Why China Snubs Russia Arms
StumbleUpon
Digg
Delicious
Reddit
Yahoo Buzz
Mixx
Google Buzz
PlurkChinese advances and Russian suspicion have led to a shift in the arms sales balance, says Richard Weitz. But for how long?
Last week, Russia delivered 15 additional batteries of S-300 surface-to-air missiles to China, making good on an about 2 billion dollar deal signed in the mid-2000s. Yet despite the publicity surrounding the sale, the Russian-Chinese arms transfer relationship is in trouble.
Recent years have seen a precipitous fall in Chinese purchases of Russian military equipment and technologies. Whereas until a few years ago Beijing was buying large quantities of Moscow’s surplus Soviet-era military products, during the past few years the Chinese have declined to purchase any major weapons systems from Russia.
China has already acquired about a dozen S-300 batteries from Russia under contracts signed in previous years. But the S-300 is a Soviet-era air defence system, with each battery consisting of four truck-mounted launchers each holding four missile tubes. And, although the late-model versions of the S-300 (dubbed ‘The Favourite’ by Russians) delivered a few days ago are highly capable, the Russian military is phasing out the system’s use. Russian units are replacing it with the more effective S-400 (code-named ‘Triumph’ by NATO), which has additional capabilities against stealthy targets as well as some ballistic missiles. Meanwhile, Russia’s defence industry is now developing an even more advanced surface-to-air missile system, the S-500, which is potentially capable of intercepting targets in outer space flying at hypersonic speeds of five kilometres a second.
Last week’s shipment underscores two key features of the current Russia-China arms transfer relationship. First, Russia is presently sending China only weapons systems based on Soviet-era technology, most of which were manufactured during the Soviet era. Second, China purchased these items several years ago. In recent years, in contrast, China has largely stopped buying complete weapons systems from Russia, primarily because the Chinese defence industry can now match Soviet-era technologies, while Russia refuses to sell China its most advanced weapons.
This change has transformed the shape of Sino-Russian commerce. Whereas before 2007 Russia racked up steady trade surpluses, during the past three years the terms of trade have abruptly shifted in China’s favour. Today, China overwhelmingly buys commodities, especially natural resources like oil and timber, from Russia. Many of these items have fallen sharply in value due to declining world prices. In contrast, Russians have been purchasing a growing volume of Chinese electronics, automobiles, consumer appliances and machinery.
In the past, Moscow could count on Beijing buying numerous high-tech weapons systems from Russia’s military industrial complex. And following the decision by Western governments to impose an arms embargo on China after the 1989 Tiananmen Square incident—a ban that remains largely in force today—China emerged as one of the most reliable clients of Russian defence items.
Photo Credit: Alex / Flickr
ElRoz
Well, China might have copied somethings, but their latest domestic fighters are still reliant on Russian jet engines. The best and most capable AA and AS missiles in China are Russian. Its military air transport is still reliant on Russian IL-76. It has not manufactured world class submarines – neither multipurpose nor strategic.
Yes, no doubt China has learned to manufacture these. But so did the China of the 1970s learned to manufacture Soviet 1950s items.
Chinese 5th generation fighters is nowhere to be seen.
Russia has 3 prototypes in testing.
All in all, Russia might export more sstems to China, but it has to arms its forces first with S-400, Su-35, Lada-677 submarines, etc.
Michael
To the extent we aren’t already doing so, I wonder if it might be cheaper (and more advantageous, diplomatically) to equip the Afghan Army and Police with that Soviet-era equipment China isn’t buying anymore?
LOL
Maybe Russia is scared that China will copy her designs and then become a stronger rival than Russia.
Russia has to give up some technology to China. It’s in the 2001 Treaty Friendship they signed.
Christopher
Very misleading title to an overall balanced article. In most cases it appears to be Russia that’s limiting sales to China instead of China refusing to buy and on top of that there’s likely more that China would like to buy but won’t even ask for knowing that Russia isn’t selling to them any more.
Mladen
Time since demise of USSR is longer and longer – that technology is becoming more and more obsolete. But every country tries to avoid selling their very last military technology. Nobody got F-22 from USA and good question is who got last Patriot, either. As for anti-aircraft systems, mechanical parts of rocket and launcher are changed little, but guidance electronics gets more frequent updates. It has sense. Same airplane frames are used for decades too, and I cannot remember any new design faster then SR-71 (reconnaissance) or Mig-25 (interceptor).
Fact is, Russia alone cannot keep even similar level of military technology as twice more populous and economically much stronger USA. They need strategic partners but India is lot more likely candidate then China: no possible territorial dispute, shared wariness toward Muslim countries and above all fact that India cannot overtake China any time soon to become most dominant Asian force.
It’s all basic Machiavelli: between two adversaries, pick weaker one as ally (as long as you can still win). Because, if you pick up stronger one, you might end up being vassal yourself.
Andrei C.
On one hand:
A) Russia loses export to sales to China
On the other
B) If Russia sells to China, then technology is copied.
The only way to solve both problems:
Make a JOINT VENTURE with China, to split the development cost AND the export sales to 3rd party countries…In this way, Russia will have the best of both worlds, at the same time use China’s growing technical expertise as a asset, rather than as a liability.