Kellogg's Global Politics

The China-Russia Relationship with Deborah Larson

• Anita Kellogg • Episode 35

Share episode

On this episode, I speak with Deborah Larson, a research professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. As a former student of hers, while undertaking my Ph.D. at UCLA, I found her research on Russia’s leaders very insightful. More recently, she has been writing about the China - Russia relationship, which we discuss. In particular, we look at what China gets from the relationship, how far it will go to support Russia in Ukraine, and how Russia avoids being the little brother in the strategic partnership.

We begin the episode delving into the most recent developments in the Russia - Ukraine war, including speculation on Ukraine’s future counteroffensive, the impact of the F-16s now being provided to Ukraine, and possible NATO membership. 

El Salvador’s president has become the latest authoritarian-leaning darling of the Right in the US. We discuss why he has received so much praise from the likes of Tucker Carlson, Michael Flynn, and Roger Stone. Why is he so popular at home and abroad, and what are the consequences of the steady dismantling of democracy in the country?

Topics Discussed in this Episode

  • 05:20 - Russia-Ukraine Update
  • 32: 55 - The U.S. Right’s New Darling: El Salvador’s Nayib Bukele
  • 50:40 - Interview with Deborah Larson: Russia-China Relations


Articles and Resources Mentioned in Episode

Russia-Ukraine Update


The U.S. Right’s New Darling: El Salvador’s Nayib Bukele


Interview with Deborah Larson: Russia-China Relations

Send us a text

Follow Us

Anita Kellogg: [00:00:00] Welcome to Kellogg's Global Politics, a podcast on current events in US foreign policy and international affairs. My name is Dr. Anita Kellogg, an international relations scholar specializing in the relationship between economics and national security. I'm here with my co-host, Ryan Kellogg, an expert in energy investment in policy.

Ryan Kellogg: Thanks and glad to be back. So this is episode 35 and we're recording this on June 3rd, 2023. [00:00:30] 

Anita Kellogg: On this episode, I speak with Deborah Larson, a research professor at the University of California Los Angeles. As a former student of hers. While undertaking my PhD at ucla, I found her research on Russia's leaders very insightful.

More recently, she's been writing about the China-Russia relationship, which we discuss. In particular, we look at what China gets out of the relationship, how far it will go to support Russia and Ukraine, and how Russia avoids being the little brother in the strategic partnership. [00:01:00] We begin the episode by delving into the most recent developments in the Russia, Ukraine war, including speculation on Ukraine's, future counter offensive, the impact of the F sixteens now being provided to Ukraine and possible NATO membership.

El Salvador's president has become the latest authoritarian leading darling of the right in the us. We discuss why he has received so much praise from the likes of Tucker Carlson, Michael Flynn, and Roger Stone. Why is he so [00:01:30] popular at home and abroad, and what are the consequences of the steady dismantling of democracy in the country?

So we have some exciting news on Sunday, June 11th at 1:00 PM Eastern Standard Time. We will be hosting a live Twitter space where you can become part of the conversation by asking questions or giving your thoughts on a topic. 

Ryan Kellogg: Okay, now hold on, Anita. For those of us not so online, what is a Twitter space?

Anita Kellogg: Well, the first step is to have a Twitter account. [00:02:00] I know that Twitter is awful these days, but you don't have to actually read any tweets to join us. Then you click on the link at the appointed time where live conversation will begin. We'll have the link on all of our social media and in the show notes.

Please do join us. I think it will be a lot of fun. And we are co-hosting the event with another podcast, the Global Gambit, so there should be a good group of individuals interested in the latest topics and global events. So [00:02:30] what is going on besides me still playing Silva and all my free time? 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, yeah.

Well you, yeah, you've had an impressive streak with that. I have to admit. You put, you're putting in the hours. Mm-hmm. Yep. But yeah, no, the other thing that's been occupying our time is we're in the middle of house hunting, which is probably not a smart move cuz this is not a good market to be house hunting in.

But it hasn't been good for three years. So [00:03:00] basically since, since Covid. But , it's, it's kinda the right time for us we're looking. But yeah, I mean I think like a lot of the country it's it's a pretty frustrating experience for, for buyers currently. It's 

Anita Kellogg: horrible. I mean, it's hard to find the house you like and then when you do getting outbid by other people, it's just really frustrating.

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. Yeah. And it's just, it's it's a tough environment here in the US with interest rates going up [00:03:30] so much. People that, , maybe are looking to downsize or, or move, well, they don't really feel like they can because they probably got mortgages at much lower rates at two or 3%. So there's just a lack of inventory on the market.

And then because interest rates are so high, that just makes , a lot, lot more expensive to, to purchase property. Cuz unfortunately prices haven't really come down either. So it's just kind of a double whammy effect [00:04:00] and it it stinks for sure. 

Anita Kellogg: At first it was like really fun to go to these different houses and look at them and think about the idea of having a house.

And now it's like, I wish I could just see houses that I, that I know I'm going to like but there's no way to like do that and then making it easier to have a successful bid. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. And that's, that's the, yeah, it's just that whole process. [00:04:30] It's, I, , I, I came into it thinking, I mean, we all heard the stories during C O V I D of people coming in and bidding wars and waving all contingencies and all cash buyers.

And I kind of came in this year thinking, well, , with the interest rates being so high, all that stuff should be gone. But no, , we, we put in a bid to a property with five other people. We went significantly above the asking Bryce, but lost to a all cash bidder who waived all contingencies, [00:05:00] which just seems, seems crazy to me.

Anita Kellogg: Very, so if you are looking for houses, I do not recommend the DC metro area. So, but we keep plugging away. We're going to see some more houses tomorrow. Yep. Yeah. That's why I spend all my free time playing zda, cuz that's much fun. That's good stress relief. Yeah, that's right. Yeah.

So on with the show. So why don't you update us on the failed Russian winter offensive and what we think is [00:05:30] going on with the counter offensive by Ukraine that everyone is still waiting on. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, so I think it's, it's safe to say, I mean this has been a, a relatively quiet period during the war, but it's, it's really a reflection of the fact of.

How, how spectacular the failure of the, the Russian winner offensive. If we recall, , the, the Russians mobilized several hundred thousand new recruits back in the [00:06:00] fall. There was a lot of hype about, , them retaking some of the territory both in the, the eastern part of the country and the in the south.

And I think what, what we've seen is they've, , they've expended this huge amount of resources, but the fact is only a small percentage of Russian forces are actually capable of carrying out these, these offenses. And obviously they've concentrated it largely on the Eastern fronts. So the [00:06:30] Donbass in particular concentrated on back mood and yeah, they just haven't seen much success at all.

I mean, w I think the biggest breakthrough that happened over the last. Couple of weeks is that finally the Wagner Group supported by the regular Russian military, after months of fighting, after tens of thousands of casualties has taken the city center of what's left of a completely devastated back moot.

That being said, the [00:07:00] Ukrainians haven't given up back moot. They've actually made advances on the flank and they've switched positions where Russia is playing an offensive role. Now the Ukrainians are, are looking to play an offensive role while the Russians try to dig in and defend what's left.

The back moot, which is at at this point, has become strictly a political symbol more than anything of, of strategic value. 

Anita Kellogg: Yeah, and I read one of the factors is that the [00:07:30] Wagner group. It's more of an offensive, sort of paramilitary organization. They're not built to be defensive and so they're pulling back and Russia is trying to hold the city with its regular troops.

And so there's a question of whether that might make it easier for Ukraine to regain it's this territory. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. Yeah. And I think and it's been interesting seeing the, the political consequences cuz if we've talked about in previous [00:08:00] episodes that to Wagner's founder prose that, , this was always seen as, as a big political or significant political motivation in terms of him gaining.

Credibility and power within the Kremlin. And he doesn't feel like he's been given credit for the victory within back moot and has actually been talking down, , the, the strategy constantly complaining on the lack of [00:08:30] munitions being given to the Wagner group. And now, , pulling out.

But yeah, to your point, the, they are more of offensive. And I think the one disturbing thing where they have been successful in, in the sense is that, , they were the ones that mobilized, , largely a, a criminal prisoner population and used them as a meat shield. Frankly, to make these very painful advances and, and trench warfare, which the New Yorker has, [00:09:00] has an excellent piece describing embedded with the Ukrainian battalion.

That's, that's been defending back mood and just really gives you, it's, it's. , very much reminiscent of something from World War I. I mean, it's just a absolute brutal environment. But yeah, Wagner, the advances it made successfully was because it had no, no conditions on, on human life.

It was using prisoners to, , just overwhelm Ukrainian troops, which I, I [00:09:30] don't know if you read that article, but I, the lack of equipment in supply that those troops defending, back moot had was, was pretty surprising. 

Anita Kellogg: So, yes, I definitely want to speak about the article. I was very moved by it, and it's definitely been something that just stays on your mind after you read it for a long period of time.

You know, we think of the Ukraine army, I think, at least I do, as a largely volunteer army. Mm-hmm. But it's actually, [00:10:00] that was in the beginning and now it's, it's a largely drafted. Army. And so you never really think about the type of people who are drafted, people who are very ordinary, often manual jobs who are not inclined even to the type of, , warfare and, , they get almost no training and they're sent to the front lines.

You know, it was interesting describing how some of the people there were just terrified [00:10:30] and just trying to survive and would run away from the gunfire. In some sense it made, because I'd just been to Gettysburg, it made me think, not in the conflict, but about stories. In the Civil War, we have this portrayal and movies and things, and they're all follow orders, very obediently.

And I think anytime when you have just farmers and, and ordinary people being drafted that, , they don't. Necessarily want to be there and they're not necessarily very good at it.[00:11:00] And the people on the front lines in this situation, I mean, they know that it's likely that they won't survive. And I mean it was really heartbreaking.

And then of course, yeah, this contrast with giving Ukraine so much modern equipment and on the front lines of b moot the kind of aging equipment that they're like hot wiring to be able to do anything was really stark. [00:11:30] And part of it is because bad moot is not very strategic, right? So the reas, they're not be given the resources really to survive because they want to employ those resources strategically in other places, right?

So these people are literally being sent to probably die. To hold this non-strategic par territory. So it's, yeah, it was, it was very moving and heartbreaking. [00:12:00] 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. Yeah. And I, I, yeah, that, that part and, and the Yeah, yeah. The strategic element of it. The fact that the Western trained troops, which so Michael.

Kaufman and Ryan Evans had an excellent update to their Warren the Rocks podcast and went into the detail and the numbers of, of likely counter offensive that, of course, everybody in the media has been heavily [00:12:30] anticipating here. So it's about, , nine battalions or so of fully western equipped, but they've been purposely withheld.

They've been, and it's, it's an experiment because these will be entirely western equipped troops. They've been trained by nato Western allies for, , for weeks, for months. And it just stood in real contrast. Mm-hmm. Compared to, to your point, like with the back moot where these guys were being sent it, I, I don't want to compare it to [00:13:00] like the Russian prisoners being sent.

I mean, they're being treated better than that, but they are sacrificial in the sense that they're not given the resources. To really carry out their job purposely, cuz Ukraine doesn't, can't spare those resources because it's just strategically not, not important. I mean, 

Anita Kellogg: so you have the sense of batu though, just being where, , these are not trained military so they're just strategies who maybe have had at most 

Ryan Kellogg: two.

Yeah, they describe like in the article, like the guy has [00:13:30] shot like 30 rounds and a rifle. That was the extent of his training with the gun was 30 round rounds 

Anita Kellogg: and that was someone that was that a month long training where the others had, , as short as two days. So you get the sense of the whole black moot just sending in waves of people on both sides, just willing to sacrifice.

As a number game. So, 

Ryan Kellogg: yeah, I mean, that being said, because they were on defense and in these trenches, they weren't necessarily, , sending them to, to retake territory. I mean, I think what I find is it's [00:14:00] remarkable. The Russians threw so much to such poorly equipped troops and Ukraine held out, , for so long, given, given the condition and how, how decimated they were.

But yeah, 

Anita Kellogg: but I mean, the casualties on both sides are horrific. Y y yeah. And there was a sort of like knowledge that you were sending these people to die, essentially. Mm-hmm. To hold this non-strategic territory. And it's one of the, I think, frustrations of war that [00:14:30] people are in this situation and, , you have military leaders.

I mean, maybe this is a decision that makes sense on some levels, but you also have like, the leaders are so very distant from this type of warfare that's going on and. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, and the fact that that it was, is held up and , Kaufman goes in cuz , he's asked directly what , is it worth it?

Was it worth this sacrifice? And basically saying, , that's, that's something he can't judge right now. You [00:15:00] know, maybe, maybe it will have shown to, to drain enough Russian resources that'll make this counter offensive, that Ukraine's playing more successful. But yeah, it's going to be something historians judge.

But the, I I thought the Economist article this past week was interesting, comparing it to, to Vern. And Vern of course was the most, one of the most brutal battles within world War I, between French and German troops, which over [00:15:30] 300,000 died basically over a, a kilometer of territory. But is it going to be, , this war's equivalent of this kind of pointless.

Pointless sacrifice. 

Anita Kellogg: Yeah. And so the article is really, I highly recommend it regardless of whether you're interested in technical details of war. It's really, it's something that doesn't romanticize the war, which I think happens too much when we talk about Ukraine and gives you the reality, I don't know, [00:16:00] I found it, I found it really impactful.

Ryan Kellogg: Mm-hmm. Yep. Yes. I think the, the other interesting story that came out staying with the, the troops and the individual perspective on the ground was the Financial Times had a story about gas prom. So the major . Public private gas company that makes up a huge source of revenue. It's the owner of the, the North Stream [00:16:30] pipelines, but it actually deploys its own fully funded battalions as well.

And this apparently is something common as Russia faces manpower gaps and is reluctant to have another mobilization because of the political ramifications and the fact that you had so many people, , trying to flee the country with the first mobilization that, , some companies that try to position themselves politically [00:17:00] are essentially asking their staff to have, have conscript within the army where they become subsumed either by.

The Russian military itself. So they form these, these regiments, they're paid though by gas proms, so they get bonuses above and beyond what they would get if they had gotten conscripted by the Russian military. But they still, , fall under the command structure of the Russian military, or even under Wagner.

[00:17:30] Now, Wagner doesn't like this at all because it's seen as a competition. Mm-hmm. You have all these billionaire oligarchs mm-hmm. Where it's the end thing. , I, oh, I can position myself for either future without Putin or under a reconfigured Putin regime. And if I show that, hey, , I spent my own money, I mobilized these troops, and I can brag about, oh yeah, they're, they're having such great.

Effect on the battlefield, even though none of these, these troops are. But it's this, this whole [00:18:00] mercenary game that's being played, which is, is kind of crazy. I think 

Anita Kellogg: since the end of the Soviet Union, I think there's been this tendency to have these small warlords mm-hmm. That, that Putin kind of really unified.

I mean, that was one of the things that Putin did. And, but I think there's that tendency for them to be there. They just had to bow down to Putin's wishes, but they were still allowed to run their own thief in. Right. And I think [00:18:30] the success of Wagner has, has, yeah. Has appealed to these people to have their own sort of mercenaries that then gets subsumed under the Russian military as, yeah, as a way of.

Holding onto power or having their own own base of power because they see that with the head of Wagner. So I think it's a really interesting development. I think it's certainly a trend away from Putin's absolute power, although [00:19:00] to what extent it really is, I don't know, but it is sort of people having their independent bases of power mm-hmm.

And hoping to make Putin more reliant on them. Right, 

Ryan Kellogg: right. And I, I, I found Gasper the most interesting because it was also one of the more Western facing mm-hmm. Entities within Russia. I mean, this was a company that. , , part of its capitalization came from public western markets, so it's [00:19:30] listed, , you could buy shares of gas prom.

It made, , e s g pledges to its shareholders. It sponsored, , huge professional soccer tournaments within Europe, and now eventually it's mm-hmm. It's, yeah, all in on supporting the Russian. 

Anita Kellogg: Well, it sort of happens you right, because of all 

Ryan Kellogg: the Yeah. It has no market anymore. Yeah. It, it's bans 

Anita Kellogg: on oil to Europe and, yeah.

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. Yeah. But it just, I think it's very [00:20:00] symbolic of that complete separation that Europe now has with, with Russia, which was of course unimaginable before the conflict. Mm-hmm. But it was just, this really stood out as symbolic as prom has its own battalion that's putting mm-hmm. And from, from a personnel standpoint, I thought it was interesting.

They also want the ability to control who gets sent to the front from there. So they're still looking out for their corporate interest. Mm-hmm. They want to make sure that it's lower skilled, their security personnel is sent to the forest as opposed to their [00:20:30] engineers running, running the gas fields.

Mm-hmm. So I thought that was another interesting element mm-hmm. Of it. Mm-hmm. Yeah. 

Anita Kellogg: Yeah. I'm trying to think of another comparison and a war to that. But yeah, it's, it's definitely an interesting development and like you said, I hadn't really thought about in the terms of what gas prom is sort of, its western ties that it had before, but how, since those ties have been severed.

Mm-hmm. Then it's focusing on its own future and [00:21:00] position within the Russian power game. Yep. Yeah. So I thought this started in foreign affairs and there was a response in Slate that I just thought the attention to the potential for NATO membership for Ukraine was really interesting debate that's going 

Ryan Kellogg: on.

Yeah. Yeah. So I was, I was surprised to, to see this surge so much where it seems like the, I don't know, I [00:21:30] mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like the consensus now is after the war, that native membership is far more likely for Ukraine than it was like four or five months ago when we last discussed this, where it was always, , that's always going to be seen as too provocative.

There's plenty of alternative structures that Ukraine can have. They'll still supply it security. But now the talk is, yeah. , there, there should be a timeline and pathway. And you [00:22:00] saw even, , opponents do it, like Henry Kissinger mm-hmm. Have come out and said, , now, now it makes sense.

But yeah. Going back to the Foreign Affairs article, so this came from the former defense minister of Ukraine and he starts off the article making a very strong case for immediate ascension. Well, that's what I think is kind of crazy. Yeah. But then he, he, he kind of at the, the last paragraph of it acknowledges that that's not realistic, but [00:22:30] that the goal for this upcoming which I think is next, next week or, or certainly this month of When NATO members meet, that there should actually be a firm timeline, cuz this is something that has been on the table since 2008, but has always been cuz you, you do have opposition and still to this day you have opposition within certain NATO members and has to be a unanimous decision as we've seen with, with the discussions around Finland and Sweden for a eventual admission in [00:23:00] to nato.

But it, I think a lot of it, the, the points that he made in terms of the strengths that a Ukraine would bring to NATO in terms of military capability are, are very credible. Yes. 

Anita Kellogg: I mean, so he just pointed out the type of what they would gain from having a tested, , Ukraine army. But it also would fundamentally, I think, change the nature of nato.

Right. So if you think of how NATO started after War ii the rise of the Cold [00:23:30] War with Russia, it was always. , European nations were, were nervous and it was, , to have a, it's a defensive group, right? So it's basically about deterrence. Like if you attack one of us, then you attack all of us.

And this means that you shouldn't try to, to do so to have, , one of the provisions of membership is to have stable borders which Ukraine is unlikely to have. So it changes things [00:24:00] because you are including a country that still in, I mean, even the idea of it may not have a settled conflict depending on, it's hard to know what kind of agreement will come out of it.

I think changes, I think changes NATO's role and, and some of the fundamental 

Ryan Kellogg: partnership of it. Yeah, I, I can definitely see that point. And that's why I think it is definitely a postwar [00:24:30] discussion. It depends on the, the, the terms of it and maybe to the, the Kaplan piece and Slate, which argues against Ascension is that it's a, a key part of the, the bargaining and negotiation of a eventual peace process.

Although I think 

Anita Kellogg: Kaplan is more nuanced than what you say because the Foreign Affairs article, the Defense Minister was like, it should happen now, which is insane. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. He, he says that, but he also acknowledges that that's not realistic. Also, what else is the former Defense [00:25:00] Minister Ukraine going to argue?

I mean, 

Anita Kellogg: like to have a defensive alliance and then accept a country at war, , would 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, but I thought the, the nuance part of that argument was that Article five could be interpreted in a lot of ways. It doesn't mean that you're immediately declaring war, but that you're 

Anita Kellogg: committing of the organization is not.

To like have members in an active war, right? If it's deterrents, you're saying, we're deterring, so don't attack us because you attack all of us. 

Ryan Kellogg: And, but then how [00:25:30] you, how you choose to support the war effort is up to the individual 

Anita Kellogg: members. But it's no longer about deterrents is you accept a country that's actively in war.

It's not about deter cause attack. 

Ryan Kellogg: No, no, no. Yeah, I agree. What, yeah, I think we can take that completely off the table. Even. I mean, the fact that he took that off the table himself at the end of the article tells me that that was, was never a realistic 

Anita Kellogg: argument. But I think that's what Kaplan is arguing about is why you shouldn't do it in the middle of a conflict.

Kaplan doesn't say you shouldn't ever 

Ryan Kellogg: do it. No. He was saying [00:26:00] that you shouldn't ever do it. Almost put that impression. Well, yeah, just because he was putting all these stipulations where they wouldn't qualify, which I found really weak. I mean, yeah, the, the border one, depending on how it's negotiated, but the idea of the, oh, it needs to be a liberal democracy.

I'm like, what's Turkey and Hungary then doing in nato? They're not credible democracies anymore either. I mean, all these other stipulations that he had in the article for not. Having Ukraine as a, as a member all [00:26:30] week. The 

Anita Kellogg: only part that let to be fair, Hungary in Turkey were democracies when they joined.

You can't really, the problem with EU too well yeah. Is that it's a qualification, but you can't say. Yeah. But 

Ryan Kellogg: I guarantee you, in terms of like corruption, these are not, these are never like well-run countries even during admission into, it's because of strategically, but 

Anita Kellogg: corruption wise, Ukraine is way higher than any of those nations.

Hungry is 

Ryan Kellogg: pretty bad. Turkey's pretty bad too. No, cause we discussed, 

Anita Kellogg: I Ukraine was like number one corruption. 

Ryan Kellogg: But Ukraine has [00:27:00] hopefully will emerge better so that it's at least on the level of a Hungary or Turkey at the end of the country. I mean, 

we 

Anita Kellogg: don't know. I think there's a lot of unknowns. You know, one thing I saw was intriguing is, even though I don't completely agree with it, is that, , part of a peace negotiation could be we're going to, we're going to have a ceasefire where the lines are now, which doesn't mean.

Accepting Russian annexation, in fact, but in prac practical use, they would have that [00:27:30] territory to have a ceasefire. Mm-hmm. Then you could have Ukraine be like in, in response to, to seizing at these lines. Then Ukraine, you can become part of nato and so you have the extra perception of nato. Right, 

Ryan Kellogg: right.

Oh, that was intriguing. It so the, the, the lines after the counter offensive essentially. Yeah, whatever those are. Yeah. That those, and then the, yeah. [00:28:00] And I think that that makes sense and I think even that represents a shift in the Overton window of where this whole discussion around NATO was Right. I totally 

Anita Kellogg: think, and I'm not a hundred percent I agree with that.

I mean, I think it's an interesting proposal, and if it does work as incentives for peace, then I'm okay with it. But like I said, I think it changes what NATO is. And I mean, NATO has shown full support. It's shown that you don't have to become part of NATO to be able to get that sort of support.

[00:28:30] Particularly since the Dives minister is saying the type of support that NATO is providing is the type of support that they would expect for it. It's not like they want to become NATO because they would get more support 

Ryan Kellogg: y Yeah. Yeah. And I think, yeah, that I, I, I, and I see that, and I think it really depends on the nature of the negotiated piece and the nature of those borders.

Because I think if they come to a settlement, let's say Russia takes, , goes back to the, the [00:29:00] pre-war borders. It still has Crimea, it still has large part of the Don Boss. If they attempt to violate that. That's right. I mean, I think NATO's fully in its right to declare war on, for it to be what we envision of NATO being in that.

The United States and its allies are at war against state Russia. Right. So the whole 

Anita Kellogg: Russia, the whole idea of letting Ukraine inten at that point is that you're not just giving Biden Russia having time to regrouped, [00:29:30] to attack you again, but that there'd be a much firmer, and I 

Ryan Kellogg: think that that creates a deterrence for Russia.

I mean, Russia can, I mean, I don't know how you spend that internally where if you hold on to Crimea and Don Boss, but you have full NATO membership right on your board. That's the exact opposite of what they wanted to achieve. Strategically. I don't know how they spend that internally, but I guess Putin remains in power, but I think, don't you think that creates enough of a deterrence [00:30:00] for them to give up any further territorial gains?

Yeah, I think so. I think 

Anita Kellogg: it works. I think it works in part of the peace negotiation. On the other hand, I don't know that , one, you say the lines that they had before, but it may include. , new territory that they've taken. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. It, it all rests on this counter offensive. Right. And how, how much they can hold then after that counter, because I mean, this is going to drag on for a while.

The counter offensive is not going to end the war. Right. [00:30:30] It's then whatever territory they can take. And this will be like proof of concept of, okay, the West has supplied all this, the west has trained nine modern battalions. How much territory can you take from these very reinforced positions in the south?

I mean, that's, that's going to be a big test. And again the war in the Rocks podcast goes into that and that's it. Yeah. It's good to be interesting cuz these are very dugin Russian troops that aren't tested. These are conscripts. Mm-hmm. But at [00:31:00] the same time, it's a lot harder to to play offense than it is defense.

Anita Kellogg: I think it is successful. Counter offensive will make the war go on longer. Because mm-hmm. It will solidify Ukraine wanting total victory. And right now, I mean, it's just hard to see that either side is anywhere near sees fire because they still believe that they can obtain total victory. Right. So, I mean, I fear that this is going to be a long, protracted [00:31:30] war over years and one that's quite devastating.

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. And I, I, I think it goes back to that, that long term, which I think the other long, longer term move was the. And we've seen this throughout. We saw this about the tiger main battle tanks, the M one s, and now we've seen it with the F sixteens. Now f sixteens are going to play like zero role in this counter offensive probably zero role for a year.

They were saying it's going to be yeah, like a year [00:32:00] and a half before realistically they could be deployed. And then even then, , the analysis that that Kaufman had was that does, it's not like a guarantee of even like local air superiority that the F 16, that the numbers can be provided. And it depends on, , how modern these f sixteens, cuz this is a, , 30, 40 year old plane, it's had a lot of different upgrades.

So it depends on what planes they actually get. Well, 

Anita Kellogg: and I was struck by 20 hours of maintenance for [00:32:30] every hour in the air. 

Ryan Kellogg: Oh yeah. Well that's kind of the same with the M one. I mean, these are all like very maintenance intensive, sophisticated pieces of equipment. So yeah, it takes a lot, , maybe they can be trained, maybe they can, can get up flying within four months, but then it's that, that supply chain's ability to maintain it over a period of time.

That being said, you can strike from 500 miles away. Mm-hmm. With these planes, they can be equipped in essentially [00:33:00] with the, the other. Because it's really about the ability to strike deep behind Russian lines. So between f sixteens and then what the Ukrainians will be potentially able to deploy this in this counter offensive is the cruise missiles.

So the air launched cruise missiles that can be equipped to the mig 20 nines that the Ukrainians have, that the British supplied that, , can strike, , every area, area of occupied Ukraine. [00:33:30] So I think it's this, it's this gradual incrementalism. It's the fact that nobody's concerned about provoking Russia anymore, that that's kind of gradually declined.

And it's giving, it's the, the belief that from native members that you should support Ukraine for victory, maybe even total victory. And it's just this change of mindset that's really. Interesting over time and that, that plays into the whole NATO membership discussion too. Just this window has moved [00:34:00] over the past couple months.

I think the 

Anita Kellogg: discouraging thing, , when Kauffman was that his mm-hmm. When he's talking, , and when people are saying, well, they won't really have an impact on the war because they'll be a year and a half, they're zooming. The war will be over within before a year and a half. And I think the discouraging thing about this is the war may not be over in a year and a half.

Mm-hmm. And if you're thinking about total of victory, you can still be thinking about total of victory even after the, this counter offensive, whether it goes well or not, [00:34:30] because you have these, , new f sixteens that are going to come online and hopefully change things. So that's our thoughts on that.

So the US right. Has a new darling of an international leader that they would like to emulate. And this time it is El Salvador's President. I'll leave the name pronunciation to you. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, so Nai Bule. So he's the, the 41 year old president of El [00:35:00] Salvador. This is Latin America country that has struggled with, with violence in a sense.

The , it emerged from Civil War a number of decades ago and. Has really been one of the, the, the drivers for the for the, the, the crisis, , with us immigration and refugees. So it's always been seen as a, a a, a problem area within Latin America. So when he [00:35:30] ran under his party, the new Ideas party in 2019, , they successfully won the initial presidential term.

Now, under the El Salvadorian constitution presidents are elected to a single five year term, , according to the Constitution. And one of the things that course now he's, he's pushing for is to, to do away with that. But before that, it was interesting because in [00:36:00] his, in his initial. First term.

So prior to the parliamentary elections that occurred in 2022, he faced a opposition from the two existing established political parties. And with kind of using the Covid situation he was able to dec seize a significant amount of executive power, but probably the boldest move that he made, again around all of this, this gang violence, was that during,[00:36:30] , one of the debates for a critical piece of legislation, he had requested a hundred million dollars to be funded to this anti-gun task force and wasn't getting agreement between the, the two established parties.

And as a obviously very, a liberal fascist move ordered the military and police forces to occupy their parliament building. And later said in interviews that this Yeah, this was an obvious threat [00:37:00] that if they did not, , go along with this vote, that he would either remove them for power or shoot them or, or whatever.

Mm-hmm. So that was seen as the very, and that made a lot of headlines. Mm-hmm. Now, so they did succeed in, in getting this anti-gang task force funded. And like you mentioned, the murder rate has come down sharply now. Back in 2015, El Salvador was had a murder rate that made it the, the murder [00:37:30] capital of the world at about 105 homicides per a hundred thousand.

And since that time, it's, it's come down to, , roughly seven which puts it more in line with, with the us. So that being said, it wasn't just his election that led to this collapse. In fact, when the 2019. Election happened the previous government had already cut that murder rate in half. So while his [00:38:00] policies have certainly had a, a big impact and, and definitely it, it 40 50, , that rate is still significantly high and getting it down to the US it makes it one of the lowest.

From a homicide perspective, much lower than Mexico and, and some of its Latin America neighbors. It has come at the, the cost of significant waving of civil liberty rights. And I think that's, that's part of the appeal to [00:38:30] the, to the right, particularly within the US, is the fact that it got rid of what it views as, as certain niceties around the protection.

So in 2022, they passed a emergency provision that allowed them to target the two gangs of Barrio 13. And then of course, the famous MS 13, which is featured a lot and Republican rhetoric in this country to arrest and [00:39:00] lock up without any sort of due process involved. And this was really enabled by the fact that the new Ideas party and Bule have an approval rating within the country of, of 86%, which allowed them to win two thirds of the seats in the National Assembly in 2022.

Now, under that process, he forced the retirement of about a third of the judges and put it in his own appointees, and he completely reshaped the Supreme Court, which is [00:39:30] basically what allowed for this provision to waive civil liberties away for alleged criminals. 

Anita Kellogg: Yeah. Which is really key. I mean, when you had the situation in Columbia where you had taken a lot of power because of the steps against the violence there Yurba wanted to get rid of term limits and have a third term.

Mm-hmm. And it was the Supreme Court. Who ultimately prevented that from happening. So if you can control the Supreme Court, then [00:40:00] you can control a lot of a lot of the power decisions. I mean, even, you know, it was interesting in Venezuela Chavez rewrote the Constitution, but Bule is not even trying to rewrite the constitution.

Mm-hmm. He's just changing the rules and having the courts 

Ryan Kellogg: back him up. Yeah. And it, but I think what's, what's interesting, of course you've, you've seen this in Latin America, more from the leftist side, but the fact is all of these policies are enormously popular. Mm-hmm. [00:40:30] And, you know, I, I could, I can sympathize with it when the level of violence from these gangs mm-hmm.

Rises to such an extent, the economist. Mentioned within the article that these two gangs suppress the GDP of the country by 16%. It no longer is a criminal act, but rather a full-on challenge to state power. Mm-hmm. And yeah, when it's, it's that direct of [00:41:00] a threat to the wellbeing of the average citizen, I could totally sympathize mm-hmm.

With, with, yeah. The waving of these rights in order to basically to take on a threat of a, , what is a terrorist organization or a a rebellious group, threatening state, the state government. Mm-hmm. 

Anita Kellogg: I completely agree. And I think if any time authoritarian leader makes sense, it's usually [00:41:30] when you have so much insecurity.

You do have Columbia as an example, which certainly did a lot of human rights abuses as it was trying to take back control. Cause the one point significant parts of the country had been controlled by the farc. Right? So, I mean, you had a fighting back against them. You had a lot of human rights abuses too.

But they managed to keep the government structure at least a democracy. And so you can do that, but I'm sympathetic too here. [00:42:00] What's more disturbing is how the right in the US is using this to, wanting to get rid of civil liberties to improve, I don't know, security or whatever they think is wrong with the country is, is disturbing.

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. And I think it is the, it's the deployment of these tactics. In a country where the crisis is nowhere even comparable to what's occurring. I mean, I think when you can point [00:42:30] to Yeah. Yeah. I mean, yes, crime has, has ticked up slightly to levels in a comparable to the, to the late nineties, but nowhere near the peak of the, the late eighties and the early nineties in terms of, of murder rate or rather violent activity.

But what's interesting about this guy is he's extremely online, very active on Twitter, which of course is how he was really highlighted and, and, and noticed by [00:43:00] the likes of, of Tucker Carlson, Michael Flynn and Roger Stone, who have, have highlighted him as a, as a role model and I I, in that he kind of returns the favor.

So he is quoted. , in, in interviews saying, , I'm, I'm from El Salvador, third world country in Central America, and I myself see cities in the US and say, I wouldn't live here. So he told this to Tucker before Tucker got canned. The demise of the US has come from within. [00:43:30] No external enemy can cause this much damage.

So here this guy is understanding US politics. Mm-hmm. Very well. And their internal understand the 

Anita Kellogg: red meat. He is a populist so he understands populism. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. Yeah. So it's feeding that, that red meat and also comparing US cities, which are nowhere near the level of the crisis that he's had to deal with in El Salvador, but still linking those two.

Mm-hmm. And providing this The strength [00:44:00] where, yeah, the, the right here, as we've seen, would love to, to get rid of civil liberties and deploy these, , frankly harsh, but I think necessary tactics that are employed in places like El Salvador and employ them within US cities. Well, 

Anita Kellogg: there is still a question of how far do you go to Crest civil liberties, even dealing with sort of the gang violence that El Salvador was.

I mean, do you need to restructure [00:44:30] the Supreme Court to favor whatever you want to do? There's a lot of corruption. His brothers are the most influential power brokers, so there's a lot of things that are not related at all to bringing security, but about explaining its own power. But like I said, I understand a.

Authoritarianism or leaning toward it, right. When there's a big security crisis, when you're the murder capital of the world. Right. Or you can but in the United States, it's funny cause I was like, I, a lot of [00:45:00] Europeans said they wouldn't live in these cities because there's too much gun violence. Cuz there's too much guns.

Right. I mean, you can look at violence in different ways in the, in the us but I think anytime it's being used to, to dismantle civil liberties. Right. And it's, it's a huge question of how that would help anything or improve anything except allowing them to go after their perceived enemies. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. And I think that's, that's an [00:45:30] excellent point.

And I think it's, it's indeterminate right now, whether that. And one of that that makes sense, and two, if his popularity levels will remain. So this entire approach, I mean the, the Economist noted in its article of this Mauro, so the iron fist sort of approach has been applied before in Latin America.

, you talked about Columbia, but it was also deployed in Guatemala to an even more extreme [00:46:00] extent in 2004, where they had extrajudicial killings of gang members. And it was effective for a while, but then those murder rates surged immediately back up. And it never addressed the underlying reasons on why a gang life would be appealing to young men within the country.

And it's just the lack of economic opportunities. So will El Salvador be able to use this, , lower level of violence to invest in education, invest in infrastructure, invest in the things that [00:46:30] make gang life unappealing? Mm-hmm. And that's an open question cuz if he just uses this to enrich his family mm-hmm.

Which, , in, in lock in power, then he's no better than any other dictator you've seen Right. On the left side, , within Latin America, 

Anita Kellogg: well, he's not going to be any more successful. Right. Right. Right. So if he really wanted to be a successful dictator, he would bring economic development. I mean, certainly that's what you have, like park Chani in South Korea.

[00:47:00] Mm-hmm. Yep. You know, if you, the longing for those days sometimes is not just reduction in violence, but , the economic development taking opportunities for that. And obviously authoritarian leaders can do that, but there's already always so much corruption and is there enough left over for the rest of the economy?

You know, is, is definitely questionable. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, and I think his whole, his whole experimentation with crypto too, right? That's [00:47:30] back in 20 21, 22 something. It's not encouraging like around economic. He's ex more like, 

Anita Kellogg: which is also how tech so popular in with the Right, 

Ryan Kellogg: with the libertarian, right? Yeah, yeah.

Yep. Was 

Anita Kellogg: the adoption of Bitcoin and trying to put significant amount of country's money. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. He made it like an officially accepted currency in 2021, I think one of the few countries to do so at a national scale and then invested. At least [00:48:00] 70, 80 million in crypto, like at the absolute wrong time, like right around the, the Super Bowl when that was all being promoted here.

And ended up losing, , 70% of that when crypto crashed. So if that's like a indication of where his economic priorities are and investments in the country, it doesn't seem like a good sign that he can use this window to actually improve the material wellbeing of the people. I mean, you 

Anita Kellogg: have to have, I think, some sort of corporate leaders or, or some,[00:48:30] , already corporate civil society or business, civil society that was suppressed, that can now operate better.

So sometimes even corruption is a bad thing always, but you can have corrupt enterprises still have economic development if there's enough overflow. From the corruption. So can you have enough, can you empower the right people or or graft for the right people [00:49:00] who, who know what they're doing economically?

Yeah. It's not encouraging. 

Ryan Kellogg: Y y Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I know their, I mean, their biggest push I think has been around tourism. I pulled up here. So one of the ads from Twitter targeted for Americans, particularly on the right, specifically, it's a very Norma and Rockwell photo of an older couple, 1950s style and basically saying El Salvador, the new land of the free[00:49:30] appealing to , all the, the low crime.

And as this, this place as a either retirement place for Americans or, , as a tourist destination. So I don't know if that's the idea of initial economic stimulus for the country is to attract more Americans to vacation there. Particularly conservative Americans. 

Anita Kellogg: I don't know, in terms of economic development that you can try to create a new tourist industry.

I mean, there has to be some fundamental. [00:50:00] Economic capital that you can build upon. , what, what is the basis for the economy in El Salvador? And I really don't know, but can you provide opportunities to be more successful to either farmers be more successful, or, I mean, do you have the base of those farmers to, , provide those goods?

Ryan Kellogg: Right. And does this become an area where China enters, mm-hmm. With the be road initiative and maybe seeing it given their more cautious investment approach, now they see the [00:50:30] lower crime rate, they see a government that frankly is, , more simpatico to the Chinese way of, of governing society.

Whether they, , there's investment, whether he'll take advantage of that, which runs counter then to him. Trying to romance the right within the country cuz he had Marco Rubio mm-hmm. Come down. And I think Rubio had a more nuanced approach. Again, he's more established Republican, less Maga and it was from this real [00:51:00] politics side of, well, , this guy's doing what's necessary in order to get crime and violence and that'll create less of a crisis around immigration on our borders.

So we should support this guy cuz he has been targeted by the Biden administration, again, under what we've talked about as probably a failed approach of democracy versus autocracy. I don't know if he was this Bule was excluded from the whole American conference that was [00:51:30] held in was that held in the US or Mexico?

Mexico didn't go, but I don't know if El Salvador is one of those sanction, but the, the. Buk administration has been sanctioned by the Biden, and Rubio's been very critical of that from this more real politics standpoint of this guy's doing what's needed to stabilize the governments in these areas. I 

Anita Kellogg: mean, I think that's more understandable position, but this idea that we need to erode civil liberties to have security is just [00:52:00] Yeah.

Is wrong and scary. 

Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. I, I don't get, I mean, I, I get it, but I mean, I get why, I mean, the El Salvador is far more sympathetic than a place like Hungary with or which is far more of a paragraph not, and that's not driven by any sort of external crisis or internal crisis compared to El Salvador.

But yeah, the, the right just wants to be able to Yeah. Frankly, take gang members and shoot 'em in the back of the head without a trial. I mean, that's, that's [00:52:30] their fantasy for sure. Yeah. Yes. I think it'll be, it'll be interesting, , that that election's coming up in, in 2024, it doesn't look like he'll definitely run for a second term.

He's looking to try to export this model. I know he's set up a similar political party inspired by the new ideas party within Guatemala and is tempted the same in Costa Rica. But I think, , like we mentioned, that comes down to can he take this window of lower violence, which has [00:53:00] proven to be transient with other people that apply this iron fist approach, and can he actually make a material impact on the wellbeing of the country?

Anita Kellogg: Mm-hmm. Yeah, exactly. I predict he wins. 

Ryan Kellogg: Oh yeah. 86% per I, I predict he wins too. Yeah. 

Anita Kellogg: I predict he could be out there for a third term. So yeah. So next is my interview with Deborah Larson, and like I said, I think we have. , a really [00:53:30] interesting discussion on the nature of the Russia, China partnership, which is still a subject that's been intriguing as it came shortly before the war in Ukraine and China's position that it's taken during the war where it has, , shown support for Russia despite, , some of its earlier issues that they had with territorial integrity, which they had actually, , made statements against Russia in 2014, [00:54:00] but have been silent of course on this.

So, just talked about what's driving that, their support for Russia, even though this is costing them, the war is definitely costing them some alliances and but do the gains of that make for it. And a question that a lot of people have asked. , Putin last thing his ego can tolerate is being the junior partner.

And yet Russia seems so obviously the junior partner in the relationship. [00:54:30] So how do they think of themselves and not being in that position? So I hope you enjoy. My name is Dr. Anita Kellogg and I'm here with Deborah Larson, a research professor of Political Science at the University of California Los Angeles.

She specializes in status concerns, Russian and Chinese foreign policies and the liberal world order. Thank you so much for coming on the show. Well, thank 

Deborah Larson: you for having me. It's good to talk about these [00:55:00] issues. A lot is going on. 

Anita Kellogg: Absolutely. And certainly one of the things we wanted to talk more about is the China Russias relationship.

And I read a chapter of years in a book and I was like, oh, she's the perfect person to have on to talk about this. So we're really excited to have you here. I want to begin with the foundation of the China Russias relationship. On a surface level, they seem to have perhaps more differences than commonalities.

For example, Russia accuses China of setting up [00:55:30] defacto settlements on its territory in Eastern Russia. They have disputes over fishing rights in the Arctic, and they're both vying for influence in Central Asia, including former Soviet republics. And then of course there is the Soviet final split in 1961 over who would represent communism.

So what is the basis for their alliance 

Deborah Larson: now? You're absolutely right, Anita, about their, their differences. Their partnership is not based on [00:56:00] friendship or trust. It's really based on their position as outsiders from the liberal world order and the desire for greater status. Both our former great powers that entered a period of decline with the end of the Cold War, which seemed to discredit communism when the Cold War ended in 1989 to 90, both were left outside the circle of established [00:56:30] powers.

They were regarded as outsiders from the US dominated liberal world Order. Russia under Yeltsin and Kozak briefly tried to join the West, but they were not accepted because. Russia did not meet the test of a liberal democracy, and this is something that is a matter of some irritation. The Russian elites, China, on the other hand, was [00:57:00] criticized after the Cold War ended because of Tiana Min Square.

It's human rights abuses. It was regarded as a backlash state, and there were also tensions in on Taiwan. So beginning in the mid 1990s, both states moved towards each other as a way of getting greater respect from the west. And their resentment over being outsiders is compounded by history of [00:57:30] humiliation at the hands of Western powers.

And I think we have to remember that humiliation China has often referred to 100 years of humiliation, beginning with the Opium War. In 1842, whereas Russia, even though it's a Western power, supposedly offered, also suffered humiliations. There were the defeats in the Crimean War in 1854 to 56. There was [00:58:00] Russia's defeats in World War I, which contributed to the Bolshevik Revolution, and there was the fact that Russia simply was ostracized by the west after it underwent the communist revolution.

So they had this history of grievances and both feel that they deserve a place at the sea, at the top of the table among the elite powers, but they blame the United States and the West for not giving them the recognition [00:58:30] that they deserve. So the partnership isn't really based, as you say, on love or cultural.

Commonality. But it's based on this, these shared status grievances. The Chinese have long privately held contempt for Russians. They regard them as barbar, you know, like for a hundred for centuries. [00:59:00] Whereas Russia has always defined itself as a European power. And why? Because Europe has higher status than Asia.

So I think both states would've preferred to have been recognized and accepted by the West, but that didn't happen. And so beginning in the mid 1990, mid 1990s, they moved towards each other, but [00:59:30] the relationship with the United States has. Undergone cycles. Whenever their relationship with the United States improves, they kind of move away from each other, but when it deteriorates, they move towards each other.

But Putin conclusively moved towards China after 2014 when the west imposed sanctions. So that's where we are today. 

Anita Kellogg: Yeah, and I think that's a great point and something we [01:00:00] don't take into account enough when we make these sort of analysis that both of the feeling of humiliation and both feeling like outsiders to the Western world order.

What are the goals for each country to get out of the relationship? 

Deborah Larson: Well for China? Partnership with Russia helps support its claims to be a global great power. Xi Jinping has been saying for some time that the world is undergoing [01:00:30] changes, not seen. In the last 100 years and that it's moving towards multipolarity.

Well, if it's moving towards Multipolarity, there has to be another power besides China and the United States. At their last summit, she turned to Putin and said, let's drive those changes together. Now, in order for China to claim that there is a multipolar world order, China [01:01:00] has to de-legitimize the Western, the US dominated liberal order, undermine the values, underline those orders, the that order.

And it's interesting that at the February 4th summit before Russia invaded Ukraine, both China and Russia set themselves up as models of democracy. So together they can claim that they [01:01:30] present. A different set of values, one that is perhaps even more attractive than the liberal values underlying the Western order.

You know, sovereignty, non interference, and internal affairs, a strong state and so on. But in addition to those, those concerns about values and recognition China has economic and strategic interest. China benefits from cheap Russian oil and [01:02:00] gas. Russia is a supplier of advanced military equipment, and given the deteriorating Chinese relationship with the us, she needs, the United States needs Russia, excuse me, as a counterweight to the US now on the, on the, on Russia's part.

Putin needs China to avoid international isolation.[01:02:30] 

When she visited Moscow in March of this year, Putin had just been declared a war criminal by the International criminal court. So she's visit helped sort of rescue Putin from complete disapprobation by the international community. And with China's support, Russia can [01:03:00] claim that in fighting in Ukraine, it is actually fighting for a multipolar world order.

It's not just fighting the west, it's not just fighting Ukraine. It's joined with China together in support of an emerging more just multipolar world order. And it's important to Russia that China supports Russia's. Rationalization for the war in Ukraine, that [01:03:30] it was caused by NATO expansion. And most important, China props up the Russian War machine by buying a third of Russian exports by buying its oil and gas and providing it key components that it needs to keep its economy going under the Western sanctions.

Anita Kellogg: So I want to pick up on one of your comments there, and, and I know, you know, China has this history of making statements about [01:04:00] territorial integrity, and they even made one of those statements in 2014 about the Ukraine about Russia's taking over Crimea. How overall is China squaring its longstanding position on territorial integrity and what Russia is doing in Ukraine?

Deborah Larson: China doesn't try to square it. It, it hedges. And it you know, it talks about Russia's security interest and indivisible [01:04:30] security, and it just completely ignores Ukraine's right to sovereignty and, and territorial integrity. So China is really showing double standards, the double standards that it accuses the United States of exist.

And I think that she's support for Russia despite its violation of, of the norm of sovereignty, which is very important to China. Going back to the principles of peaceful coexistence [01:05:00] and the fifties, the fact that she has done this suggests that the relationship is not entirely rational. That's based to some extent on emotions rather than principle.

Anita Kellogg: Yeah. And of course that's such an interesting perspective in, in ir that's really hard to account for when we tried it and now analyze relationships, is the role of emotions in it. So to many, Russia is clearly the junior [01:05:30] partner of this relationship, particularly in terms of its economic size and global influence, yet Putin is unlikely to accept such a status.

How does Russia see itself not becoming a junior partner in the relationship? 

Deborah Larson: Well, you're right. One reason why Russia has avoided becoming too dependent on China is that it doesn't want to be the junior partner or what some have called the younger sister in the relationship. And this, this is a [01:06:00] serious fear because, you know, when the Cold War ended, China and Russia's economies were roughly aligned.

China was a little bit behind Russia and now. China's economy is 10 times. Mm-hmm. The size of Russia's. So there's that inherent asymmetry. But Russia does not want to be inferior. Putin does not want to be inferior in status to China. What Putin [01:06:30] would like is an equal partnership of Unequals. I mean, he knows that you know, Russia's economy is way behind China as its clout, but he still does not want to be considered inferior.

So how is he going to make up for that? Well, you could say that Russia, Russian elites rationalize Putin rationalizes by saying that Russia is a great military power. You know, despite their [01:07:00] poor lackluster performance in Ukraine, Russia's still a great military power, and it's true that Russia has some advantages over China.

In, in the military area Russia has advanced technology in certain areas that China would like, like submarine, nuclear submarine technology fighter engines, their air defense systems. And Russia has [01:07:30] a combat experience. China has not fought a war since 1979, and that was against Vietnam, which is you know, not a developed state, although certainly a formidable military opponent.

But China doesn't have any military experience. And so you could say that Russia is trying out weapons and tactics and can share that experience with China. And Russia also has natural resources that China needs. [01:08:00] Like oil and gas. Russia would like to be the leading supplier of natural gas to China.

And so it wants to build more pipelines to replace the ones that it formally had with Europe, you know, which have, you know, been shut down due to the war. But China isn't really playing along with that. China does not want to be dependent on any state for energy. And so at the [01:08:30] most recent summit between she and Putin, she did not agree to the power of Siberia too, which is what Putin was pushing another another pipeline.

Mm-hmm. Towards Siberia. 

Anita Kellogg: Yeah, no, I think that's a great way of thinking about things and just How Russia manages that perception itself. When, of course the rest of the world sees, even, even seeing Russia as [01:09:00] a, as a commodity exporter to China is certainly in some ways against solidifies their, their junior standing.

But I think it was interesting the way you point out that in the ways that they have some military superiority or technology that China wants, because we tend to think, and this is reinforced by the Ukraine war as Chinese military equipment being old and outta date. So [01:09:30] that's, that's interesting.

Deborah Larson: Well, the Chinese have gotten to be a lot better at, at producing military equipment. You know, earlier Russia wouldn't sell certain systems to China because they knew that China would reverse engineer the technology and, and do it, you know, and mm-hmm. And implement it itself. But now Russia has accepted that it really has no choice but to give technology to China, even if it does [01:10:00] result in the long run in the loss of their military superiority.

Russia really is in a bad position right now, and it's, it's difficult to see how they can avoid becoming just a junior partner. Some, some Russian elites fear becoming a resource appendage of China. Mm-hmm. You know, basically a third world country selling China oil and gas and resources while China reaps you know, the economic [01:10:30] advantages.

But given the war in Ukraine, which was really a blunder on the part of Putin Russia really has no choice. Mm-hmm. 

Anita Kellogg: Do they worry about China taking that engineering process and then competing with them and selling weapons around the world? Because I know that is something, you know one of the things that's led to India's, you know, not not taking a stronger stance against Russia is because they get so much military equipment.

And Russia sells a lot in [01:11:00] Africa, I know. And through the Bogner group. So I'm just curious if that's something that they consider or I think 

Deborah Larson: it's the consideration. It's definitely a consideration. They, they might hold back some of their more, most advanced equipment for fear that China will, will steal their business.

Mm-hmm. And, and the arms sale business is not just about economics, it's also about strategic relationships. Right. Making other states dependent on Russia, so that like India and [01:11:30] Vietnam, they won't oppose Russia too strongly in international forum. 

Anita Kellogg: Yeah, no, and that's interesting. And when you look at some of the relationships in Africa too, that definitely have noted that the role that sort of the, the military ties with the elites forms a lot of the underlying relationships that Russia has in Africa and perhaps other parts of the world.

So I mentioned some of their differences. Where in general would you say that their [01:12:00] goals do not 

Deborah Larson: align? Right now, the the war in Ukraine is creating big difficulties for China. Mm-hmm. It's it's, it's disrupted global supply chains. It's made it more difficult for China to trade freely because of the risk of running afoul of the United States and having sanctions imposed on some of its companies.

And in general, China is more [01:12:30] economically interdependent with the rest of the world than Russia. Russia is not that dependent on the rest of the world. And so Russia's free to be a disruptor. Russia would be happy to see chaos mm-hmm. In the international economic system, whereas China needs stability.

China, unlike Russia, is relying on economic power for its claim to global power status and. The war has [01:13:00] also created difficulties for China in its relationship with Europe. Mm-hmm. Europe is still China's leading trading partner and the European countries were already suspicious of China. But it's tacit and sometimes overt support for Putin's war in Ukraine has caused a lot of suspicions among European countries and caused them to move closer to the United States [01:13:30] and to be more receptive to US claims that they need to cooperate against China.

It just creates a lot of suspicion. EU officials want China to criticize Russia's aggression. Mm-hmm. But Xi Jinping will not do that. And so there's just increased disharmony and and, you know, it could create potential [01:14:00] problems for China in its trading relationship with the eu. China also objects to Putin's nuclear threats.

Mm-hmm. His his raising the, the prospect of, of nuclear war. Xi Jinping issued a statement against that, the Chinese. And so far, you know, Putin has backed down, but he may very well start doing that again. And China doesn't want nuclear coercion to be used because right now it's still [01:14:30] inferior to the United States in the number of nuclear weapons.

And so some Chinese elites think that Putin has taken advantage of, she. And privately, they, they would prefer for she to sort of move away from Putin. You know, they have far more economic stakes in relations with the west, and China's economy isn't doing that well, but [01:15:00] she has doubled down, which again, to me suggests that there's more to the relationship than simply economic and strategic interests.

There's real emotional ties based on their shared status as outsiders and agreed powers that that interferes with rational thinking. Now, and on Russia's part, the big conflict is [01:15:30] over Central Asia. Mm-hmm. As you mentioned before Russia regards Central Asia as its sphere of influence. These states were formally part of the Soviet Union even after the breakup of the Soviet Union.

The leading central Asian states are tied to Russia by economic links shared culture. The Russian diaspora ties between elites [01:16:00] and their shared status as autocracies with strong men. But China has long aspired to have a greater role in Central Asia partly for status, partly for economics, and partly for security.

In terms of status, China would like to be a Eurasian power and the central Asian states would connect it to Europe. Allowing it to [01:16:30] avoid Russia. There's also economic reasons. You know, several of the east central Asian states are rich in oil and gas and China does not want to be dependent on any state for energy.

Mm-hmm. And China's also concerned about the security of Xinjiang terrorism. And you know, these states, some of them have their own problems with terrorism. So China needs to cooperate. So for the past 20 or 30 years, there's been this potential for status [01:17:00] rivalry between China and Russia and Central Asia.

Yeah. But they've managed to prevent it. Cause they have a division of labor. Russia is responsible for security. China is responsible for economics. So Russia provides peacekeeping forces mm-hmm. And helps put down terrorist [01:17:30] operations uprisings where, whereas China provides loans for infrastructure and trading cooperation and so forth, then this has worked out pretty well until now when Russia can't really fulfill its security responsibilities because of its involvement in Ukraine.

It does not have the military forces to maintain security in Central Asia, and [01:18:00] it's telling that in October, Russia did not intervene in the territorial dispute between Kurgastan and Tajikistan. The, the central Asian states themselves have been alienated. By Russia's invasion of mm-hmm. Ukraine. I mean, Kazakhstan says, why not us?

Right. You know, Ru a Kazakhstan also has a substantial Russian [01:18:30] population, and so none of the central Asian states have given support to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Well, this creates a golden opportunity for China to move in. There's a power vacuum, and China's taken advantage of this. Just, just this last week on May 18th to 19th, China convened a summit with the five central Asian powers by itself, with [01:19:00] Russia not involved.

And one of the leading topics of conversation was security cooperation, which suggests that China's moving into Russia's area of responsibility. Yeah, so some experts believe that this is only the beginning of status competition status rivalry between between China and Russia and Central Asia. And I don't see [01:19:30] that Russia is in much of a position to do much about it given its entanglement in Ukraine.

So we'll have to 

Anita Kellogg: see. Yeah. Is China capable though, of taking over that security role in, you know, we really haven't seen Chinese troops engage anywhere across the world, so that would be interesting. I'm curious what you think about that. 

Deborah Larson: Well, China has deliberately [01:20:00] not put troops in Central Asia.

Well, actually it has done so surreptitiously without anyone knowing, but the intelligence got out so. In the past China did provide peacekeeping forces to the un. Mm-hmm. You know, when it was trying to be a responsible power. So, you know, it could place its forces in between two, you know, rival countries that are feuding over border.

And [01:20:30] China also has substantial surveillance capabilities that it would be only too eager to share with the countries to help them deal with the threat of, of terrorism. Mm-hmm. I mean, look what China has done to Xinjiang basically turned it into a totalitarian state, and they could do the same for the central Asian countries if they wanted that.

But I'm not sure that the terrorism threat is that significant. [01:21:00] 

Anita Kellogg: Yeah, no. So those are some really good points. How much support from China has Russia expected? Like are they getting. The support that they want. For example, are they surprised or disappointed that they have not received weapons from China for the Russia, Ukraine war?

Or do they just because that relationship is based on something else, they sort of expect or accept the current status? 

Deborah Larson: Well, absolutely. I think they [01:21:30] are disappointed with the fact that China has not given them weapons and ammunition, especially now when they have a serious shortage of, of ammunition.

And this is an example of how China treats the relationship with Russia as transactional. Mm-hmm. China does not want to incur Western sanctions because it would hurt its trade. So China is not providing Russia with the ammunition [01:22:00] and. The equipment, you know, the tanks and so forth that Russia desperately needs.

Now, if the two of them were really allies, which they were not mm-hmm. China would do so. So I think Russia is disappointed. And according to US intelligence, Russia has made a number of requests for lethal aid, and China has hedged and hod and, [01:22:30] and just not given them what they wanted. But again, Russia doesn't have much choice.

It doesn't have much it doesn't have any alternative but to rely on China because at least it gets economic support from China which is better than nothing. But yeah, I, I think that China has not fulfilled Russian expectations. On the other hand, the Russians may. Recognize that China is only in it for Chinese interest [01:23:00] and that they have to expect this.

I mean, China certainly hasn't shown much willingness to sacrifice for Russia. It's bargained hard and gotten a good price for oil and gas and, and, and other resources. And China's taken advantage of Russia's economic needs. So again, it's a sign that there's an asymmetric relationship where Russia basically has to take what it can get from China.

Now, in the long run, that could create [01:23:30] tensions just like the ones that led to the Sino Soviet split. Mm-hmm. 

Anita Kellogg: Yeah, no, so that's interesting and something that I've been thinking about. I want to finish by thinking about what do you think of the future of this relationship? Where is it heading? As long 

Deborah Larson: as China's challenging the United States for predominant influence over the world [01:24:00] order, I think they will continue to be aligned with each other because, as I said, China needs Russia to oppose the United States.

The United States has many, many allies. It has this whole alliance network, whereas China has no real allies. And so China needs Russia if it wants to set itself up as a poll. And [01:24:30] increasingly, it seems as though the world is becoming more polarized, China and Russia against the us, Europe, and Japan.

You know, just like the Cold War, it seems to be blocks now one, one possible difference. And one thing that that could sort of alleviate this polarization is the fact that the global South, and, you know, medium and smaller countries in the global south are playing the gray powers off [01:25:00] against each other.

Mm-hmm. You know, in order to get more. And with globalization they can do that you know, they, they can avoid. So to that extent, it prevents a complete return to Cold War polarization. But still as long as China aspires to be equal or superior to the US I think it will continue its relations with Russia.

And so long as Russia is an outsider from Europe mm-hmm. Which I think it will be so long as [01:25:30] Putin is in power. Mm-hmm. Russia will stay with China. 

Anita Kellogg: Yeah. So those are some really good thoughts about that feature and something I definitely concur with. So yeah, so thank you so much for being here and talking with us and sharing your insight.

Thank you, Anita. 

Deborah Larson: I'm very pleased to talk about these issues even though they're a little depressing, but we need to be [01:26:00] we need to be cognizant of what draws the two powers together, because if China did help Russia in the Ukraine war, it would be very, very serious. And so if there is some means of wooing Russia away from China to some extent, or vice versa we need to be alert to that.

Yeah, definitely, definitely. So we need to see what draws them together to think about how we can perhaps separate them a little, maybe put a little bit of daylight [01:26:30] between 

Anita Kellogg: them. And I know that's something that has been part of US foreign policy and has just made really difficult by Putin really putting all his cards into China.

But hopefully something in the future will, will allow that for yeah, too much of what we discuss sometimes is depressing, but like you said, it's really important to understand the issues and maybe have some hope for optimism in the future. Well, thank you so much. Thanks. And goodbye. Goodbye. I hope you enjoyed listening to the [01:27:00] interview.

And that brings us to the end of this episode of Kellogg's Global Politics. You can visit our website at www kelloggs global politics.com and follow us on Twitter at Global Kellogg or me ar Kellogg. 

Ryan Kellogg: You can also reach us by email, so anita kelloggs global politics.com and myself, ryan kelloggs global politics.com.

And as always, please see the show notes for the articles we discussed in this episode. And if you like this show, please [01:27:30] take time to tell your friends, share it on your social sites. It's a simple, quick, and free way to support the show. 

Anita Kellogg: And don't forget to join us Sunday, June 11th for our live Twitter space.

Thanks everybody. Bye 

Ryan Kellogg: bye.