Selections from Valdai: Yan and Putin raise military alliance

Is Putin healthy?

Putin’s delivered another marathon performance at Valdai on October 22nd, in a Q&A/dialogue/harangue session that clocked in at over two and a half hours. I’ve curated the Valdai event for highlights below.

For folks who aren’t familiar with Valdai (sometimes called The Valdai International Discussion Club or the Valdai Discussion Club), the Kremlin uses the event to influence Western elite discourse about Russia. Here’s how Clifford G. Gaddy and Fiona Hill described the 2011 Valdai session (where they interviewed the subject of their book, incidentally):

“The Valdai International Discussion Club, at which Hill and Gaddy met with Putin, is an initiative of officials and analysts in and around the Kremlin. The Club is financed via the governmental news agency, RIA Novosti. Each year around 40 foreign think-tank experts, academics, journalists, and politicians are invited to Russia for two days of discussion with a number of their Russian counterparts. The foreign contingent then also participates in meetings with Russian government and political figures in Moscow. The Valdai Club remains under the informal patronage of Vladimir Putin; he is the only government figure that foreign participants have met with each year.”

The key item at this conference, at least from the perspective of China-Russia relations, was Dr. Yan Xuetong’s question: “is it possible to conceive of a military alliance between China and Russia?” Vladimir Putin responded: “it is possible to imagine anything.”

The Yan/Putin exchange was probably scripted, of course, and reflects warming political/military ties between the two sides. At the same time, the prospects of any formal Sino-Russian military alliance remain very low. As The Report noted earlier this year, PRC security services have conducted espionage against Russia’s ultra-sensitive submarine and strategic deterrent capabilities. Russia responded, probably with Putin’s tacit or explicit approval, by publicly releasing information about two PRC-related espionages cases and implicitly warning that further espionage would risk greater costs to the relationship. This behavior is not consonant with two sides about to initiate a formal military alliance.

Instead, the Yan/Putin exchange appears designed to remind the West that Sino-Russian pol/mil relations (at least under Putin, and possibly beyond) are close. The remarks also seem to warn the Western foreign policy community that the two sides could conceivably support one another militarily in the event of confrontation or even conflict with the broadly defined West. Moreover, the subtext from Moscow is, as ever, that firmer Western policy towards Putin will push Russia closer to China.

It’s unclear, however, why the PRC would push a narrative of a possible Sino-Russian military alliance. The PRC has been trying to woo European countries/install 5G systems in European networks, and even raising the possibility of PLA brigades threatening Warsaw and Vilnius would likely further alarm Western capitals. My suspicion is that the Chinese side thought they could do Putin and themselves a favor without incurring too many costs. Dr. Yan is not a formal instrument of state policy, to my knowledge, and so the Chinese foreign policy apparatus could deny his statements with a fig leaf of plausibility.

Finally, there have been some wild rumors claiming that Putin is suffering from Parkinson’s disease, and that he is facing pressure to step down as early as January 2021. The Parkinson’s story seems extremely thin on detail and frankly is more likely a top-cover explanation advanced by the Kremlin to conceal whatever is actually happening.

I don’t know if Vladimir Putin is healthy or not, but some folks in Russia and China appear to be hedging in case Putin’s health fades or fails. The Russian Duma has drafted some eyebrow-raising legislation granting (legal) immunity to ex-Presidents, while the Chinese policy apparatus *may* be emphasizing state-to-state ties and intensifying contacts with non-Putin elements of the Russian political system. Putin himself seems extremely concerned about his health. He has imposed an extremely strict quarantine bubble around himself and does not appear to have taken the “Sputnik V” vaccine for COVID-19, possibly over fears that any vaccine side effects could aggravate existing health problems.

I strongly advise against arriving at any conclusions, however. Putin supposedly hinted to confidants in advance of the 2016 US Presidential elections that he was considering stepping down from the Presidency. I strongly suspect those rumors were planted by the Kremlin in to give Putin some options in case Trump lost in 2016. Similarly, the recent health dramaturgy could be a public relations strategy/influence campaign linked to President-elect Biden’s victory on November 3rd, possibly enabling Putin to publicly step down from the Presidency while exercising behind-the-scenes influence. It’s simply too soon to draw conclusions.

I’ll publish another issue later this week focusing on Putin’s health and any impacts for Russian domestic politics and the Sino-Russian relationship.

Table of Contents:

1)      Putin’s comments on China-Russia Relations

2)      Putin’s other notable comments at Valdai

(2019 photo of the Valdai Forum, from Wikimedia Commons via The Kremlin)

1) Putin’s comments on China-Russia Relations

… The second part boils down to making these [strategic arms control] agreements multilateral by including our Chinese friends in them. But are we against this? Russia is not against this but just do not shift on us the responsibility of making this treaty multilateral. If someone wants to do this, it is fine to try to achieve this. We do not object to this. Are we an obstacle on this road? No. But the arguments quoted by our Chinese friends are very simple. China is an enormous country, a great power with an enormous economy and 1.5 billion people. But the level of its nuclear potential is almost twice, if not more lower than that of Russia and the US. They are asking a lawful question, “What will we limit? Or will we freeze our inequality in this area?” What can you reply to this? It is the sovereign right of a 1.5 billion strong nation to decide on the best way of building its policy on ensuring its own security.

Of course, it is possible to turn this into a subject of an argument or discussion and simply block any agreement. But may I ask why would only China be pressed to be involved in this process and in signing this treaty? Where are the other nuclear powers? Where is France that, as the press reports, has just tested another submarine-launched cruise missile? Great Britain is also a nuclear power. There are other nuclear states that are not officially recognised as such, as it were, but the whole world knows that they have nuclear arms.

Comment: 1.5 billion people? China’s population is closer to 1.4 billion, although they are currently conducting a census. Putin probably just misspoke off-the-cuff, I wouldn’t read too much into those comments.

…

Zhao Huasheng [asked his question in Russian]: Thank you very much for this great opportunity. This year’s theme at this Valdai Club session is The Lessons of the Pandemic and the New Agenda: How to Turn a World Crisis into an Opportunity for the World. I will paraphrase this: how can we turn a world crisis into an opportunity for Sino-Russian relations? The world is rapidly changing now. Given these conditions, how do you think Sino-Russian relations should develop? I am referring to political and economic ties and regional and international cooperation. What new approaches can be expected? Thank you.

Putin: I would give a very brief answer to the question on how to further develop Sino-Russian relations: the same way we have been doing it and are doing it now. Russian-Chinese relations have reached an unprecedented level.

I am not even mentioning the term “specially privileged” relations, etc. What matters is not the name but the quality of these ties. As for the quality, we treat each other with deep trust; we have established durable, stable, and most importantly, effective ties across the board.

My friend – and I have every reason to call him a friend –President of the People's Republic of China Xi Jinping and I continuously consult each other on what and how things need to be done based on what has already been achieved, but we always find a way to move forward.

You know that we are working together in aviation and nuclear power engineering, as I have just mentioned, and further developing trade ties. Last year, our trade was over 111 billion. This is far from the highest figure that we can achieve. We will certainly achieve more.

We are developing infrastructure, building bridges that unite us in the literal meaning of the word. We are developing humanitarian ties and seeking implementation rather than simply planning large projects in the areas where we supplement each other effectively, including energy.

China is a big shareholder in a number of large Russian projects on gas production, and later, on liquefaction (LNG). Where are these projects carried out? Not on the border with China but in the north of the Russian Federation. We work together in a variety of other areas. And, as we have said many times, there is no doubt that international cooperation is a very important factor in stabilising world affairs; this is absolutely obvious.

To say nothing of our military and defence industry cooperation. We have traditionally maintained relations in this area on a significant scale. I am not only talking about buying and selling, I also mean the sharing of technologies. We hope to maintain this working relationship with our Chinese friends – a friendly relationship based on mutual respect, oriented toward achieving the best results for the people of both China and Russia.

As for Shanghai, it happens to be a sister city of St Petersburg, where I am from. I have been to Shanghai on more than one occasion. It is a magnificent and beautiful city, and I wish the people of Shanghai all the best.

Comment: Is the “Russian-Chinese relations have reached an unprecedented level” cliché historically accurate? Contemporary interlocutors from both sides often repeat it, but what about Sino-Soviet relations under Stalin&Mao but before Khrushchev’s speech On the Cult of Personality and Its Consequences? I’ll have to re-read history on Sino-Soviet ties in the 1949-1956 era.

….

Fyodor Lukyanov [host of Valdai]: Professor Yan Xuetong wants to ask you a very simple and straightforward question: Is it possible to conceive of a military alliance between China and Russia? [Bolded by The Report]

Vladimir Putin: It is possible to imagine anything. We have always believed that our relations have reached such a level of cooperation and trust that it is not necessary, but it is certainly imaginable, in theory.

We hold regular joint military exercises – at sea and on land in both China and the Russian Federation – and we share best practices in the build-up of the armed forces. We have achieved a high level of cooperation in the defence industry – I am not only talking about the exchange or the purchase and sale of military products, but the sharing of technologies, which is perhaps most important.

There are also very sensitive issues here. I will not speak publicly about them now, but our Chinese friends are aware of them. Undoubtedly, cooperation between Russia and China is boosting the defence potential of the Chinese People’s Army, which is in the interests of Russia as well as China. Time will tell how it will progress from here. So far, we have not set that goal for ourselves. But, in principle, we are not going to rule it out, either. So, we will see.

Anyway, we are satisfied with the current state of relations between Russia and China in this area. Unfortunately, we have to confront new threats. For example, the intention stated by our American partners to possibly deploy medium- and short-range missiles in the Asia-Pacific Region, of course, raises alarm, and we undoubtedly will have to take reciprocal steps – this fact is self-evident.

Of course, before it comes to that, we have to see what if anything is going to happen, what threats it will pose to us, and, depending on that, we will take reciprocal measures to ensure our security.”

2) Putin’s other notable comments at Valdai

“Consolidating this country and looking at what is happening in the world, in other countries I would like to tell those who are still waiting for Russia’s strength to gradually wane, the only thing we are worried about is catching a cold at your funeral….

Indeed, like I said, the Soviet Union is no longer there. But there is Russia. In terms of its economic weight and political influence, China is moving quickly towards superpower status. Germany is moving in the same direction, and the Federal Republic of Germany has become an important player in international cooperation. At the same time, the roles of Great Britain and France in international affairs has undergone significant changes. The United States, which at some point absolutely dominated the international stage, can hardly claim exceptionality any longer. Generally speaking, does the United States need this exceptionalism? Of course, powerhouses such as Brazil, South Africa and some other countries have become much more influential.

Indeed, by far not all international organisations are effectively carrying out their missions and tasks. Called to be impartial arbiters, they often act based on ideological prejudices, fall under the strong influence of other states, and become tools in their hands. Juggling procedures, manipulating prerogatives and authority, biased approaches, especially when it comes to conflicts involving rival powers or groups of states, have unfortunately become common practice.

The fact that authoritative international organisations following in the wake of someone’s selfish interests are drawn into politicised campaigns against specific leaders and countries is saddening. This approach does nothing but discredit these institutions, and leads them towards decline and exacerbates the world order crisis.

On the other hand, there are positive developments when a group of interested states joins forces to resolve specific issues, such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, which for almost 20 years now has been contributing to the settlement of territorial disputes and strengthening stability in Central Eurasia, and is shaping a unique spirit of partnership in this part of the world.

Or, for example, the Astana format, which was instrumental in taking the political and diplomatic process regarding Syria out of a deep impasse. The same goes for OPEC Plus which is an effective, albeit very complex, tool for stabilising global oil markets.

…But it is also obvious that we cannot do without a common, universal framework for international affairs. Whatever interest groups, associations, or ad-hoc alliances we form now or in the future – we cannot do without a common framework.

Comment: Putin takes 6-7 paragraphs to say universal, multilateral frameworks (such as the UN) are imperfect but important, and that Russia will pursue multilateral diplomacy. Ok.

… It is a huge challenge to the world, to the whole of humanity, including to us, to Russia, where permafrost occupies 65 percent of our national territory. Such changes can do irreparable damage to biological diversity, have an extremely adverse effect on the economy and infrastructure and pose a direct threat to people. You may be aware that this is very important to us. It affects pipeline systems, residential districts built on permafrost, and so on. If as much as 25 percent of the near-surface layers of permafrost, which is about three or four metres, melt by 2100, we will feel the effect very strongly. Moreover, the problem could snowball into a crisis very quickly. A kind of chain reaction is possible, because permafrost melting will stimulate methane emissions, which can produce a greenhouse effect that will be 28 times (sic!) larger than in the case of carbon dioxide. In other words, the temperature will continue rising on the planet, permafrost will continue melting, and methane emissions will further increase. The situation will spiral. Do we want the Earth to become like Venus, a hot, dry and lifeless planet? I would like to remind you that the Earth has an average surface temperature of 14°C while on Venus it’s 462°C.

Comment: I am very skeptical that Putin genuinely cares about his legacy. There is even less evidence that Putin cares about his environmental legacy. This focus on methane may be a way to target US oil and gas production.  

…

But what happened in Belarus compares favourably with what happened on the streets of some big cities in developed democracies, do you see that? There has been some harsh action indeed, I give you that, and maybe even unjustified, but then, those who allowed it should be made responsible. But in general, if you compare and look at the pictures – in Belarus, no one shot an unarmed person in the back, that is what I mean. So let us just calmly deal with this.

The same goes for Kyrgyzstan. I think current developments there are a disaster for Kyrgyzstan and its people. Every time they have an election, they practically have a coup. What does this mean? This is not funny. It means that many of these countries are taking the first steps towards their own statehood and the culture of state development.

I have told my colleagues many times that the post-Soviet countries should be treated with special attention, and we must carefully support these new sprouts of statehood. In no case should we be pressing advice or recommendations on them, and even more so, avoid any interference, because this will destroy the fragile, nascent institutions of sovereignty and statehood in those countries.

… Now I would like to say a few words about oil and everything connected with it, the demand for oil and so on. We are working on alternative energy sources ourselves. We are one of the richest countries in hydrocarbons, oil and gas, but this does not mean at all that we should not think about the future. We are thinking about it and about solar energy and hydrogen energy. We are working on this. Moreover, we are working on this with a view to improving the current situation.

… That said, I do not think it will be realistic, provided every country wants to be competitive, to abandon hydrocarbons in the near future. I believe the near future embraces several decades: 30, 40 and 50 years from now. This is simply unrealistic.

Therefore, when we hear about European novelties on hydrocarbons and relevant restrictions, I do not know on what basis these proposals, conclusions and decisions are made. Are they explained by domestic political struggle? Later they are followed by restrictions in international trade and cooperation, right? I do not think this will lead to anything good. It is necessary to achieve a result in this respect not through restrictions but through cooperation and a striving to reach common goals.

We have done what we ought to do under the Kyoto agreement. We have fulfilled everything we did. We are active participants in the Paris agreement and intend to do all this. We are not shutting down from it. On the contrary, we think this is the way to go.

Until next time,

Joe Webster

The China-Russia Report is an independent, nonpartisan newsletter covering political, economic, and security affairs within and between China and Russia. All articles, comments, op-eds, etc represent only the personal opinion of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the position(s) of The China-Russia Report.