Mikhail Mishustin, Russian Prime Minister and Li Qiang, Chinese Prime Minister in Beijing / ALEXANDER ASTAFYEV / SPUTNIK / AFP
Atlantico: The recent events in Russia with Prigozhin must be deeply worrying for China, you say. For what ?
Rudolph Moritz: China has a keen interest in maintaining stable international relations, particularly with Russia. The latest attempt at mutiny revealed a significant weakness in Putin’s leadership and in the Russian state, adding to the complexity and worrisome for China. China has significant economic interests in maintaining stable relations with Russia. It also seeks international and regional cooperation with Russia, and political interests are at stake in their relations.
With Putin in power, it will be easier for China to engage with Russia. Putin and Xi Jinping, the Chinese leader, have met over 40 times and established a good working relationship. If Mr. Putin were not in charge, China would be uncertain about who will succeed him and about possible conflicts and tensions between the two countries. There is already a great deal of distrust between Russia and China, which only adds to China’s concerns and insecurities about the situation in Russia.
Due to its authoritarian system, China attaches great importance to security and stability. However, it is recognized that such a system also has its weaknesses. While China worries about these weaknesses, it understands that it doesn’t take much to spot weaknesses. For this reason, China is closely monitoring the situation in Russia and remains concerned about possible instability and its impact.
And could this lead to a change in China’s attitude towards Russia, both officially and unofficially?
The Chinese are closely following the situation in Russia because they take a transactional approach to their relations. China prioritizes its own development goals and national interests, and a weakening of Russia could affect these transactional dynamics. However, it is still too early to determine the exact impact on relationships. There is currently a strong desire to understand the stability of Putin’s leadership and future developments in the coming weeks and months. Only then can one count on possible changes in relationships. In this phase, the focus is on gathering information and understanding the situation. The extent of fundamental changes will depend on whether the Russian system is stable or weak. Ultimately, relations between China and Russia are transactional in nature and based on common interests.
China’s EU envoy Fu Cong said Beijing respects all countries’ territorial integrity and upholds the peace. And to say that China could back Ukraine’s claims to Crimea is that surprising?
That he expresses this point openly is certainly remarkable, even if the position itself is not particularly surprising. Its position remains consistent given China’s behavior following the referendum and annexation of Crimea, where it abstained from voting on UN Security Council resolutions on the issue and did not explicitly recognize the legitimacy of either the referendum or the border changes. China has always insisted on respecting territorial integrity.
Therefore, while the statement itself is noteworthy, it does not represent a change in China’s official position. The Chinese government has always taken a position consistent with its previous actions and statements.
What does it mean to him to say that out loud?
It is possible that China is closely following the situation in Russia, which could influence its position. She could consider the scenario of Crimea returning to Ukrainian control. In this case, China could emphasize that it joins its longstanding position of defending the sovereignty and territorial integrity of other states, including Ukraine. This would not result in a major change in their position, which was always somewhat ambiguous.
In the Russian conflict in Ukraine, China has a lot of rhetorical leeway that allows it to navigate without contradictions. The explicit statement by the representative of China is noteworthy, but it may reflect his official position rather than a change in it. It is possible that the explicit nature of the statement is related to the current situation in Russia. However, it remains consistent with China’s established position, which underscores its commitment to territorial integrity and sovereignty.
Could this also be a way to placate the US and the West?
I think China is aware that words will not suffice. If China wants to be taken seriously and make real progress in improving its relations with European countries, it will not be enough to reaffirm its position. She understands that other governments and public opinion are aware of this as well. To really improve relations, China should take concrete steps.
For example, China could put pressure on Russia to facilitate the return of captured Ukrainian hostages and children currently in Russia. This would be a specific area where China could demonstrate its commitment and achieve tangible results. Empty words would not suffice. The Chinese government needs to recognize the importance of showing concrete results and actively engaging in policies that are consistent with its stated position.
What could make China abandon Russia?
I believe that even if circumstances changed, such as civil war or internal instability in Russia, China’s position on legitimate security concerns and interests would likely remain consistent. This concept is deeply embedded in the Chinese approach, and China would likely continue to support Russia’s security interests no matter the situation. However, it is important to note that China-Russia relations are transactional in nature.
Should Russia experience significant weakness or domestic instability at significant cost to China, it is plausible that China will reconsider its approach and prioritize its own economic development and stability. This could affect their actions and decisions. However, it is important to emphasize that we are not currently in a situation of civil war or serious instability in Russia. Therefore, China is unlikely to openly position itself against Russia at this time.
In summary, while there may be adjustments in China’s position in response to changing circumstances, we are not currently in a situation that warrants a material change in China’s position or open opposition to Russia.
Has China’s attitude towards Russia changed so far?
A notable change is the reference to ‘Partnership Without Borders’, which was mentioned in February but has not been mentioned since. On the other hand, China’s willingness to participate in the peace talks as a mediator has evolved significantly, which is a first. This level of engagement was not seen in the first year of the war. In addition, China has begun engaging with Ukraine through talks and visits, a marked change from its previous position. However, it is important to note that, according to my analysis, China has not explicitly criticized Russia and has not taken any concrete steps in this direction.
When China expresses concern about an escalation or nuclear threat, it should be understood as a responsible position, consistent with the expectations of a member of the United Nations Security Council. Had China not voiced its concerns, there would have been cause for concern. Overall, China’s narrative has remained consistent and it is important to recognize that both countries are involved in this dynamic.