The Empire of Outrage and Grievance of Russia and China

Until the invasion, it was still possible to believe that a complete Western ‘decoupling’ from China and Russia was unlikely and unwise. Yet Gergiev’s expulsion is a metaphor for how the newly transitioned Sino-Russian axis is catalysing a rift that will now affect everything from cultural exchanges to trade. Until last week, many doubted the EU would ever take the Russian gas needle out of its hands. Equally, many have wondered how America could ever overcome its addiction to cheap Chinese goods.

During the recent days of globalization, when the ‘Davos Man’ ruled the planet with encouraging bromides of win-win results, global supply chains promised unlimited benefits for all. What’s wrong with outsourcing to distant countries if they can do something cheaper? Open markets were seen as a way to create a more open society. All we had to do was keep doing business regardless of the partner’s ideological or political cast. Thus the West became dependent on Russia and China.

But when Putin invaded Ukraine and Chinese President Xi Jinping expressed a rebellious stance on Taiwan, we were left to assess not only an inverted world order and a broken global market, but cultural exchanges. The beauty of the provide was also left to be assessed.

What is driving this train wreck? Why would Putin ever throw Russia’s genuine national interests to the wind by attacking a fraternal neighbor? What will be the face of Xi who sacrifices China’s economic miracle to capture an island that China has not ruled for more than a century? Why have these two authoritarians indulged in self-destructive urges and isolated so many countries?

First, remember that autocrats are free to act in an autocratic way, because few have to face if there is a political scrutiny. As the ‘supreme leader’, he can shape policies as he wishes. While Putin and Xi have different backgrounds and personalities, they share some key traits. The policies of both are specifically framed by historical narratives of grievance against the ‘great powers’ of the West.

These narratives centered around the Leninist themes of foreign exploitation, humiliation and oppression. They describe western democracies as hypocrites and oppressors. And they impose arrogant and contemptuous attitudes towards the West. More than anything else, Putin and Xi want respect. Yet they know that most Western leaders do not respect authoritarianism regardless of their high-speed trains, modern cities, etc. It is this respect-deficit syndrome that creates their empire of resentment and grievance. Putin and Xi seem to believe that they will never recover, regardless of their material successes, and that it is not a good idea to warn them that they should be jailed, opposition leaders and dissidents, to gain respect. There is a need to be treated with respect rather than being persecuted for their religious beliefs. And threatening other countries. Drunk on the Leninist Kool-Aid of torture, both Putin and Xi want to overthrow the Western system and be honored by it.

Thus, they are inspired by a contradiction that the West cannot resolve. Putin and Xi are deeply concerned with living next to successful democracies with people of similar cultures and races. The magnetic force of the shared complaint has brought these two former rivals so close that they recently announced that their partnership had “no boundaries”. Both emphasize that it should be up to the people of the country “to decide whether their state is democratic or not. One.” Both claim that they are leading a new kind of democracy, never mind the reality.

Now the question is whether Russia and China will be able to keep their agreement after Putin’s decision to war. Just before the invasion, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi told the Munich Security Conference that the “sovereignty” and “territorial integrity” of all countries should be protected, and “Ukraine is no exception.” And Xi later called on Putin to explain that, while he understood Russia’s security concerns, China respected the sovereignty of nation-states and intended to uphold the principles of the United Nations Charter. Beijing does not want foreign powers to interfere in its internal affairs.

Which of these imperatives will win? Most likely, China and Russia’s shared opposition to liberal democracy will shatter the bizarre 19th-century idea that national sovereignty is sacred. With deep reservoirs of outrage, the story of persecution fueling their nationalism is so powerful that it cannot be quashed by the nuances of international law. ©2022/Project Syndicate

Orville Schell is director of the Center on US-China Relations at the Asia Society, and co-editor of ‘Chinese Influence and American Interests: Promoting Constructive Engagement’.