Aircraft Deployment in Russian Far East: A Sign of Looming Conflict?

It has been the contention of this writer since the 1980s that Russia and China are fundamental rivals, regardless of pragmatic alliances. The “fraternal” relations that supposedly existed between two nominally “communist” states beneath the facade of the Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship, Alliance and Mutual Assistance did not mitigate the centuries’ long animosity, and this erupted into a “hot war” during the 1960s with the Sino-Soviet border clashes.[1] Indeed, the Sino-Soviet friendship treaty, far from being a display of comradeship, relegated China to the status of a colony.[2] The manner by which China showed it did not intend to renew the treaty was to invade Vietnam in 1979, a provocation aimed at Russia, which had signed a treaty with Vietnam in 1978.[3] Likewise, the Shanghai Co-Operation Organization is about as enduring and deep as the Hitler-Stalin Pact. The Shanghai axis is regarded by China primarily as a means of promoting its own interests in Central Asia and the Far East, and operates to keep Russia in a subordinate position; an inversion of the former Sino-USSR relationship.[4] Under this arrangement, China has gotten everything its own way, including the settling of territorial disputes with Russia and Vietnam to the disadvantage of the latter two. Now current military actions by Russia in the Far East are showing the world that the Sino-Russian accord in an historic aberration.

Ka-52 Alligator Deployed to Far East

An article appearing on the website of the authoritative DefenceNet on the deployment of Russia’s new Ka-52 Alligator attack helicopters shows the ancient Sino-Russian distrust has not been resolved by signing pieces of paper. The deployment sends a message to China not to take Russia for granted as lacking will, or to assume that China will be able to keep encroaching on Russia’s Far East. The DefenceNet report reads:

Russia shows as the main threat to China

Russia for the first time in decades, since the Soviet Union today placed newly weapon systems in Sino-Russian border area of Manchuria, demonstrating that modified Russian defense doctrine: The main threat to Russia is now officially China. Russia will put its new attack helicopters Ka-52 Alligator, and also a new high-capacity military aircraft Su-35S in the Far East.

So far, the new defense systems in Russia have always been in the European part of Russia.

The two-seater helicopters of the type in production since 2008 and so far have produced 12 helicopters for testing. The tests are said to have been completed and attack helicopters began to be produced at a rate of two per month.

Also started has been the production of fighter aircraft Sukhoi Su-35S. After completing the tests the aircraft was declared “4.5 generation fighter.”[5]

Apart from the Shanghai Co-Operation Agreement, which is the linchpin of the supposed Sino-Russian accord, there is the Collective Security Treaty Organization, initiated by Russia in 2002, which does not include China, and is regarded as an anti-China alliance.[6] As for Russian’s concern about its Far Eastern region vis-à-vis China, Putin warned a decade ago: “If we don’t make concrete efforts the future local population will speak Japanese, Chinese or Korean.”[7] There is nothing historically organic about Sino-Russian accord, and the realists of both Russia and China know it.

US Factor

Russia seeks a return to the multi-polar world. The USA of course aims to retain its position of global hegemony. It is assumed that the greatest potential geopolitical rivalry is between the USA and China. However, historically, a breach in Sino-Russian relations is a more likely course, especially given the scenarios for conflict through such factors as drought, flooding, and the control of water resources that are likely to lead to conflict in the near future over the entirety of the Asian region, and impacting in a major way on Russia.[8]

The verbal conflict between the USA and China played out on the world stage occasionally, if something other than shadow-boxing, might more likely reflect a dichotomy at work within the US power-structure, between “neo-con” and globalist factions, the latter dominated by financial interests headed by Rockefeller and Soros. It is erroneous to see the US power establishment as a monolith, rather than as several factions, whose aims are sometime in accord, sometimes in conflict. Even “neo-con” verbal combat with China is likely to be muted by the fact of and there being an historic friendship between Israel and China, which is seldom obvious.[9]

The US foreign policy establishment centered on such groups as the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission has historically been pro-China. The globalists are hopeful that China will be incorporated into a “new world order,” unlike Russia, which has—apart from a brief interregnum under Gorbachev and Yeltsin—taken “a wrong direction”[10] that can only probably be rectified, in their eyes, via a “color revolution.” US-China relations on the other hand are symbiotic, according to historian Niall Ferguson:

Far from being strategic rivals, these two empires have the air of economic partners. The only question is which of the two is the more dependent, [sic] which, to be precise, stands to lose more in the event of a crisis in their amicable relationship, now over thirty years old….[11]

Many commentators have noted the very muted, even quiescent reaction of China to recent American interventions. Fewer have appreciated the extent to which China now helps underwrite American power.[12]

The Rockefeller dynasty has led the pro-China policy for decades. The “Pacific Asian Group” of David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission includes representatives from China.[13] However, Rockefeller interests in China go back well prior to the Trilateral Commission, to the Asia Society. The Asia Center New York office states that John D. Rockefeller III founded the Society in 1956.[14]

When David Rockefeller returned from a visit to China in 1973, he enthused that “The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao’s leadership is one of the most important and successful in history.” Rockefeller was accompanied by a five-member delegation from his Chase Bank Group. He went on to praise the “sense of national harmony” and “more efficient and dedicated administration”, “whatever the cost of the revolution.”[15] The same year he founded the Trilateral Commission with Russophobe Carter adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski[16] as the North American Director.

The Council on Foreign Relations began to lay the groundwork for the recognition of China during the 1960s, which had to be done without making it look at though Taiwan was being betrayed.[17] CFR historian Peter Grosse proudly cites CFR luminaries Henry Kissinger and Cyrus Vance in their pivotal roles of opening up Red China, inaugurating a process that made China a world power:

Kissinger, acting as Nixon’s national security adviser, embarked on a secret mission to Beijing in 1971, to make official, exploratory contact with the communist regime. Nixon himself followed in 1972. The delicate process of normalizing diplomatic relations between the United States and China was completed in 1978 by Kissinger’s successor as secretary of state, Cyrus R Vance, a leading Council officer before and after his government service.[18]

Continuing the Rockefeller-China legacy is the apparently enigmatic[19] Nicholas Rockefeller. A profile of Nicholas Rockefeller states of his China connections:

Nicholas’ China practice includes transactions with China’s largest banks, energy companies, communications entities and real estate enterprises as well as with China’s principal cities and leading provinces. He was chosen as a board member of the Central China Construction and Development Commission and as a director of the Xiwai International School of Shanghai International University. He has appeared numerous times on CCTV and other China media.[20]

There is also doubt that Nicholas Rockefeller “co-authored” a book with banker Patrick DeSouza, Rockefeller’s name not appearing as the co-author, thereby again suggesting that Nicholas Rockefeller is a myth. However, the fact is that DeSouza edited the book that is a collection of essays by members of the CFR. DeSouza has served on the National Security Council under President Clinton and is a Fellow of the CFR. As for Nicholas Rockefeller and the DeSouza book, Nicholas wrote Chapter 19, “Middle Market Capitalism in China”, pp. 347-356. The book moreover is described as “A Council on Foreign Relations Book.” Nicholas Rockefeller was one of the CFR members selected to contribute to this important CFR compendium. Nicholas, so far from being “mythical,” is a major US player in China and an influential figure in foreign policy think tanks.

Join Liberty Classroom today and get 3 FREE books!

Kerry Bolton

Kerry R Bolton is a Fellow of the Academy of Social and Political Research (Athens), and the Institute for Higher Studies on Geopolitics and Auxiliary Sciences (Lisbon). He has doctorates in theological studies, Ph.D. h.c. and certifications in psychology and social work studies. He has been widely published by the scholarly and wider media on a variety of subjects. 

Comments are encouraged, but please respect the rules. Click here for terms of use.

  • Edward

    A very good article.
    “China will supplant the United States as the leader of the new world order and that America should not resist the country’s decline as the dollar weakens, living standards drop, and a new global currency is introduced.”
    It seems from observing Obama’s recent speechs, America’s floundering efforts to invade and control countries on Russia,s periphory and showing its hand in invading Libya (with the ship taking oil from Libya to China) shows that China now has the grip on American power.
    The conclusion which can be drawn from all of this is that China will use this grip to fight the next war which all appear to be preparing for and it is obvious that Russia is the target.
    Where will this leave the EU, and It seems the EU means Germany. Germany will have no option but to side with the Russians on which most of Europe will depend on for its supply of energy.
    I would suggest therefore that the outcome favours Russia.

  • I have never heard of Sino-Russian conflict before the 1960’s when both sides were Red nationalists disobeying their UK/US globalist creators in preference to their nations. Underlying Russian patriotism has always stood on religious predestination:- Russia will save the world or civilization or the Church somehow; and Chinese patriotism has always rested on the sense that China’s is not superior but the only civilisation:- that foreigners are not civilised (“wàiguo rén bù kāi huà.”).Now, whatever potential for conflict there may be, Russia and China are bound together by lethal enmity from the dying but dangerous great rogue superpower.

    The Soros view of China is awfully interesting in that it is blinded specifically by Talmudist unappeasable separatism from the rest of humanity. The Talmudist cannot grasp that Judaic influence can NEVER prevail against ancient, definitive and immutable Chinese nationalism. Soros can invest what he likes, but China can never replace the US/UK as an instrument for Judaic world domination.

  • Mary

    For anyone interested in ho wwe’re integrating China to amek Soros’s dreams come true. America: the idiocracy.

  • Paul Craig Roberts

    If this account is correct, it implies that both China and Russia are ruled by idiots who are playing into the hands of US hegemony over them all. One ring to rule them all.

  • paul Craig Roberts

    If this article is correct, the leadership of Russia and China are paving the way
    for US hegemony over the world, them included.

  • Mary

    Where’s Gandolf when you need him?

  • Edward

    America deserves credit for what it has done for us all but the world is a cruel place and when something loses its usfulness it is quickly cast aside.
    So I think American hegemony ended a long time ago when its youthful idealism was murdered with President Kennedy and it continued with an endless series of campaigns of needless death and destruction which go on and on and on and people are getting tired of it.
    If America goes to war against Russia with China waiting in the wings who is going to be the winner? But it is not too late for common sense to prevail if America does what it does best – technology – but not the technology of death but the technology of life, empathy and compassion.
    However there will be no gain without pain.