• Research
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie India logoCarnegie lettermark logo
AI
{
  "authors": [
    "Eugene Rumer",
    "Richard Sokolsky"
  ],
  "type": "commentary",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "russia",
  "programs": [
    "Russia and Eurasia"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "North America",
    "United States",
    "East Asia",
    "China",
    "Russia"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Security"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

Commentary

Chinese-Russian Defense Cooperation Is More Flash Than Bang

Two superpowers in league against the United States is an alarming prospect. But military cooperation between Moscow and Beijing is more about show than substance.

Link Copied
By Eugene Rumer and Richard Sokolsky
Published on Jun 17, 2021

The specter of a defense alliance between Russia and China is haunting U.S. discussions about great power competition and even made it onto the transatlantic security agenda during President Biden’s recent European trip. Relations between Moscow and Beijing are indeed at an all-time high, and the two neighbors are pursuing some high-profile cooperative defense ventures. But the relationship falls well short of an alliance and is not heading that way. Chinese-Russian defense cooperation is more notable for the message it sends to the world—and especially to Washington—than for its practical operational benefits.

An Intangible Yet Momentous Strategic Realignment

The biggest benefit Russia and China gain from their partnership in the defense sphere is intangible: it frees both countries from the necessity of vast military deployments on their 4,000- kilometer border. During the confrontation with China during much of the Cold War, the Soviet Union deployed as many as fifty divisions and faced an even greater number of Chinese divisions—fifty-nine, according to a declassified CIA estimate—on the other side of the border. The disappearance of that requirement frees up Russia to face NATO in Europe and allows China to face the United States and its allies in the Asia-Pacific. It is impossible to overestimate the value of this post–Cold War strategic realignment for both countries.

The debate in the United States about partnering with Russia to counter China has raised the former’s geopolitical stature. Beijing for its part also benefits from Washington’s preoccupation with Moscow’s malfeasance, as a distraction from the U.S.-China standoff. High-profile Chinese-Russian military moves, like the countries’ December 2020 joint bomber patrol over the Pacific, are of marginal military operational significance. Yet such moves inevitably raise questions in Washington about Russia’s role in a potential crisis between the United States and China in East Asia.

Parallel, Not Joint, Military Drills

Some observers have raised concerns about the increasing frequency of Chinese-Russian military exercises. But it’s the quality of exercises that matters. These exercises are typically conducted in parallel rather than jointly and do not involve tactical or operational coordination to improve the countries’ interoperability or joint warfighting skills.

China has reportedly benefited from the exercises, learning from Russian command-and-control systems and recent combat experience. Even so, the limited scale and scope of these exercises suggest that their utility beyond geopolitical posturing is limited at best. Chinese-Russian joint naval drills have been limited in size—conducted in theaters where both countries’ navies are likely to struggle to sustain a significant presence—and are apparently designed for geopolitical signaling rather than meaningful operational purposes.

The Ins and Outs of Bilateral Defense Cooperation

Following the normalization of Chinese-Russian relations at the end of the Cold War, Russia emerged as an important supplier of weapons and technology to China. That relationship was a financial lifeline for the Russian defense industry at a time when domestic procurement orders had dried up. But Russian sales to China have since tapered off as China’s own defense industry has matured, thanks to a significant degree to technology transfer and theft from Russia. China now competes with Russia in arms markets. Presently, Russia’s arms sales to China account for just 3 percent of the countries’ total annual two-way trade of more than $100 billion. With access to Western technology cut off by sanctions, Russia’s defense industry has been looking to China as an alternative source of innovation that it cannot develop indigenously. This trend is likely to continue, with Russia becoming more reliant on Chinese technology for its weapons development as long as Beijing is willing to sell it.

It is telling that all of the Kremlin’s touted defense cooperation with China has done little to alleviate the major deficiencies in Russia’s military posture, which include unmanned aerial vehicles, electronic warfare, and conventional precision strike capabilities. Chinese-Russian defense cooperation has generated significantly greater gains for China than it has for Russia. Over time, Moscow is poised to grow more dependent on Beijing as long as its standoff with NATO continues.

Russia’s and China’s adversarial relations with the United States could prompt them to undertake closer geopolitical coordination in different theaters. But their partnership has its limits. China has not recognized Russia’s annexation of Crimea. Russia is highly unlikely to risk an outright conflict with the United States in the event of a major crisis between Washington and Beijing in the Asia-Pacific. But Russia could engage in provocative posturing in Europe or the Middle East, or even in the Pacific, as a demonstration of its geopolitical stature.

The partnership with China is an incalculable force multiplier for Russia—more so than it is for China. Defense cooperation is an important element of the partnership but not the most important one. This is not an alliance, Chinese diplomats routinely stress in conversations about relations with Russia, and Chinese academics openly question the value of the partnership. The utility of defense cooperation with Russia will probably diminish for China as Russia is likely to have less to offer over time as a function of its modest technological capabilities. However, for the same reasons, the alignment with China is likely to remain important for Russia as Moscow seeks to retain its position as a global actor and to modernize its military and domestic security apparatus.

About the Authors

Eugene Rumer

Director and Senior Fellow, Russia and Eurasia Program

Rumer, a former national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia at the U.S. National Intelligence Council, is a senior fellow and the director of Carnegie’s Russia and Eurasia Program.

Richard Sokolsky

Nonresident Senior Fellow, Russia and Eurasia Program

Richard Sokolsky is a nonresident senior fellow in Carnegie’s Russia and Eurasia Program. His work focuses on U.S. policy toward Russia in the wake of the Ukraine crisis.

Authors

Eugene Rumer
Director and Senior Fellow, Russia and Eurasia Program
Eugene Rumer
Richard Sokolsky
Nonresident Senior Fellow, Russia and Eurasia Program
Richard Sokolsky
SecurityNorth AmericaUnited StatesEast AsiaChinaRussia

Carnegie India does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie India

  • Commentary
    India Signs the Pax Silica—A Counter to Pax Sinica?

    On the last day of the India AI Impact Summit, India signed Pax Silica, a U.S.-led declaration seemingly focused on semiconductors. While India’s accession to the same was not entirely unforeseen, becoming a signatory nation this quickly was not on the cards either.

      Konark Bhandari

  • Commentary
    The Impact of U.S. Sanctions and Tariffs on India’s Russian Oil Imports

    This piece examines India’s response to U.S. sanctions and tariffs, specifically assessing the immediate market consequences, such as alterations in import costs, and the broader strategic implications for India’s energy security and foreign policy orientation.

      Vrinda Sahai

  • Article
    Military Lessons from Operation Sindoor

    The India-Pakistan conflict that played out between May 6 and May 10, 2025, offers several military lessons. This article presents key takeaways from Operation Sindoor and breaks down how India’s preparations shaped the outcome and what more is needed to strengthen future readiness.

      Dinakar Peri

  • Book
    India and the Sovereignty Principle: The Disaggregation Imperative

    This book offers a comprehensive analysis of India's evolving relationship with sovereignty in a complex global order. Moving beyond conventional narratives, it examines how the sovereignty principle shapes India's behavior across four critical domains—from traditional military power to contemporary data governance.

      Rudra Chaudhuri, Nabarun Roy

  • Paper
    India-China Economic Ties: Determinants and Possibilities

    This paper examines the evolution of India-China economic ties from 2005 to 2025. It explores the impact of global events, bilateral political ties, and domestic policies on distinct spheres of the economic relationship.

      Santosh Pai

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie India
Carnegie India logo, white
Unit C-4, 5, 6, EdenparkShaheed Jeet Singh MargNew Delhi – 110016, IndiaPhone: 011-40078687
  • Research
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie India
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.