Russia and China’s imperium of resentment and grievance
PremiumIt draws upon a narrative of victimization that binds them closely
Soon after news of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine flashed on my screen, I got an email that seemed to mark another milestone in the dismantling of the old global order. With tickets to attend a Vienna Philharmonic concert at New York’s Carnegie Hall, I was informed that Valery Gergiev, “a friend and prominent supporter of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia", would no longer be conducting the orchestra.
Until the invasion, it was still possible to believe that a full Western ‘decoupling’ from China and Russia was unlikely and unwise. Yet Gergiev’s removal is a metaphor for how the newly confected Sino-Russian axis is catalyzing a rift that will now affect everything from cultural exchanges to trade. Until last week, many were sceptical that the EU would ever get the Russian gas needle out of its arm. Equally, many have wondered how the US could ever kick its addiction to cheap Chinese merchandise.
During the halcyon days of globalization, when ‘Davos man’ ruled the planet with cheery bromides of win-win-win outcomes, global supply chains seemed to promise boundless benefits for everyone. What was wrong with outsourcing to distant lands if they could make something cheaper? Open markets were touted as a way to create more open societies. All we had to do was keep trading with no heed paid to the ideological or political cast of the partner. Thus did the West grow dependent on Russia and China.
But with Putin invading Ukraine and Chinese President Xi Jinping expressing revanchist attitudes on Taiwan, we are left to assess not only an upturned world order and a shattered global marketplace, but also the sundering of anodyne cultural exchanges.
What is driving this train wreck? Why would Putin throw Russia’s real national interests to the wind by invading a once-fraternal neighbour? What would lead Xi to countenance sacrificing China’s economic miracle to seize an island that China hasn’t ruled in over a century? Why have these two authoritarians indulged in self-destructive urges and alienated so many countries?
First, remember that autocrats are freer to act in unrestrained ways, because they face few if any political checks. As ‘supreme leaders’, they can shape policies as they like. While Putin and Xi have different backgrounds and personalities, they share some key traits. Both have policies shaped by historical narratives of grievance, especially against the ‘great powers’ of the West.
These narratives centre around Leninist themes of foreign exploitation, humiliation and victimization. They demonize Western democracies as hypocrites and oppressors. And they impute arrogant and disdainful attitudes to 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 imperium of resentment and grievance. Putin and Xi seem to recognize that they will never overcome this, regardless of their material successes, and it does no good to admonish them that gaining respect requires them to behave respectably, rather than jailing opposition leaders and dissidents, persecuting people for their religious beliefs and bullying other countries. Having drunk the Leninist Kool-Aid of victimization, Putin and Xi want to both overthrow the Western order and be esteemed by it.
As such, they are animated by a contradiction that the West can’t resolve. Putin and Xi take great umbrage at having to live next door to successful democracies with people of similar culture and ethnicities. The magnetic force of shared grievance has brought these two former rivals so close that they recently declared there were “no limits" to their partnership. Both insist that it should be up to the people of the country “to decide whether their state is a democratic one." Both claim they are leading a new kind of democracy, never mind the reality.
The question now is whether Russia and China will be able to maintain their pact after Putin’s war decision. 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 that “Ukraine is no exception." And Xi later called Putin to explain that, while he understood Russia’s security concerns, China respects the sovereignty of nation-states and intends to uphold the principles of the United Nations Charter. Beijing does not want foreign powers interfering in its internal affairs.
Which of these imperatives will win out? Most likely, China and Russia’s shared aversion to liberal democracy will trump the quaint 19th-century idea that national sovereignty is sacred. The narrative of victimization that fuels the nationalism of both, with deep reservoirs of resentment, is too powerful to be nullified by the niceties of international law. ©2022/Project Syndicate
Orville Schell is director of the Center on US-China Relations at the Asia Society, and a co-editor of ‘Chinese Influence and American Interests: Promoting Constructive Engagement’
Never miss a story! Stay connected and informed with Mint. Download our App Now!!