Why this unnecessary fuss over navy drills by China and Russia?

Updated: 2015-08-26 08:08

By Wang Hui(China Daily)

  Comments() Print Mail Large Medium  Small 分享按钮 0

Why this unnecessary fuss over navy drills by China and Russia?

Chinese navy destroyer Shenyang is seen during the Joint Sea-2015 (II) drill on Aug. 20, 2015 in Vladivostok, Russia. [Photo/Xinhua]

The ongoing second phase of the China-Russia annual joint naval exercise in the Peter the Great Gulf, waters off the Clerk Cape and the Sea of Japan has, as usual, triggered speculation that the two neighbors are aiming to form a military alliance, which is the worst form of exaggeration of China-Russia military relations.

True, the two countries have strong militaries. But they have pledged to build a comprehensive strategic cooperative partnership which, different from a military alliance, is aimed at forming a mechanism to help maintain strategic equilibrium in the Asia-Pacific region.

Unlike the military alliance between the United States and Japan, which is dominated by the former, military ties between China and Russia are based on equality and mutual respect.

Since China and Russia have independent navies, the level of their coordination and cooperation, even in the form of frequent military exercises like the ongoing one (from Aug 20 to 28) cannot match those between the militaries of the US and its allies in the Asia-Pacific, a region where China and the US have painstakingly maintained a relationship in which cooperation outweighs confrontation. And because of the practical demands of trade and their common stand on historical issues concerning Japan, China and the Republic of Korea have also strengthened their ties.

So, any attempt to put the US and its allies in one camp, and China, Russia and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea in a rival camp would be simply ridiculous.

Beijing and Moscow are comfortable with their relations as they stand today; they do not intend to form even a quasi-military alliance, let alone a full-fledged one, because that would break the current strategic equilibrium in the region.

Previous Page 1 2 Next Page