Skip to main content

The Paradox of Sino-Russian Partnership: Global Normative Alignment and Regional Ontological Insecurity

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

Abstract

The Sino-Russian partnership presents a paradox for analysts and policymakers in that contemporary Sino-Russian relations can be characterized on the one hand by global normative alignment and on the other by regional ontological insecurity. This chapter begins by examining the Chinese and Russian narratives that lead to global alignment. Next, their competing regional narratives, identities, and regional integration strategies are examined. These stem from differing historical experiences, understandings of borders and border states, and views of their own regional role. The chapter argues that these competing self-concepts and strategies lead to an ontological security dilemma on the regional level. This dilemma contributes to a lack of regional integration, which the pandemic experience has highlighted, with relatively few cases of Covid-19 transmission occurring across the Sino-Russian border. The chapter concludes with policy implications for the U.S. and other concerned states and argues that the insecurity on the regional level is unlikely to translate into opportunities to weaken the Sino-Russian global alignment.

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.

    They further claim that China’s position on the Ice Silk Road makes Russia less likely to support Chinese positions in the South China Sea.

  2. 2.

    The 1689 Treaty of Nerchinsk established a frontier zone, based on geographical features, rather than a boundary, while the 1860 Treaty of Peking sets a border. See Neville Maxwell, “How the Sino-Russian Boundary Conflict Was Finally Settled from Nerchinsk 1689 to Vladivostok 2005 via Zhenbao Island 1969,” Critical Asian Studies 39:2, 2007, 231.

  3. 3.

    This project also includes North Korea, which borders on the Tumen, and Mongolia which seeks outlets to the sea.

  4. 4.

    By comparison, 49% of respondents had a favorable view of the EU and 42% had a favorable view of the U.S.

  5. 5.

    After the Sino-Soviet split, the Soviet government became preoccupied by what they saw as the inaccurate portrayal of border history in China and enlisted Soviet historians to refute Chinese positions on Russian seizure of Chinese land. A series of decrees required that cities in the Russian Far East restore their original Russian names.

Works Cited

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elizabeth Wishnick .

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

Wishnick, E. (2022). The Paradox of Sino-Russian Partnership: Global Normative Alignment and Regional Ontological Insecurity. 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_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics