The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPaul Craig Roberts Archive
Russian Academician Arbatov’s Washington Leanings
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

If there were a Russian version of the website PropOrNot, Academician Arbatov could find himself listed there as “American agent/dupe.”

Arbatov directs the International Security Center of the Institute of World Economy and International Relations of the Russian Academy of Sciences. He demonstrates his Washington leanings by his recommendation that Russia avoid a strategic alliance with China. This, of course, is a Washington position. It seems curious coming from a Russian security expert at a time when US foreign policy is dominated by neoconservatives who are hostile to both Russia and China because the two countries are obstacles to American hegemony.

Washington demonizes both Russia and China, imposes sanctions and threats, conducts aggressive military maneuvers in the spheres of influence of both countries, dismisses the Russian president as “the new Hitler,” threatens China with a trade war, and blames China for the coronavirus and threatens to make China pay for it.

Confronted by such a hostile and unreasonable power as the US presents itself to be, a strategic alliance between Russia and China seems to be precisely what is required in order to deter Washington from its hostile intentions. With the American organized and financed Hong Kong riots and efforts to destabilize a Chinese province and with the neoconservatives’ intention of overthrowing the Iranian government and sending jihadists into the Russian Federation, Washington has demonstrated its intention to destabilize first one country and then the other. A common front evidenced by a strategic alliance would represent power greater than Washington and prevent Washington miscalculations that could lead to the outbreak of war.

Why is Arbatov opposed to such a desirable result? Why does he want Russia “to keep its distance” from China? Does he trust Washington more than China?

He gives this answer: A half century ago the Soviet Union “officially proclaimed in its program that China was the greatest threat to the world. We cannot go back and forth between extremes, from China being the world’s greatest threat to it being our strategic ally or partner. One cannot play with such concepts. A strategic ally is when you are ready to send your soldiers to fight for the interests of your ally, and vice versa. I am confident that we don’t have and will not have such a situation with China.”

What strategic sense does it make for Arbatov to use a minor conflict of a half century ago between China and a government and country that no longer exist to discourage a strategic alliance that would prevent a much more serious conflict today? One possible answer is that some Russians, despite Washington’s demonstrated aggressive intentions toward Russia, are more enamored of America than they are of China. The romanticism of the Atlanticist Integrationists remains Russia’s greatest threat.


Arbatov is not alone in his view. A number of Russian experts believe that Russia should not get too close to China whose economic position they believe is stronger than Russia’s. They fear that a close relationship would result in Russia becoming a servant of China’s, with the Russian economy being limited to being a source of natural resources.

Russia’s experts should remember that it is Washington’s plan to limit the Russian economy to the export of raw materials except for energy to Europe. Do the experts who are discouraging alliance with China prefer for Russia to be Washington’s servant? The prevention of a strategic alliance between Russia and China is essential to US hegemony. Russians should avoid being manipulated into a fear of China that exposes them to the danger of being Washington’s servant. A strategic alliance is the best way for Russia and China to protect themselves from Washington’s machinations.

It makes sense for Russia, threatened as it is by Washington, to make friends and build bridges to other countries. Russia’s concession to Norway in the Barents Sea, to China over an island in the Amur River, and consideration of Japan’s request for the return of the Kuril Islands are marks of thoughtful diplomacy. Whatever the basis for Russian distrust of China, it makes less sense for Russia to trust Washington, which continues to prepare the path for war by dismantling the last remaining agreements put in place to ensure peace. Nothing is more important to Russia and China, and to world peace, than a solid alliance between Russia and China. This is the best way for the two countries to protect their sovereignty and perhaps the only way of preventing the drive for American hegemony from resulting in nuclear war. If Russians cannot understand this, they are doomed along with the rest of us.

(Republished from by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: American Military, China, Neocons, Russia 
Hide 7 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Parbes says:

    Isn’t it possible that this guy is simply in the pay of the U.S.?

  2. I think that Russia has a more natural affinity with the West than with Asia. Probably many people there think that American hostility to Russia is something that comes from some particular groups in the West, that it’s artificial, and may go away one day, while China’s challenge will remain.

    • Replies: @Antiwar7
  3. Meena says:

    Russia is not sure of itself . It has identity issue . US and Western Europe will not accept it as equal on any front. — cultural ,scientific ,intellectual or even as high IQ white race .

    Russia badly wants it . Where Russia goes from here ? Russia is possibly facing a crisis that will be as significant as were Stalin ‘s death or Galssnot. It can one hopes do a better job this time . Those periods were not serious but the solution turned out to be worse . Russia needs to consolidate relationship with friends or those affected by USA ‘s problematic behaviors . If it doesn’t ,it has no chance of building the identity as a reliable partner . By trying so many ways to become equal and friend of West ,it is just pushing itself down hole . Right now Russian interest aligns with China NK Venezuela Nicaragua Cuba and Iraq and Iran , Pakistan not with Colombia or U.K. or USA or Israel or India or Australia or Indonesia .

  4. Andy says:

    From a Russian perspective, the ideal thing would be playing America and China against each other, courting one and threatening to leave the other, and so forth. Russia should not trust America, given the way it was raped by the West in the 1990s, but there are dangers in getting too close to China as well.

  5. “…A strategic alliance between Russia and China seems to be precisely what is required” in the present geopolitical landscape. How alliances can change over time! But there are no true friends in international diplomacy, only potential enemies. That is a lesson of history. Another is: a dominant hegemon will want to hold on to power – with disastrous consequences; if only this lesson could be learned by all.

  6. Russia-China could be one of the most formidable alliances of history. It would be like a fighter combining the power of Tyson with the grace of Ali. For the Western opponent, Olive Oyl.

  7. Antiwar7 says:

    “Natural affinity”? What does that mean?

    That’s irrelevant to the existential threat both Russia and China face from the US government.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Paul Craig Roberts Comments via RSS