it is driven by revisionist preferences rather than perceptions of an external threat.

  2. 2.

    The precise nature of this asymmetric prioritization depends on the number of players and issues. But in the hypothetical two-player, two-issue logrolling scenario described above, all that would technically be required is for the two players’ ordinal ranking of issue importance be reversed.

  3. 3.

    This general logic would operate similarly if A and B prioritized distinct issues, rather than geographic regions.

  4. 4.

    For instance, Alexander Gabuev (2017a) argues that neither Russia nor China are “visionary” superpowers that hold truly coherent visions of what an ideal international order would look like (Gabuev 2017a). Similarly, Aaron Friedberg (2017, 9) suggests that neither Beijing nor Moscow “sees itself as the standard bearer for a transnational creed.” In short, there appears to be little basis for Sino-Russian geopolitical compatibility based on shared normative commitments.

  5. 5.

    This is not to argue that American hegemony is necessarily or uniformly more egalitarian, or less self-interested, than Russian or Chinese hegemony would be. Indeed, much of this claim rests on the fact that the United States is not itself a European or East Asian state. American-led order in the Western Hemisphere has generally been more hierarchical than it is in Europe or East Asia in large part because the United States physically exists within the former region. China and Russia, as East Asian and (primarily) European states, could thus be expected to impose more hierarchical orders in their own home regions, much as the United States did in Latin America throughout much of its history.

  6. 6.

    Cooley (2017) argues, for instance, that Russian-led institutions serve mainly to “giv[e] Russia a veto” over other members’ policies.

  7. 7.

    See transcript at: http://en.special.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/52834.

Bibliography

  • Aksoy, Deniz. 2012. Institutional Arrangements and Logrolling: Evidence from the European Union. American Journal of Political Science 56 (3): 538–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, Kenneth. 1951. Social Choice and Individual Values. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Axelrod, Robert. 1984. The Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beckley, Michael. 2011. China’s Century? Why America’s Edge Will Endure. International Security 36 (3): 41–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blank, Stephen. 2016. A Crystallizing Russo-Chinese Alliance. Eurasia Daily Monitor 33 (145). Available at: https://jamestown.org/program/a-crystallizing-russo-chinese-alliance/.

  • Brooks, Stephen G., and William C. Wohlforth. 2002. American Primacy in Perspective. Foreign Affairs 81 (4): 20–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, Stephen G., and William C. Wohlforth. 2008. World out of Balance: International Relations and the Challenge of American Primacy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, James, and Gordon Tullock. 1962. The Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, Kurt, and Ely Ratner. 2018. The China Reckoning: How Beijing Defied American Expectations. Foreign Affairs 97 (2): 60–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carrubba, Clifford, and Craig Volden. 2000. Coalitional Politics and Logrolling in Legislative Institutions. American Journal of Political Science 44 (2): 261–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colby, Elbridge, and A Wess Mitchell. 2020. The Age of Great Power Competition: How the Trump Administration Refashioned American Strategy. Foreign Affairs 99 (1): 118–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooley, Alexander. 2017. Whose Rules, Whose Sphere? Russian Governance and Influence in Post-Soviet States. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Available at: http://carnegieendowment.org/files/6302017_AlexanderCooley_WhoseRules.pdf.

  • Davis, Christina. 2003. Food Fights over Free Trade: How International Institutions Promote Agricultural Trade Liberalization. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, Christina. 2004. International Institutions and Issue Linkage: Building Support for Agricultural Trade Liberalization. American Political Science Review 98 (1): 153–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dreyer, June Teufel. 2015. The ‘Tianxia Trope’: Will China Change the International System? Journal of Contemporary China 24 (96): 1015–1031.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedberg, Aaron. 2011. A Contest for Supremacy: China, America, and the Struggle for Mastery in Asia. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedberg, Aaron. 2017. The Authoritarian Challenge: China, Russia, and the Threat to the Liberal International Order. The Sasakawa Peace Foundation. Available at: http://www.spf.org/jpus-j/img/investigation/The_Authoritarian_Challenge.pdf.

  • Friedberg, Aaron. 2020. An Answer to Aggression: How to Push Back Against Beijing. Foreign Affairs 99 (5): 150–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabuev, Alexander. 2015. A ‘Soft Alliance’? Russia-China Relations After the Ukraine Crisis. European Council on Foreign Relations Policy Brief. Available at: http://www.ecfr.eu/publications/summary/a_soft_alliance_russia_china_relations_after_the_ukraine_crisis331.

  • Gabuev, Alexander. 2017a. China and Russia: Friends with Strategic Benefits. The Interpreter—The Lowy Institute. Available at: https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/china-and-russia-friends-strategic-benefits.

  • Gabuev, Alexander. 2017b. China and Russia’s Dangeroud Entente. Wall Street Journal. Available at: https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-and-russias-dangerous-entente-1507158142.

  • Hill, Fiona, and Bobo Lo. 2013. Putin’s Pivot: Why Russia Is Looking East. Foreign Affairs. Available at: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russian-federation/2013-07-31/putins-pivot.

  • Ikenberry, G. John. 2001. After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Rebuilding of Order After Major Wars. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ikenberry, G. John. 2010. The Liberal International Order and Its Discontents. Millennium—Journal of International Studies 38 (3): 509–521.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ikenberry, G. John. 2011. The Future of the Liberal World Order: Internationalism After America. Foreign Affairs 90 (3): 56–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keohane, Robert. 1984. After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korolev, Alexander. 2016. On the Verge of an Alliance: Defining Contemporary China-Russia Relations. Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, Asia-Pacific.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, Andrew. 2008. Russia Claims Its Sphere of Influence in the World. The New York Times, August 31. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/01/world/europe/01russia.html.

  • Kydd, Andrew. 1997. Sheep in Sheep’s Clothing: Why Security Seekers Do Not Fight Each Other. Security Studies. 7 (1): 114–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lake, David. 2009. Hierarchy in International Relations. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lo, Bobo. 2008. Axis of Convenience: Moscow, Beijing, and the New Geopolitics. London: Brookings Institution.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lo, Bobo. 2014. Russia’s Eastern Direction: Distinguishing the Real from the Virtual. Russie NEI Reports, No. 17. Institut Francais des Relations Internationales. Available at: https://www.ifri.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/ifrirnr17boboloeasterndirectionjan2014.pdf.

  • Lo, Bobo. 2017. A Wary Embrace: What the China-Russia Relationship Means for the World. Sydney: Lowy Institute for International Policy.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald, Paul, and Joseph Parent. 2011. Graceful Decline: The Surprising Success of Great Power Retrenchment. International Security 35 (4): 7–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, Lisa. 1993. Credibility, Costs, and Institutions: Cooperation on Economic Sanctions. World Politics 45 (3): 406–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, Lisa. 2000. Democratic Commitments: Legislatures and International Cooperation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mastro, Oriana Skylar. 2019. It Takes Two to Tango: Autocratic Underbalancing, Regime Legitimacy and China’s Responses to India’s Rise. Journal of Strategic Studies 42 (1): 114–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCalla, Robert. 1996. NATO’s Persistence After the Cold War. International Organization 50 (3): 445–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mead, Walter Russell. 2014. The Return of Geopolitics. Foreign Affairs. 93 (3): 69–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mearsheimer, John. 1990. Back to the Future: Instability in Europe After the Cold War. International Security 15 (1): 5–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radin, Andrew, and Clinton Bruce Reach. 2017. Russian Views of the International Order. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Available at: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1826.html.

  • RT. 2016. ‘Our views Are Either Similar or Coincide’: Putin on Comprehensive Strategic China-Russia Alliance. June 23. Available at: https://www.rt.com/news/347879-putin-russia-china-alliance/.

  • Schweller, Randall. 1994. Bandwagoning for Profit: Bringing the Revisionist State Back In. International Security 19 (1): 72–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schweller, Randall. 2006. Unanswered Threats: Political Constraints on the Balance of Power. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, Jack. 1991. Myths of Empire: Domestic Politics and International Ambition. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tullock, Gordon. 1970. A Simple Algebraic Logrolling Model. The American Economic Review 60 (3): 419–426.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallander, Celeste. 2000. Institutional Assets and Adaptability: NATO After the Cold War. International Organization 54 (4): 705–735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walt, Stephen. 1987. The Origins of Alliances. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waltz, Kenneth. 1979. Theory of International Politics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, Michael, and Iver Neumann. 2000. From Alliance to Security Community: NATO, Russia, and the Power of Identity. Millenium: Journal of International Studies 29 (2): 357–387.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wohlforth, William. 1999. The Stability of a Unipolar World. International Security 24 (1): 5–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, Thomas. 2017. All Measures Short of War: The Contest for the 21st Century and the Future of American Power. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xinhua. 2017. Xi Says China-Russia Relations ‘at Best Time in History,’ Cooperation to Be Further Deepened. July 3. Available at: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2017-07/03/c_136413904.htm.

  • Zhao, Suisheng. 2015. Rethinking the Chinese World Order: The Imperial Cycle and the Rise of China. Journal of Contemporary China 24 (96): 961–982.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kyle Haynes .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Haynes, K. (2022). Sino-Russian Logrolling and the Future of Great Power Competition. In: Yoder, B.K. (eds) The United States and Contemporary China-Russia Relations. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-93982-3_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics