Putin and Xi: brethren of the same spirit

The “blitzkrieg” victory Kremlin leader Vladimir Putin dreamt of in Ukraine clearly did not come true. Being sanctioned and outlawed, the pariah that Russia deserves to be, Vladimir Putin has one last ally he hopes to be able to rely on: the People’s Republic of China.

And his hopes are not unfounded. Xi Jinping converted China into a belligerent foe that threatens the stability and welfare of Asia’s nations altogether.

At this point, China has, amongst others, border conflicts or territorial disputes with India, the Philippines, Vietnam, Taiwan, Korea and Japan, not to mention its conflicts within China in Tibet, Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang and Hong Kong.

The newfound alliance between Moscow and Beijing brings no good news to the East (nor to the West), as Russia has established a dangerous precedent, namely, that conquest is on the table again. Putin has signaled that no international law nor signed treaties will stop him from doing so when a leader sees fit.

Xi and Putin alike see themselves as such leaders, bestowed by history, to bring their countries to their former glory. It is their belief that history follows a purpose and portrays a meaning.

In this unfolding drama of time, they are seeking out their special place in history. They believe that they have been bestowed by divine providence with the task of “rejuvenating the nation,” as 68-year-old Xi declares or “reunifying” “Sacred Russia,” as Putin puts it.

Their historical speculation is by all means not alien to European observers. From Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel to Karl Marx, the ideas of purpose, dialectical social change, progress and the destination of history have been part of the Western history of thought.

They always were construed to support claims to power. Hegel saw multiple realms over the trajectory of time, each new one better than the prior. He understood the European empire of his time as the fulfilment of the will of history.

Marx understood history as a class struggle brought to its end by a victorious working class. All of this historical speculation can be seen as stemming from Western Christianity, which sees the history of the world as a history of salvation, beginning with creation, culminating in the life, death and resurrection of Christ, and ending with his second coming.

For the most part, Europeans have abandoned such a religiously based understanding of history and therefore fail to understand what really motivates Putin and Xi.

Already in 1960, writer Elias Canetti stated in his masterpiece, “Crowds and Power,” that the loss of religious zeal across what was hitherto known as the Christian Occident is the reason why Europe will, luckily, not mobilize troops anymore on grounds of faith.

It is indeed the reason why Europe today, for the most part, is bewildered by any sort of land grabbing, which was a means of politics in eras long bygone. And it comes as a fact in history (in lower case) that Europe and East Asia have seen an unprecedented era of peace and prosperity after eradicating authoritarian nationalism and religious delusion in favor of freedom, democracy and a social market economy. Beijing hints thereby to the notion that the conflict is an internal matter rather than an international one. That is the same way China’s nomenklatura views a potential invasion of Taiwan.

Xi has declared that he will complete the “reunification of the motherland,” if necessary with military force. He vowed that this event would happen in “our lifetime.”

Both leaders conveniently leave out basic facts of history to convey their false narratives: Kyiv was a cultural, economic and political hub when Moscow was still an insignificant village. And China’s Communist leadership has never ruled one single day over Taiwan. The parallels between Ukraine and Taiwan in the plan of the dictators next door is indeed very obvious.

It is not only Taiwan that Xi wants to grab; he aims for the whole Western Pacific. Last year Beijing issued a new “maritime security law,” claiming that the entire area is “Chinese territorial waters,” and concluding that it believes to have the right to sink any ship in its waters as it sees fit.

There was no mention that Beijing’s claim to the Spratly Islands has been nullified by the International Court of Justice in Den Haag, confirming the archipelago is indeed part of the Philippines. Xi believes that “might makes right,” meaning that if he can grab territory by force, he is essentially allowed to do so.

Already the Chinese military has set up artificial islands in the South China Sea and militarized them. Beijing is also not shying away from escalating the conflicts it has with South Korea and Japan over Socotra Rock (Ieodo) and the Senkaku Islands.

To prepare for the invasion of Taiwan, the Russian Army is training Chinese soldiers, mostly in guerrilla warfare, a tactic that follows an unwanted invasion and the occupation of another country.

Certainly, the Taiwanese people would meet the Chinese army the same way the Ukrainians have confronted the Russian invaders. From the Ukraine war, Beijing can already anticipate how its invasion of Taiwan would be met by the free world — decisively and effectively.

Japan and the United States have declared that Taiwan is imminent to their countries’ security. Given the proximity to Japan and the importance Taiwanese chip production has for the American economy, it is by all means not a hallow but a firm statement.

China has thrown all of its support behind Russia. The People’s Republic is the only country in the U.N. Security Council that voted for an outrageous Russian resolution on Ukraine. While Xi prepares to become “emperor for life” this October, the free world sees an “alliance of autocracies” emerging, spanning from Moscow to Beijing.

Dr. Alexander Gorlach (agoerlach@cceia.org) is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs in New York. He is a professor of ethics, currently serving at the Internet Institute of Oxford University, where he researches the use of new technologies in democracies, and their abuse in autocracies. The views expressed in the above article are the author’s own and do not reflect the editorial direction of The Korea Times.