There has been, of late, a proliferation of so-called ‘strategic’ relationships among nation-states. China and Russia, for example, apply it to interstate relations vital for their national interests. ^[2] Such a relationship essentially means that the two sides attach great importance to their bilateral ties and share a strong willingness to commit to the enhancement of these ties. At the operational and functional level, it is largely a pragmatic approach to interact with one another on the basis of equality and with considerable freedom of action. According to Chinese analyst Cao Xin (2007), Beijing and Moscow conduct ‘strategic coordination without alliance and [a] close relationship without excessive dependence’. A strategic partnership with these qualities is perhaps the result of the long and sometimes painful learning experience in the second half of the twentieth century: bilateral relations between Moscow and Beijing oscillated between excessive dependence (particularly of China on Russia) and almost no interaction. What is essential for today’s Russian–Sino relationship is the absence of ideological factors and border disputes, which constantly besieged the two nations until the early 1990s. Moreover, there is a willingness to develop the more cooperative aspects of their relationship while managing issues of disagreement and competition.

In contrast, in the West, the term ‘strategic relationship’ is usually reserved for relations between members of a formal ‘alliance’, within which junior members are expected to come to a consensus with the leading state (the United States). Deviation from Washington’s view is possible, but not encouraged. A typical case of this is the United States’ fury over French and German opposition to its 2003 Iraq invasion, hence the famous dichotomy enunciated by Donald Rumsfield of the ‘Old’ versus the ‘New’ Europe (‘Outrage at “old Europe” remarks’, BBC, 23 January 2003, <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2687403.stm>). Regarding China, Washington has resisted characterising the relationship as ‘strategic’. Instead, the United States insisted that a de facto ‘strategic dialogue’ between the two nations at the deputy foreign minister level, on 1–2 August 2005 in Beijing, was ‘senior dialogue’. ^[3]

Regardless of the official pronouncement of their relationship as being the ‘best ever’, or the more cautious depiction of it as a ‘marriage of convenience’, the Sino–Russian strategic partnership since 1996 has essentially been a normal and stable relationship. This is substantially different to their highly volatile relations during the ‘honeymoon’ period (1949–60) and the period of hostility (1960–89), when problems and disagreements were either ignored or allowed to explode.

By no means should the Sino–Russian strategic relationship be idealised. At the operational level, it is a complex interactive process with elements of cooperation and competition at all levels and across all issues. Given the huge differences in their political, cultural, religious and socioeconomic developmental levels, the fact that the two countries’ often have different perceptions of the same issue is natural if not desirable.

The complexities of their strategic relationship also mean that Moscow and Beijing are interrelated through a multidimensional (political, diplomatic, economic, security, societal, and so on) and multilevel (top leaders, governmental agencies and ordinary people) interface thanks to the broadening, deepening and institutionalisation of bilateral relations since normalisation in 1989. Within this web of interactions, policymaking and implementation may or may not lead to desirable outcomes. High-level trust and strategic cooperation, for example, might not preclude economic competition. Growing economic transactions frequently lead to more friction. Meanwhile, ordinary citizens do not know, let alone like, each other.

To a certain extent, the current strategic partnership between Beijing and Moscow may or may not be a reliable barometer for the future. For one thing, the current state of bilateral relations developed and was enhanced at a time when Russia was weak and disoriented after the disintegration of the Soviet empire. Now Russia is on its way back—not necessarily to the levels it attained as the core of the USSR, but to its traditional status as a major power on the Eurasian continent. China will—perhaps more than anyone else—have to deal with and adjust to such a changing reality.

It is within this context of their strategic partnership—featuring pragmatism, normalcy and complexity—that post-Putin era Sino–Russian relations are examined below.