Russia and China’s Strategic Alliance: Leveraging Historical Narratives to Challenge Western Dominance
Historical Memory as Diplomatic Currency: How Putin and Xi Reframe World War II
In a calculated display of geopolitical alignment, the leaders of Russia and China have increasingly drawn upon their nations’ shared World War II experiences to fortify their contemporary partnership. This strategic invocation of historical memory serves as both foundation and justification for their coordinated opposition to Western influence. President Vladimir Putin and President Xi Jinping have methodically constructed a narrative that positions their alliance not merely as a pragmatic arrangement but as a historically ordained collaboration between two powers that once stood together against fascism.
The historical framing is far from coincidental. Both nations suffered tremendous casualties during World War II, with the Soviet Union losing an estimated 27 million citizens and China enduring between 15 and 20 million deaths under Japanese occupation. These shared sacrifices have been carefully woven into official discourse, with both leaders frequently referencing how their countries bore the heaviest burdens in defeating the Axis powers. “History cannot be rewritten,” Putin declared during a recent commemoration ceremony in Moscow, where Xi was honored as a special guest. “Our nations’ blood-sealed friendship during humanity’s darkest hour continues to guide our partnership today.” This carefully cultivated historical parallel serves a dual purpose: it emotionally resonates with domestic audiences while simultaneously positioning the Russia-China alliance as morally authoritative on the global stage.
The New Anti-Hegemonic Front: Economic and Military Dimensions
What began as rhetorical alignment has evolved into substantive cooperation across multiple domains. Trade between Russia and China has surged to unprecedented levels, reaching $190 billion in 2023 – a figure that has more than doubled since 2018. Energy cooperation forms the backbone of this economic relationship, with Russia now serving as China’s largest oil supplier following Western sanctions imposed after the Ukraine invasion. The Power of Siberia pipeline, delivering natural gas from Russia’s Far East to northeastern China, symbolizes the physical infrastructure of this partnership. Beyond energy, military cooperation has intensified through joint naval exercises in the Pacific and joint air patrols that have deliberately tested Japanese and South Korean air defense zones.
This partnership has proven particularly valuable for Russia as it faces international isolation. Chinese technology companies have helped Russia circumvent Western export controls on semiconductors and other critical components, while Chinese banks have provided alternative financial channels as Russian institutions were cut off from SWIFT. For China, the relationship offers secure energy supplies and a strategic partner that shares its vision of a “multipolar world” – diplomatic shorthand for reducing American global influence. “Our comprehensive strategic partnership of coordination for the new era continues to strengthen,” Xi noted during Putin’s state visit to Beijing earlier this year, employing the formal designation both nations use to describe their relationship. The careful wording avoids the term “alliance” while signaling commitments that increasingly resemble one.
Rewriting the Historical Narrative: Challenging the Western-Centric View of World War II
Central to the Russia-China historical narrative is a direct challenge to what both countries characterize as Western attempts to minimize their contributions to the Allied victory. Russian officials regularly criticize Western commemorations that emphasize D-Day and the Western Front while downplaying the Eastern Front, where approximately 80% of German military casualties occurred. Similarly, Chinese diplomats have intensified efforts to highlight China’s role as the first country to fight against Axis powers, with resistance against Japanese aggression beginning in 1937, years before Britain or America entered the conflict.
This historical revisionism extends beyond mere recognition. Both nations have established elaborate museums, documentary series, and educational programs that present what they describe as “historical truth” against “Western distortions.” The Victory Museum in Moscow and the War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression Memorial Hall in Beijing have been expanded and modernized, with exhibitions that prominently feature the other country’s contributions. Joint historical commissions have produced collaborative research challenging Western scholarly interpretations of the war. “Those who control the past control the future,” a senior Chinese diplomat remarked during a joint Sino-Russian historical symposium, paraphrasing Orwell in a statement that inadvertently revealed the strategic utility of these historical narratives. By positioning themselves as the true vanquishers of fascism, both regimes implicitly claim moral authority to reshape today’s international order.
Domestic Reinforcement and International Projection: The Dual Utility of Historical Narratives
The World War II narrative serves crucial domestic purposes for both regimes. For Putin, the Great Patriotic War remains the most unifying national memory in Russia, transcending political divisions. By linking current geopolitical struggles to this sacred historical memory, the Kremlin frames opposition to its policies as disrespect to wartime sacrifices. In China, the “Century of Humiliation” that ended with victory in 1945 remains fundamental to the Communist Party’s legitimacy narrative. Xi has significantly expanded commemorations of the war, establishing new national holidays and mandating patriotic education that emphasizes Japanese atrocities and Communist resistance.
Internationally, both leaders have synchronized their historical messaging at multilateral forums. When addressing the United Nations General Assembly, both Putin and Xi consistently reference their nations’ sacrifices as permanent Security Council members who earned their positions through blood. During the 75th anniversary of the UN’s founding, they jointly proposed a resolution condemning “attempts to falsify the history of World War II,” language directly targeting Baltic states and Ukraine’s reassessment of Soviet actions. Western diplomats viewed the proposal as a thinly veiled effort to legitimize contemporary territorial claims. “Historical narratives have become the new battleground,” observed a senior European diplomat who requested anonymity. “By controlling how World War II is remembered, Russia and China seek to shape how current international norms are interpreted and applied.”
The Limits and Contradictions of the Strategic Partnership
Despite the carefully choreographed displays of unity, significant tensions and contradictions underlie the partnership. China has maintained strategic ambiguity regarding Russia’s actions in Ukraine, offering diplomatic cover and economic lifelines while stopping short of direct military assistance that would trigger Western sanctions. Economic asymmetry increasingly defines the relationship, with Russia accepting junior partner status as its economy, roughly one-tenth the size of China’s, becomes increasingly dependent on Chinese markets. Historically sensitive border regions remain points of latent tension, despite formal resolution of territorial disputes in 2008.
Perhaps most significantly, the historical narrative itself contains inherent contradictions. While publicly commemorating their World War II alliance, both nations carefully avoid mentioning the Sino-Soviet split that followed, decades of border tensions, and their radically different post-war trajectories. “This is a marriage of convenience wrapped in historical mythology,” explained Dr. Elena Volkova, an international relations expert at Moscow State University. “Both regimes selectively invoke history to justify a partnership driven primarily by contemporary strategic calculations.” As Western countries increasingly coordinate their responses to Russian and Chinese actions, the sustainability of this partnership faces its most significant test. Whether historical memory proves sufficient glue to hold together two nations with divergent economic interests and complex historical grievances remains an open question – one with profound implications for the international order in the coming decades.
