Whenever a new US president takes office, the other great powers seek to test his limits in order to prepare the ground for future negotiations, in case a conflict arises. But sometimes things go the other way around. So, America is the first to open the auction! This was the scenario of the China-United States meeting in Alaska on March 18: the new Secretary of State Antony Blinken then accused Beijing of human rights violations in Xinjiang and Hong Kong, as well as of various hostile operations in the cyber domain.
How did his Chinese counterpart react? By asserting that Washington is a staunch human rights violator, that the word of the United States represents only itself and that Americans are not entitled to speak on behalf of the rest of the world. The tone was set. It was that of a showdown, not a kind contact.
Chinese and US delegations at the first high-level meeting between the two countries since the election of US President Joe Biden on March 18, 2021 in Anchorage, Alaska
afp.com/Frederic J. BROWN
In advance, the Sino-American meeting was doomed to failure. Well ahead of it, Blinken and Jake Sullivan, Joe Biden’s national security adviser, had visited South Korea and Japan, two countries opposed to China and which, although long allies date, also have grievances to present to the United States (Seoul on the cost of hosting American troops and Tokyo, on the subject of strengthening its army to face China).
–
Limited offer. 2 months for 1 € without commitment
–
Both interviews went well. Elsewhere, discussions have taken place as part of the Quad, a quadrilateral security dialogue between the United States, Japan, Australia and India. All are naval powers hostile to China. In short, the United States toured its anti-China allies just before meeting China.
Moreover, almost at the same time, President Joe Biden was asked in an interview if Russian President Vladimir Putin was a killer. He replied in the affirmative. Even if this is true, it is not the kind of word that is usually used to refer to the leader of a great power. Biden could have withdrawn his words (because the interview was pre-recorded) but he did not. Annoyed, the Russians recalled their ambassador. And Putin, in essence, replied: “He who says he is.”
US President Joe Biden takes a hard line against his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin
afp.com/JIM WATSON, Alexander NEMENOV
In my eyes, Biden scored a point against China and Russia. He and his team wanted to let them know – and, indirectly, let the American public know – that he will not be a weak president. The responses from Russia and China, of course, were aimed at the United States, but also its allies, which Moscow and Beijing believe are likely to doubt Biden’s strength.
In diplomacy, words aren’t worth much, and thunderous starts like this bear little consequence. Some commentators believe that these exchanges set the tone for the next four years, but they haven’t. They define a “climate” for the first month but, then, all these beautiful people, very happy to have stolen in the feathers, will come back down to earth.
However, this cow floor is not a battlefield. On the contrary, the United States is China’s biggest customer, and Beijing cannot afford to lose such a good customer. It is indeed much easier for the United States to acquire necessary goods in other markets than for China to find alternative outlets for its production. As for Russia, it can look for a fight in Ukraine or Moldova, for example, but that would only lead to the worst-case scenario imaginable for Moscow: NATO, Germany and other countries would amass their forces in Eastern Europe. This possibility is therefore to be excluded.
The options of Russia and China are obviously more complicated than what I am setting out here, but they are also limited by these realities. The meetings held by the United States before the meeting with China were intended to remind people that Beijing should not overestimate its strength, nor underestimate its strategic isolation. As for calling Putin a killer, it was to warn him against his secret operations; to let him know that Washington knows Russia’s weakness and that, finally, she is laughing at his advice.
A China-Russia alliance would hardly strengthen the two sides
The risk, for Biden, is that he is wrong. Russia and China may not be as weak as he thinks they are. But in my opinion, neither is able to challenge the United States, let alone launch military action. Certainly the Russians and the Chinese could ally themselves. But what would such an alliance look like? And what would be its field of action?
An economic alliance would do no good. Russia and China are already trading with each other without any difficulty. There is, moreover, a symmetry insofar as Russia needs Chinese technological goods while China needs Russian raw materials. Each already receives what it needs and provides what it can. An official economic alliance would only make it possible to formalize existing relations and possibly develop trade. But that would not make either invulnerable to pressure from third parties.
A Chinese navy soldier stands guard in front of the Qiandaohu ship in Gdynia, Poland, October 7, 2015
afp.com/Adam Warzawa
Equally problematic is a military alliance. Neither Russia nor China can meet the strategic needs of the other. The main threat to China is naval. However, Russia’s naval capacity is limited and its main Asian port, Vladivostok, leads to sea routes controlled by Japan and the United States. Russia would therefore be limited in its movements by the same coalition as the one facing China.
The threats to Russia are mainly land. China’s ability to send forces to areas of Russian interest is limited, and Russia does not urgently need additional ground troops. In some areas, these two countries could help each other, such as military equipment or cyber warfare. But the same is not true of a true alliance.
Then the time for negotiations will come.
Could a Russian-Chinese alliance launch simultaneously a naval assault in the East and a land attack in the West? Perhaps. But such an action, although politically spectacular, would not make it possible to change the current situation, with Russia only having the capacity to send useless ground forces to the East, and China, useless naval forces to the West. Moreover, their failure is possible. If successful, this would raise other issues, such as the issue of a nuclear response or the emergence of strong anti-Russian and anti-Chinese alliances.
For China, the most logical and least risky move would be to reach a political and economic agreement with the United States. Ditto for Russia – where, at least, an agreement with Europe. But for this to happen, everyone must first be convinced that the United States is not interested in such an arrangement. Showing a lack of interest like Biden and Blinken did is the basis of any negotiation.
My decryption is this: the United States knows that negotiations are on the horizon with the other two empires and is deliberately showing hostility towards them. In this card game, the Chinese called the Americans. And the Russians will soon follow suit. Now is the time for insults and threats. Then will come the negotiations … which, of course, are likely to fail.
GEORGE FRIEDMAN: nin Budapest in 1949, he is the founder of Geopolitical Futures, site for geopolitical analysis and forecasting. An American expert in the field of foreign affairs and intelligence, he has advised numerous governmental and military organizations in the United States and abroad. In 2015, George Friedman created Geopolitical Futures. Previously, in 1996, he founded Stratfor, an influential digital medium also devoted to international affairs. Finally, Georges Friedman is the author of numerous books including the bestseller The Next 100 Years, published in 2009 and praised for the accuracy of its predictions.
