China has remained silent on the subject of Russia’s military invasion of Ukraine, which is a clear violation of the latter’s national sovereignty.

Chinese diplomats also abstained from a vote by the U.N. General Assembly to censure Russia. Qin Gang, the Chinese ambassador to the U.S, defended Russia, arguing that censuring it “doesn’t solve the problem.”

Beijing has also criticized the economic sanctions imposed upon Russia by the U.S., Japan and Europe. Between the years 2000 and 2013, China and Ukraine issued four joint communiques. In each of these, China pledged to respect Ukrainian “independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity.” This makes China’s present silence on the war in Ukraine a remarkable betrayal.

In the face of indignation and opposition from the rest of the world, China has since attempted to signal its “neutrality.” The Chinese government voluntarily announced that it had been asked by the Ukrainian side to mediate a cease-fire, and supports this goal. Yet Chinese President Xi Jinping was noncommittal when asked by U.S. President Joe Biden during a recent video call to refrain from providing Russia with economic or military assistance.

The Feb. 4 joint statement issued by China and Russia at the conclusion of the Xi-Putin summit, held during the lead-up to the Winter Olympics, includes the line: “The Chinese side is sympathetic to and supports the proposals put forward by the Russian Federation to create long-term legally binding security guarantees in Europe.” This is a reference to Ukraine, although the country is not mentioned by name.

While Russia would likely have preferred to name Ukraine, China may have been reluctant to offer more than a general endorsement of Russia’s grievances.

Was Xi caught off guard by the Russian invasion? He also did not think Putin would unleash an all-out war against Ukraine. There are intelligence reports to this effect: Before the invasion, a high-ranking Chinese official reportedly told a top official of a third country that he didn’t believe Russia would actually invade. If this report is true, Xi must be ashamed of his ignorance. If, on the other hand, the Chinese leader knew of Putin’s intentions but is pretending otherwise, he is all the more complicit in Russia’s crimes.

In any case, we must acknowledge that the relationship between Xi’s China and Putin’s Russia has transformed into one of “strategic entente.” The recent joint statement, which extols the limitless “friendship between the two States” is a truly historic document that heralds this new relationship. Indeed, Xi described the Sino-Russian relationship as one that “even exceeds an alliance in its closeness and effectiveness.” This understanding clearly underlies the joint statement’s reference to “a cooperative relationship with no upper limit.”

The joint statement also confirmed that China and Russia:

  • Oppose any further enlargement of NATO.

  • Oppose the “formation of closed bloc structures and opposing camps in the Asia Pacific region.”

  • Harbor “serious concern” over the establishment of the AUKUS trilateral security partnership, which “provides for deeper cooperation between its members in areas involving strategic stability, in particular ... cooperation in the field of nuclear-powered submarines.”

  • Resist “attempts to deny, distort and falsify the history of the Second World War” and “strongly condemn actions that ... besmirch and tarnish the honor of the victorious countries.”

  • Oppose “attempts by external forces to undermine security and stability in their common adjacent regions,” “interference by outside forces in the internal affairs of sovereign countries under any pretext,” and “color revolutions.”

The Sino-Russian joint statement is truly a long succession of “oppositions.” Both China and Russia were members of the Allied powers during the Second World War — in other words, they were among the “victorious countries.” From that sacred position, in order to “prevent the recurrence of the tragedy of the world war” they “strongly condemn actions ... (that) besmirch and tarnish the honor” of the war’s victors. We can understand this line as an endorsement of Putin’s reading of history, which justifies Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as an effort to defend the Russian motherland against Nazism.

Nevertheless, the Sino-Russian relationship is fettered by the murky bonds of history and geography. Mutual distrust runs deep. The Sino-Soviet alliance was rendered effectively meaningless following the two communist countries' split in the late 1950s. In the early 1970s, China turned toward the U.S., and in the 1980s the two countries adopted a united front against Soviet hegemony. Then the Soviet Union collapsed.

Some of China’s foreign policy and security experts look at the Russian quagmire in Ukraine and argue that the war there should be allowed to continue indefinitely. They argue that it is to China’s advantage to allow the “great powers of the past” (the U.S., Europe, Russia) to waste their remaining might on a war of attrition. China and Russia still do not trust each other; but they both distrust the U.S. even more. This is why they need each other. They are also like-minded in that both represent proud nations who deeply resent past national humiliations. They are also both nuclear powers with a realpolitik approach to international relations.

Apparently China’s Russia hands have a saying: “China and Russia can share bitter experiences, but not happy ones.” In other words, it is only when facing a shared enemy that the two countries can form, out of convenience, a united front. Sharing only a malicious resentment of the West and democratic states and distorted by Russia’s reliance upon China, the Sino-Russian alliance is not “sweet” but “sour.” We are now witnessing the emergence of this “extra sour” Sino-Russian bloc on the world stage.

Yoichi Funabashi is chairman of the Asia Pacific Initiative and a former editor-in-chief of the Asahi Shimbun. This is a translation of his column in the monthly Bungei Shunju.