NIDS China Security Report 2024

China, Russia, and the United States
Striving for a New International Order

National Institute for Defense Studies, Japan

Authors
IIDA Masafumi
Head, China Division, Regional Studies Department
Responsible for: Introduction, Chapter 1, Conclusions
Major Publications:『海洋へ膨張する中国』（角川SSC 新書、2013年 ）、『中国は「力」をどう使うか』共著（一藝社、2023年）、「核大国化を目指す中国の狙い」『Security Studies 安全保障研究』第5巻第2号（2023年6月）、「中国の対米政策――国際秩序の変革と核心的利益の確保を目指して」『国際安全保障』第50巻第2号（2022年9月）。

ARAKAKI Hiromu
Head, Global Security Division, Policy Studies Department
Responsible for: Chapter 3, Conclusions

Major Publications: “The United States and Competition with China,” Masuda Masayuki ed., The Shifting Dynamics
of Great Power Competition (Tokyo: Interbooks, 2023), 「アメリカと核共有・核協議制度の起源」岩間陽子編『核共有の現実――NATO の経験と日本』（信山社、2023年）、「ウクライナ戦争と米国――強まる大国間競争の流れ」増田雅之編
著『ウクライナ戦争の衝撃』（インターブックス、2022年）、『ジョンソン政権における核不拡散政策の変容と進展』（ミネルヴァ書房、2016年）。

HASEGAWA Takeyuki
Research Fellow, America, Europe, and Russia Division, Regional Studies Department
Responsible for: Chapter 2, Conclusions
Major Publications:「ロシア連邦」油本真理・溝口修平編『現代ロシア政治』（法律文化社、2023年）、「第2次ロシア・ウクライナ戦争とプーチン体制の諸相――権力構造と政治エリート」『国際安全保障』第51巻第2号（2023年9月）、「第2次プーチン政権における安全保障法制の変容――安全保障会議副議長設置とその法的諸問題を中心として」『ロシア・ユーラシ
アの社会』第1052号（2020年9月）。

Editorial Team: AITA Moriki, HAYASHI Koichi, IGARASHI Takayuki, IKEGAMI Ryuzo, ISHIHARA Yusuke,
KIRIDORI Ryo, KIYOOKA Katsuyoshi, SHOJI Tomotaka, TAKEUCHI Toshimasa
Cover photo (from left): L iaoning aircraft carrier (Photoshot/Aflo), MV-22 Osprey (Stocktrek Images/Getty
Images), Russia’s celebration of the 76th anniversary of the end of World War II in
Europe (AP/Aflo)

NIDS China Security Report 2024
China, Russia, and the United States Striving for a New International Order
Authors
IIDA Masafumi, ARAKAKI Hiromu, HASEGAWA Takeyuki
Published by
The National Institute for Defense Studies
5-1 Ichigaya Honmura-cho, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 162-8808 Japan
Website: https://www.nids.mod.go.jp/english/
Translated by INTERBOOKS
Copyright © 2023 by the National Institute for Defense Studies, JapanAll rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form without written, prior permission from thepublisher.
NIDS China Security Report 2024 comprises NIDS researchers’ analyses and descriptions based on
information compiled from open sources in Japan and overseas. The views expressed herein do notnecessarily represent the official position of the Government of Japan or the Ministry of Defense.
ISBN 978-4-86482-123-0 Printed in Japan

NIDS China Security Report 2024

Contents

Summary��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 3
Acronyms and Abbreviations�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 6
Introduction��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 8
Chapter 1: C hina’s Strategy to Transform the Existing International Order
1. China’s Policy Shift from Cooperation to Confrontation with
the United States������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������11(1) Adapting to the Post-Cold War International Order witha Cooperative Posture���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������11(2) A Shift toward Confrontation with the United States andTransformation of the Existing International Order��������������������������������������������13
2. China’s Increasing Cooperation with Russia to Builda New International Order��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������18(1) From Rival to Partner������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������18(2) Deepening Cooperation for Transforming
the Existing International Order������������������������������������������������������������������������������20
3. China’s Increasingly Contesting Military Posture against
the United States������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������22(1) Military Confrontation against the United States andStrengthening Cooperation with Russia��������������������������������������������������������������22(2) Nuclear Capability Buildup for Strengthening Deterrence against
the United States�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������25
Conclusion�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������27

Chapter 2: T he Russia-Ukraine War and the Putin Regime’s Survival Strategy
1. The Putin Regime’s Survival Strategy�����������������������������������������������������������������������30(1) The 2020 Constitutional Reform and the Survival Strategy of
the “Inner Circle”�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������30(2) The Putin Regime and Personalization of Power�����������������������������������������������3312. Regime Transformation and Foreign Strategy for Regime Survival during
the Ukraine War���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������34(1) The Dynamics of Regime Transformation�����������������������������������������������������������34(2) A New “Foreign Policy Concept” and Challenging
a “Small Group of States”���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������37(3) Military, Nuclear, and Arctic Cooperation between the Russian andChinese Regimes�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������40(4) Russia and the “Global South”������������������������������������������������������������������������������43
Conclusion�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������44

Chapter 3: U
 .S. Military Strategy for Maintaining the International Order
1. Growing Perception of China and Russia as Threats�������������������������������������������47(1) Re-emergence of Great Power Competition������������������������������������������������������47(2) Three Military Challenges Emerging from Strategic Competition������������������51
2. The U.S. Military’s Response to the New Military Challenges���������������������������54(1) The Competition Continuum Model����������������������������������������������������������������������54(2) New Concepts for Future Warfare�������������������������������������������������������������������������57
3. Changing Nuclear Balance�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������58(1) The “Two-Nuclear-Peer” Problem�������������������������������������������������������������������������58(2) The Biden Administration’s Response�����������������������������������������������������������������61
Conclusion�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������64

Conclusions∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙ 66
Notes∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙ 712

Summary

Summary
Chapter 1
Introduction

China, in the immediate aftermath of the Cold War, viewed the United States as a threat to the Chinese
Communist Party (CCP). It sought to avoid confrontation and promote cooperation with the UnitedStates to stabilize the bilateral relationship. Beijing generally accepted the post-Cold War U.S.-led
international order and pursued an international order strategy based on cooperation. From aroundthe end of the 2000s, however, the CCP leadership began to shift its approach, perceiving the powerof Western countries as declining and the power of developing countries as increasing. Namely, it

Chapter 1

strove to reform the existing international order, so as to allow China to secure its “core interests” by
its power and not threaten the CCP rule.
The Xi Jinping government urged the United States to respect China’s “core interests” andaccept a “new type of major-country relations” that considers China as an equal. At the same time,
China has explicitly rejected the existing international order based on universal values and rules.
Rather, it began to advocate for a new model of international order, specifically, a “new type of international relations” and a “community with a shared future for mankind,” which would give a greater

Chapter 2

voice to China and other developing countries. Russia is a key partner for China sharing a common
vision for a desirable international order. In strengthening their position in the rivalry with the UnitedStates and other Western countries over the international order, the two countries have bolstered theirmutual support and cooperation.
Pitting against the United States, China is reinforcing its military capabilities, primarily anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) capabilities, aimed at transforming the U.S. forces-led security order in

Chapter 3

East Asia. It is physically obstructing U.S. military operations and conducting more joint exercises
and coordinated activities with Russian forces in China’s periphery. Furthermore, China is rapidly
strengthening its nuclear capabilities, which will likely not only increase China’s voice on nuclear
weapons in the future security order, but also raise the threshold for U.S. military involvement inconflicts related to China’s “core interests.” China is expected to reshape the existing international
order by deepening strategic cooperation with Russia, with which it has a shared vision of a desirable
international order, alongside reinforcing nuclear and other military capabilities.

Conclusions

Chapter 2
The Putin regime embarked on a full-scale military invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022.
Consequently, Russia incurred harsh economic sanctions from Western countries and lost significant
international credibility. As a challenger to the existing international order, the Putin regime harbors astrong sense of rivalry against the international order favored by the G7 countries. This is underscoredin the “Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation” that was revised in March 2023. At the3Summaryroot of this rivalry is built-up dissatisfaction with the restructuring of the post-Cold War international
order. Moreover, the Putin regime emphasizes Russia’s traditional spirit and moral values as well as
its unique view of history. It also exhibits an aversion to Western liberal values, including diversity
and inclusivity, and to civil society activities. Especially in recent years, these sentiments, coupledwith increasing regime personalization, tended to be amplified as a domestic strategy for the survivalof the Putin regime.
Such views of the international order have emerged in the broad context of modern Russia’s
political and diplomatic history. The views are linked to Russia’s internal developments as well,exemplified by constraints on civil liberties, the absence of constitutionalism, and the rise of personalization. The regime has a growing affinity with China’s Xi Jinping regime, which too has shown
increasing personalization. Due in part to Russia’s growing dependence on China for the second
Russia-Ukraine war, cooperating with the Chinese regime has become a foreign strategy for regime
survival. Russia-China relations are steadily deepening in such policy areas as military, nuclear, andArctic development.
Aiming to strengthen cooperation with emerging and developing states in the Global South,
including India and Turkey, the Putin regime in wartime is actively approaching countries that arehighly aligned with them politically, such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and
BRICS member nations as well as Middle Eastern and African countries, both through diplomatic andmilitary activities.

Chapter 3
China is perceived by the Biden administration as its greatest challenge. The 2022 National Security
Strategy states that China presents the United States’ “most consequential geopolitical challenge”
and underscores the administration’s intent to prevail over China in this competition. From a military perspective, the Biden administration has also recognized China as a “pacing challenge” and set
forth a strategy that considers the prevention of China’s dominance of key regions as a top priority.
Competition with China in the military/diplomatic domain has also spilled over into the economic
domain.
The Biden administration has recognized Russia as an “acute threat” that poses significant
and persistent risks to key regions in addition to Russia’s ongoing aggression against Ukraine since2014. In order to achieve its policy goal of making Russia’s invasion of Ukraine a “strategic failure,”
the Biden administration has provided an overwhelming amount of security assistance to Ukraine incollaboration with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and other allies and partners while
imposing economic sanctions on Russia.
The military challenges confronting the United States in its attempt to gain an edge in its strategic competition with China and Russia are, namely, (i) activities below the threshold of armed
conflict; (ii) threats to the U.S. military’s power projection, operational actions, and kill chain; and4

Summary(iii) future changes in the balance of nuclear forces. In response to the first military challenge, the U.S.
military has not only conducted freedom of navigation operations (FONOPs) and maneuvers in thedomains of cyber and information operations but also established a new conceptual framework known
Introduction

as the “Competition Continuum Model” under which U.S. forces are engaged in a range of activities
at all phases. At the same time, the U.S. military has continued to develop new concepts in response to
the second military challenge, that is, the threat associated with A2/AD and its kill chain. In responseto the third military challenge of the emerging issue of having “two nuclear-capable near-peers,”
where the United States is simultaneously confronted with China and Russia whose nuclear forces
are comparable to its own, the Biden administration has shown a commitment to reducing the risk of
nuclear use through arms control and strengthening U.S. deterrence.

Chapter 1

The Biden administration recognizes that U.S. efforts over the next decade will determine thefuture state of the international order, and it has adopted an increasingly proactive stance with the goalof gaining an edge in its strategic competition with China and curbing the threat posed by Russia.
Competition with China and Russia over how the international order will take shape looks set tocontinue and intensify moving forward.

Conclusions
Chapter 2

Unless rapid political changes occur in Russia, the contest between the United States and China/
Russia over the international order will accelerate in the next foreseeable decade. Involving the Global
South, it is expected to expand into a contest between the forces seeking to maintain the current
order, centered around the United States, and the forces seeking to change it, centered around China
and Russia. As both sides are anticipated to enhance their competitiveness, the outcome will not be
determined quickly, and the confrontation will likely persist over the long term with tensions rising. It

Chapter 3

will be incumbent on both sides to manage the competition effectively to prevent the manifestation ofdestabilizing factors, such as accidental clashes and unexpected escalations.
In the longer term, however, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is very likely to fall short of changing
the international order. China, on the other hand, has used faits accomplis to alter the status quo inwaters such as the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait. Looking ahead, whether China’s unilateralchanges to the status quo by force can be prevented or not will be the most crucial determinant of thecourse of the competition for the international order.

Conclusions

5

Acronyms and Abbreviations

Acronyms and Abbreviations
A2/AD
anti-access/area-denialAI
artificial intelligence
ALBM
air-launched ballistic missile
ASB
Air Sea Battle
BCC
Bilateral Consultative Commission
CC
Competition Continuum
CCG
China Coast Guard
CCP
Chinese Communist Party
CIS
Commonwealth of Independent States
COVID-19
novel coronavirus disease
FOB
fractional orbital bombardment
FONOPsfreedom of navigation operations
FSB
Federal Security Service
FSO
Federal Guard Service
GRU
Main Intelligence Directorate of the General Staff
HGV
hypersonic glide vehicles
ICBM
intercontinental ballistic missile
JADC2
Joint All-Domain Command and Control
JADO
Joint All-Domain Operations
JAM-GC
Joint Concept for Access and Maneuver in the Global Commons
JCC
Joint Concept for Competing
JCIC
Joint Concept for Integrated Campaigning
JWC
Joint Warfighting Concept
MDPW
Multi-Domain Precision Warfare
NATO
North Atlantic Treaty Organization
NC3
nuclear command, control, and communications
NDS
National Defense Strategy
New START	Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation ofStrategic Offensive Arms
NPR
Nuclear Posture Review
NSS
National Security Strategy
PLA
People’s Liberation Army
Quad
Quadrilateral Security Dialogue
SCO
Shanghai Cooperation Organisation
SLBM
submarine-launched ballistic missile
SSBN
nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine
STRATCOM
Strategic Command
SVR
Foreign Intelligence Service
UN
United Nations
WTO
World Trade Organization

6

NIDS China Security Report 2024

China, Russia, and the UnitedStates Striving for a New
International Order

Introduction
The Theme of This Report
IIDA Masafumi

Introduction The Theme of This Report

The Theme of This Report
The Cold War was a period of intense U.S.-Soviet rivalry, with each of the two superpowers bringing
countries into their alliances and aiming vast nuclear arsenals at each other. After the war came to an
end in the early 1990s, the victorious United States led the efforts to create a new international order
supported and embraced by many nations, including Western countries. This rules-based international
order was built upon universal values, such as freedom, democracy, and respect for human rights,
and was shared by many states. In this context, increasing cooperation among the great powers andeconomic globalization brought stability and prosperity to the post-Cold War world. However, thisinternational order is now facing serious challenges.
China rapidly achieved economic growth by adapting to the post-Cold War international order.
Coupled with its military buildup, China rose to become a global power second only to the UnitedStates. From around the late 2000s, by intensifying its unilateral moves to change the status quo by
force, such as in the Taiwan Strait and the East and South China Seas, Beijing began to challenge
the existing rules-based international order. In recent years, China has explicitly rejected rules thathave been accepted by the international community and has pursued policies aimed at building a newinternational order, resulting in a severe great-power competition with the United States.
Russia initially engaged in diplomacy that emphasized cooperation with the West, as exemplified by its joining of the G8 in 1998. Under the Putin regime, however, Russia gradually stepped
up its anti-Western posture, and its relations with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)members, including the United States, deteriorated with the illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014.
In 2022, Russia launched an aggressive war against Ukraine that blatantly violated the rules-based
international order, including the United Nations (UN) Charter. This aggression has rendered the UN
Security Council dysfunctional and significantly undermined the post-Cold War international order.
We are now witnessing a serious competition between the United States, which aspires to maintain the existing rules that have brought stability and prosperity to the post-Cold War international
community, and its challengers, China and Russia, which seek to change these rules. The world’s eyes
are on the fate of the international order, which is also the focus of this report. The future international
order will be influenced by numerous factors. Particularly significant among them will be the behaviorof the United States, China, and Russia, all of which possess powerful military capabilities including
nuclear weapons. It is not an exaggeration to say that the U.S., Chinese, and Russian strategies for theinternational order and their interplay will determine the direction of the future international order.
This report analyzes how the United States, China, and Russia envision the future international
order and how they are working toward its realization. In addition, it attempts to shed light on eachcountry’s approach toward the other two, with a focus on military and security aspects. Based on thisanalysis, it concludes by examining how the interplay among the three great powers will shape thefuture international order.
8

NIDS China Security Report 2024

China, Russia, and the UnitedStates Striving for a New
International Order

Kyodo News

Chapter

1

China’s Strategy to Transform the
Existing International Order
IIDA Masafumi

Chapter 1 China’s Strategy to Transform the Existing International OrderC

HINA UNDER the leadership of Xi Jinping has gradually stepped up its confrontational posture
toward the United States. U.S.-China relations deteriorated noticeably during the Barack

Obama administration, became increasingly confrontational during the Donald Trump administration, and grew more strained during the Joseph Biden administration. Despite the widening rift, theXi government in its third term continues to take a confrontational stance against the United States.
During a press conference held on the margins of the National People’s Congress in March 2023,
Foreign Minister Qin Gang criticized the United States’ claim to “out-compete” China, describing it asan effort to “contain and suppress China in all respects and get the two countries locked in a zero-sum
game.” Furthermore, he emphasized that containment and suppression “will not stop the rejuvenationof China.”1
By contrast, the Xi Jinping administration has steadily enhanced its cooperative relationshipwith Russia. Despite Russia’s launch of a military invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, which drewstrong condemnation from an overwhelming majority of United Nations (UN) member states, the Xi
government has continued to strengthen ties with Russia. The China-Russia relationship sets “a good
example for a new type of international relations,” said Foreign Minister Qin Gang, noting that if thetwo countries work together, “the world will have a driving force toward multipolarity and greater
democracy in international relations, and global strategic balance and stability will be better ensured.”With regard to the Ukraine war, Qin mentioned that there seems to be “an invisible hand” “using the
Ukraine crisis to serve a certain geopolitical agenda,” indirectly criticized the United States.2
If the post-Cold War international order is led by the United States, which became the solesuperpower by securing victory over the Soviet Union, then China could become the primary driving
force for transforming the existing international order as an emerging country that rapidly gained
power after the Cold War and has the second most power after the United States. With China intensifying its confrontational posture toward the United States, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken wason point in saying, “China is the only country with both the intent to reshape the international order
and, increasingly, the economic, diplomatic, military, and technological power to do it.”3 Therefore,
to gain insights into the future direction of the international order, it is necessary first and foremost to
examine China’s strategy for international order, that is, what kind of international order China aims
to establish and by what means it seeks to achieve this goal.
In this chapter, the first section analyzes the international order strategy of China by reviewing
its evolving policy toward the United States, beginning from the end of the Cold War to the Xi Jinping
administration. China views that the United States holds hegemony in the existing international order.
China’s perception of the United States is reflective of China’s perception of the international order.
Furthermore, China’s international order policy is encompassed within its U.S. policy. The second
section examines the Xi leadership’s policy toward Russia, a nuclear power on par with the UnitedStates that is increasingly challenging the existing international order. By observing the relationshipbetween China and Russia—two countries which have been deepening their strategic cooperation—it
is hoped that a clearer understanding will emerge of the Chinese strategy for the future international
10Summaryorder. The third section attempts to provide prospects for China’s international order strategy byanalyzing its strengthening military cooperation with Russia and changing nuclear weapons posture.

Introduction

1. China’s Policy Shift from Cooperation to
Confrontation with the United States(1) Adapting to the Post-Cold War International Order with a Cooperative
PostureChapter 1

From the late 1980s to the early 1990s, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) government faced aserious situation both domestically and internationally. Domestically, on June 4, 1989, the government
mobilized the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to violently suppress students and citizens who were
campaigning for political democratization on Tiananmen Square in Beijing, known as the Tiananmen
Square incident. It exposed the intense power struggles within the Party, and also severely eroded theChinese people’s trust in the Party. Moreover, Western countries, including the United States, strongly
criticized the CCP government for suppressing a peaceful democratization movement with the use ofChapter 2

force, citing serious human rights violations, and imposed harsh economic and diplomatic sanctions
on China. Internationally, as the socialist bloc collapsed, beginning with the disintegration of socialist
regimes in Eastern Europe symbolized by the fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989 and culminating with the dissolution of the Soviet Union at the end of 1991, China became the sole remaining
socialist power in the international community.
The Tiananmen Square incident and the disintegration of the socialist bloc greatly undermined

Chapter 3

the legitimacy of the CCP’s rule and severely shook the foundations of the government. Beijing attributed this crisis to theUnited States. China viewed that the United States soughta “peaceful evolution” [和平演变], meaning overthrowing
the CCP regime using peaceful means, such as penetrating
freedom, democracy, and other Western values into Chinesesociety.4 In addition, the post-Soviet collapse international

Conclusions

order was led by the United States, which became the solesuperpower. The CCP government thus found itself in a challenging international environment, seeing the United States as
the largest threat that could endanger its very survival.
Following the Tiananmen Square incident, China,
under the leadership of the CCP’s newly appointed General
Secretary Jiang Zemin, aspired to avoid confrontation and

The “Goddess of Democracy” erected in
Tiananmen Square, May 1989 (Photo:
Kyodo News)

11

Chapter 1 China’s Strategy to Transform the Existing International Order

improve relations with the United States through cooperation. During a meeting with members of
the U.S. House of Representatives who visited China in November 1992, General Secretary Jiang
set out China’s policy of “increase trust, reduce trouble, develop cooperation, and avoid confrontation” [增加信任, 减少麻烦, 发展合作, 不搞对抗] with the United States. In other words, the aim wasto build a relationship of trust with the United States through cooperation, not increasing friction
through confrontation. In November 1993, President Jiang Zemin attended the Asia-Pacific Economic
Cooperation Leaders’ Meeting in Seattle, United States and held a meeting with U.S. President Bill
Clinton. At the meeting, Jiang stated that China “will not constitute a threat to U.S. security” andemphasized that their relationship should be founded on mutual interests.5 While tensions heightened due to the Taiwan Strait Crisis from 1995 to 1996, President Jiang and President Clinton met
in October 1997 and released a joint statement committing to work toward building a “constructive
strategic partnership.”6 By refraining from confrontation, China steadily improved its relations with
the United States. Despite incidents such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) forces’
mistaken bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, Yugoslavia in May 1999 and a collision accident between a U.S. Navy EP-3 signals intelligence aircraft and a Chinese PLA J-8 fighter in April
2001, China maintained a cooperative posture toward the United States and sought to strengthen thebilateral relationship. Furthermore, the terrorist attacks in the United States on September 11, 2001
steered the wind in China’s favor. As an outcome of the attacks, the security agenda for the George
W. Bush administration underwent a major shift from competition with China, which was considereda “strategic competitor,” to the war on terror. Additionally, cooperating with the United States’ war
on terror provided China with opportunities to make further strides in the bilateral relationship. In
February 2002, President Bush visited China, and the two countries agreed to build a “constructive
and cooperative relationship.”7
The Hu Jintao administration, which succeeded the Jiang Zemin administration at the 16th
CCP National Congress (Party Congress) in November 2002, continued the foreign policy of collaborating in various fields to strengthen relations with the United States and promote cooperation with
the international community. In August 2003, aiming to resolve the issue of North Korea’s nuclear
development, the Hu administration established the Six-Party Talks comprised of the United States,
China, the Republic of Korea, North Korea, Japan, and Russia. At its meeting in September 2005, the
Hu leadership contributed to the release of a joint statement in which North Korea committed to abandoning its nuclear development program. It was under this foreign policy vision which emphasizes
cooperation with the international community, including the United States, that Hu began to advocate
building a “harmonious world” [和谐世界]. In an address at a summit commemorating the UN’s 60th
anniversary in September 2005, President Hu underscored the need to build a “harmonious world withlasting peace and common prosperity.” In this address, President Hu stressed that the international
community must strive to create a “harmonious world” by opposing dispute resolutions through interference in internal affairs and the use of force, as well as by boosting the economic development of12

Summarydeveloping countries and their voice in the international community.8 Additionally, the Hu administration introduced the concept of “peaceful development” [和平发展] as a policy guideline for building a“harmonious world.” In December 2005, the Chinese government released a white paper titled China’s
Introduction

Peaceful Development Road. In this white paper, China vowed to develop cooperative relations with
the United States and other major powers and deepen friendly relations with neighboring countries,
and declared to “follow the road of peaceful development” involving efforts to “strive for a peacefulinternational environment for its own development, and promote world peace and development with
its own growth.”9
As examined above, China’s U.S. policy from the Jiang Zemin administration to the early yearsof the Hu Jintao administration sought stable Sino-U.S. relations by promoting various cooperation

Chapter 1

while avoiding confrontation with the United States as much as possible. Accordingly, China had basically accepted the U.S.-led international order and signaled an intention to build a “harmonious world”
within the existing international order paradigm. Some officials in the United States commended
China for its stance on the international order. In September 2005, for instance, Deputy Secretary ofState Robert Zoellick emphasized his expectation that China will become a “responsible stakeholder”
in the existing international order.10

Chapter 2(2) A Shift toward Confrontation with the United States andTransformation of the Existing International Order
By the late 2000s, the Hu Jintao government began to aggressively assert China’s stance and interests
and adopt an antagonistic posture toward neighboring countries and the United States. Beijing boosted
deployment of maritime law enforcement patrol vessels and PLA vessels and aircraft to the South andEast China Seas, ramping up pressure on other countries with which it had disputes over the sover-

Chapter 3

eignty of islands and reefs and over jurisdiction in periphery waters. Chinese patrol vessels obstructed
the passage of Vietnamese and Philippine survey ships in the South China Sea, while increasing theirpresence around the Japanese territory of the Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea. The PLA, too,
stepped up its activities in the South and East China Seas. China’s resolute posture was directed at theUnited States as well. In March 2009, China’s naval intelligence collection ship, patrol vessels, andfishing trawlers obstructed the U.S. Navy’s acoustic surveillance ship, USNS Impeccable, which was
sailing in waters south of Hainan Island. The United States lodged a protest with the Chinese govern-

Conclusions

ment over its dangerous action that breached the freedom of navigation recognized under internationallaw. However, China dismissed it, arguing that the Impeccable’s activities were in violation of bothinternational law and Chinese domestic law. With this incident, the South China Sea became one of
the focal points of contention between the United States and China.
The Chinese posture on maritime territory and sovereignty hardened against the backdrop of amajor foreign policy revision made by the Hu Jintao leadership. During the 11th Diplomatic Envoys’
Meeting held in July 2009, General Secretary Hu Jintao identified one of his foreign policy priorities as

13

Chapter 1 China’s Strategy to Transform the Existing International Order“appropriately safeguarding our territory, sovereignty, and maritime rights and interests.” He further
stated, “We must resolutely struggle against actions by any related parties that infringe upon our rights
and interests and firmly protect our core interests.” Additionally, Hu highlighted the need to “moreactively participate in international rulemaking” and “more actively promote the development of theinternational political and economic order in a more just and reasonable direction.”11 In short, the
Hu Jintao government shifted its policy from prioritizing cooperation with the international community based on the existing U.S.-led international order, to not hesitating from confrontation with theUnited States and other countries on core interests for China, alongside advocating for transforming
the existing international order in a direction favorable to China.
The greatest factor that precipitated this policy shift was the global financial crisis which
intensified following the bankruptcy of a U.S. investment bank, Lehman Brothers, in September
2008. The crisis induced severe damage to the economies of Western countries, including the UnitedStates, while China achieved sustainable economic growth by implementing a 4 trillion-yuan stimulus package. Thus, amid growing anticipation of a long-term decline in U.S. power and a relative
increase in Chinese power, a perception prevailed that the China-U.S. capability gap was narrowing.12
Expecting China’s power to rise relative to that of the United States, the Hu Jintao administration
became more confident in China’s ability to compete with the United States. In turn, he was no longer
hesitant to confront the United States over core interests and started challenging the existing U.S.-led
international order.
China’s new foreign policy also applied to the United States. Vice President Xi Jinping, who
was certain to succeed Hu Jintao, visited the United States in February 2012. Xi emphasized, during
his meeting with President Obama, “The Taiwan issue concerns China’s sovereignty and territorial
integrity and has consistently been the most important and sensitive issue in China-U.S. relations.”13 In
his meeting with Vice President Biden, Xi stated that “the issues concerning Taiwan and Tibet involve
China’s core interests,” and proposed that China and the United States “respect each other’s coreinterests and major concerns, refrain from making trouble for each other, and not cross each other’sline.”14 In addition, at a welcome reception hosted by U.S.-China friendship organizations, Xi stated,“The vast Pacific Ocean has ample space for the two major countries of China and the United States,”and stressed that by “respecting each other’s core interests and major concerns,” the two countries
should develop their relationship into a “new type of relationship between major countries in the 21st
century.”15 By urging the United States to respect China’s core interests such as Taiwan, Beijing aimed
to build a “new type of major-country relations,” meaning an equal relationship with the United Statesat least in the Asia-Pacific region.
Inaugurated at the 18th Party Congress in November 2012, the Xi Jinping government presented
the slogan of the “great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation,” or the “Chinese Dream,” as the goal toaspire to. When General Secretary Xi visited a naval base on Hainan Island in December 2012, he
described the dream as follows: “The dream is to build a strong country; and for the military, it is a14

Summary

dream to build a strong military; to realize the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, we must ensure
there is unison between a prosperous country and a strong military and strive to build a strong national
defense and a powerful military.” Xi stressed that bolstering military capabilities was essential for the
Introduction

realization of the “Chinese Dream.”16
In addition, during the CCP Central Committee Politburo’s group study session on foreign
policy held in January 2013, General Secretary Xi stated that a peaceful international environment wasnecessary to realize the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. At the same time, he underscored,“We will stick to the road of peaceful development, but will never give up our legitimate rights andwill never sacrifice our national core interests. No country should presume that we will engage intrade involving our core interests or that we will swallow the ‘bitter fruit’ of harming our sovereignty,

Chapter 1

security or development interests.”17 Xi Jinping aimed to realize the Chinese Dream of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation by establishing protection of core interests as a foreign policy pillar,
supported by a powerful military.
This policy was also reflected in China’s diplomacy with the United States. In June 2013,
President Xi visited the United States and held a meeting with President Obama. At a press conference,
Xi announced, “Both sides agreed to make joint efforts to build…[a] new type of China-U.S. majorcountry relations” proposed by China.18 State Councilor Yang Jiechi explained that a “new type ofChapter 2

major-country relations” means: (i) not engaging in conflict or confrontation; (ii) respecting each otheras well as each other’s core interests and major concerns; and (iii) pursuing cooperation and win-win
results and abandoning zero-sum thinking.19 Subsequently, the Xi Jinping administration began taking
a hardline posture, urging the United States to respect China’s core interests. In August 2013, StateCouncilor and Defense Minister Chang Wanquan visited the United States. During his meeting with
U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, Chang demanded the cessation of U.S. arms exports to Taiwan,

Chapter 3

intelligence gathering activities by U.S. forces in the periphery of China, and the U.S. ban on hightech exports to China, citing them as impediments to the development of a “new type of China-U.S.
military relationship.”20 In December 2013, a PLA Navy landing ship came dangerously close to andobstructed the passage of the U.S. Navy cruiser USS Cowpens, which was monitoring a Chinese naval
exercise off the southern coast of Hainan Island.21
Besides not shying away from confrontation with the United States on issues concerning coreinterests, the Xi leadership also bolstered its efforts to revise the existing U.S.-led international order.

Conclusions

At the Central Conference on Work relating to Foreign Affairs held in November 2014, General
Secretary Xi expressed the view that the existing international order led by the United States was in
the midst of change. He stressed that “Today’s world is a transforming world,” namely, “a world inwhich the international system and order are going through a deep adjustment” as well as “a world inwhich the international balance of power is profoundly shifting in favor of peace and development.”
Xi then explained that, going forward, China’s foreign policy will be to “work for greater democracy
in international relations” and “promote the building of a new type of international relations with

15

Chapter 1 China’s Strategy to Transform the Existing International Ordercooperation and win-win results at the core.” He called this new foreign policy “major-power diplomacy with Chinese characteristics.”22
At the General Debate of the UN General Assembly in September 2015, President Xi Jinping
delivered an address on China’s aspirations for the new international order. In his address, President Xi
criticized major powers’ pressure on and interference in the internal affairs of smaller states, emphasizing that all countries must be treated equally. Regarding inter-state security relations, he called
for a departure from zero-sum thinking that assumes confrontation and for partnerships based on
dialogue and cooperation rather than alliances. Furthermore, Xi stated, “China will always be thebuilder of world peace” and vowed to “never seek hegemony, expansion, or an extension of its sphereof influence.” He also expressed China’s commitment to “continue to safeguard the international
order and system with the purposes and principles of the UN Charter at the core.” Additionally, Xi
stated that “China will continue to support the effort of increasing the representation and voice ofdeveloping countries, particularly African countries, in the international governance system,” andindicated China’s intention to enhance cooperation with developing countries in the new international
order. Based on China’s stance, Xi emphasized, “We must build a new type of international relations
with cooperation and win-win results at the core and create a community with a shared future formankind.”23
The motivating force behind China’s increased effort to transform the post-Cold War international order was the Xi government’s perception of global power shift. The government viewed that
the United States and Western advanced countries, which had been leading the existing international
order, were weakening in power, while developing countries, including China, were gaining in power,
and that this trend was irreversible. During the Central Committee Politburo’s group study session
on the global governance system held in October 2015, General Secretary Xi Jinping noted, “Thetransformation of the global governance system is at a historic turning point.” “The internationalbalance of power is undergoing profound changes, and the rapid development and continuously risinginternational influence of emerging market countries and many developing countries represent themost revolutionary change in the international balance of power since modern times.” Xi went on tostate, “The centuries-old struggle for interests and hegemony through wars, colonization, and divisionof spheres of influence by the great powers is gradually shifting toward countries’ coordination ofrelations and interests through institutions and rules.” He expressed the view that “the transformationof the global governance system is the trend of the times” and “is linked with each country’s position
and role in the long-term institutional arrangement of the international order and system.”24
The Xi Jinping government, as it strikes a more confrontational posture toward the UnitedStates over core interests and presses ahead with transforming the existing U.S.-led international
order, saw its relations with the United States deteriorate rapidly. The Trump administration, which
was inaugurated in January 2017, conflicted sharply with the Xi administration over trade, leading to a
trade war with both sides imposing additional tariffs on each other. The Phase One agreement reached16Summaryin January 2020 did not improve their relations.
Furthermore, the democracy movement in Hong
Kong that intensified in 2019 heightened the vigiIntroduction

lance of China, which deemed that U.S. politicalforces were attempting a color revolution in HongKong. Meanwhile, China’s tightening control in
Hong Kong, including imposition of the National
Security Law, provoked strong opposition fromthe United States for suppressing democracy.
Additionally, the outbreak of the novel corona-Protestors marching in Hong Kong to demand thewithdrawal of a bill to amend the Fugitive Offenders
Ordinance, June 2019 (Photo: Kyodo News)

Chapter 1

virus disease (COVID-19) in Wuhan in December
2019 developed into a global pandemic and fueled
serious disagreements between the United States and China over political systems and values.25
Regarding core interests, the Xi government adopted an even more hardline stance toward the
Biden administration that took office in January 2021. Concurrently, Xi rejected the U.S. position on
the international order and accelerated efforts to build China’s proposed new international order. In
March 2021, the first U.S.-China high-level strategic dialogue after the Biden administration assumed

Chapter 2

office was held in Alaska. From the Chinese side, Yang Jiechi, director of the Office of the Central
Commission for Foreign Affairs, and Wang Yi, state councilor and foreign minister, strongly criticized
U.S. interference in China’s internal affairs. China criticized the United States for pressuring the CCP
government under the pretext of democracy and human rights, emphasizing that “the status and institutions of the CCP as the ruling party must not be undermined, and it is a red line that should not betouched.” Furthermore, they stated that the Taiwan issue “bears on China’s sovereignty and territorial

Chapter 3

integrity and concerns China’s core interests, and there is no room for compromise and concession,”and demanded that the United States not “attempt to cross China’s bottom line.”26 Regarding theinternational order, Director Yang Jiechi flatly rejected the existing international order led by theUnited States, saying, “The majority of countries do not recognize U.S. values as international values,
do not recognize U.S. views as international public opinion, and do not recognize rules made by afew countries as international rules.” Yang continued, “China will advocate for the common valuesof humanity—peace, development, fairness, justice, democracy, and freedom—and safeguard theConclusions

international system with the UN at the core and the international order based on international law.”27
President Xi Jinping also made similar remarks to President Biden. At their first in-person
meeting in November 2022, President Xi stated unequivocally that “the Taiwan issue is at the core of
China’s core interests and is a red line that must not be crossed in China-U.S. relations.” He warned
that “the Chinese people will surely resist” those who seek to split Taiwan from China. Regarding
the increasingly intense U.S.-China rivalry, Xi argued, “All pressure and containment only serve toarouse the will and passion of the Chinese people.” On the international order, Xi stated that China

17

Chapter 1 China’s Strategy to Transform the Existing International Orderwill “safeguard the international system with the UN at the core as well as the international order basedon international law” and “promote the building of a community with a shared future for mankind.”
With regard to the Sino-U.S. relationship, President Xi stated, “The vast expanse of the Earth can fully
accommodate the development and shared prosperity of both China and the United States.”28 While
President Xi had stated during his 2012 visit to the United States that “the vast Pacific Ocean has ample
space for the two major countries of China and the United States,” his latest remarks suggest that hewas calling on the United States to accept an equal relationship with China on a global level.

2. China’s Increasing Cooperation with Russia to
Build a New International Order(1) From Rival to Partner
During the Cold War, China had disputes with the Soviet Union over ideology and a land border, which
ignited armed clashes on Damansky Island (Zhenbao Island) in the Ussuri River in 1969. However,their relations normalized when General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev visited China in May 1989,
and an agreement on the eastern border was signed in May 1991. Subsequently, China continued towork toward stabilizing its relationship with Russia, the successor state to the Soviet Union. In July
2001, China and Russia signed the Treaty of Good-Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation. Clauses
to foster mutual trust stand out, such as supporting each other’s policies that defend national unity andterritorial integrity, continuing to hold talks on unresolved border disputes without making territorial
claims against each other, reducing military forces in the border areas, and agreeing not to be the firstto use nuclear weapons against each other and not targeting strategic nuclear missiles at each other.
At the same time, the treaty indicates that the two countries had a common stance on the international
order more broadly, such as opposing any action of interfering in the internal affairs of a sovereignstate under pretexts or through resorting to the use of force to apply pressure, working together forthe maintenance of global strategic balance, and reinforcing the authority of the UN to guarantee themajor responsibility of the UN Security Council in the area of maintaining international peace andsecurity.29
President Hu Jintao visited Russia in June 2011, ten years after the signing of the China-Russia
Treaty of Good-Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation. The bilateral relationship made significant
strides over the decade, including finalization of the demarcation of their border in 2004. President Hu
Jintao and President Dmitry Medvedev issued a joint statement on the tenth anniversary of the treaty’s
signing. They highlighted that the border had become an area of cooperation through the resolutionof territorial disputes, that the two sides “support each other on issues related to core interests such as
sovereignty, security, and development,” and that China and Russia had set a model to the world of18

Summarybuilding a successful major-power relationship based on a treaty. Furthermore, they emphasized that
their strategic cooperation was “favorable for building a just and reasonable new international orderand for multipolarization of the world and democratization of international relations.” In addition,
Introduction

they declared to elevate their relationship from the traditional “strategic partnership of cooperation” toa “comprehensive strategic partnership of cooperation.”30
On the same occasion, the two leaders also issued the “Joint Statement on the International
Situation and Major International Issues.” In this statement, they expressed the view that the international situation had “entered a key period for major development, major transformation, and major
adjustment.” They note that the global financial crisis of 2008 “revealed how existing global governance mechanisms lack efficiency and do not reflect the current political, economic, and financial real-

Chapter 1

ities” and underscored that “these mechanisms are actively moving in the direction of multipolarity.”31
China and Russia criticized the dysfunctional existing system of global economic order that had been
led by the United States and other Western countries, and expressed support for shifting to a more
multipolar economic order.
In March 2013, Xi Jinping visited Russia as the destination of his first overseas trip as president.
During this visit, President Xi delivered a comprehensive address on China’s stance regarding the international situation, China-Russia relations, and other topics at Moscow State Institute of International

Chapter 2

Relations. With regard to the current international situation, Xi noted that Cold War-era bloc confrontations were already nonexistent and that “no state or group of states can dominate world affairs
singlehandedly.” He opined that “many emerging market and developing countries” are achieving
rapid growth, giving rise to numerous growth centers around the world, and “the international balanceof power is evolving in a direction favorable for peace and development.” Furthermore, Xi asserted
that as countries become increasingly interdependent, they are further evolving into a “community

Chapter 3

with a shared future.” At the same time, he contended that there remain many challenges to realizing
peace and development due to “the rise of hegemony, power politics, and neo-interventionism” in theworld. For adapting to these changes in the international situation, Xi argued that countries “should
jointly promote building a new type of international relations with cooperation and win-win results
at the core.” In other words, for the first time in Russia, he introduced the concepts of a “community
with a shared future for mankind” and a “new type of international relations,” which later became thepillars of “major-power diplomacy with Chinese characteristics.” Xi Jinping highlighted that a strong

Conclusions

China-Russia relationship “serves as an important guarantee for maintaining the international strategicbalance and safeguarding peace and stability in the world,” and emphasized that the joint developmentof China and Russia “will bring positive energy to evolving the international order and system in a justand reasonable direction.” Additionally, Xi described that “a prosperous and powerful Russia aligns
with China’s interests and is favorable for the peace and stability of the Asia-Pacific and the world.”32
Before this speech, President Xi Jinping held a meeting with President Vladimir Putin. During
their meeting, Xi stated that “China and Russia are each other’s principal and most important strategic

19

Chapter 1 China’s Strategy to Transform the Existing International Ordercooperation partners,” and underlined the need for both countries to “closely cooperate and work
together in international and regional affairs” as well as “firmly uphold the purposes and principlesof the UN Charter and the rules of international relations.”33 In the joint statement issued after the
meeting, the leaders stated that “the China-Russia relationship had reached an unprecedented highlevel and had set a model for harmonious coexistence of major powers,” and called on the UnitedStates and other major powers to “build a new type of major-country relations for long-term stability
and sound development.”34(2) Deepening Cooperation for Transforming the Existing International
Order
China and Russia further deepened their strategic cooperative relationship under the leadership ofPresident Xi and President Putin. The leaders continued to make reciprocal visits and promotedcooperation in a wide range of fields, including politics, economy, and security. Moreover, they havefrequently issued joint statements that express a common stance on the desirable international order.
The “Joint Statement on Strengthening Global Strategic Stability” issued in June 2016 underlined that“individual countries and military-political alliances seek decisive advantages in the fields of militaryand relevant technology, so as to serve their own interests without difficulty through the use or threat ofuse of force in international affairs,” harshly criticizing the United States and its allies without identifying them by name.35 In the “Declaration on the Promotion of International Law” issued concurrently,
the leaders criticized interference in the internal affairs of other countries aimed at regime change,
imposing sanctions without UN Security Council decisions, and other acts for violating internationallaw. The leaders advocated that international law was the cornerstone for “just and equitable international relations featuring win-win cooperation,” “creating a community with a shared future formankind,” and “establishing common space of equal and indivisible security and economic cooperation,” and that both countries would cooperate in “establishing a just and equitable international
order based on international law.”36 In the “Joint Statement on the Current World Situation and Major
International Issues” released in July 2017, they advocated for “jointly building a peaceful, secure,open, and orderly cyberspace” and underscored their opposition to the use of information and communication technologies to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries, hostile actions, and acts ofaggression. They also appreciated multilateral cooperation schemes, such as BRICS and the Shanghai
Cooperation Organisation (SCO), for “making important contributions to promoting the democratization of international relations.”37 In the “Joint Statement on Contemporary Global Strategic Stability”
released in June 2019, the leaders urged that “relevant countries should abandon the nuclear sharing
policy (implemented by NATO) and return all nuclear weapons deployed abroad by nuclear-weapon
states to their home countries,” and that “nuclear-weapon states should abandon Cold War thinking
and zero-sum competition and stop unrestricted development of the global missile defense system.”38
As described above, China and Russia have shared a common emphasis on building an

20

Summary

international order based on international law and the UN Charter, focusing on transforming theexisting international order led by the United States and its allies, as well as opposing “interference ininternal affairs” and sanctions by the United States and other countries that may undermine Chinese
Introduction

and Russian political systems. Additionally, China has gained Russian support for the central conceptsof the new international order that China is aspiring to realize, including a “new type of international
relations” and “community with a shared future for mankind.” For China, Russia is an indispensable
partner for building a desirable international order.
China-Russia cooperation to build a new international order was further reinforced during
President Putin’s visit to China in February 2022. In the joint statement that was issued following themeeting between President Xi and President Putin, both sides “reaffirm their strong mutual support for

Chapter 1

the protection of their core interests, state sovereignty and territorial integrity, and oppose interferenceby external forces in their internal affairs.” On this basis, Russia “notes the significance of the concept
of constructing a ‘community with a shared future for mankind,’” while China “notes the significanceof the efforts taken by the Russian side to establish a just multipolar system of international relations.”
The statement revealed both countries “oppose further enlargement of NATO and call on the North
Atlantic Alliance to abandon its ideologized Cold War approaches” and “remain highly vigilant about
the negative impact of the United States’ Indo-Pacific strategy on peace and stability in the region.”

Chapter 2

Additionally, China and Russia advocated for “the establishment of a new kind of relationships
between world powers on the basis of mutual respect, peaceful coexistence and mutually beneficial
cooperation,” asserting that “Friendship between the two states has no limits, there are no ‘forbidden’areas of cooperation.”39
China’s approach of promoting strategic cooperation with Russia to transform the existing
U.S.-led international order remained unchanged even after Russia waged its aggression against

Chapter 3

Ukraine. China has consistently avoided criticizing Russia, opposed sanctions and strengthened its
economic relationship with Russia, and sharply criticized Western countries’ military support to
Ukraine as an “act that adds fuel to the fire.” In March 2023, President Xi Jinping visited Russia
and held a meeting with President Putin. At themeeting, President Xi stated that the two countries“should support each other on issues concerning
each other’s core interests, and jointly resist theConclusions

interference in internal affairs by external forces.”
Xi emphasized that both countries should “makejoint efforts to steer and promote global governance in a direction that meets the expectationsof the international community” and “advance thetrend toward a multi-polar world, and promote thereform and improvement of the global governancePresident Xi and President Putin exchanging a jointstatement, March 2023 (Photo: Xinhua News Agency/
Kyodo News Images)

21

Chapter 1 China’s Strategy to Transform the Existing International Ordersystem.”40 In the joint statement issued after their meeting, the two countries expressed that “to settle
the Ukraine crisis, the legitimate security concerns of all countries must be respected, bloc confrontation should be prevented and fanning the flames avoided.” In addition, they expressed “serious
concern about NATO’s continuous strengthening of military-security ties with Asian-Pacific countries
and undermining of regional peace and stability,” and condemned that “The United States maintains
Cold War thinking, advances the ‘Indo-Pacific strategy,’ and has a negative impact on the peace andstability of the region.”41 When Western countries imposed countermeasures toward Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, China perceived it necessary to further cooperate with Russia, which seeks atransformed international order.
China meanwhile appears to be refraining from offering explicit military support to Russia,
such as supplying lethal weapons. A likely reason is that, by providing weapons to Russia, China
would become subject to severe sanctions from Western countries, including the United States, andthis would further impact China’s already stagnant economy. Additionally, military support to Russia
is compatible with neither China’s criticism of Western military support to Ukraine, nor China’s claimthat the Sino-Russian relationship is not a military alliance. Furthermore, the fact that over 140 countries, including the Global South, have criticized Russia’s invasion of Ukraine may be causing China
to hesitate in offering explicit support to Russia. In February 2023, China released a position paper
titled “China’s Position on the Political Settlement of the Ukraine Crisis,”42 which seeks substantive
concessions from Ukraine in line with the Russian stance. The paper suggests that China’s intention isto end the Ukraine war as early as possible in a manner favorable to Russia, and thereby, prevent any
further decline in Russian power and maintain China’s strategic cooperation with Russia for transforming the international order.

3. China’s Increasingly Contesting Military
Posture against the United States(1) Military Confrontation against the United States and Strengthening
Cooperation with Russia
China has adopted a foreign policy of strengthening relationships with developing countries andpromoting strategic cooperation with Russia, aiming to transform the existing U.S.-led international
order. Simultaneously, China has rapidly built up military capabilities to transform the East Asian
security order, which has been maintained with the strong presence of U.S. forces. The PLA began
modernizing its military capabilities coinciding with the end of the Cold War. It has commissioned aseries of advanced vessels, including aircraft carriers, deployed numerous fourth and fifth-generation
fighters with capabilities equivalent to those of the West, and developed ballistic missile capabilities

22Summary

capable of striking U.S. military bases in East Asia,
including Guam. Furthermore, since late 2015,
China has conducted large-scale PLA reforms for
Introduction

enhancing its joint operations capabilities.43 By
pressing forward with modernization, the PLA
substantially strengthened anti-access/area-denial(A2/AD) capabilities that can restrict U.S. forces’
access to the Asia-Pacific region and deter U.S.
presence in China’s surrounding areas.44
Equipped with improved capabilities, theChapter 1

PLA has repeatedly interfered with U.S. force

A Chinese destroyer crossing in front of U.S. destroyer
USS Chung-Hoon, June 2023 (U.S. Navy photo by Mass
Communication Specialist 1st Class Andre T. Richard)

activities in the periphery of China that are inaccordance with international law. As discussed earlier, in March 2009, multiple Chinese vessels,
including a PLA Navy intelligence collection ship, obstructed the passage of the U.S. Navy’s acoustic
surveillance ship, USNS Impeccable. In December 2013, a PLA Navy landing ship engaged in adangerous maneuver by crossing in front of the U.S. Navy cruiser USS Cowpens. In September 2018,
in the South China Sea, a PLA Navy destroyer crossed in front of the U.S. Navy destroyer USS Decatur

Chapter 2

and came within 41 meters of each other. In June 2023, a PLA Navy destroyer engaged in a dangerous
maneuver in the Taiwan Strait by twice crossing in front of the U.S. Navy destroyer USS Chung-Hoon,
coming within approximately 140 meters.45 The PLA has also repeatedly engaged in provocative acts
against U.S. forces in airspace. In August 2014, a PLA J-11 fighter conducted a dangerous flight over
the South China Sea, coming within 6 meters of a U.S. Navy P-8 patrol aircraft. In February 2020, a
PLA Navy destroyer struck a military-grade laser and obstructed the flight of a U.S. Navy P-8 patrol

Chapter 3

aircraft over the Pacific Ocean.46 In May 2023, a PLA J-16 fighter dangerously crossed in front of aU.S. Air Force RC-135 reconnaissance aircraft over the South China Sea, forcing the RC-135 into
turbulent airspace.47 Furthermore, in July 2019 and August 2020, the PLA launched anti-ship ballistic
missiles from mainland China toward the South China Sea. All of these actions were attempts to deteror interfere with U.S. military activities in the periphery of China. The PLA’s provocative acts against
U.S. forces without regard for danger have increased the risk of unintended accidents and collisions.
As the PLA bolsters its confrontational posture toward U.S. forces, it has also sought to deepen

Conclusions

its cooperative relationship with Russian forces. The PLA conducted its first joint exercise with
Russian forces in August 2003 as part of a multilateral counter-terrorism exercise under the SCO.
Subsequently, SCO counter-terrorism joint exercises were regularized under the name of “Peace
Mission.” They began to be conducted bilaterally between China and Russia or multilaterally withother countries. The Peace Mission joint exercises have been carried out ten times between 2005 and
2021.
The PLA and Russian navies conducted their first-ever joint exercise, Joint Sea, covering joint

23

Chapter 1 China’s Strategy to Transform the Existing International Order

Figure 1.1 China-Russia Joint Sea Bilateral Exercises
Joint Sea-2017a
SwedenNorwayFinland

Russian Federation

Joint Sea-2013
Joint Sea-2015b
Joint Sea-2021

BalticSea

Joint Sea-2015a
Germany

PolandSea of Okhotsk
Belarus

UkraineFranceKazakhstan

Black
Sea

Spain

地中海
Libya

Mediterranean
Sea
Egypt

Mongolia
Sea ofJapan

Joint Sea-2014

TurkeyAlgeria

Joint Sea-2012
Joint Sea-2019

Joint Sea-2022

Iran

Yellow Sea

China

South
Korea

Japan

East
China
Sea

Saudi Arabia

India
Sudan

Arabian Sea

South
China
Sea

Joint Sea-2016

Philippines

Joint Sea-2017b

Indonesia

Source: Compiled by the author based on PLA Daily, USNI News, and other news reports.

カザフスタン
defense at sea and joint protection of maritime routes
in April 2012 in the Yellow Sea.48 Since then,

Joint Sea exercises have been conducted nearly every year, not limited to areas around China suchas the Sea of Japan and the East and South Chinaモンゴル
Seas but also on the European front, including theMediterranean and Baltic Seas. For the PLA Navy, these exercises provide an opportunity for training
in distant waters away from mainland China, alongside demonstrating solidarity with the RussianNavy that is face-to-face with NATO member navies.
While the Chinese and Russian militaries had gradually deepened their cooperative relationshipthrough the Peace Mission and Joint Sea exercises, it was in 2018 that their relationship strengthened
considerably. In September of that year, the PLA participated in Russian forces’ Vostok-2018 strategic exercise for the first time. Every year Russian forces conduct this strategic exercise involving
large-scale and high-intensity warfare scenarios, and the participants were traditionally Russian allies
that are members of the Collective Security Treaty Organization. In 2018, however, China, which
is not a Russian ally, was a participant. Considering that Russian strategic exercises had included
China as a hypothetical adversary, the PLA’s participation represents a major turning point in therelationship between the two militaries. Subsequently, the PLA participated in Russian forces’ Tsentr2019 and Kavkaz-2020 strategic exercises. In 2021, Russian forces participated in the PLA’s Western/
Interaction-2021 strategic exercise. The PLA also took part in Vostok-2022 in September 2022, evenafter Russian forces launched an aggression against Ukraine, showcasing the strong cooperative relationship between the two militaries.
Furthermore, the Chinese and Russian militaries began “joint patrols” in airspace and waters
in the periphery of Japan. In July 2019, the PLA’s H-6 bombers and Russian forces’ Tu-95 bombers
conducted a joint flight over the East China Sea, the Tsushima Strait, and back over the East China

24

Summary

Sea. In its announcement, the Chinese Ministry of
National Defense referred to it as “joint strategic
air patrol.”49 Since then, the Chinese and Russian
Introduction

air forces have repeatedly conducted “joint strategic air patrols” and gradually enhanced theiroperational coordination, including expanding
the flight range, providing fighter escorts, andlaunching bombers from each other’s bases.
The Chinese and Russian navies have similarly
conducted “joint patrols.” In October 2021, five

PLA Navy vessels (right) and Russian Navy vessels(left) conducting joint maritime patrol, October 2021
(Photo: Joint Staff Office)

Chapter 1

PLA Navy vessels and five Russian Navy vessels
participated in Joint Sea-2021 in the Sea of Japan.
Afterwards, they jointly transited the Tsugaru Strait to the Pacific Ocean, sailed southward off theeastern coast of Honshu, Japan and passed through the Osumi Strait before reaching the East China
Sea. The PLA Daily reported it as the first “joint maritime patrol” by the Chinese and Russian navies.50
Subsequently, the two navies have repeatedly conducted “joint maritime patrols” and coordinatednavigation in the periphery of Japan. In July 2022, Chinese and Russian naval vessels successively

Chapter 2entered or sailed in the contiguous zone of the Senkaku Islands.51 China and Russia’s objective in
conducting “joint patrols” is plausibly to rein in the strengthening of Japan-U.S. cooperation aimed atmaintaining the existing rules-based international order. When China and Russia conducted a “joint
strategic air patrol” on May 24, 2022, Japan, the United States, India, and Australia were holding a
Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad) Summit in Tokyo. The joint statement issued in March 2023
following the China-Russia summit meeting explicitly mentioned, “Both sides will regularly conduct

Chapter 3

joint sea and air patrols as well as exercises and training.” In practice, Chinese and Russian air force
aircraft conducted “joint strategic air patrol” in June 2023, while their naval vessels conducted “joint
maritime patrols” in August 2023. Chinese and Russian forces are anticipated to continue strengthening their joint activities in the periphery of Japan.

(2) Nuclear Capability Buildup for Strengthening Deterrence against theUnited States
Conclusions

The PLA has steadily reinforced its nuclear capabilities besides rapidly modernizing its conventional
forces to enhance A2/AD capabilities against the United States. In the 1980s, China’s nuclear deterrence against the United States was mainly limited to the DF-5A liquid-fueled intercontinental ballistic
missile (ICBM). However, in the mid-2000s, China developed and deployed its first solid-fueled ICBM,
the DF-31, and in recent years, began deploying the longer-range DF-41, which is capable of carrying
multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles. Along with increasing its ICBM stockpiles, China

25

Chapter 1 China’s Strategy to Transform the Existing International Orderhas built more silos for deploying ICBM underground. It is estimated that China’s operational silocount has risen from around 20 to around 300.52 Furthermore, since the late 2000s, the PLA has begun
deploying the new Type 094 nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine (SSBN), and as of 2023,
operates six Type 094 SSBNs. Recently, the JL-2 submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) on theType 094 SSBN appears to have been replaced with the new longer-range JL-3, suggesting China isacquiring the ability to launch SLBMs from nearby seas, such as the South China Sea and Bohai Sea,
to the continental United States.53 Additionally, the PLA has newly deployed the H-6N, a new bomber
with aerial refueling capabilities, and is developing air-launched ballistic missiles (ALBMs) that canbe mounted on the H-6N. These moves suggest China’s goal is to acquire “nuclear triad” capabilities
comparable to that of the United States and Russia.
The PLA has not only increased its nuclear delivery vehicles but also its stockpile of mountable
nuclear warheads. According to estimates of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute,
China possesses 410 nuclear warheads as of January 2023, which is 60 more than the previous year.54
In addition, in a report published in 2022, the U.S. Department of Defense projected China’s nuclear
warhead count to rise from around 400 in 2022 to around 1,000 by 2030 and to around 1,500 by 2035.55
The United States and Russia are limited to a maximum of 1,550 deployable nuclear warheads under
the Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (NewSTART Treaty). If China possesses 1,500 nuclear warheads while this treaty is in effect, it would
solidify China’s position as a nuclear power on par with the United States and Russia.
While China has never provided a comprehensive explanation of its nuclear weapons policy,
it has outlined several tenets in the 2019 Defense White Paper, including: (i) no first use of nuclear
weapons at any time and under any circumstances; (ii) no use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states or zones unconditionally; (iii) no engagement in a nuclear arms race with anyother country; (iv) keeping nuclear capabilities at the minimum level required for national security;and (v) maintaining a nuclear strategy of self-defense with the goal of deterring other countries fromusing or threatening to use nuclear weapons against China.56 Fan Jishe, director of the Department ofStrategic Studies at the Institute of American Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, explains
as follows. As China’s sole purpose in pursuing nuclear development is to deter foreign nuclear attacks
against China, its policy is to possess the minimum nuclear deterrence necessary to deter such attacks,
and therefore, limits itself to maintaining “asymmetric nuclear deterrence” against the United States
and Russia.57 However, China’s recent surge in nuclear capabilities appears to be aimed at building
symmetric nuclear capabilities against the United States and Russia, marking a stark departure fromthe traditional policy.
A significant expansion of Chinese nuclear capabilities would contribute substantially toachieving the Xi Jinping government’s goals to transform the existing U.S.-led international orderand safeguard core interests. The nuclear deterrence-based international order has traditionally been
shaped by two major nuclear-weapon states, the United States and Russia. If China were to become

26Summarya third nuclear power, it could play a key role in shaping a new nuclear order. Furthermore, if China
can create a situation of mutual assured destruction with the United States, it would give rise to theso-called “stability-instability paradox.” Supposing there is little possibility of escalation into nuclear
Introduction

war with the United States, China might become more inclined to employ conventional forces intheaters where its core interests are concentrated, such as the Taiwan Strait, East China Sea, or South
China Sea. The effectiveness of the nuclear threat in discouraging U.S. direct intervention in conflicts
is a subject of growing attention, including Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. Wu Dahui, deputy
dean of Russia Institute at Tsinghua University, argues that Russia’s nuclear threat has clearly deterred
U.S. and NATO direct involvement in the Ukraine war.58
Russia appears to tolerate China’s rapid enhancement of nuclear capabilities. The China-Russia

Chapter 1

Treaty of Good-Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation states that both countries will not be the firstto use nuclear weapons against each other and not target strategic nuclear missiles at each other. Under
the treaty, China’s nuclear weapons are not considered a threat to Russia. Furthermore, as mentioned
earlier, Russia has deepened military cooperation and established a strategic cooperative relationshipwith China. Additionally, Moscow is believed to be providing highly enriched uranium to use as fuelfor the fast breeder reactors that China is building.59 Fast breeder reactors produce plutonium required
for manufacturing nuclear warheads. In this light, Russia is indirectly supporting China’s buildup of

Chapter 2

nuclear warheads. Moreover, Russia has offered to support China’s development of a missile early
warning system,60 demonstrating a willingness to cooperate with China’s building of a “launch-onwarning” posture through its nuclear capabilities.

Conclusion
Chapter 3

In the immediate aftermath of the Cold War, China viewed the United States as a threat that could
undermine the CCP’s rule. China sought to avoid confrontation with the United States as much as
possible and promote cooperation to stabilize the bilateral relationship. Beijing generally accepted
the post-Cold War U.S.-led international order and pursued an international order strategy based oncooperation—building a “harmonious world” through “peaceful development.” From around the end

Conclusionsof the 2000s, however, the CCP leadership perceived the power of Western countries, with the UnitedStates at the forefront, as declining and the power of developing countries, with China at the forefront,
as increasing and began to shift its approach. Instead of hesitating from confrontation with the UnitedStates on issues related to “core interests,” China strove to reform the existing U.S.-led international
order, so as to allow China to use its power to secure its “core interests” and not threaten the CCP’s
authoritarian political regime.
The Xi Jinping government, which places an emphasis on the “great rejuvenation of the27

Chapter 1 China’s Strategy to Transform the Existing International Order

Chinese nation” and the protection of “core interests,” urged the United States to respect China’s“core interests,” including the Taiwan issue, and to accept a “new type of major-country relations”
that considers China as an equal. At the same time, China has explicitly rejected the existing international order based on rules and universal values, such as freedom and democracy. Rather, it began to
advocate for a new model of international order, specifically, a “new type of international relations”
and a “community with a shared future for mankind,” which would give a greater voice to China andother developing countries. Russia is a key partner for China sharing a common vision for a desirable
international order. In strengthening their position in the rivalry with the United States and other
Western countries over the international order, the two countries have bolstered their mutual support
and cooperation.
Coupled with pitting against the United States and safeguarding “core interests,” China is reinforcing its military capabilities, primarily A2/AD capabilities, aimed at transforming the U.S. forces-led security order in East Asia. By physically obstructing U.S. military operations and conducting
more joint exercises and coordinated activities with Russian forces in China’s periphery, Beijingseeks to ratchet up pressure on the United States and Japan and weaken the presence of U.S. forces.
Furthermore, China is rapidly strengthening its nuclear capabilities to secure robust nuclear deterrence
against the United States. Enhanced nuclear capabilities will likely not only increase China’s voice on
nuclear weapons in the future security order, but also raise the threshold for U.S. military involvement
in conflicts related to China’s “core interests.” It is expected that China will work to reshape theexisting international order by deepening strategic cooperation with Russia, with which it has a sharedvision of a desirable international order, alongside reinforcing nuclear and other military capabilities.

28

NIDS China Security Report 2024

China, Russia, and the UnitedStates Striving for a New
International Order

Sputnik/Kyodo News Images

Chapter

2

The Russia-Ukraine War and
the Putin Regime’s Survival Strategy
HASEGAWA Takeyuki

Chapter 2 The Russia-Ukraine War and the Putin Regime’s Survival Strategy

T

HE CURRENT second term of Vladimir Putin’s second administration commenced in May 2018with the issuance of the so-called “new May decree” that outlines the priorities of the admin-

istration, formally known as the presidential decree “On National Goals and Strategic Objectives of
the Russian Federation through to 2024.”1 The decree begins with the words: “In order to achieve
breakthroughs in the stagnant fields of science and technology and socioeconomic development.”
It sets concrete objectives and numerical targets for social and economic policies, and calls on the
Russian bureaucracy to ensure their implementation. This brings to light Russia’s stagnant modernization policy since the Dmitry Medvedev administration (2008–2012). Furthermore, it reflects theurgency that the incumbent administration attaches to the longstanding policy challenges facing
Russian society.
While being cognizant of Russia’s stagnation, the Putin administration embarked on a full-scale
military invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022,2 approximately four years after issuing the “newMay decree.” Consequently, Russia incurred harsh economic sanctions from Western countries andlost significant international credibility. Assuming there is some logic behind the policy decisions of
the administration, what survival strategy could be guiding its actions?
This chapter examines the above question by focusing on the domestic and foreign survival
strategies of the Putin regime. To understand the domestic strategy, the first section takes a historicalapproach, identifying the features of the current political system from the perspective of contemporary
Russian political history and comparative politics. The second section discusses the transformationof the political system and the foreign strategy for regime survival during the Ukraine war, including
the wartime situation. It relies on normative documents such as the “Foreign Policy Concept of theRussian Federation.” Using Russia as a case study, this chapter offers a comparative perspective toconsider the new strategic environment, a common theme that runs through this report.

1. The Putin Regime’s Survival Strategy(1) T he 2020 Constitutional Reform and the Survival Strategy of the “Inner Circle”
The current Putin administration has encountered difficult maneuvering since taking office in May
2018, as its announced pension reforms that would raise the retirement age triggered severe protests
and a decline in approval rating. After nationalism surged with the “annexation of Crimea” in March
2014, President Putin’s approval rating had generally remained high in the 80% range. However,discussions over pension reforms intensified in the State Duma (lower house), and his approval rating
dropped to 67% in July 2018 and subsequently hovered around the 60% range.3 At that time, theConstitution of the Russian Federation stipulated, “One and the same person may not be elected
President of the Russian Federation for more than two terms running.”4 President Putin’s term, which30

Summary

began in 2012 when he returned to the presidency, was set to expire in May 2024 when he will be age
72. This sparked discourse on who will follow Putin.
The annual presidential address to the Federal Assembly on January 15, 2020 initiated Russia’s
Introduction

full-fledged constitutional reform process.5 It added a clause that resets the terms of current and former
presidents, allowing President Putin to remain in office until 2036 (age 84).6 As shown in Figure 2.1,
the 2020 constitutional reform not only concentrated power in the president and changed the presidential term, but also enhanced protection of former presidents, such as granting immunity during andafter their term.7 Moreover, it made presidents eligible to become lifelong senators8 in the Federation
Council (upper chamber) after leaving office and allowed them to appoint up to seven lifelong senators.9 Like former presidents, up to seven lifelong senators would enjoy constitutional protection due

Chapter 1

to Federal Assembly members possessing immunity during the term of their mandate.10 These changes
can be considered as the institutionalization of the survival strategy of the “inner circle” of the Putin
regime.
Figure 2.1 The 2020 Constitutional Reform and the Putin Regime’s Survival Strategy
The Putin regime’s historical andmoral perspectives

Maintaining the political system and guaranteeing protections● “protection of marriage as a union of a male and afemale”

Chapter 2

Strategy for the political system’ssurvival and presidential powers●Immunity to presidents who have left office and lifelong
senator status●Presidential authority to appoint (no more than seven)senators for life

Enhancement of presidential powers●The president was granted the power to dismiss thechairman of the government (prime minister) and conduct
overall direction over the federal government (cabinet)●The Security Council, the highest decision-making
body, was transformed into a deliberative body thatcooperates with the president● “The Russian Federation honours the memory of the
defenders of the Fatherland, ensures protection ofhistorical truth. Diminution of the heroic deed of thepeople defending the Fatherland is precluded.”● “The Russian Federation ensures protection of its
sovereignty and territorial integrity. Any actions (except
delimitation, demarcation, re-demarcation of the stateborder of the Russian Federation with bordering states)
aimed at alienation of the part of the territory of theRussian Federation, as well as calls upon such actions
are precluded.”Conclusions●The president appoints the heads of foreign affairs,
defense, and intelligence agencies upon consultations
with the Federation Council (upper chamber)● “The Russian Federation, united by the millennium
history, preserving the memory of the ancestors whoconveyed to us ideals and belief in God, as well as
continuity of development of the Russian state,recognises the unanimity of the State that wasestablished historically.”

Chapter 3●A clause that “resets” the number of terms that can beheld by former presidents●Further centralization through the introductionof a “unified system of public authority” and thestrengthening of the National Council’s functions
Source: Compiled by the author based on Hasegawa Takeyuki, “Russia's Constitutional Reform in the Second Putin
Administration: Presidential Power in the Russian Political System,” Security & Strategy, Vol. 3, January2023, pp. 61-80. Italics are the author’s own emphasis.
Photo: Russian President official website (http://kremlin.ru/events/president/news/69470/photos/69106; http://
kremlin.ru/events/president/news/69470/photos/69108).

31

Chapter 2 The Russia-Ukraine War and the Putin Regime’s Survival Strategy

Details of the clauses endorsing the Putin regime’s view of history and traditional family values
were later presented in Putin’s July 2021 article, “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians,”
as well as in his wartime speeches delivered on September 30, 2022 that referred to sexual minorities,
including the LGBT people. The intention was evidently to further solidify the support base of his
regime. In summary, the 2020 constitutional reform was used to advance the survival strategy of the
Putin regime,11 and once again highlighted the absence or weakening of constitutionalism in modern
Russia following the Soviet dissolution.
Additionally, the reorganization of departments of the Presidential Administration during thesecond Putin administration12 provides insights into how it regards Ukraine and how the state views
the post-Soviet space. For example, the Presidential Directorate for Social and Economic Cooperation
with the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) Member Countries, “the Republic of Abkhazia,”
and “the Republic of South Ossetia,” established in June 2012, was renamed the Presidential
Directorate for Cross-Border Cooperation13 in October 2018. As shown in Table 2.1, its tasks weremodified substantially. It is particularly noteworthy that the “Republic of Abkhazia” and the “Republicof South Ossetia”—unrecognized states that are part of Georgia—were treated on par with Ukraine inlaws and regulations.
Table 2.1 Matters under the Jurisdiction of the Presidential Directorate for Cross-Border Cooperation
Presidential Decree No. 893

Guarantees the president’s activities related to social and economic issues with the CIS member
countries, “the Republic of Abkhazia,” and “the Republic of South Ossetia”

Presidential Decree No. 559

Guarantees the president’s activities related to cross-border cooperation issues with “the Republic of
Abkhazia,” “the Republic of South Ossetia,” Ukraine, and other neighboring countries based onpresidential decrees(June 25, 2012)(October 2, 2018)

Presidential Decree No. 459(August 9, 2021)

Guarantees the president’s activities related to cross-border cooperation issues on the European front

Source: Compiled by the author based on relevant presidential decrees.

Personnel changes in the Presidential Directorate for Cross-Border Cooperation provide further
insights. Alexei Filatov was promoted from deputy head to head in April 2019. He was reportedly
in charge of the overall coordination of humanitarian and political cooperation with the “Donetsk
People’s Republic” and the “Luhansk People’s
Republic,” which were essentially “influence
operations.”14 In August 2021, the task of thedirectorate changed to “cross-border cooperationon the European track,” putting fewer countries
under its responsibility.15 Under the leadership of
top officials in the Presidential Administration,such as Presidential Aide Vladislav Surkov
Expanded meeting of the Security Council held on
February 21, 2022 (Photo: Russian President official website, http://kremlin.ru/events/president/
news/67825/photos/67644)

32

and Deputy Chief of Staff of the Presidential
Administration Dmitry Kozak,16 the PresidentialSummary

Directorate for Cross-Border Cooperation appears to have played a core role in Moscow’s policy
toward Ukraine, with a focus on military intervention in Donbas.
These institutional changes fostered a level of shared understanding between the president andIntroduction

the small “inner circle” regarding foreign countries, history, and values, and it became a core component of the regime’s survival strategy.

(2) The Putin Regime and Personalization of PowerIn studies of authoritarian regimes, a theoretical paradigm that deconstructs personalization of poweris used to explain the features of the Putin regime. According to political scientist Erica Frantz, signsof personalization include narrowing of the inner circle, appointment of loyalists to key positions,

Chapter 1

creation of new security services, placement of family members in powerful posts, and use of referendums as a means of making major decisions.17 It is said that many of these characteristics align withthe political dynamics in modern Russia under the second Putin administration.18
In the case of appointment of loyalists to key positions, examples include the establishment of
the Federal National Guard Service by the 2016 security apparatus reform, the appointment of Viktor
Zolotov, former chief of the Presidential Security Service, as its director,19 the creation of the post of
deputy chairman of the Security Council as part of the 2020 Security Council reform, and the appoint-

Chapter 2

ment of Medvedev, a longtime loyalist.20 Placement of family members in powerful posts is demonstrated by the appointment of “second-generation siloviki” to key positions. For example, ForeignIntelligence Service Director Mikhail Fradkov’s second son, Pavel, was appointed first deputy headof the Administrative Directorate of the President, while Dmitry, the eldest son of Security Council
Secretary Nikolai Patrushev was appointed minister of agriculture, and Andrey, his second son, a top
executive in the energy sector.21

Chapter 3

During the second Putin administration, Russian politics saw a surge in nationalism driven
by territorial expansion, particularly following the “annexation of Crimea.” Against this backdrop,
Russia’s expulsion from the G8 and economic sanctions further cemented the confrontational relationship with Western countries. In addition, Putin continued to take a hardline posture through militaryinterventions in Eastern Ukraine and Syria. The personalization of power by Putin tightened controls
not only on organized opposition forces but also on civil society and the general media, and tended tofurther constrain civil liberties. As a result, connectivity with Western countries diminished steadily.

Conclusions

To enhance tolerance toward economic sanctions, Russia conducted summit diplomacy to strengthen
its relationships with emerging and developing countries, such as China, India, and Turkey, and rapidly
developed closer ties with international mechanisms, such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation(SCO) and BRICS.
Combined with the above, the temporal limits on President Putin’s term as supreme leader had tobe taken into account for safeguarding the regime. Ikeda Yoshiro, a scholar of modern Russian history,
notes, “Russia sensed that if it does not act now, everything would be lost and the consequences would

33

Chapter 2 The Russia-Ukraine War and the Putin Regime’s Survival Strategy

be catastrophic.”22 This description acutely captures the situation that has faced the Putin regime inrecent years.
The regime’s survival strategy has several features. They include the 2020 constitutional reform
aimed at extending the terms of the president and his inner circle and establishing common values anda shared view of history; the appointment of “second-generation siloviki” to maintain the basic natureof the regime; and a foreign policy shaped by Russia’s confrontational relationship with Westerncountries, especially enhancement of relationships with countries that have a strong authoritarian tilt
by leveraging President Putin’s network.
Some insights may thus be offered on the policymaking process for the second Russia-Ukraine
war that began on February 24, 2022, focusing on institutional characteristics such as personalizationof power and the narrowing of the inner circle in the Putin regime. However, details of the decision-making, including the timing chosen to commence the war, await further empirical research.
Considering the survival strategy examined in this section, the war in Ukraine appears to be an attempt
to realize foreign and military policies for defending and establishing the regime’s values and view ofhistory and to permeate them without bounds. Even by extending its term, the Putin regime sought toresolve the key challenges facing the strategic fronts of “great power Russia” as its “special responsibility” and establish it as the legacy of the regime.

2. Regime Transformation and Foreign Strategy
for Regime Survival during the Ukraine War(1) The Dynamics of Regime Transformation
The war in Ukraine brought further changes to the Putin regime.23 Russian politics during wartime
have seen amendments to the Criminal Code and the Code of Administrative Offenses that restrict(if not deprive) civil liberties through strict speech and information control.24 Other features include
increased personalization of power. The growth of informal actors, such as private military companies,
and autonomous actors have also resulted in policy process disruptions. In foreign policy, sweeping
sanctions, exemplified by Russia’s exclusion from SWIFT, have given rise to a survival strategy—
strengthening relations (or dependence) with countries like China, India, and Turkey. In line with the
purpose of this report, the following section analyzes the transformation of Russia’s political system
and its pursuit of a foreign survival strategy during the Ukraine war, relying on normative documents
such as the “Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation” that was revised in March 2023.
As outlined in Figure 2.2, structural features of the Putin regime in wartime include increased
personalization through the installation of loyalists in key positions, the growing influence of informal
actors, and the rise of autonomous actors, such as regional governors.

34

Summary

Figure 2.2 Structural Features of the Putin Regime in the Ukraine War
Prime Minister Mishustin

Emergency economic and fiscal measures

First Deputy Prime Minister Belousov
Mayor of Moscow Sobyanin
Central Bank Governor Nabiullina

Introduction

Presidential Military-Industrial Commission

Increase in equipment production

Deputy Chairman of the Security Council Medvedev
Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Industry and Trade Manturov
Chief of Staff of the Presidential Administration Vaino

President Putin

In contact for day-to-day operations

Increasing influence of regional governors/private militarycompanies and the “Wagner Rebellion”

・Presidential staff

・Security personnel

Chief of Staff of the・Some conservative commentators and others Presidential Administration Vaino
Secretary of the Security Council Patrushev

Chapter 1

Intense interdepartmental conflicts and power struggles
Federal Security Service (FSB)
Federal Guard Service (FSO)
Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR)
Leader of the
Wagner Group Prigozhin

Governor of
the Tula Region Dyumin

Head of the
Chechen Republic Kadyrov

Belarus shaken by the issues oftactical nuclear deployment
and the Wagner Group
Russian Ambassador to
Belarus Gryzlov

Federal National Guard Service(Transfer of Spetsnaz GROM)
Chief Directorate for Special Programmesof the President
Administrative Directorateof the President
Ministry of Defence/
Russian Armed Forces
Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
diplomatic missions, etc.

Chapter 2

President Lukashenko

Ministry of the Interior

Director of the Federal National
Guard Service Zolotov

Source: Compiled by the author based on Tatiana Stanovaya, “The Putin Regime Cracks,” Carnegie Moscow Center, May 2020;長谷川雄之[Hasegawa Takeyuki]「第2次ロシア・ウクライナ戦争とプーチン体制の諸相――権力構造と政治エリート」『 国際安全保障』第51巻第2号、2023年9月、14-25頁；Ведомости, от 18 июля 2023г., «Спецназ МВД передают Росгвардии: Такое
решение принял президент Владимир Путин»; Украинская правда, от 25 июня 2023г., «“Путина не было нигде”:СМИ узнали, как шли переговоры с Пригожиным»; The Wall Street Journal, December 2 and 23, 2022, among othersources.

Chapter 3

Photo: 
Russian President official website (http://kremlin.ru/events/president/trips/71718/photos/71909; http://kremlin.ru/
catalog/persons/307/biography; http://kremlin.ru/events/president/news/71530/photos/71668; http://www.kremlin.
ru/catalog/keywords/86/events/70667/photos/70512; http://kremlin.ru/events/president/news/51259/photos/43194;
http://kremlin.ru/events/president/news/71723/photos/71957; http://kremlin.ru/catalog/persons/74/events); (Prigozhinonly) ©Pool/Wagner Group/Planet Pix via ZUMA Press Wire/Kyodo News Images.

An example of the installation of loyalists in key positions is the appointment of Deputy
Chairman of the Security Council Medvedev to an important policy post. Amid reports that the
Ukraine war and economic sanctions were causing the defense industry to stagnate and weaponry toConclusions

be depleted, Medvedev was appointed as first deputy chairman of the Presidential Military-Industrial
Commission on December 26, 2022.25 The commission, chaired by the president, is a permanent
body for implementing national policies on the military-industrial complex and military technology
assurance in defense, security, and law enforcement activities.26 In September 2014, it was elevatedfrom a federal government commission to a presidential commission.27 While its major task for now
is monitoring the production system of the military-industrial complex,28 a structure was establishedin which First Deputy Chairman Medvedev leads the practical aspects of the commission,29 while

35

Chapter 2 The Russia-Ukraine War and the Putin Regime’s Survival Strategy

Denis Manturov, deputy chairman of the commission and chairman of its Board (also deputy prime
minister and minister of industry and trade),brings together the relevant parties to executepolicy.
At the same time, some have pointed out
conflicts among the formal actors, including
conflicts between the Ministry of Defense/
A person getting a commemorative photo taken with
Wagner troops during the “Wagner Rebellion,” June
2023 (Photo: Sputnik/Kyodo News Images)

Russian Armed Forces and the security apparatus,
such as the Federal Security Service (FSB). They
have openly criticized each other on military
operation planning, the quality of intelligence,and the performance of the Russian forces. Such disruptions in policy processes have been further
30

exacerbated by the increasing presence of informal or autonomous actors, such as private militarycompanies like the Wagner Group, RSB-Group (Russian Security Systems), and Moran Security
Group,31 together with Ramzan Kadyrov, head of the Chechen Republic, and his affiliated units.32
Since its establishment in spring 2014, the Wagner Group led by Yevgeny Prigozhin leveraged
its connections with the Russian military intelligence service (GRU), airborne forces, special forces(Spetsnaz), and others to expand the capability, size, and areas of activities. With the support anddirection of the GRU, the Wagner Group’s military operations have spanned not only Ukraine but also
Syria, Sudan, Libya, the Central African Republic, Nigeria, and Madagascar.33 The group’s originalrole was to complement official state institutions, such as the Russian forces and security services.34
During the Ukraine war, however, Prigozhin’s critiques of the formal system and his remarks, which
could be read as political interference, gained prominence. Informal actors grew noticeably, with one
scholar describing it as the “semi-privatization” of Russia’s state security functions.35
In response, the Kremlin attempted to compel private soldiers, including Wagner fighters, into
contracts with the Defense Ministry and force informal actors to join the formal system. The “WagnerRebellion” initiated on June 23, 2023 was its consequence.36 While the rebellion subsided with themediation of Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko and others, Yevgeny Prigozhin maintained
a certain presence, traveling between Russia, Belarus, and African countries. But, on August 23, 2023,
exactly two months after the rebellion, a private jet crashed in Tver Oblast. The Federal Agency for
Air Transport announced that the passenger list included Prigozhin and other senior officials from the
Wagner Group, including Dmitry Utkin.37 President Putin expressed his condolences to the victims
and praised Prigozhin as a “man with a complex destiny” and a “talented man.”38
While the crash put an end to Prigozhin’s mutiny, continued attention will be paid to the fateof the remaining Wagner members and the forces close to Prigozhin, the redistribution of Wagner’s
massive interests, and the changes that private military companies are bringing to Russia’s influence36

Summaryin the Middle East and Africa.
During the war in Ukraine, those loyal to the Putin regime as well as formal and informal actors
made various independent moves that have pulled them into intense power struggles and interdeIntroduction

partmental conflicts. The Russian presidential election is also looming in 2024. Instability within theregime, including the question of who will eventually replace Putin, is likely to become a significant
element that will heighten uncertainty in the international order.

(2) A New “Foreign Policy Concept” and Challenging a “Small Group of States”
Against this backdrop, what is the Putin regime’s vision for the international order? In the second
Russia-Ukraine war, the bulk of the Russian government’s major tasks are military operations andChapter 1

preparations for mobilization across a vast area, combined with implementation of financial policies
and emergency economic measures to deal with the situation. There have also been policy developments, such as the revision of the “Foreign Policy Concept” that outlines Russia’s basic foreign policy
in March 2023, a first in around six years.39
In the hierarchy of modern Russia’s strategic documents, the “National Security Strategy”(revised in July 2021) is at the top, followed by lower-level documents, such as “Military Doctrine,”“Foreign Policy Concept,” and “Information Security Doctrine” that are formulated for each policy

Chapter 2

area. The documents are drafted by the relevant ministries and agencies and undergo adjustments by
the Kremlin (Presidential Administration and Security Council) before they are ultimately approvedby presidential decree.
At the meeting with permanent members of the Security Council on March 31, 2023, President
Putin stated that Russia’s bureaucracy did extensive and meticulous work to the “Foreign Policy
Concept” to align it with the “modern geopolitical phenomena.”40 In reality, however, the concept

Chapter 3

is an entirely different document from the previous version (2016). On February 21, 2023, prior tothe concept’s approval, the government revoked the presidential decree “On Measures to Implement
Foreign Policy,” which had mainly listed its expectations for the Foreign Ministry following Putin’s
re-election in 2012.41 This decree had established the “basic principles of pragmatism, openness, andmulti-vector nature” for ensuring Russian national interests.42 The abolition of the decree is considered
to mark a major turning point in Russian diplomacy.
As shown in Table 2.2, the basic structure of the new “Foreign Policy Concept” follows the 2016

Conclusions

version’s. It presents the worldview in I and II and then provides details about issue and region-specific foreign policies in IV and V. The new concept underscores the uniqueness of the Russian state,describing itself as having “more than a thousand years of independent statehood,” “a vast Eurasianand Euro-Pacific power,” and “one of the two largest nuclear powers.” Additionally, “awareness of
its special responsibility for maintaining peace and security at the global and regional levels” canbe read as a declaration of its mission by the current regime. The document also expresses aversion
toward the “rules-based world order”43 and describes plainly and openly about the regime’s view of the37

Chapter 2 The Russia-Ukraine War and the Putin Regime’s Survival Strategy

Table 2.2 Composition and Key Points of the “Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation”
2016 Foreign Policy Concept2023 Foreign Policy Concept

Approved by Presidential Decree No. 640 of November 30, 2016

Approved by Presidential Decree No. 229 of March 31, 2023

I. General Provisions (Paras. 1–3)

I. General Provisions (Paras. 1–6)

“allow Russia’s economy to grow steadily and become morecompetitive”“the principles of independence and sovereignty, pragmatism,
transparency, predictability, a multidirectional approach and thecommitment to pursue national priorities on a non-confrontational
basis”“More than a thousand years of independent statehood”“a vast Eurasian and Euro-Pacific power”“one of the two largest nuclear powers”“awareness of its special responsibility”

II. Modern World and Foreign Policy of the Russian Federation

II. Today’s World: Major Trends and Prospects for Development

(Paras. 4–22)(Paras. 7–14)

Worldview “The world is currently going through fundamental

Worldview

changes related to the emergence of a multipolar international
system.”changes”“a small group of states is trying to replace [the international legal
system] with the concept of a rules-based world order (impositionof rules, standards and norms that have been developed without
equitable participation of all interested states)”III. Priorities of the Russian Federation in Overcoming(Paras. 23–48)
Global Challenges

III. National Interests of the Russian Federation in theForeign Policy Domain, Strategic Goals and Key
Tasks Set by the Foreign Policy of the Russian(Paras. 15–17)
Federation

Stipulates foreign policy specific to various issues, such as
strengthening international security and international economic andenvironmental cooperation“Humanity is currently going through revolutionary

Stipulates national interests and strategic goals

IV. Foreign Policy Priorities of the Russian Federation(Paras. 18–48)

Stipulates foreign policy specific to various issues

IV. Regional Foreign Policy Priorities of the Russian Federation

V. R egional Tracks of the Foreign Policy of the Russian Federation(Paras. 49–99)(Paras. 49–65)

China Russia will continue developing comprehensive, equal, andNew geographical divisions Listed in the order of near abroad; thetrust-based partnership and strategic cooperation, and proactively
step up cooperation in all areas. Russia views common principledapproaches adopted by the two countries to addressing the
key issues on the global agenda as one of the core elements ofregional and global stability. Building on this foundation, Russia
intends to promote foreign policy cooperation with China in various
areas, including countering new challenges and threats, resolving
urgent regional and global problems, cooperation in internationalorganizations and multilateral associations.

Arctic; Eurasian continent, China, and India; Asia-Pacific; the Islamic
world; Africa; Latin America and the Caribbean; European region;
the U.S. and other Anglo-Saxon states; and Antarctica.

India Russia is committed to further strengthening its particularly
privileged strategic partnership with India based on shared foreign
policy priorities, historical friendship and deep mutual trust, as well
as strengthening cooperation on urgent international issues andenhancing mutually beneficial bilateral ties in all areas, primarily
in trade and economy, with a focus on implementing long-termcooperation programmes approved by the two countries.

V. Formation and Implementation of Foreign Policy of theRussian Federation
(Paras. 100–108)

China Russia aims at further strengthening the comprehensive
partnership and the strategic cooperation with China and focuseson the development of a mutually beneficial cooperation in all areas,
provision of mutual assistance, and enhancement of coordination in
the international arena to ensure security, stability and sustainable
development at the global and regional levels, both in Eurasia andin other parts of the world.
India Russia will continue to build up a particularly privileged
strategic partnership with India with a view to enhance and expand
cooperation in all areas on a mutually beneficial basis and place
special emphasis on increasing the volume of bilateral trade,
strengthening investment and technological ties, and ensuring
their resistance to destructive actions of unfriendly states and their
alliances.

VI. Formation and Implementation of Foreign Policy of theRussian Federation
(Paras. 66–76)

Source: Compiled by the author based on relevant presidential decrees.

38Summary

Table 2.3 Key Points of Modern Russia’s Normative Documents on Nuclear Policy“Military Doctrine”“Fundamentals of Nuclear Deterrence State Policy”

Legal

Article 83, (z) of the Constitution
Presidential Decree No. 815 and Presidential Directive
No. 2976 of December 25, 2014

Presidential Decree No. 355 of June 2, 2020

basis

Para. 27: The Russian Federation shall reserve the right touse nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear andother types of weapons of mass destruction against it and/or its allies, as well as in the event of aggression against theRussian Federation with the use of conventional weapons
when the very existence of the state is in jeopardy.
The decision to use nuclear weapons shall be taken by the
President of the Russian Federation.

parts
Strategic deterrence drill (October 26, 2022)(III) Para. 17: The Russian Federation reserves the right touse nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear andother types of weapons of mass destruction against it and/or its allies, as well as in the event of aggression against theRussian Federation with the use of conventional weapons
when the very existence of the state is in jeopardy. (Same as
Military Doctrine, para. 27)(III) Para. 19: The conditions specifying the possibility of
nuclear weapons use by the Russian Federation are as follows:a) arrival of reliable data on a launch of ballistic missiles
attacking the territory of the Russian Federation and/or its
allies;b) use of nuclear weapons or other types of weapons of mass
destruction by an adversary against the Russian Federation
and/or its allies;c) attack by an adversary against critical governmental or
military sites of the Russian Federation, disruption of which
would undermine nuclear forces response actions;d) aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of
conventional weapons when the very existence of the stateis in jeopardy.

Chapter 2(I) Para. 4: State policy on nuclear deterrence is defensive
by nature, and is aimed at maintaining the nuclear forces
potential at the level sufficient for nuclear deterrence. It
guarantees protection of national sovereignty and territorial
integrity of the state, and deterrence of a potential adversary
from aggression against the Russian Federation and/or its
allies. In the event of a military conflict, this Policy provides
for the prevention of an escalation of military actions and theirtermination on conditions that are acceptable for the RussianFederation and/or its allies.

Chapter 3

Strategic deterrence exercise (February 19, 2022)

The document consists of (I) General Provisions, (II) Essenceof Nuclear Deterrence, (III) Conditions for the Transition of theRussian Federation to the Use of Nuclear Weapons, and (IV)
Tasks and Functions of Federal Government Authorities, Other
Government Bodies and Organizations for Implementing State
Policy on Nuclear Deterrence.

Chapter 1

NotableIntroduction

Normative
documents

Source: Compiled by the author based on relevant laws and regulations.
P h o t o : Russian President official website (http://kremlin.ru/events/president/news/69680/photos/69289; http://kremlin.ru/
events/president/news/67814/photos/67633).

Conclusions

international order. Such features align with the direction of the survival strategy of the Putin regime
discussed in the first section.
According to the self-description of “one of the two largest nuclear powers,” paragraph 27 on
strategic stability refers to “strategic deterrence, preventing the aggravation of interstate relations toa level capable of provoking military conflicts, including with the use of nuclear and other types of
weapons of mass destruction.”44 The so-called “nuclear dependence” of the Putin regime is epitomized
in narratives about using its nuclear trump cards during the war against Ukraine,45 and the wording in

39

Chapter 2 The Russia-Ukraine War and the Putin Regime’s Survival Strategy

the “Foreign Policy Concept” can be understoodin this context.
Normative

documentsonmodernRussia’s nuclear strategy consist of the “Military
Doctrine” (approved in December 2014) andthe “Fundamentals of Nuclear Deterrence State
Policy” (approved in June 2020).46 Their key
points are outlined in Table 2.3. Russia’s nuclear
China-Russia summit meeting held in Moscow, March2023 (Photo: Sputnik/Kyodo News Images)

strategy can be summarized into the following
three parts.47 The first is to intimidate an adversary with unacceptable damage in order to deter

threats relating to Russia’s existence, especially large-scale nuclear threats. The second is to launch
limited first use of nuclear weapons to compel termination of an ongoing conventional war on terms
acceptable to Russia (albeit it is unclear whether acceptable is the same as victory). The third is to
execute large-scale nuclear operations in the event that the Russian state’s very existence is threatenedby an adversary’s aggression with conventional weapons. While the first and third parts are clearly
articulated in the normative documents, there remains some ambiguity regarding the second one. If wego back to the principles, even more important than the scenarios of nuclear weapons use presented
in the Fundamentals is the following: the actual use of nuclear weapons rests on the standing andauthority of “a single supreme authority”—the president’s standing as the supreme commander-inchief of the Armed Forces, as stipulated in Article 87 of the Constitution, and the president’s authority
to take decisions on nuclear weapons use, as stipulated in paragraph 27 of the Military Doctrine.
Russia has continued to build up its deterrence posture against the United States during the
war in Ukraine. In mid-April 2023, the Russian Navy’s Pacific Fleet conducted a surprise inspection of its large-scale combat readiness and announced that 167 vessels, including 12 submarines, 28
aircraft, and 25,000 personnel participated.48 Furthermore, the Borey-class nuclear-powered submarine (Project 955A) started her transfer from the Northern Fleet to the Pacific Fleet by sailing along
the Arctic sea route in August 2023, and is expected to serve her mission with the submarine base in
Vilyuchinsk, Kamchatka Peninsula as her new homeport.49 Russia seeks to maintain and reinforce its
nuclear capabilities in the Okhotsk Sea as part of its deterrence against the United States.

(3) Military, Nuclear, and Arctic Cooperation between the Russian andChinese Regimes
The new “Foreign Policy Concept” sets out Russia’s policy of “further strengthening the comprehensive partnership and the strategic cooperation” with China. While this is essentially in line with the2021 National Security Strategy, the concept adds that the cooperation will span not only the Eurasianregion but also other parts of the world.50

40

Summary

In March 2023, President Xi Jinping visited Moscow for his first overseas trip since assuming
his third term and met with the Russian leader. The outcomes of their meeting were compiled into 14
documents, including the “Joint Statement on Deepening the Comprehensive Partnership and Strategic
Introduction

Cooperation for a New Era.” The documents attracted attention, particularly Russia’s stance on Taiwan
and economic cooperation focusing on Russian LNG exports. Receiving less attention but nonethelessnoteworthy is the documents’ mention of the “Comprehensive Long-Term Cooperation Program in
the Area of Fast Reactors and Nuclear Fuel Cycle Closure” between Rosatom, a global nuclear firm,
and the China Atomic Energy Authority.51 In December 2022, Rosatom reportedly exported to China
6,477 kilograms of uranium that can be used for fueling the CFR-600 fast-neutron reactor.52 As suchreports suggest, the two countries have steadily deepened their nuclear cooperation, which is directing

Chapter 1

attention on the fate of their nuclear relationship.53
In the Russia-China joint statement, “rules-based order” is described using the term “hegemonism.” Some have interpreted this as an indication that Russia and China regard the United Statesor Western countries as their “primary adversary.”54 The view of the West, as expressed in the jointstatement, aligns with the wording in Russia’s “Foreign Policy Concept.” Although the two countries
may not have reached a common vision of the international order, they are rapidly converging in theirthreat perception.

Chapter 2

The sixth Russia-China Joint Patrol was conducted on June 6, 2023, in which two RussianTu-95 bombers and two Chinese H-6 bombers jointly flew over the Sea of Japan to the East China
Sea.55 In July, Russian forces participated in the Northern/Interaction-2023 military exercise hosted by
China’s Northern Theater Command, and joint naval exercises were conducted in the Sea of Japan.56
As these examples demonstrate, Russian and Chinese forces have continued to carry out some level ofjoint activities in the periphery of Japan, even during the war on Ukraine (see Figure 2.3).

Chapter 3

Likewise, their quasi-military organizations and law enforcement agencies have enhanced
their cooperation, especially in the Arctic Sea. In April 2023, the “Memorandum of Understanding
on Cooperation between the Border Guard Service of the Federal Security Service of the RussianFederation and the China Coast Guard” was signed in Murmansk in the Arctic between Vladimir
Kulishov, first deputy director of the Federal Security Service (FSB) and director of the Border Guard
Service, and a delegation from the China Coast Guard (CCG). This memorandum put forward the
direction for expanding cooperation in search and rescue operations at sea, counterterrorism, andConclusions

combating illegal fishing, illegal immigration, and the smuggling of weapons and drugs.57
On April 25, 2023, the Arctic Patrol-2023 practical maritime exercise was conducted under thecommand of Stanislav Maslov, chief of the FSB Border Directorate for the Western Arctic Region, anda delegation from the CCG participated as an observer.58
As Russia faces Western economic sanctions due to the war in Ukraine, support from China,
India, and other emerging countries has become essential for national security interests, namely,
energy development in the Arctic and the installation of ports and other infrastructure along the Arctic

41

42

Sudan

Central African Republic

Libya

Strengthening bilateral and multilateralrelationships with the Global South,
such as India and Turkey, to ensure
tolerance toward economic sanctions
against Russia

TurkeyExploring maintenance oftraditional relationships with
Central Asian and Caucasiancountries. Aiming to strengthen
the functions of the Shanghai
Cooperation Organization (SCO).

Obninsk
Irkutsk

India

Myanmar

Exploring military technology
cooperation with Myanmar’s
military regime and strengthening
energy and military relations with
ASEAN member states

UrumqiPlanning construction of GLONASS-BeiDou
joint satellite facilities in Changchun,
Urumqi, Shanghai, Obninsk, Irkutsk, andPetropavlovsk-Kamchatsky

A China Coast Guard delegation
participated as observers in the Russian
FSB Border Directorate exercise, Arctic
Patrol-2023 (April 2023)

Shanghai

Changchun

Russian naval vessels sailed(patrolled) between Yonaguni
Island and Taiwan (June 2023)

Vladivostok

Vilyuchinsk(submarine base)

Under the pretext ofChina-Russia joint naval
patrol, 11 vessels fromboth countries sailed
northwest between
Okinawa and Miyako
Islands toward the East
China Sea (August 2023)

Sixth China-Russia joint
patrol flight (June 2023)

PetropavlovskKamchatsky

Large-scale surprise exercise of theRussian Navy’s Pacific Fleet (April 2023)

Source: Compiled by the author based on Российская газета, от 08 августа 2022 г., «Мишустин утвердил программу развития Северного морского пути с финансированием в 1790, 5 млрдрублей»; Коммерсантъ, от 27 сентября 2022г., «РФ и Китай договорились о взаимном размещении спутниковых станций»; Морские вести России, от 19 мая 2023 г., «Руководство
Погранслужбы ФСБ РФ поблагодарило морских спасателей за активное содействие в проведении учений 'Арктический патруль – 2023 '»; 小林周[Kobayashi Amane]「露ワグネルのア
フリカにおける動向――『プリゴジンの反乱』はどのような変化をもたらすか」国際情報ネットワーク分析IINA（2023年7月27日）, among other sources.

Mali

Engaging in Africa througheconomic (especially natural
resources, e.g., gold, minerals,
ura nium ) a nd m ili tar ycooperation and Russianprivate military companies

Via the Pacific Ocean

Transits the Sea of
Okhotsk
Transits the Tsugaru
StraitArctic sea route

Figure 2.3 The Putin Regime’s Foreign Survival Strategy

Chapter 2 The Russia-Ukraine War and the Putin Regime’s Survival Strategy

Summarysea route. How Russia will deepen its collaboration with China, its biggest partner, and how the FSB
and the CCG will work together in areas like the Arctic sea route as well as areas connected to the
Arctic Sea, such as the Bering Sea, the Sea of Okhotsk, and the Sea of Japan, will be noteworthy.
Introduction(4) Russia and the “Global South”
It should be noted that the new “Foreign Policy Concept” vows to strengthen relations with emerging
and developing countries, the so-called “Global South,” with India being a prime example. The paragraph on India mentions “ensuring [India’s] resistance to destructive actions of unfriendly states andtheir alliances.”59 As such, Russia’s policy toward India is framed around its response to the economic
sanctions over the war in Ukraine.

Chapter 1

Furthermore, the section on the “Islamic world” gives emphasis to strengthening relations with
Iran, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt in particular.60 Iran has supplied large quantities of the
Shahed-136 low-cost suicide drone to Russia61 and has deepened the bilateral relationship during the
Ukraine war. At the SCO Summit in July 2023, Iran became the ninth official member of the SCO,62
which has reinforced its nature as a counterbalance to Western countries.
Turkey has pursued balancing diplomacy even during the war against Ukraine, maintaining
relations with both Russia and Ukraine. Turkey has stepped up energy cooperation with Russia,

Chapter 2

including LNG and nuclear cooperation, and it has boosted economic ties mainly in the tourism,
finance, and real estate sectors.63 At the same time, Turkey supplies unmanned aerial vehicles such as
the Bayraktar TB2 to Ukraine as part of its military support. Russia’s nuclear industry has a significant
presence in Turkey. In April 2023, Rosatom delivered the first batch of fuel to Turkey’s first nuclear
power plant (Akkuyu), which will be launched with the company’s support.64
Turkey, a regional power in the Black Sea, led the negotiations on the Black Sea Grain

Chapter 3

Initiative, an agreement among Turkey, Russia, Ukraine, and the UN to address the grain export issues
arising from the Ukraine war. While the initiative ended with Russia’s withdrawal on July 17, 2023,
President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan visited Sochi in southern Russia and held a meeting with President
Putin on September 4. A tête-à-tête was held over breakfast, in addition to an expanded meeting
attended by ministers and senior government officials responsible for financial, energy, and militarytechnology cooperation,65 highlighting the closeness of the Russia-Turkey relationship. Especiallyafter the “annexation of Crimea,” the Putin regime has put agricultural policy and food security in theConclusions

same framework as the National Security Strategy. Agricultural policy, together with energy policy,
continues to constitute the Russian foreign strategy for regime survival during the Ukraine war.
The emerging and developing states known as the “Global South” include many countries that
Russia has not designated “unfriendly states.” Nonetheless, Russia’s independent approach toward
these countries, its cooperation with China, and its approach through the SCO framework demands
ever more attention.

43

Chapter 2 The Russia-Ukraine War and the Putin Regime’s Survival Strategy

Conclusion
At the G7 Summit in May 2023, the G7 leaders issued the G7 Hiroshima Leaders’ Communiqué,
which put support for Ukraine at the fore and committed to upholding and reinforcing the “free andopen international order based on the rule of law.”66 As discussed in this chapter, the Putin regime, achallenger to the existing international order, harbors a strong sense of rivalry against the international
order favored by the G7 countries. At the root of this rivalry is built-up dissatisfaction with the restructuring of the post-Cold War international order. Moreover, as this chapter examined, the Putin regime
emphasizes Russia’s traditional spirit and moral values as well as its unique view of history. It also
exhibits an aversion to Western liberal values, including diversity and inclusivity, and to civil society
activities. Especially in recent years, these sentiments, coupled with Putin’s increasing personalizationof power, tended to be amplified as a domestic strategy for regime survival.
Such views of the international order have emerged in the broad context of modern Russia’s
political and diplomatic history. The views are linked to Russia’s internal developments as well, exemplified by constraints on civil liberties, the absence of constitutionalism, and the rise of personalization.
The regime has a growing affinity with Xi Jinping’s political regime, which too has shown increasing
personalization. Due in part to Russia’s dependence on China for the Ukraine war, cooperating with
the Chinese regime has become a foreign strategy for regime survival. As this chapter examined indetail, Russia-China relations are steadily deepening in policy areas, such as military, nuclear, andArctic development.
Aiming to strengthen cooperation with emerging and developing states in the “Global South”
in wartime, the Putin regime is actively approaching countries that are highly aligned with them politically, such as SCO and BRICS member nations, both through diplomatic and military activities.

44

NIDS China Security Report 2024

China, Russia, and the UnitedStates Striving for a New
International Order

Getty Images=Kyodo

Chapter

3

U.S. Military Strategy for Maintaining
the International Order
ARAKAKI Hiromu

Chapter 3 U.S. Military Strategy for Maintaining the International OrderF

ROM THE perspective of U.S. national security, the perceived threat of China and Russia only
started growing from the 2010s onward. The United States had sought to foster cooperative

relations with China and Russia during the post-Cold War era, especially following the September
11 terrorist attacks in 2001 that prompted the United States to pursue the war on terror which it had
deemed its greatest national security challenge.
With regard to China, the United States maintained a policy of engagement based on the expecta-tion that China’s approval as a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in December 2001 would
lead to greater economic growth through its integration into the global economy, that a more economicallypowerful China would eventually play a role in tackling common global problems such as climate change
and nuclear non-proliferation, and that democratic values would take root in China. With regard to Russia,
too, the United States pursued political and economic cooperation as well as cooperative relations in thearea of security by inviting Russia to join the G8 in 1998 with the expectation that Russia would play acertain role in maintaining a stable security environment in Western Europe and in advancing arms control
as one of the two major nuclear powers.
However, the eventual reality diverged significantly from U.S. expectations of China and Russia
described above. China, which became the world’s second-largest economy by GDP in 2010, continued
modernizing the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) by drawing on its economic power while repeatedly
asserting its coercive territorial claims in the East and South China Seas and intensifying its attempts tochange the status quo through the use of faits accomplis. Russia, on the other hand, intervened militarily inGeorgia’s civil war in 2008 and again in Ukraine in February 2014 before illegally annexing the Crimean
Peninsula as it continued to provide military support for Russian-backed separatist groups operating ineastern Ukraine.
Against this backdrop, the Donald Trump administration inaugurated in 2017 declared that theUnited States was engaged in political, economic, and military great power competition with both China
and Russia, which it decried as revisionist states that were “contesting [U.S.] geopolitical advantages andtrying to change the international order in their favor.”1 The Joseph Biden administration has also branded
China as the United States’ “most consequential geopolitical challenge,” and Russia, which launched afull-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, as an “immediate and persistent threat to international
peace and stability.”2 U.S. national security strategy is now formulated based on the premise of strategiccompetition with China and Russia.
This chapter aims to answer the question of what kind of international order the United States hopes
to shape and how the United States approaches and intends to respond to strategic competition with China
and Russia under such an order. The United States is currently engaged in strategic competition with
China and Russia across a wide range of different arenas, including in the political, military/diplomatic,and economic domains. This chapter will thus focus on the military domain while examining the questionsof (i) what military threats are posed by strategic competition with China and Russia, and (ii) how theUnited States, and the U.S. military in particular, intends to respond to these threats.

46

Summary

Section 1 discusses the Biden administration’s vision of the international order, its basic policies
toward China and Russia, the history of how China and Russia came to be perceived as major threats to
U.S. national security, and the three new military challenges posed by strategic competition with China
Introduction

and Russia. Section 2 examines these new military challenges, namely, competition below the thresholdof armed conflict, the U.S. military’s response to anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) threats against its power
projection capabilities and operational actions, as well as its response to threats against its kill chain.
Section 3 outlines the issue of having “two nuclear-capable near-peers” in terms of future changes in thebalance of nuclear forces, and discusses the Biden administration’s response in this regard.

Chapter 1

1. Growing Perception of China and Russia as
Threats(1) Re-emergence of Great Power Competition
In the National Security Strategy issued in October 2022 (NSS 2022), the Biden administration identified China and Russia as the greatest challenge to the international order that the United States seeks

Chapter 2

to achieve. It goes on to describe China as “the only competitor with both the intent to reshape theinternational order and, increasingly, the economic, diplomatic, military, and technological power toadvance that objective.”3 Russia, on the other hand, is said to pose an “immediate and persistent threat
to international peace and stability” against the backdrop of its invasion of Ukraine.4
However, it is only in recent years that the United States has come to recognize China and Russia
as rivals in geopolitical competition. From the end of the Cold War until the early 2010s, the United States

Chapter 3

had adopted a cooperative stance toward China and Russia despite the existence of certain challenges. The
George W. Bush administration made it clear that the United States “must seize the opportunity—unusualin historical terms—of an absence of fundamental conflict between the great powers”5 by aiming to build“a new strategic relationship [with Russia] based on a central reality of the twenty-first century: the UnitedStates and Russia are no longer strategic adversaries” and by welcoming “the emergence of a strong,peaceful, and prosperous China.”6
The Barack Obama administration had also initially expressed a commitment to the establishment

Conclusionsof cooperative relations with China and Russia in order to maintain the U.S.-led international order. It set
out to “pursue a positive, constructive, and comprehensive relationship with China” in the hope of cooperating with China to tackle various issues such as the war on terror, climate change, and North Korea’s
nuclear development.7 At the same time, it sought to “build a stable, substantive, multidimensional relationship with Russia, based on mutual interests.”8This course of cooperation with China and Russia underwent a major shift under the Trump administration when the National Security Strategy issued in December 2017 (NSS 2017) declared that “China

47

Chapter 3 U.S. Military Strategy for Maintaining the International Orderand Russia challenge American power, influence, and interests, attempting to erode American security
and prosperity,” branding the two countries as revisionist states that were aiming to shape a world antithetical to U.S. values and interests.9 It also warned that China was attempting to displace the UnitedStates in the Indo-Pacific region, while Russia was seeking to restore its great power status and establish
spheres of influence near its borders.10 Confronted with these emerging political, economic, and militarycompetitions around the world, the United States emphasized the need to “rethink the policies of the past
two decades—policies based on the assumption that engagement with rivals and their inclusion in international institutions and global commerce would turn them into benign actors and trustworthy partners.”11
Along with its view of the world as being in an era of great power competition, the Trump administration’s hardline stance toward China and Russia was also sparked by Russia’s military intervention in
Ukraine as well as China’s assertion of coercive territorial claims and use of faits accomplis in the Eastand South China Seas, which led to a growing perception of China and Russia as threats from the 2010s
onward.
Shortly after the Revolution of Dignity in Ukraine in late February 2014, Russia launched a military intervention in the Crimean Peninsula and illegally annexed it as part of the Russian Federation in
March of the same year. Russia was later strongly suspected of its involvement in an anti-government
armed conflict led by Russian-backed separatists in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine. In response tothese events, the Obama administration issued executive orders imposing economic sanctions on government officials and Russian companies.12 Furthermore, there were growing concerns about Russia’s use of
cyberspace to influence and interfere in U.S. elections during this period, and the Obama administration
imposed sanctions on government agencies and individuals alleged to have been involved in cyberattacks
against critical infrastructure and financial systems.13
The United States had pursued a policy of engagement with China during the post-Cold War era
based on the strengthening of political, social, and economic ties, backed by economic benefits and hopes
for future democratization. Since then, China has achieved remarkable economic growth, surpassing
Japan in 2010 to become the world’s second-largest economy by GDP. Fueled by its economic power,
China continued to modernize the PLA through the 2000s, greatly improving its A2/AD capabilities for
impacting the U.S. military’s power projection capabilities and operational actions. Moreover, even as
U.S. trade deficit with China continued to expand, there was an emergence of the issue of non-tariffbarriers, including restrictions on access of foreign companies to the Chinese market. Under these circumstances, both the Bush and Obama administrations became increasingly dissatisfied with and wary of
China in the military and economic domains.14
Further exacerbating the United States’ dim view of China were China’s assertion of coercive
territorial claims in the East and South China Seas as well as the manner in which China stepped up its useof faits accomplis. On November 13, 2013, China’s Ministry of National Defense unilaterally declaredthat it had established an East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone in the East China Sea and that it
would adopt “defensive emergency measures” in the event that aircraft flying in this airspace did not abide48

Summaryby the procedures established by the Ministry. Around December of the same year, China began reclamation work on low-tide elevations in several areas within the South China Sea to which other countries in
the region had asserted territorial claims. It then constructed a number of large artificial islands and even
Introduction

deployed the PLA to these islands, converting them into military bases.15
The Biden administration inaugurated in 2021 has also recognized that “the post-Cold War era isdefinitively over and a competition is underway between the major powers to shape what comes next,”16
signaling its intent to continue adopting the Trump administration’s view of the world as being in an eraof great power competition with China and Russia. The Biden administration’s goal is to maintain aninternational order in “a world that is free, open, [and] prosperous.”17 NSS 2022 states that with regard
to the essential elements of such an international order, “the foundational principles of self-determina-

Chapter 1

tion, territorial integrity, and political independence must be respected, international institutions must be
strengthened, countries must be free to determine their own foreign policy choices, information must beallowed to flow freely, universal human rights must be upheld, and the global economy must operate ona level playing field.”18 It goes on to highlight the fact that these values are also enshrined in the United
Nations Charter.19
China is perceived by the Biden administration as the greatest challenge to maintaining this international order moving forward. NSS 2022 states that China presents the United States’ “most consequential

Chapter 2

geopolitical challenge” and underscores the administration’s intent to prevail over China in this competition. From a military perspective, the Biden administration has also made China a point of focus, withthe 2022 National Defense Strategy (NDS 2022) issued in October 2022 positioning China as a “pacing
challenge” in U.S. national defense planning and setting forth a strategy that considers the prevention ofChina’s dominance of key regions as a top priority.20
The main arena of strategic competition with China is in the military/diplomatic domain. The

Chapter 3

United States seeks to “prevent [China’s] dominance of key regions,” including by maintaining peace andstability in the Taiwan Strait, in light of various military challenges such as the improved capabilities andexpanded range of activities of the PLA following its modernization, as well as China’s hardline territorial
claims and use of faits accomplis in the East and South China Seas.21 As discussed below, the U.S. militaryis improving its capabilities and strengthening its posture, enhancing the resilience of its kill chain systems
that may be subject to attack by China, and developing a Joint Warfighting Concept, as means to achieve
this goal.

Conclusions

Competition with China in the military/diplomatic domain has also spilled over into the economic
domain. Trade volume between the United States and China has increased under the Biden administration as well, resulting in deeper economic interdependence between the two countries. In recent years,
however, China’s illicit acquisition and theft of cutting-edge technologies from U.S. companies as well as
its use of economic statecraft as a means of imposing its political claims on other countries have emerged
as risks to U.S. national security. In response, the United States has sought to prevent the outflow of
emerging technologies to China and build supply chains for semiconductors and other strategic goods that49

Chapter 3 U.S. Military Strategy for Maintaining the International Order

are independent of China.22
The Biden administration has also indicated that it will “compete responsibly” with China,23 witha focus on managing the competition and ensuring that American interests are not harmed by excessively
intense competition in the form of unintended military conflict or an economic decoupling between the
United States and China. However, achieving this will not be easy, as the competition for military superiority and technological supremacy in the economic domain looks set to intensify moving forward.
Besides having identified China as the greatest challenge for U.S. national security, the Biden
administration has also recognized Russia as an “acute threat” that poses significant and persistent risks
to key regions in view of not only Russia’s ongoing aggression against Ukraine since 2014 but also its
military intervention in Syria, its efforts to destabilize its neighbors, its attempts to undermine internal
political processes in countries across Europe and Central Asia, and its interference in U.S. politics.24 In
order to achieve the policy goal of making Russia’s invasion of Ukraine a “strategic failure,”25 the current
U.S. approach toward Russia is to provide an overwhelming amount of security assistance to Ukraine incollaboration with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and other allies and partners while
imposing economic sanctions on Russia.26
While future U.S. policy toward Russia will depend in part on the trajectory of Russia’s invasionof Ukraine, its main tenets include (i) continued support for Ukraine; (ii) strengthening defense of NATOterritory; (iii) preventing Russia from achieving its objectives through using, or threatening to use, nuclear
weapons; and (iv) maintaining pragmatic modes of interaction with Russia on issues of mutual interest.27
There have also been growing concerns within the Biden administration over the expansion ofpolitical and military cooperation between China and Russia. One such concern pertains to the possibilityof China providing military support, including highly lethal weapons, to Russia as Russia continues its
invasion of Ukraine. In February 2023, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken admitted in a media interview that there is “deep concern” that China could provide military support to Russia.28 Another concern
is the risk that China and Russia could impact future U.S. military action, with NDS 2022 noting that thetwo countries could “create dilemmas globally” forthe U.S. military in the event that the United States
engages in a crisis or conflict involving either China
or Russia.29 At a House Armed Services Committee
hearing held on March 28, 2023, Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley noted that
although he does not consider the relationshipbetween Russia and China to be a true full alliance,
U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and Chairmanof the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley attending
the 11th meeting of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group
held at Ramstein Air Base, Germany, April 2023 (Photoby Chad J. McNeeley, DOD)

50

their increasingly close partnership could become afuture problem for U.S. national security.30
In its strategic competition with China andRussia, the Biden administration’s emphasis is on

Summary

strengthening cooperation with allies and partners. The United States is not working alone in providing
security assistance to Ukraine; indeed, an international partnership framework known as the Ukraine
Defense Contact Group was established in April 2022, comprising all then NATO member states and 24
Introduction

other partner states, including Japan, South Korea, Australia, Finland, Sweden, Kenya, and Tunisia. In
addition to strengthening U.S. bilateral relations with allies such as Japan, South Korea, Australia, and thePhilippines in the Indo-Pacific region, a four-nation cooperative framework known as the Quadrilateral
Security Dialogue (Quad) comprising Australia, India, Japan, and the United States, as well as AUKUS, asecurity cooperative framework composed of Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, havebeen formed.
In fact, NATO member states and the EU have been actively supporting Ukraine while imposing

Chapter 1

economic sanctions on Russia on an unprecedented scale. Moreover, Finland’s accession to NATO in
April 2023, Sweden’s increasingly realistic bid to follow suit thanks to a previously reluctant Turkey
having finally signaled its approval, and the increased defense spending of NATO member states will
strengthen deterrence on the European front against any future Russia military aggression.31 Following
the adoption of its Strategic Concept in June 2022, NATO has taken a proactive stance on maintaining
security in the Indo-Pacific region, describing the Chinese threat in terms of how China’s “ambitions
and coercive policies challenge [NATO] interests, security and values” in the Communiqué issued at the

Chapter 2

Vilnius Summit held in July 2023.32 These moves by European countries can be said to be a favorable
development for the United States as it seeks to prevail in its strategic competition with China as its top
rival, since they allow resources to be concentrated in the Indo-Pacific region.
However, given the negative reactions of countries other than U.S. allies and partners toward the
support provided to Ukraine and economic sanctions imposed on Russia, the question of whether theUnited States will be able to gain support for its foreign policy from emerging and developing countries

Chapter 3

in the so-called Global South will also be a major challenge for the United States in its attempt to seek anedge in its strategic competition with China and Russia. In this regard, the United States has indicated that
it looks to the United Nations Charter as the standard by which to judge whether the actions of Russia andChina are problematic,33 which can be seen as an attempt to gain the support of the broader international
community, including ASEAN nations that wish to avoid having to choose between the United States andChina or Russia.34
The Biden administration recognizes that U.S. efforts over the next decade will constitute an

Conclusions“inflection point” that determines whether it is possible to maintain a “free, open, and prosperous” international order moving forward, and it has demonstrated its intent to establish conditions that are favorable
to the United States in its competition with China while doing its best to address the “acute threat” posedby Russia.35(2) Three Military Challenges Emerging from Strategic Competition
Strategic competition with China and Russia that first emerged in the late 2010s has become increasingly

51

Chapter 3 U.S. Military Strategy for Maintaining the International Orderintense in the military domain. For the United States, the most important condition for maintaining
a “free, open, and prosperous” international order moving forward is to ensure its superiority in thisdomain. However, competition with China, which has rapidly modernized its military capabilities, andwith Russia, which has become increasingly reliant on its nuclear forces in the wake of its invasion of
Ukraine, poses a variety of challenges to the U.S. military that will not be easy to overcome. The military challenges confronting the United States in its attempt to gain an edge in its strategic competition
with China and Russia are, namely, (i) activities below the threshold of armed conflict; (ii) threats to
the U.S. military’s power projection, operational actions, and kill chain; and (iii) future changes in thebalance of nuclear forces.
The first military challenge is what is known as gray-zone situations and operations. It was not until
the Trump administration that the U.S. Government officially alluded to this threat. NSS 2017 pointed out
how “adversaries and competitors became adept at operating below the threshold of open military conflict
and at the edges of international law,” and that “such actions are calculated to achieve maximum effectwithout provoking a direct military response from the United States. And as these incremental gains are
realized, over time, a new status quo emerges.”36 The Summary of the 2018 National Defense Strategy
issued in January 2018 also warns against activities occurring in the gray zone, noting that “in competition
short of armed conflict, revisionist powers and rogue regimes are using corruption, predatory economic
practices, propaganda, political subversion, proxies, and the threat or use of military force to change facts
on the ground.”37
In the military context, the Biden administration has been more explicitly focused on Chineseand Russian actions in the gray zone. NDS 2022 cautions that rivals such as China and Russia are now“[seeking] adverse changes in the status quo using gray zone methods—coercive approaches that may fall
below perceived thresholds for U.S. military action and across areas of responsibility of different parts of
the U.S. Government.” In particular, it highlights the problem by specifying China as a state that “employs
state-controlled forces, cyber and space operations, and economic coercion against the United States andits Allies and partners.”38
A report published by the RAND Corporation in the United States notes that specific gray-zone
operations launched by China and Russia in the late 2010s were characterized by the use of a diverse rangeof methods, including military means, such as military threats and wars involving proxy forces; intelligence operations, such as the dissemination of discourse in support of official Chinese and Russian views
and policies as well as attacks on dissenting views; and economic coercion, such as export restrictions
imposed on specific goods.39
China is believed to have started engaging in such activities in the East and South China Seas,
including issuing military threats that seek to disrupt U.S. vessels on the high seas and U.S. aircraft in theairspace above international waters, as well as the use of paramilitary organizations such as civilian andmaritime militias.40 Russia, on the other hand, is believed to be engaged in activities such as exploiting the
weaknesses of countries that are targets of its gray-zone operations, including the economic dependence of52

Summary

these countries in areas such as energy; attempting to justify its military aggression by granting passports
to Russian people residing in other countries; and conducting cyberattacks against the critical infrastructure of target countries.41
Introduction

A clear indication of the U.S. approach to China’s and Russia’s gray-zone activities in the context
of military threats can be found in the unclassified version of the Joint Concept for Competing (JCC)
issued by the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff in February 2023.42 The JCC defines strategic competition as a“persistent and long-term struggle that occurs between two or more adversaries seeking to pursue incompatible interests without necessarily engaging in armed conflict with each other,”43 and it highlights theimportance of the role played by the U.S. military even in activities below the threshold of armed conflict.
The JCC acknowledges that China’s goal is not to defeat the United States directly through military

Chapter 1

power but rather to “deter U.S. intervention militarily and present the United States with a fait accomplithat compels the United States to accept a strategic outcome that results in a PRC regional sphere of
influence and an international system more favorable to PRC national interests and authoritarian preferences.”44 The report also presents an analysis of Russia’s actions as being “built on the concepts ofwhole-of-government warfare, the fusion of elements of hard and soft power across various domains, andpermanent conflict blurring the boundary between peace and war.”45
Furthermore, the JCC points out that while China and Russia intend to “win without fighting”

Chapter 2against the United States by “[employing] cohesive and comprehensive civil and military approaches
designed to advance their national interests incrementally without triggering an armed conflict with theUnited States,” they are also “building military forces that strengthen their ability to ‘fight and win’ anarmed conflict against the United States.” It emphasizes that China and Russia are not confined by a binary
spectrum of conflict marked by peace and war and that the two countries are taking advantage of the riskof escalation to the level of armed conflict based on their military superiority over target countries. The

Chapter 3

JCC also reiterates the need for the U.S. military to adapt to strategic competition with China and Russia,
noting that if it “does not change its approach to strategic competition, there is a significant risk that theUnited States will ‘lose without fighting.’”46
The second military challenge posed by strategic competition with China and Russia is the expected
threat to the U.S. military’s power projection capabilities, operational actions, and kill chain in future
warfare. With regard to this military challenge, the United States is particularly focused on the capabilitiesof the PLA. NDS 2022 is clearly positioned as a strategy focused on China rather than Russia, with U.S.

Conclusions

Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin stating at a House Armed Services Committee hearing that China is
the “pacing challenge” in U.S. national defense planning.47 Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen.
Mark Milley also testified at the same hearing that China “remains [the U.S. military’s] #1 long-term
geostrategic security challenge,” suggesting that China’s military capabilities serve as the benchmark forbuilding U.S. military capabilities.48
The main challenge for the U.S. military in this regard is the PLA’s A2/AD capabilities. The“Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2022” (hereinafter the53

Chapter 3 U.S. Military Strategy for Maintaining the International Order“China Military Power Report 2022”) issued by the U.S. Department of Defense in November 2022
identified four sets of A2/AD capabilities: (i) precision strike capabilities and the Strategic Support Force’s
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities to detect, identify, target, and conduct damage
assessments for precision strikes; (ii) early warning radar networks, various surface-to-air missiles, as wellas ballistic and cruise missile systems; (iii) hypersonic weapons; and (iv) air power with the capability tooperate at long ranges beyond the First Island Chain. These capabilities could significantly disrupt the U.S.
military’s strategic power projection and operational actions in the Western Pacific.49
In recent years, in addition to the PLA’s A2/AD capabilities, there is a growing recognition of therisk of attacks on the U.S. military’s situational awareness capabilities acquired through various sensor
systems and even its command and control systems in view of the PLA’s improved capabilities in space,cyberspace, and the electromagnetic spectrum. The China Military Power Report 2022 alluded to thisthreat for the first time as the PLA’s “systems destruction warfare.” The report also recognizes that the
PLA’s goal is to achieve “Multi-Domain Precision Warfare (MDPW),” which leverages a “network information system-of-systems” that utilizes big data and artificial intelligence (AI) to rapidly identify vulnerabilities in the U.S. military’s operational systems and launch precision strikes against those vulnerabilities
across multiple domains.50
The third military challenge arising from strategic competition is the future changes in the balanceof nuclear forces. In addition to its A2/AD capabilities, China has continuously modernized and expanded
its nuclear forces and is believed to intend to possess at least 1,000 nuclear warheads by the end of thedecade.51 Russia has also positioned nuclear capabilities at the core of its national defense policy and has
continued to improve its capabilities. The 2022 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR 2022) issued in October
2022 notes that “by the 2030s the United States will, for the first time in its history, face two major nuclear
powers as strategic competitors and potential adversaries,” which it recognizes as a new challenge for theUnited States’ existing deterrence posture, assurance to allies, arms control, and approach to escalation
management in a crisis.52

2. The U.S. Military’s Response to the New
Military Challenges(1) The Competition Continuum Model
The first military challenge that has emerged from strategic competition with China and Russia is
responding to intensifying activities in the gray zone. The U.S. military has responded to this challenge by conducting freedom of navigation operations (FONOPs) and maneuvers in the domains ofcyber and information operations. What is remarkable in addition to these responses is the establishment of a new conceptual framework that seeks to break through the military’s previous peace-war

54Summarybinary conception of the operating environment, indicating that U.S. forces are engaged in a range ofactivities at all phases from peacetime through competition to armed conflict.
The U.S. military has traditionally held a binary conception of peace and war, with intermediate
Introduction

states between the two, as the basis on which its operation planning is carried out.53 The joint doctrine in
the Joint Operation Planning published in August 2011 divided situations into six phases and presented a“Six-Phase Model” showing the corresponding level of U.S. military action for each phase (Figure 3.1).54
This model was formulated based on the assumption that “Phase III (Dominate)” would be the focus of
U.S. military activities and that the U.S. military would not play a central role in the other phases.
The Joint Publication 1 Doctrine for the Armed Forces of the United States published in March2013 also presented a spectrum of conflict that reflected a binary conception of peace and war.55 Both

Chapter 1

these models exemplify the widely held perception that the basic target of U.S. military action is situations
involving full-scale war, and that the peaceful, prewar phase as well as the postwar phase are areas that fallwithin the ambit of other government agencies.
The limitations of such a binary understanding of the spectrum of conflict were highlighted in the
Joint Concept for Integrated Campaigning (JCIC) issued in March 2018.56 The JCIC alluded to China’s
construction of artificial islands in the South China Sea as well as Russia’s illegal annexation of the
Crimean Peninsula and military intervention in eastern Ukraine, noting that “strategic challenges such

Chapter 2

as China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea are employing coercive methods to accomplish objectives in
the competitive space between peace and war.”57 In particular, it points out that China and Russia will

Figure 3.1 The Six-Phase Model in the Joint Doctrine
P l a n P ha s e sPhase I

Phase II

Phase III

Phase IV

Phase V

Phase 0

Shape

Deter

Seize
Initiative

Dominate

Stabilize

Enable Civil
Authority

Shape

Chapter 3

Phase 0Level of Military Effort

Enabling Civil
Authority
Activities

Dominating Activities

Stabilizing
Activities

Seizing theInitiative Activities

Conclusions

Deterring Activities
Shaping Activities
Theater Shaping

Global Shaping

OPLAN Approval

OPORD Activation

OPORD Execution

OPORD Termination

OPLAN: operation plan OPORD: operation order

Source: JCS, JP5-0 Joint Operation Planning, p. III-39, Figure III-16.

55

Chapter 3 U.S. Military Strategy for Maintaining the International Order

Figure 3.2 The U.S. Army’s Competition Continuum Model

U.S. Army Strategic Roles
Win
Shape

Prevent

Conduct Large-Scale Ground Combat

Consolidate Gains

Competition Continuum
Competition Below
Armed Conflict

Armed
Conflict

Return to Competition Below
Armed Conflict

Source: Adapted from TRADOC, TRADOC Pamphlet 525-3-8, U.S. Army Concept: Multi-Domain Combined Arms Operations
at Echelons Above Brigade 2025-2045, p.15.

“continue to creatively combine conventional and non-conventional methods to achieve objectives by
operating below a threshold that would invoke a direct military response from the United States while
retaining the capability to engage in more conventional armed conflict,” with the escalation advantage
provided by the superiority of their conventional forces over those of target countries playing a complementary and important role and the backing of their military power enhancing the effectiveness of theiractivities in the gray zone.58
The JCIC argues that in response to these circumstances, the U.S. military “must eliminate institutional remnants of the obsolete peace/war binary conception of the operating environment,” recognizethat competition below the threshold of armed conflict is the primary arena of adversary activity, andengage in this competition to deter armed conflict.59 It further highlights the importance of understandingthat the phase following the end of armed conflict is not “peace” but a return to and a continuation of thecompetition phase.60
The JCIC presents the “Competition Continuum Model” as a new conceptual framework developed based on the understanding described above. This model classifies relations between the UnitedStates and other countries into three states: “cooperation,” “competition below armed conflict,” and“armed conflict,” all of which may exist simultaneously. The U.S. military is expected to perform certain
roles (operational actions) in each of these states.
The Joint Doctrine Note on the Competition Continuum (CC) published in 2019 also presents subordinate operational objectives for the states of cooperation, competition, and armed conflict. For instance,
the three subordinate objectives for the state of competition are, in order of decreasing degree of coercion,(i) “enhance,” which seeks to achieve strategic objectives, prevent the competitor from achieving objectives incompatible with those of the United States, and improve relative strategic or military advantage

56

Summary

without causing an escalation to armed conflict; (ii) “manage,” which seeks to maintain relative strategic
or military advantage to ensure the competitor achieves no further gains, and only seek to improve theU.S. advantage when possible with existing resources and in a manner that does not jeopardize interests
Introduction

elsewhere; and (iii) “delay,” which seeks to achieve the best possible strategic objective within the given
resources or policy constraints, while recognizing that this entails risk that the competitor will achieve
further gains.61
The CC also identifies several important considerations for U.S. military action in the state ofcompetition below armed conflict. Specifically, (i) the U.S. military should achieve the best possible
understanding of how relevant actors will perceive its action; (ii) the U.S. military should conduct a broadarray of activities, e.g., establish access to critical areas, forward position units, establish appropriate andChapter 1

timely presence, organize exercises, share intelligence, prepare the environment for crisis response, andengage in efforts to counter and undermine the competitor’s narrative; (iii) the U.S. military and its partners should ensure the creative and flexible conduct of their activities within a fluid and pervasive information environment; (iv) the U.S. military and its partners should have a deep understanding of competitor
perceptions and decision making, ensure the close integration of diplomatic, informational, military, andeconomic efforts, and conduct continual reassessment of the competitor’s intentions and capabilities; and(v) competition below armed conflict should make use of latent, rather than direct, military power.62

Chapter 2(2) New Concepts for Future Warfare
The U.S. military has continued to develop new concepts in response to the second military challenge, i.e., the threat associated with A2/AD and its kill chain. In 2009, under the direction of U.S.
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, the U.S. Air Force and Navy began studying the Air Sea Battle(ASB) Concept as a concept for guiding capabilities designed to counter this threat. Subsequently, in

Chapter 3

November 2011, the ASB Office was established in the Department of Defense alongside the U.S.
Marine Corps to further develop the ASB Concept.63
The ASB Concept issued in May 2013 is based on the idea of rendering the adversary’s A2/AD
capabilities wholly ineffective by conducting an attack on any stage of the adversary’s kill chain to disrupt
and destroy its capabilities. Rather than focusing on attacking specific capabilities such as long-range
precision strike capabilities, the ASB Concept aims to develop “networked, integrated forces capableof attack-in-depth” to (i) disrupt the adversary’s command and control, communications, computers,

Conclusions

intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; (ii) destroy the adversary’s A2/AD platforms and weaponssystems; and (iii) defeat the adversary’s weapons and formations.64
In November 2015, oversight of the development work for the ASB Concept was transferred to
the Joint Staff J7 Directorate (Joint Force Development), and the name of the concept was changed to the“Joint Concept for Access and Maneuver in the Global Commons” (JAM-GC). JAM-GC was approvedin October 2016 and expanded operational domains from sea and air to a total of five battle domains,
including land, space, and cyberspace, with a focus on operational actions within the adversary’s A2/AD

57

Chapter 3 U.S. Military Strategy for Maintaining the International Orderthreat range.65
Given the PLA’s improved capabilities in space, cyberspace, and the electromagnetic spectrum
in the late 2010s, there was a growing recognition within the U.S. military of the risk that the situationalawareness capabilities and command control systems that had previously given the U.S. military the edge
could be attacked and rendered ineffective. The focus in both the ASB Concept and JAM-GC was on the“offensive” aspect of how to penetrate into the adversary’s A2/AD threat range to carry out operational
actions, but the need to address the “defensive” aspect of how to respond to attacks by China, which has
now become a “peer adversary,” has emerged.
In response to these changing perceptions of China’s military threat, U.S. Secretary of Defense
Mark Esper directed the Joint Chiefs of Staff to develop the Joint Warfighting Concept (JWC) for theentire U.S. military in July 2019. The JWC was approved in June 2021, and while it remains a classified
document, the JWC has since been revised with its third iteration published in 2023.66 At the core of the
JWC is the so-called Joint All-Domain Operations (JADO), which is described as “actions by the joint
force in all domains that are integrated in planning and synchronized in execution, at speed and scaleneeded to gain advantage and accomplish the mission.”67
One of the hallmarks of both the JWC and JADO is the goal of building a system capable offaster decision making than the adversary as a means of countering adversaries of comparable capability.
To safeguard its advantage in decision making, the U.S. military has been developing a next-generationcommand and control system in recent years. Known as the Joint All-Domain Command and Control(JADC2), this system utilizes AI technology and combines the sensors and strike capabilities of all U.S.
military services into a single network with the aim of creating an immediate and efficient kill chain.68

3. C
 hanging Nuclear Balance(1) The “Two-Nuclear-Peer” Problem
A major factor contributing to future changes in the balance of nuclear forces is China’s rapid buildup
of its nuclear forces. The China Military Power Report 2022 estimates that China’s operational nuclear
warheads stockpile has surpassed 400, and that if China continues the pace of its nuclear expansion, it
will “likely field a stockpile of about 1,500 warheads by its 2035 timeline.”69 As a demonstration of its
nuclear expansion policy, China has been building over 300 silos for fielding intercontinental ballistic
missiles (ICBM). These silos would be equipped with the DF-41, which has improved range andaccuracy over DF-31 class ICBMs and can carry three or more warheads per missile. The report also
points out that China intends to increase its capacity to produce plutonium, a raw material for nuclear
warheads, by constructing new fast breeder reactors.70
Senior U.S. government officials have expressed concerns over China’s pursuit of nuclear

58

Summary

expansion in recent years. At a House Armed Services Committee hearing on March 1, 2022, Deputy
Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Sasha Baker testified that although it had been assessed in 2020
that China could double its number of nuclear warheads from the then estimated figure of less than 200 to
Introduction

around 400 by 2030, China’s efforts since then meant that it “may be able to amass up to 700 warheads by2027 and at least 1,000 by 2030.”71 At a House Armed Services Committee hearing on March 28, 2023,
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Space Policy John Plumb shared the outlook presented in the China
Military Power Report 2022, according to which projections for China’s nuclear warheads grew by asmuch as 1.5 times in the span of one year.72
The United States has been alarmed by the strengthening of China’s nuclear forces not only quantitatively in terms of its growing number of nuclear warheads but also qualitatively in terms of their

Chapter 1

improved capabilities, including the modernization of the types of nuclear warheads and their means ofdelivery. Among these is China’s development of new nuclear delivery systems such as hypersonic glide
vehicles (HGV) and fractional orbital bombardment (FOB) systems that are capable of carrying nuclear
warheads. At the House Armed Services Committee hearing on March 8, 2023, Commander of the U.S.
Strategic Command (STRATCOM) Anthony Cotton expressed concerns over China’s November 2021
test of a HGV with FOB capability,73 which has “implications for strategic stability” as the non-ballistic
trajectories of FOB systems complicate missile detection and tracking.74

Chapter 2

In addition, China is modernizing the three key pillars of its nuclear policy. Assistant Secretaryof Defense for Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Defense Programs Deborah Rosenblum noted that
“China is working to develop, test, and field new generations of land-based ballistic missiles and increase
the range of their submarine-launched ballistic missiles.”75 Former STRATCOM Commander Charles
Richard has described this rapid expansion of China’s nuclear forces in both qualitative and quantitative
terms as a “strategic breakout.”76

Chapter 3

Another concern pertaining to China’s breakout is its deepening cooperative relations with Russia.
It was announced at the end of February 2023 that Rosatom, a Russian state-owned nuclear-energy corporation, will supply 25 tons of highly-enriched uranium to China as fuel for the CFR-600 fast breeder
reactors that China is constructing.77 The United States considers the CFR-600 to be a reactor designed
for breeding plutonium for nuclear weapons and is alarmed at the prospect of Russia providing support
for China’s nuclear expansion.78 At the hearing on March 28, 2023, Assistant Secretary of Defense Plumbtestified that “the PRC’s development of new nuclear material production and reprocessing facilities—

Conclusions

including with Russian assistance in supplying nuclear fuel for a plutonium-generating breeder reactor—isparticularly troubling because these facilities could support nuclear warhead production.”79 Congress has
also become increasingly concerned by the deepening of Sino-Russian cooperation in the field of nuclear
energy. In their March 16 letter to Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs Jake Sullivan,
the chairmen of the House Armed Services Committee, House Foreign Affairs Committee, and House
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence urged the Biden administration to “use all tools at its disposal
to stop Rosatom and the PRC’s dangerous cooperation” and to take firm action such as the application of59

Chapter 3 U.S. Military Strategy for Maintaining the International Ordereconomic sanctions against Rosatom.80
While China has pursued the rapid expansion of its nuclear forces, Russia’s nuclear forces arealso perceived as a serious threat to the United States. Assistant Secretary of Defense Plumb testified that
“Russia is steadily expanding and diversifying nuclear systems that pose a direct threat to NATO andneighboring countries.”81 Russia is also expected to pursue defense strategies that are even more reliant on
nuclear weapons moving forward as a result of its invasion of Ukraine, with STRATCOM Commander
Cotton noting that “the continued degradation of Russian conventional capability in Ukraine will likely
increase Russia’s reliance on its nuclear arsenal.”82
Russia has been modernizing its nuclear forces and phasing out ICBMs deployed during the Soviet
era over the last few decades, with its current oldest silo-based ICBM SS-18 (first deployed in 1988) tobe replaced by the SS-29 from 2023 onward.83 One feature of Russia’s nuclear forces is its large stockpile of short-range non-strategic nuclear weapons and weapons systems that can also carry conventional
warheads, with the U.S. Government estimating that Russia currently has an active stockpile of 1,000
to 2,000 non-strategic nuclear weapons.84 The United States believes that Russia will use non-strategic
nuclear weapons as a means of nuclear intimidation, as it did during its invasion of Ukraine. Assistant
Secretary of Defense Rosenblum has pointed out that Russia’s non-strategic nuclear weapons “underwrite
a clear willingness in Moscow to use threats of nuclear use for coercive benefit and revisionist ends.”85
Even as it was modernizing its nuclear forces, Russia entered into the Treaty on Measures for the
Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (New START Treaty) with the United Statesin 2011 and agreed to reduce not only the number of nuclear warheads in its arsenal but also the number of
deployed and non-deployed ICBMs, submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBM), and heavy bombers.
This treaty stipulated a verification regime as part of its implementation that requires (i) mutual on-site
inspections; (ii) mutual notification of ballistic missile launch tests; and (iii) biannual data exchanges on
new missiles entering the force, basing location of treaty-accountable missiles, status change for missiles,
advance notice of major strategic exercises, and the elimination and conversion of strategic offensive arms.
The treaty also mandated the establishment of a Bilateral Consultative Commission (BCC) as a consultative body for treaty compliance and implementation that meets at least twice each year.86 According to the
Department of State, the two parties have conducted a total of 328 on-site inspections, 25,449 exchanges
of notifications, 19 meetings of the BCC, and 42 biannual data exchanges under the New START Treaty
as of February 1, 2023, following the treaty’s entry into force.87
Maintaining transparency over nuclear forces through such means was a major contributor to thestrategic stability of U.S.-Russia relations. However, President Vladimir Putin announced on February
21, 2023, that Russia would “suspend” implementation of the New START Treaty. Since there is noprovision in the treaty for the suspension of its implementation, it is unclear whether Russia will increase
its stockpile of strategic nuclear weapons beyond the treaty limits or what its intentions are, but according
to an announcement by the Department of State, Russia has not provided the required data update to
the United States scheduled for March 2023 or conducted any on-site inspections in the United States.88

60

Summary

While the United States has pledged to continue implementing the treaty, it has currently stopped sharing
information on U.S. nuclear forces as a countermeasure in response to Russia’s violation of the treaty.89
Given these circumstances, future changes in the balance of nuclear forces are expected to occur in
Introduction

this new phase characterized by China’s nuclear expansion and Russia’s growing reliance on its nuclear
forces. Currently, the United States has 1,419 deployed nuclear warheads according to official figures
released,90 while Russia had 1,549 warheads as of September 1, 2022, before it suspended its implementation of the New START Treaty.91 Accordingly, if the United States and Russia were to maintain their nuclear
forces at current levels and if China meets its forecast of 1,500 warheads by 2035, the three countries will
have roughly equal numbers of deployed nuclear warheads in around 10 years. This prompted former
STRATCOM Commander Richard to warn at the House Armed Services Committee hearing on March 1,

Chapter 1

2022, that “never before has [the United States] simultaneously faced two nuclear-capable near-peers.”92(2) The Biden Administration’s Response
In response to the emerging issue of having “two nuclear-capable near-peers,” where the United States
is simultaneously confronted with China and Russia, two countries whose nuclear forces are expected
to be comparable to those of the United States, the Biden administration has committed to reducing
the risk of nuclear use through arms control and strengthening U.S. deterrence. In remarks delivered at

Chapter 2

the Arms Control Association Annual Forum on June 2, 2023, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan
said that the United States seeks to achieve strategic stability with other nuclear powers based on thecore approaches of “[preventing] an arms race” and “[reducing] the risk of misperception and escalation” through efforts to “update [U.S.] deterrence capabilities and plans” as well as to “advance newarms control and risk reduction measures.”93
U.S. policies aimed at strengthening deterrence include (i) modernizing each leg of its nuclear

Chapter 3

triad of ICBMs, SLBMs, and strategic bombers, and (ii) modernizing its nuclear command, control, andcommunications (NC3) systems.94 As U.S. nuclear forces and NC3 systems were first deployed in the
1970s and 1980s and have had their service lives
extended multiple times through refurbishment
programs, their modernization has become an
important policy issue.
For ICBMs, development and testing of theConclusions

next-generation ICBM Sentinel, which will replace
the current Minuteman III, is underway.95 For
sea-based nuclear forces, deployment of a minimumof 12 COLUMBIA-Class nuclear-powered ballistic
missile submarines (SSBN), which will replace
the current OHIO-Class SSBNs, is planned to takeplace from 2030.96 For air-based nuclear forces,

ICBM Minuteman III test launch conducted at
Vandenberg Space Force Base, California, February
2023 (U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Landon
Gunsauls)

61

Chapter 3 U.S. Military Strategy for Maintaining the International Orderdevelopment of the B-21 Raider bomber, which will replace the B-2 bomber, is underway, in addition
to the modernization of the B-52H Stratofortress bomber, which is scheduled to be in operation until
2050. In addition, development of a long-range stand-off cruise missile is underway to replace the current
air-launched cruise missile, which was first deployed in 1982 and has already exceeded its design service
life.97 Finally, a decision has been taken to replace the B61-3/4/7 bombs with the B61-12 nuclear gravity
bomb and retire the B83-1 nuclear gravity bomb.98
The Biden administration has explicitly shut down the possibility that the United States will expand
its nuclear forces in response to China’s and Russia’s nuclear expansion even as it pursues the modernization of its aging nuclear forces. In the aforementioned speech, National Security Advisor Sullivan pointed
out that “the United States does not need to increase [its] nuclear forces to outnumber the combined totalof [the nuclear forces of its] competitors in order to successfully deter them [...] nor does the United Statesneed to deploy ever-more dangerous nuclear weapons to maintain deterrence.”99
To begin with, the Biden administration has specified that the roles of nuclear weapons in U.S.
national defense policy are to (i) deter strategic attacks against the United States; (ii) provide security
assurances to U.S. allies and partners; and (iii) achieve U.S. objectives if deterrence fails.100 With regard todeterrence, it has declared that “as long as nuclear weapons exist, the fundamental role of nuclear weapons
is to deter nuclear attack on the United States, [its] Allies, and partners.”101 While the Declaratory Policy
identifies the target of deterrence as nuclear attack, it also recognizes that “nuclear weapons are required
to deter not only nuclear attack, but also a narrow range of other high consequence, strategic-level attacks”
without precluding attacks by conventional forces or chemical and biological weapons as potential targetsof deterrence.102
Regarding the use of nuclear weapons, the Biden administration has maintained a stance of negative security assurances, stating that “the United States would only consider the use of nuclear weapons in
extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States or its Allies and partners,” and that“the United States will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states thatare party to the NPT and in compliance with their
nuclear non-proliferation obligations.”103
Deterrence of limited nuclear use in armed
conflict has also come to be recognized as animportant task in light of the structure of China’s
and Russia’s nuclear forces and the nuclear threats
issued by Russia during its invasion of Ukraine.
Assistant Secretary of Defense Plumb testified that
A B-52H bomber landing at Kualanamu International
Airport in Medan, North Sumatra, Indonesia, to participate in a bilateral exercise with the Indonesian Air
Force, June 2023 (U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt.
Zade Vadnais)

62“the capability to deter limited nuclear attacks is
critical given that some competitors have developed
strategies for warfare that may rely on the threat or
actual employment of nuclear weapons to terminateSummarya conflict on advantageous terms.”104 NPR 2022 also reiterates that the United States must “be able to deter
both large-scale and limited nuclear attacks from a range of adversaries.”105
The Biden administration has sought to formulate an integrated deterrence strategy that incorpoIntroduction

rates non-nuclear forces in a manner that is optimized for specific countries as its approach to achieving
deterrence as outlined above. This strategy is intended to achieve deterrence by complicating the potential
adversary’s policy-making calculus and by influencing its perception of gains and losses associated with
options such as whether to instigate a crisis, initiate armed conflict, or use nuclear weapons.106
In this regard, NPR 2022 indicates that “[the United States’] goal is to strengthen deterrence andraise the nuclear threshold of [its] potential adversaries in regional conflict by undermining adversaryconfidence in strategies for limited war that rely on the threat of nuclear escalation.”107 It goes on to suggest

Chapter 1that “when engaged in conventional operations against a nuclear-armed adversary[,] the Joint Force must
be able to survive, maintain cohesion, and continue to operate in the face of limited nuclear attacks,”
pointing to a posture of strengthening U.S. deterrence by demonstrating to adversaries that even limited
nuclear escalation would not allow them to achieve their objectives.108
In relation to China, the Biden administration seeks to maintain a flexible deterrence strategy andforce posture with the intent to “prevent the PRC from mistakenly concluding that it could gain advantage
through any employment of nuclear weapons.”109 At the same time, it has called on China to engage in

Chapter 2

strategic dialogue to reduce mutual misperceptions and the risk of unintended nuclear escalation, as it
expresses concerns over the stark differences in how “the United States has substantial experience instrategic dialogue [...] with Russia, but has made little progress with the PRC despite consistent U.S.
efforts.”110 Despite China’s reluctance to engage in such dialogue, the United States has called for dialogue
between the military and diplomatic authorities of both parties, stating that it “remains ready to engage
the PRC on a full range of strategic issues, with a focus on military de-confliction, crisis communications,

Chapter 3

information sharing, mutual restraint, risk reduction, emerging technologies, and approaches to nuclear
arms control.”111
The Biden administration has also emphasized efforts to maintain the credibility and reliability ofextended deterrence, the first of which is the modernization of U.S. nuclear forces, as discussed above.
Another policy on this front is the integration of U.S. military activities, operations, and strategies withthose of its allies and partners, which “adds uncertainty and complexity to adversary planning.”112 The
United States has also signaled its intent to strengthen its consultative posture with South Korea, Japan,

Conclusions

and Australia on nuclear deterrence policy, strategic communication, and policy formation aimed atenhancing collective regional security. Another key measure it will pursue to enhance credibility is to“increase the visibility of U.S. strategic assets” through activities such as port calls and flights undertakenby its strategic SSBNs and bombers, respectively.

63

Chapter 3 U.S. Military Strategy for Maintaining the International Order

Conclusion
China and Russia have come to be perceived as major threats to U.S. national security from the late
2010s. The view of the world as being in an era of great power competition that first emerged under
the Trump administration has been inherited by the Biden administration, with U.S. national security
policy currently being formulated based on the premise of strategic competition with China and Russia.
The Biden administration seeks to achieve a “free, open, and prosperous” world and an international
order that is underpinned by the principles and values of self-determination, territorial integrity, political independence, and universal human rights as enshrined in the United Nations Charter.
China is seen as the greatest challenge to maintaining this international order. Specifically, theUnited States considers China its “most consequential geopolitical challenge” and “the only competitor
with both the intent to reshape the international order and, increasingly, the economic, diplomatic, military,and technological power to advance that objective.” Russia, on the other hand, has violated internationalrules with its full-scale invasion of Ukraine and is said to pose an “immediate and persistent threat tointernational peace and stability.”
Strategic competition with China and Russia in the military domain has intensified. The UnitedStates is currently confronted with three new military challenges, namely, (i) responding to activities
below the threshold of armed conflict; (ii) threats to the U.S. military’s power projection, operational
actions, and kill chain; and (iii) future changes in the balance of nuclear forces.
The United States has sought to respond to these challenges by (i) pursuing operational action
planning under the conceptual framework of a spectrum of conflict known as the Competition Continuum
Model, (ii) developing the Joint Warfighting Concept for conducting operational actions across multiple
operational domains within the adversary’s A2/AD threat range; (iii) strengthening security assurances
to allies through measures such as maintaining a safe, robust, and effective nuclear deterrence posture,encouraging strategic dialogue with China, strengthening extended deterrence talks, and increasing thevisibility of U.S. strategic assets.
The Biden administration recognizes that U.S. efforts over the next decade will determine the futurestate of the international order, and it has adopted an increasingly proactive stance with the goal of gaining
an edge in its strategic competition with China and curbing the threat posed by Russia. Competition with
China and Russia over how the international order will take shape looks set to continue and intensify
moving forward.

64

NIDS China Security Report 2024

China, Russia, and the UnitedStates Striving for a New
International Order

Conclusions
Future Direction of the International Order
IIDA Masafumi, ARAKAKI Hiromu, and HASEGAWA Takeyuki

Conclusions

Future Direction of the International Order
This report has analyzed the international order ambitions of China, Russia, and the United States—
great powers that could significantly influence the future international order—and the measures taken
to achieve them. It has also discussed each country’s approach to the other two nations for creating
their desirable order. Here we review and take stock of the analysis in each chapter and share our viewson the direction of the international order expected in the foreseeable future.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) government perceived the new post-Cold War international order as a threat to its political regime. Not only did the socialist bloc collapse following
its defeat in the Cold War against the West. The government also believed that Western attempts
to permeate universal values in China and promote a “peaceful evolution” triggered the Tiananmen
Square incident. Beijing initially sought to avoid confrontation with the powerful United States asmuch as possible and to cooperate with the U.S.-led international order. However, as its economy grew
and its military capabilities increased, China began to gradually challenge the existing international
order under which it prospered.
In particular, the Xi Jinping administration has emphasized “core interests,” such as unification
with Taiwan and expanded control in the South and East China Seas, and stepped up its campaign tooverthrow the rules of the existing international order—that is, the rules that forbid the use of force
to unilaterally change the status quo. Furthermore, an international order based on universal values,
such as freedom and democracy, became unfavorable for Xi’s centralization of power. His goal is totransform the post-Cold War international order into one which allows “core interests” to be secured,
backed by force, and which does not threaten the CCP’s authoritarian political regime. By working
more closely with developing countries that do not necessarily share the same values and interests as
the West, China is steadily challenging the existing international order.
China has been striking a more confrontational posture toward the United States. Beijing denies
the rules and values of the existing international order, rejects U.S. leadership, and demands that theUnited States respect Chinese “core interests.” China has boosted its anti-access/area-denial (A2/
AD) capabilities, mainly maritime, aerial, and missile, in order to weaken the U.S. military presencein the periphery of China. Additionally, it has rapidly built up its nuclear capabilities. If China wereto acquire a robust nuclear deterrent against the United States, it would substantially facilitate insecuring its “core interests” and reforming the U.S.-led international order. At the same time, China
is enhancing its cooperation with Russia with a view to transforming the existing international order.
With Putin increasingly hostile toward Western values and aspiring to reform the European security
order led by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the Xi Jinping administration views theRussian regime as a key strategic partner for transforming the existing international order. Even after
the Russian forces invaded Ukraine, China continues to collaborate and has reinforced its military66Summary

cooperation with Russia, including joint patrols in the surrounding areas of Japan.
The Putin regime, which has emerged as a challenger to the existing international order, harbors
a strong sense of rivalry against the international order favored by the West. At the root of this rivalry
Introduction

is built-up dissatisfaction with the restructuring of the post-Cold War international order, particularly
among the siloviki, and the transformation of the regime, especially the growing rigidity of the inner
circle due to Putin’s personalization of power.
Today, the Russian and Chinese political regimes share a common aversion to Western liberalvalues, which are embodied by diversity and inclusivity, as well as to civic movements that underpin
democracy and constitutionalism and civic freedoms that guarantee them. With the war on Ukraine,
this aversion has become a powerful driving force for inter-regime cooperation. Particularly for

Chapter 1

deterring the United States, China and Russia have deepened tangible cooperation in critical policy
areas, such as military, nuclear, and Arctic development. This trend is likely to continue as long as thetwo political regimes do not undergo any major changes.
Furthermore, the waters around Japan, including the Sea of Okhotsk and the Sea of Japan,
which lead to the Arctic Sea route, and the East China Sea, are gaining strategic significance not only
for China. Their value as a strategic juncture is also increasing for Russia, which is locked in intense
confrontations with the West and wants to build up its resilience against economic sanctions. We need

Chapter 2

to monitor joint actions by Chinese and Russian military/quasi-military organizations in the maritime
and air domains, as well as carefully assess the extent to which China and Russia are coordinating andkeeping checks on each other over these strategic junctures.
In the post-Cold War era, the United States sought to foster cooperative relations with China andRussia. However, Russia, which began to express dissatisfaction with NATO and the West, illegallyannexed the Crimean Peninsula in Ukraine in March 2014 and continued its military involvement in

Chapter 3

eastern Ukraine. Meanwhile, in China, military modernization continued without transparency. After
Xi Jinping came into power, China not only made hardline territorial claims in the East and South
China Seas but also intensified its use of faits accomplis—for example, constructing artificial islands
on an enormous scale. The United States gradually became more concerned by China and Russia’s
attempts to change the status quo, and the Trump administration declared the onset of an era of great
power competition with the two “revisionist powers.”
The Biden administration seeks to maintain an international order based on existing rules, such

Conclusions

as territorial integrity and respect for universal human rights, in “a world that is free, open, [and] prosperous.” In this regard, Biden, too, has not altered the U.S. view of China and Russia as challengers to
the existing order. Believing that the efforts over the next decade will determine the future international
order, the administration places a greater emphasis on prevailing in the strategic competition with
China, the “most consequential geopolitical challenge.” With an aim to curb Russian threats to theregion, as seen in the aggression against Ukraine, the United States has bolstered security assistancefor Ukraine on an unprecedented scale while maintaining economic sanctions against Russia. In doing

67

Conclusions

so, the administration has pursued not only bilateral cooperation with allies and partner countries,
but also multilateral cooperation such as the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad) and AUKUS.
Moreover, emphasis is placed on strengthening engagement with the Global South.
The geopolitical competition with China has major implications for the future international
order, with the military/diplomatic domain being a particularly critical arena. In this competition,
the challenges confronting the United States are: (i) responding to Chinese and Russian activities
below the threshold of armed conflict; (ii) maintaining U.S. force capability for power projection andoperational actions against China’s A2/AD threats and defending the U.S. forces’ kill chain; and (iii)
adapting to changes in the balance of nuclear forces considering China’s rapid expansion of nuclear
capabilities. The Biden administration gives priority to preventing the competition from escalating,while on the other hand, actively ensuring that U.S. military superiority is maintained into the future.
The above discussions on China, Russia, and the United States suggest that China and Russia
will further enhance their cooperation for transforming the existing international order. Both the Xi and
Putin regimes have hostile views toward the existing international order, which is based on universal
values such as freedom and democracy, and regard it as an obstacle to expanding their respective
national interests. The two countries share common strategic goals: diminishing the influence ofWestern countries in the existing international order, and thereby, averting international criticism andpressure on their non-democratic governance systems; and creating a new international order that ismore conducive to using force to unilaterally change the status quo. China and Russia have a sharedstrategic interest in deepening their mutual cooperation to achieve these goals.
Both China’s vision for a “new type of international relations” and Russia’s vision for a “multipolar world” primarily entail working more closely with emerging and developing countries, theso-called “Global South,” and building a united force to counter the Western-led existing international
order. China and Russia had encouraged multilateral cooperation frameworks with emerging anddeveloping countries, such as through the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and BRICS. In
the future, Beijing and Moscow are expected to form groups around authoritarian emerging and developing countries which do not necessarily share universal values, such as freedom and democracy. As
a number of emerging and developing countries are dissatisfied with the existing international order,
China and Russia are predicted to exert more influence on these countries, which will increase theircompetitiveness in the international order rivalry.
Additionally, China and Russia are anticipated to reinforce their military cooperation for countering the West. They have strengthened operational cooperation through joint exercises, joint patrols,
and other activities. If Russia condones China’s nuclear buildup and if bilateral cooperation advancesin areas such as early warning capabilities, the two countries could effectively enter into a de facto
alliance.
By contrast, the United States has a strategic interest in maintaining and strengthening theexisting rules-based international order founded on universal values. The United States explicitly

68Summary

recognizes China and Russia as challengers to the existing international order and is expected to repel
these challenges with full force. The Biden administration is expanding investments in strengthening
the manufacturing industry and developing advanced technologies, aiming to enhance U.S. economic
Introduction

competitiveness. Furthermore, it is building up its military capabilities with the goal of countering
military challenges posed by China and Russia. If similar policies continue, the United States is forecast to steadily gain economic and military power.
Moreover, the United States is partnering with allies and like-minded countries to maintain theexisting international order. NATO cooperation and U.S. leadership have strengthened considerably
after Russia launched its aggression against Ukraine. The United States has also deepened its collaboration with allies in the Indo-Pacific, such as Japan, Australia, Korea, and the Philippines, alongside

Chapter 1

boosting multilateral cooperation mechanisms such as the Quad and AUKUS. With the United States
demonstrating initiative, more countries are working together across the globe for maintaining therules-based international order. Furthermore, the United States is predicted to enhance its competitiveness in the rivalry with China and Russia over the international order.
The biggest uncertainty facing the current strategic environment is the fate of the Putin regime.
Discussions on the medium to long-term strategic environment cannot ignore the question of who will
follow Putin. In examining this question, the Soviet Union and Russia’s experience with rapid political

Chapter 2changes in relatively short periods of time needs to be taken into account. If such rapid changes were to
give rise to a new political order in Russia, it could lead to an overhaul of the rules of the game in East
Asia. In other words, if the current China-Russia relationship is defined by insufficiently institutionalized trust between the leaders and short-term interests, the uncertainty and instability surrounding
the post-Putin bilateral relationship are bound to increase. In the long term, the post-Putin era may
witness traditional Russian mistrust toward China and shifts in the diplomatic posture toward Europe.

Chapter 3

In discussing the East Asian strategic environment, changes in the Sino-Russian relationship must be
observed with objectivity and calmness.
During the Ukraine war, the Putin regime is expected to mobilize maximum state resources
as an immediate foreign strategy for regime survival, and pursue a situationism-type foreign policy
based on short-term interests. It appears that Russia will engage further with emerging and developing
countries, known as the Global South, independently or through multilateral frameworks that include
China. As the Global South becomes more involved with the Chinese and Russian regimes, how will

Conclusions

it view the agility and responsiveness of policies taken under authoritarian regimes? This, too, will
be an essential aspect in forecasting the medium to long-term international order. This is a topic for
future study.
Based on the above analysis, we draw the following conclusions. Unless rapid political changes
occur in Russia, the contest between the United States and China/Russia over the international order
will accelerate in the next foreseeable decade. It is expected to involve the Global South and expand
into a contest between the forces seeking to maintain the current order, centered around the United

69

Conclusions

States, and the forces seeking to change it, centered around China and Russia. As both sides are anticipated to enhance their competitiveness, the outcome will not be determined quickly, and the confrontation will likely persist over the long term with tensions rising. Such a situation may lead to further
destabilizing factors, such as accidental clashes and unexpected escalations. It will be incumbent on
both sides to manage the competition effectively to prevent the manifestation of such destabilizing
factors.
How about the longer-term outlook for the bilateral rivalry for maintaining and transforming
the existing international order? China and Russia seek to construct a new international order that is
conducive to unilaterally changing the status quo by force. If the two countries succeed in making andmaintaining changes to the status quo by force, it may be deemed that the existing international orderhas been transformed by China and Russia. By this criterion, Russia’s attempt at altering the status
quo by force, as exemplified by its aggression against Ukraine, faces strong opposition from the forcesthat prioritize the maintenance of the existing international order, primarily Western countries, and isvery likely to fall short of changing the international order. China, on the other hand, has expanded
its military presence in the seas, using faits accomplis to alter the status quo in the South China Sea
and the Taiwan Strait. If China’s incremental changes to the status quo backed by force continue to
be tolerated, or if large-scale changes to the status quo are achieved through use of military force, it
can be considered that the existing international order has been transformed by China. Therefore, forcountries seeking to maintain the existing international order, whether China’s unilateral changes tothe status quo by force can be prevented or not will be the most crucial determinant of the long-termcourse of the competition for the international order.
Japan has established a liberal democratic political system and attaches importance to universal
values, such as respect for human rights. As such, Japan cannot allow China and Russia’s to create a
non-democratic international order that tolerates unilateral changes to the status quo by force. Japan
must further strengthen the necessary defense capabilities to deter attempts to change the status quo
through reliance on force. At the same time, it must deepen multifaceted cooperation with the UnitedStates, which wishes to maintain the existing order and has strong deterrence capabilities, including
nuclear. Furthermore, just as Japan has long conducted economic and people-to-people exchanges
with Southeast Asian and Pacific island countries with shared values, such as freedom and democracy, Japan must carry out diplomacy with emerging and developing countries in the Indo-Pacific toexpand common interests—namely, protecting the existing international order. It demands that Japan
take more proactive and independent actions to secure its national interests and maintain peace andprosperity in the Indo-Pacific region.

70

Chapter 1
1
2“秦刚在十四届全国人大一次会议挙行记者会上就中国外交政策和对外关系回答中外记者提问”《人民日报》2023年3月8日。
Ibid.

3

“The Administration’s Approach to the People’s Republic of China,” U.S. Department of State, May 26, 2022, https://www.state.gov/

4

Denny Roy, Return of the Dragon: Rising China and Regional Security, Columbia University Press, 2013, p. 50.
江泽民 [Jiang Zemin] “把一个和平繁荣的世界带到二十一世纪（一九九三年十一月十九日）”《改革开放三十年重要文献选编（上）》中央文献出版社，

the-administrations-approach-to-the-peoples-republic-of-china/.

5
6
7
8
9

2008年，第750-753页。

“努力建立中美建设性战略伙伴关系”《人民日报》1997年10月31日。
“江泽民主席与布什总统挙行会谈”《人民日报》2002年2月22日。

胡锦涛 [Hu Jintao] “努力建设持久和平、共同繁荣的和谐世界”《改革开放三十年重要文献选编（下）》中央文献出版社，2008年，第1525-1529页。

国务院新闻办公室 [State Council Information Office] “中国的和平发展道路”中华人民共和国中央人民政府，2005年12月22日，http://www.gov.cn/

zhengce/2005-12/22/content_2615756.htm。

10

Robert B. Zoellick, “Whither China: From Membership to Responsibility?” Remarks to National Committee on U.S.-China Relations, September

1121, 2005, https://2001-2009.state.gov/s/d/former/zoellick/rem/53682.htm.
胡锦涛 [Hu Jintao] 《胡锦涛文选（第三巻）》人民出版社，2016年，第237-240页。

12高木誠一郎 [Takagi Seiichiro] 「中国における米国パワーの認識̶̶中国の崛起とアンビバレンスの変質」『米中関係と米中をめぐる国際関係』日本国際問題研

13“习近平会见美国总统奥巴马”《人民日报》2012年2月15日。

究所、2017年3月、37頁。

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

“习近平同美国副总统拜登会谈”《人民日报》2012年2月15日。

“共创中美合作伙伴关系的美好明天̶̶在美国友好团体欢迎午宴上的演讲”《人民日报》2012年2月15日。
“坚持富国和强军相统一 努力建设巩固国防和强大军队”《人民日报》2012年12月13日。

“更好统筹国内国际两个大局 务实走和平发展道路的基础”《人民日报》2013年1月30日。
“习近平与奥巴马总统共同会见记者”《人民日报》2013年6月9日。

“跨越太平洋的合作̶̶杨洁篪谈习近平主席与奥巴马总统安纳伯格庄园会晤成果”《人民日报》2013年6月10日。

“常万全与美方就网络与朝核问题交换意见”中国新闻网，2013年8月21日，http://news.xinhuanet.com/mil/2013-08/21/c_125211869.htm。

“U.S. Navy-China Showdown: Chinese Try to Halt U.S. Cruiser in International Waters,” Washington Times, December 13, 2013; “News Transcript:
Department of Defense Press Briefing by Secretary Hagel and General Dempsey in the Pentagon Briefing Room,” December 19, 2013, http://www.

defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=5345.
22
23
24
25

“中央外事工作会议在京挙行”《人民日报》2014年11月30日。

“习近平在第七十届联合国大会一般性辩论时的讲话（全文）”新华网，2015年9月29日，http://www.xinhuanet.com//world/2015-09/29/c_1116703645.
htm。

“推动全球治理体制更加公正更加合理为我国发展和世界和平创造有利条件”《人民日报》2015年10月14日。

Iida Masafumi, “China: The Xi Administration’s Accelerating Hardline Stance due to COVID-19,” National Institute for Defense Studies, ed., East
Asian Strategic Review 2021, NIDS, 2021, pp. 54-87.

26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43

“杨洁篪、王毅同布林肯、沙利文挙行中美高层战略对话”新华网，2021年3月20日，http://world.people.com.cn/n1/2021/0320/c1002-32056029.html。
“杨洁篪在中美战略对话开场白中阐明中方有关立场”《人民日报》2021年3月20日。
“习近平与美国总统拜登在巴厘挙行会晤”《人民日报》2022年11月15日。

“中华人民共和国和俄罗斯联邦睦邻友好合作条约”国务院公报，2001年第25号，https://www.gov.cn/gongbao/content/2001/content_60963.htm。

“中国国家主席胡锦涛和俄罗斯总统梅德韦杰夫关于《中俄睦邻友好合作条约》签署10周年联合声明”中国外交部，2011年6月17日，https://www.mfa.gov.

cn/web/gjhdq_676201/gj_676203/oz_678770/1206_679110/1207_679122/201106/t20110617_9337139.shtml。

“中国和俄罗斯关于当前国际形势和重大问题的联合声明”中国外交部，2011年6月17日，https://www.mfa.gov.cn/web/gjhdq_676201/gj_676203/oz_67
8770/1206_679110/1207_679122/201106/t20110617_9337138.shtml。
“顺应时代前进潮流 促进世界和平发展̶̶在莫斯科国际关系学院的演讲”《人民日报》2013年3月24日。
“习近平主席与普京总统会谈”《人民日报》2013年3月23日。

“中华人民共和国和俄罗斯联邦关于合作共赢、深化战略协作伙伴关系的联合声明”《人民日报》2013年3月23日。

“中华人民共和国主席和俄罗斯联邦总统关于加强全球战略穏定的联合声明”中国外交部，2016年6月26日，https://www.mfa.gov.cn/web/gjhdq_676201/

gj_676203/oz_678770/1206_679110/1207_679122/201606/t20160626_9337155.shtml。

“ 中 华 人 民 共 和 国 和 俄 罗 斯 联 邦 关 于 促 进 国 际 法 声 明 ” 中 国 外 交 部 ， 2 0 1 6 年 6 月 2 6 日 ， h z t t p s : / / w w w. m f a . g o v. c n / w e b / g j h d q _ 6 7 6201/gj_676203/oz_678770/1206_679110/1207_679122/201606/t20160626_9337156.shtml。

“中华人民共和国和俄罗斯联邦关于当前世界形成和重大国际问题的联合声明”中国外交部，2017年7月5日，https://www.mfa.gov.cn/web/gjhdq_676201/

gj_676203/oz_678770/1206_679110/1207_679122/201707/t20170705_9337162.shtml。

“ 中华人民共和国和俄罗斯联邦关于加强当代全球战略稳定的联合声明” 中国外交部，2019 年6 月6 日，https://www.mfa.gov.cn/web/gjhdq_676201/

gj_676203/oz_678770/1206_679110/1207_679122/201906/t20190606_9337172.shtml。

“ 中华人民共和国和俄罗斯联邦关于新时代国际关系和全球可持续发展的联合声明 ” 中国外交部， 2022 年 2 月 4 日， https://www.mfa.gov.cn/web/

gjhdq_676201/gj_676203/oz_678770/1206_679110/1207_679122/202202/t20220204_10638953.shtml。
“习近平同俄罗斯普京会谈”《人民日报》2023年3月22日。

“中华人民共和国和俄罗斯联邦关于深化新时代全面战略协作伙伴关系的联合声明”《人民日报》2023年3月22日。

“关于政治解决乌克兰危机的中国立场”中国外交部，2023年2月24日，https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/zyxw/202302/t20230224_11030707.shtml。
See, Sugiura Yasuyuki, NIDS China Security Report 2022: The PLA’s Pursuit of Enhanced Joint Operational Capabilities, NIDS, 2021.

71

Notes44

Department of Defense, Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2022 [CMPR 2022], November 29, 2022, p.
81.

45“USINDOPACOM Statement on Unsafe Maritime Interaction,” U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, June 3, 2023, https://www.pacom.mil/Media/News/

46“Navy Says Chinese Destroyer Shot Laser at Aircraft Near Guam in ‘Unsafe and Unprofessional Manner’,” Stars and Stripes, February 27, 2020.

News-Article-View/Article/3415952/usindopacom-statement-on-unsafe-maritime-interaction/.
47“USINDOPACOM Statement on Unprofessional Intercept of U.S. Aircraft over South China Sea,” U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, May 30, 2023,
https://www.pacom.mil/Media/News/News-Article-View/Article/3410337/usindopacom-statement-on-unprofessional-intercept-of-usaircraft-over-south-chi/.

48
49
50
51
52

“中俄海上联合军事训练圆满落幕”《解放军报》2012年4月28日。

“中俄首次联合战略巡航提升两军战略协作水平”中国国防部，2019年8月29日，http://www.mod.gov.cn/gfbw/xwfyr/rcfb/4849376.html。

“中俄首次海上联合巡航圆满结束”《解放军报》2021年10月24日。
統合幕僚監部 [Joint Staff Office] 「ロシア海軍艦艇の動向について」 2022年7月4日、 https://www.mod.go.jp/js/pdf/2022/p20220705_02.pdf；防衛省[Ministry of Defense]「中国海軍艦艇の動向について」2022年7月4日、https://www.mod.go.jp/j/press/news/2022/07/04a.pdf。
CMPR 2022, p. 100.

53

Ibid., p. 96.

54

SIPRI Yearbook 2023, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, 2023, p. 284.

55

CMPR 2022, pp. 97-98.

56

国务院新闻办公室 [State Council Information Office]《新时代的中国国防》新华网，2019年7月24日，http://www.xinhuanet.com/politics/2019-07/57

樊吉社 [Fan Jishe] “中国核政策的基本逻辑与前景”《外交评论》2018年第5期，第7-11页。

58
59

24/c_1124792450.htm。

吴大辉 [Wu Dahui] “准核战争威慑条件下的大规模地区常规战争” 《世界知识》 2023年第1号，第72页。

David Vergun, “Russia Reportedly Supplying Enriched Uranium to China,” DOD News, March 8, 2023, https://www.defense.gov/News/NewsStories/Article/Article/3323381/russia-reportedly-supplying-enriched-uranium-to-china/.

60

CMPR 2022, p. 99.

Chapter 21Указ Президента РФ от 07 мая 2018г., № 204 (ред. от 21 июля 2020г.), «О национальных целях и стратегических задачах развития
Российской Федерации на период до 2024 года», Собрание Законодательства Российской Федерации (далее - СЗРФ), 14 мая 2018г., №
20, ст. 2817.

2

In this article, Russia’s military invasion of Ukraine that began on February 24, 2022 (referred to by the current Putin administration as a “special
military operation”) is referred to not by a specific name but by various names as appropriate, such as the “Ukraine war” and the “second RussiaUkraine war.” Regarding the name of the war, see 小泉悠 [Koizumi Yu]『ウクライナ戦争』筑摩書房、2022年、23-24頁. Any italics, bolds, or underlines
are, unless otherwise stated, the author’s own emphasis.

3Левада-Центр, https://www.levada.ru/indikatory/.

4Часть 3, статьи 81, Конституции РФ. In this article, the following were referenced for the text of, commentary on, and Japanese translation of thearticles of the Constitution of the Russian Federation: Конституция РФ с изменениями, принятыми на Общероссийском голосовании 1 июля2020 года (+ сравнительная таблица изменений), Москва: Эксмо, 2021; Бархатова, Е.Ю., Комментарий к Конституции Российской
Федерации: Новая редакция с поправками (3-е издание), Москва: Проспект, 2021; Комментарий к Конституции Российской Федерации
(2-е издание), Москва: Проспект, 2020; 上野俊彦 [Ueno Toshihiko]「ロシアにおける2020年の憲法修正をめぐる諸問題」『ロシアNIS調査月報』第65巻第5号、2020年、80-105頁；佐藤史人 [Sato Fumito]「ロシア連邦」畑博行・小森田秋夫編著『世界の憲法集 第五版』有信堂、2018年、551-574頁；溝口修平[Mizoguchi Shuhei]「ロシア連邦」初宿正典 ･ 辻村みよ子編著『新 解説世界憲法集 第5版』三省堂、2020年、281-341頁； 渋谷謙次郎 [Shibuya Kenjiro]「ロシア」高橋和之編著『新版 世界憲法集 第 2 版』岩波書店、2012 年、457-517 頁。The collection of legislation, Собрание Законодательства

Российской Федерации, is abbreviated as СЗРФ. If an article from the pre-2020 reform Constitution is cited, the article number is followed byКонституция РФ. If an article from the post-reform Constitution is cited, it is indicated with Конституция РФ (1 июля 2020г.).
5

In this article, discussion on the 2020 constitutional reform is based on Hasegawa Takeyuki and Sakaguchi Yoshiaki, “Russia: the Post-Putin Issue
and Changes in the 1993 Constitutional System,” National Institute for Defense Studies, ed., East Asian Strategic Review 2021, NIDS, 2021, pp.
152-189; Hasegawa Takeyuki, “Russian Presidential Power in the Putin Era and the Recent Discussion on Constitutional Revisions,” Briefing
Memo, January 2020; Hasegawa Takeyuki, “Russia's Constitutional Reform in the Second Putin Administration: Presidential Power in the Russian
Political System,” Security & Strategy, Vol. 3, January 2023, pp. 61-80; 同 [Hasegawa Takeyuki]「第2次ロシア・ウクライナ戦争とプーチン政権の制度的特徴」『ロシア・ユーラシアの社会』第1067号、2023年、3-9頁。

6Часть 31, статьи 81, Конституции РФ (1 июля 2020г.).

7Статья 91 и части 1-3 статьи 921, Конституции РФ (1 июля 2020г.).

8

A senator refers to a member of the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly (upper chamber).

9

Senators of the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly are principally composed of representatives of the legislative and executive authorities
of constituent entities. No more than 30 senators are appointed by the president, of whom up to seven are lifelong senators. «б» и «в» части 2,статьи 95, Конституции РФ (1 июля 2020г.).

10Статья 91, Конституции РФ.

11

溝口修平 [Mizoguchi Shuhei]「ポスト・プーチン時代のロシアと憲法改正」『ポスト・プーチンのロシアの展望』日本国際問題研究所、2020年、7-18頁。Regarding

the process that prompted President Putin, who had been cautious about constitutional reform, to lead the reform effort, including extending his72term and strengthening presidential powers, see 溝口修平 [Mizoguchi Shuhei] 「ロシアにおける1993年憲法体制の成立と変容̶̶憲法改正なき変容から憲
法改正を伴う変容へ」『レヴァイアサン』第60号、2017年、79-99頁。

12

長谷川雄之 [Hasegawa Takeyuki]「プーチン政権下の現代ロシアにおける大統領の『権力資源』̶̶大統領府による重要政策の指揮監督」『ロシア・ユーラシアの経済と社会』第1037号、2019年、2-19頁；同 [Hasegawa Takeyuki]「第2次ロシア・ウクライナ戦争とプーチン体制の諸相̶̶権力構造と政治エリート」『国際安全保障』第51巻第2号、2023年9月、10-25頁。

13Указ Президента РФ от 02 октября 2018г., № 559 (ред. от 04 ноября 2020г.), «Об Управлении Президента Российской Федерации поприграничному сотрудничеству (вместе с "Положением об Управлении Президента Российской Федерации по приграничному
сотрудничеству")», СЗРФ, от 08 октября 2018г., № 41, ст. 6223.

14

Official Journal of the European Union, Vol. 65, 2022, L 110/5; Российская газета, от 17 апреля 2019г., «Управление Кремля по приграничному
сотрудничеству возглавил Алексей Филатов»; ТАСС, «Филатов, Алексей Евгеньевич - Начальник Управления президента РФ поприграничному сотрудничеству».

15Указ Президента РФ от 25 июня 2012г., № 893 (ред. от 25 июля 2014г.), «Об утверждении Положения об Управлении Президента
Российской Федерации по социально-экономическому сотрудничеству с государствами - участниками Содружества Независимых
Государств, Республикой Абхазия и Республикой Южная Осетия», СЗРФ, 02 июля 2012г., № 27, ст. 3680; Указ Президента РФ от 02октября 2018г., № 559 (ред. от 04 ноября 2020г.), «Об Управлении Президента Российской Федерации по приграничному сотрудничеству
(вместе с "Положением об Управлении Президента Российской Федерации по приграничному сотрудничеству"), СЗРФ, 08 октября
2018г., № 41, ст. 6223; Указ Президента РФ от 09 августа 2021г., № 459, «О внесении изменений в Положение об Управлении Президента
Российской Федерации по приграничному сотрудничеству, утвержденное Указом Президента Российской Федерации от 2 октября 2018 г.
№ 559», СЗРФ, 16 августа 2021г., № 33, ст. 6090.

16Коммерсантъ, от 25 января 2020г., «Дмитрий Козак собирается в новый подход на Украину - Как может измениться политика Москвы вотношении Киева и Донбасса после ухода Владислава Суркова». The presidential aide’s authority to direct the departments of the Presidential
Administration is stipulated in paragraph 11 of the Regulations on the Presidential Administration. Пункт 11, «Положенияоб Администрации Президента Российской Федерации», Указ Президента РФ от 06 апреля 2004г., № 490 (ред. от 25 апреля 2022г.), «Обутверждении Положения об Администрации Президента Российской Федерации», СЗРФ, от 02 мая 2022г., № 18, ст. 3053.

17

Erica Frantz, Authoritarianism: What Everyone Needs to Know, Oxford University Press, 2018.

18

大澤傑 [Osawa Suguru]「『個人化』するロシアの権威主義体制̶̶政治体制から読み解くウクライナ侵攻」『 SYNODOS 』2022年7月22日、https://synodos.

19

長谷川 [Hasegawa]「第2次ロシア・ウクライナ戦争とプーチン体制の諸相」13-14頁。

20jp/opinion/international/28311/；同 [Osawa Suguru]『「個人化」する権威主義体制̶̶侵攻決断と体制変動の条件』明石書店、2023年、27-81頁。

長谷川雄之 [Hasegawa Takeyuki]「第2次プーチン政権における安全保障法制の変容̶̶安全保障会議副議長設置とその法的諸問題を中心として」『ロシア・ユーラシアの社会』第1052号、2020年、21-35頁。

21Ведомости, от 18 января 2021г., «Путин назначил Павла Фрадкова первым заместителем управделами президента»; Коммерсантъ, от 1822「（寄稿）ロシアの破局的な時間 ロシア史研究者・池田嘉郎」『朝日新聞』2023年3月3日。

мая 2018г., «Главой Минсельхоза станет Дмитрий Патрушев».
23

Discussion on the transformation of Putin’s regime is based on 長谷川 [Hasegawa] 「第2次ロシア・ウクライナ戦争とプーチン政権の制度的特徴」；同[Hasegawa]「第2次ロシア・ウクライナ戦争とプーチン体制の諸相」。
24

Федеральный закон от 04 марта 2022г., № 31-ФЗ (ред. от 14 июля 2022г.), «О внесении изменений в Кодекс Российской Федерации обадминистративных правонарушениях», СЗРФ, от 07 марта 2022г., № 10, ст. 1388; Федеральный закон от 04 марта 2022г., № 32-ФЗ, «Овнесении изменений в Уголовный кодекс Российской Федерации и статьи 31 и 151 Уголовно-процессуального кодекса Российской
Федерации», СЗРФ, от 07 марта 2022г., № 10, ст. 1389.

25

Regarding the strengthening of the Military-Industrial Commission’s structure, see 長谷川雄之 [Hasegawa Takeyuki]「第2次ロシア・ウクライナ戦争とプーチン体制の諸相」15-17頁；Указ Президента РФ от 26 декабря 2022г., № 960, «О внесении изменений в Положение о Военно-промышленной

комиссии Российской Федерации, утвержденное Указом Президента Российской Федерации от 10 сентября 2014 г., № 627, в состав
Военно-промышленной комиссии Российской Федерации и состав коллегии Военно-промышленной комиссии Российской Федерации,утвержденные Указом Президента Российской Федерации от 10 сентября 2014 г., № 628», СЗРФ, от 02 января 2023г., № 1 (часть I), ст.
193.
26Пункт 1, «Положения о Военно-промышленной комиссии Российской Федерации», Указом Президента РФ от 10 сентября 2014г., № 627(ред. от 24 марта 2023г.), «О Военно-промышленной комиссии Российской Федерации (вместе с "Положением о Военно-промышленной
комиссии Российской Федерации"), СЗРФ, от 15 сентября 2014г., № 37, ст. 4938.

27

Статья 1 и 2, Указ Президента РФ от 10 сентября 2014г., № 627 (ред. от 24 марта 2023г.), «О Военно-промышленной комиссии Российской
Федерации (вместе с "Положением о Военно-промышленной комиссии Российской Федерации")», СЗРФ, от 15 сентября 2014г., № 37,
ст. 4938.

28Коммерсантъ, от 26 декабря 2022г., «Медведев стал первым замом Путина в военно-промышленной комиссии».

29Пункт 13, «Положения о Военно-промышленной комиссии Российской Федерации».

30

Ilja Viktorov and Olga Kryshtanovskaya, “Presidential Succession in Russia: Political Cycles and Intra-Elite Conflicts,” Russian Politics, Vol. 8,
No. 1, 2023, pp. 97-121.

31

長谷川 [Hasegawa]「第2次ロシア・ウクライナ戦争とプーチン体制の諸相」18頁。

32

Украинская Правда, от 7 мая 2023г., «Кадыров заявил, что попросил у Путина о перемещении его вояк в Бахмут»; от 18 мая 2023г.,«Пригожин еще надеется убрать с должности Шойгу - американские аналитики»; от 24 мая 2023г., «Пригожин считает, что у Украины
теперь одна из самых сильных армий мира»; Президент России, от 25 ноября 2022г., «Совещание с постоянными членами Совета
Безопасности»; от 25 ноября 2022г., «Встреча с главой Чечни Рамзаном Кадыровым».

73

Notes33

Andreas Heinemann-Grüder, “Russia’s State-Sponsored Killers: The Wagner Group,” Russian Analytical Digest, No. 290, 2022, pp. 2-4.

34

Ibid.

35

Stephen Aris, “Wagner PMC and the Semi-Privatisation of Russian State Security,” Russian Analytical Digest, No. 290, 2022, pp. 5-8.

36

長谷川 [Hasegawa]「第2次ロシア・ウクライナ戦争とプーチン体制の諸相」18-19頁。

37Коммерсантъ, от 23 августа 2023г., «“Вагнер” потерпел небоевое поражение: Самолет, в котором находился основатель ЧВК Евгений
Пригожин, разбился в Тверской области».

38Коммерсантъ, от 24 августа 2023г., «Путин прокомментировал крушение самолета Пригожина: Путин выразил соболезнования семьям
погибших при крушении самолета Пригожина».

39Указ Президента РФ от 31 марта 2023г., № 229, «Об утверждении Концепции внешней политики Российской Федерации», СЗРФ, от 03апреля 2023г., № 14, ст. 2406; Лебедева, О. и Бобров, А., “Концепция внешней политики России 2023: стратегия многополярного мира,”РСМД, 02 мая 2023г. The “Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation” that was approved on March 31, 2023 is hereinafter shortened toКонцепции внешней политики 2023.

40Президент России, от 31 марта 2023г., «Совещание с постоянными членами Совета Безопасности».

41Указ Президента РФ от 21 февраля 2023г., № 111, «О признании утратившим силу Указа Президента Российской Федерации от 7 мая 2012
г. № 605 "О мерах по реализации внешнеполитического курса Российской Федерации"», СЗРФ, от 27 февраля 2023г., № 9, ст. 1462.

42Указ Президента РФ от 07 мая 2012г., № 605, «О мерах по реализации внешнеполитического курса Российской Федерации», СЗРФ, от 07
мая 2012г., № 19, ст. 2342.

43Пункт 6 и 9, Концепции внешней политики 2023.

44(1) пункт 27, Концепции внешней политики 2023.

45

Pierre de Dreuzy and Andrea Gilli, “Russia’s Nuclear Coercion in Ukraine,” NATO Review, November 29, 2022.

46

Российская газета, от 30 декабря 2014г., «Военная доктрина Российской Федерации»; Указ Президента РФ от 02 июня 2020г., № 355, «ОбОсновах государственной политики Российской Федерации в области ядерного сдерживания», СЗРФ, от 08 июня 2020г., № 23, ст. 3623.

47

Center for Global Security Research, “China’s Emergence as a Second Nuclear Peer: Implications for U.S. Nuclear Deterrence Strategy,” 2023, pp.
14-19. Regarding the role of nuclear weapons in modern Russia, see 山添博史 [Yamazoe Hiroshi]「ロシアの国際闘争手段としての核兵器 ̶̶『戦略的抑止』における最終手段、紛争局限手段、言説攻撃手段」『国際政治』第203号、2021年3月、110-125頁。

48

Известия, от 23 апреля 2023г., «К бою ТОФ: какие возможности показал Тихоокеанский флот в ходе учений».

49Известия, от 24 мая 2023г., «АПЛ Генералиссимус Суворов совершит переход на Тихоокеанский флот».

50Пункт 52, Концепции внешней политики 2023.

51Президент России, от 21 марта 2023г., «Перечень документов, подписанных в рамках государственного визита в Российскую Федерацию
Председателя Китайской Народной Республики Си Цзиньпина».

52Украинская правда, от 01 марта 2023г., «Россия передает Китаю тонны урана, вероятно, для запуска реактора CFR-600 – Bloomberg».

53

小林祐喜 [Kobayashi Yuki]「中ロの原子力協力に警戒感̶̶中国の核軍拡が加速する恐れ」笹川平和財団、2023 年、https://www.spf.org/japan-us-54

益尾知佐子 [Masuo Chisako]「 2023 年中ロ共同声明と世界の分断」日本国際問題研究所、2023 年、https://www.jiia.or.jp/pdf/research/R04_Indo-

55
56

alliance-study/article/document-detail005.html。

Pacific/01-09.pdf；『毎日新聞』2023年6月22日。

統合幕僚監部 [Joint Staff Office]「中国軍機及びロシア軍機の動向について」2023年6月6日、https://www.mod.go.jp/js/pdf/2023/p20230606_02.pdf。

Военное обозрение, от 20 июля 2023г., «Совместные военно-морские учения ВМФ России и ВМС Китая «Север. Взаимодействие-2023»начались в Японском море».

57

Информационное агентство «Би-порт», от 26 апреля 2023г., «Пограничная служба ФСБ РФ и Береговая охрана КНР подписали вМурманске меморандум о взаимопонимании»; Информационное агентство «Nord-News», от 25 апреля 2023г., «В Мурманске подписали
меморандум между РФ и Китаем о сотрудничестве правоохранителей на море».

58Информационное агентство «Nord-News», от 26 апреля 2023г., «За морским учением «Арктический патруль-2023» наблюдали
представители Береговой охраны КНР».

59Пункт 53, Концепции внешней политики 2023.

60«1», пункта 56, Концепции внешней политики 2023.

61

Sine Ozkarasahin, “Iranian Drones Are Changing the Battlefields of Eurasia,” Terrorism Monitor, Vol. 20, No. 21, 2022.

62Президент России, от 04 июля 2023г., «Документы, подписанные и принятые по итогам заседания Совета глав государств – членов
Шанхайской организации сотрудничества».

63

Agata Łoskot-Strachota and Adam Michalski, “Turkey’s Dream of a Hub. Ankara’s Wartime Gas Policy,” OSW Commentary, No. 497, March 10,2023; 今井宏平 [Imai Kohei]『戦略的ヘッジングと安全保障の追求̶̶2010年代以降のトルコ外交』有信堂、2023年、73-85、169-183頁；「ロシア人が押し寄せ、家賃10倍も トルコのリゾート地で起きた異変」『朝日新聞』2023年5月13日。

64

Zuzanna Krzyżanowska, “Turkey: First Nuclear Power Plant under Russian Rules,” OSW Analyses, April 28, 2023.

65Президент России, от 04 сентября 2023г., «Российско-турецкие переговоры: В Сочи прошли переговоры Владимира Путина с Президентом
Турецкой Республики Реджепом Тайипом Эрдоганом»; «Участники российско-турецких переговоров (в расширенном формате)».

66

74

Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “G7 Hiroshima Leaders’ Communiqué,” May 20, 2023, https://www.mofa.go.jp/files/100506907.pdf.

Chapter 3
1

The White House, National Security Strategy of the United States of America [NSS 2017], December 2017, p. 27.

2

The White House, National Security Strategy [NSS 2022], October 2022, pp. 11, 25.

3

NSS 2022, pp. 8, 23.

4

Ibid., p. 25.

5

The White House, National Security Strategy of the United States of America, March 2006, p. 35.

6

The White House, National Security Strategy of the United States of America, September 2002, pp. 26-27.

7The White House, National Security Strategy, May 2010, p. 43.

8Ibid., p. 44.

9NSS 2017, p. 2.

10

Ibid., p. 25.

11

Ibid., p. 3.

12

Cory Welt, Rebecca M. Nelson, Kristin Archick, and Dianne E. Rennack, “U.S. Sanctions on Russia,” CRS Report, No. R45415, Congressional
Research Service, updated January 18, 2022, pp. 6-11.

13

Ibid., pp. 12-15.

14

Arakaki Hiromu, “The United States and Competition with China,” Masuda Masayuki, ed., The Shifting Dynamics of Great Power Competition,
Interbooks, 2023, pp. 45-46.

15

Ibid., pp. 47-48.

16

NSS 2022, p. 6.

17

Ibid.

18

Ibid.

19

Ibid., p. 12.

20

Department of Defense [DOD], 2022 National Defense Strategy of the United States of America [NDS 2022], October 27, 2022, p. 2. For a
discussion of the positioning of a “pacing threat/challenge” in U.S. national defense planning, see 菊地茂雄 [Kikuchi Shigeo]「米国防計画における『 Pacing Threat 』としての中国」『 NIDSコメンタリー』第191号、防衛研究所、2021年9月2日.

21

NDS 2022, pp. 2, 4.

22

Arakaki, “The United States and Competition with China,” pp. 55-58.

23

NSS 2022, p. 24.

24

NSS 2022, p. 25; NDS 2022, p. 5.

25

NSS 2022, p. 26.

26

増田雅之 [Masuda Masayuki] 編著『ウクライナ戦争の衝撃』インターブックス、2022年、7-14頁。

27

NSS 2022, p. 26.

28

Craig Howie, “Blinken: ‘Deep concern’ that China could provide lethal support for Russia’s war in Ukraine,” POLITICO, February 18, 2023.

29

NDS 2022, p. 5.

30

Haley Britzky, “Top US general says increased partnership between Iran, Russia, and China will make them ‘problematic’ for ‘years to come,’”
CNN, March 31, 2023.

31

Based on information released by NATO in July 2023, 10 of 31 NATO member states have achieved NATO’s defense spending goal of two percent
of GDP, as compared to only three member states having achieved this goal in 2014 when the goal was first set. John A. Tirpak, “NATO Details
Leap in Member Defense Spending Ahead of Summit,” Air & Space Forces, July 8, 2023.

32

NATO, “Vilnius Summit Communiqué,” July 11, 2023.

33

NSS 2022, p. 12.

34

増田 [Masuda]『ウクライナ戦争の衝撃』、110-113頁。

35

NSS 2022, p. 12.

36

Ibid., pp. 27-28.

37

DOD, Summary of the 2018 National Defense Strategy of the United States of America: Sharpening the American Military’s Competitive Edge,
January 19, 2018, p. 5.

38

NDS 2022, p. 6.

39

Lyle J. Morris, Michael J. Mazarr, Jeffrey W. Hornung, Stephanie Pezard, Anika Binnendijk, and Marta Kepe, Gaining Competitive Advantage in
the Gray Zone: Response Options for Coercive Aggression Below the Threshold of Major War (RAND, 2019), pp. 13-41.

40

Ibid., pp. 27-41. For a discussion of China’s recent gray-zone activities, see Yamaguchi Shinji, Yatsuzuka Masaaki, and Momma Rira, eds., NIDS

41

Morris, et al., Gaining Competitive Advantage in the Gray Zone, pp. 14-27.

42

Joint Chiefs of Staff [JCS], Joint Concept for Competing [JCC], February 10, 2023, pp. 5-6. Country-specific strategic competition is reportedly

China Security Report 2023: China’s Quest for Control of the Cognitive Domain and Gray Zone Situations, NIDS, 2022.

addressed in the classified version. JCC, p. 4.
43JCC, p. 1.

44

Ibid., p. 5.

45

Ibid., p. 6.

46

Ibid.

47

House Armed Services Committee [HASC], Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III, Prepared Remarks before the House Armed Services
Committee, United States House, 117th Cong., March 29, 2023.

75

Notes48

HASC, Statement of General Mark A. Milley, USA 20th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Department of Defense Budget Hearing, UnitedStates House, 118th Cong., March 29, 2023, p. 3.

49

DOD, Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2022 [CMPR 2022], November 29, 2022, pp. 1-4.

50

Ibid., p. 39.

51

DOD, 2022 Nuclear Posture Review [NPR 2022], October 27, 2022, p. 4.

52

Ibid., pp. 4-6.

53

菊地茂雄 [Kikuchi Shigeo]「米陸軍・マルチドメイン作戦（MDO）コンセプト ̶̶『 21世紀の諸兵科連合』と新たな戦い方の模索」『防衛研究所紀要』第22巻
第1号、2019年11月、31頁。

54

This model divides a conflict into six phases: (i) Phase 0, dissuading potential adversaries; (ii) Phase I, deterring adversaries; (iii) Phase II, seizing
the initiative in anticipation of the next phase of domination; (iv) Phase III, dominating through military force to eliminate the adversary’s resistanceand impose its will on the adversary; (v) Phase IV, postwar stabilization; and (vi) Phase V, transferring governance to civil authorities. 菊地 [Kikuchi]

55
56「米陸軍・マルチドメイン作戦（MDO）コンセプト」、29-30頁; JCS, JP 5-0 Joint Operation Planning, August 11, 2011, pp. III-39, III-41-III-44.

菊地 [Kikuchi]「米陸軍・マルチドメイン作戦（MDO）コンセプト」、31頁; JCS, JP1 Doctrine for the Armed Forces of the United States, pp. I-14-I-16.

JCS, Joint Concept for Integrated Campaigning [JCIC], March 16, 2018.

57

Ibid., p. 2.

58

Ibid., p. 3.

59

Ibid., p. 4.

60

Ibid.

61

JCS, Competition Continuum [CC], Joint Doctrine Note 1-19, June 3, 2019, p. 5. Subordinate objectives for the state of cooperation are “engage
selectively,” “maintain,” and “advance,” while those for the state of armed conflict are “defeat,” “deny,” “degrade,” and “disrupt.”

62

CC, p. 8.

63

Arakaki, “The United States and Competition with China,” p. 51.

64

Ibid., pp. 51-52.

65

Ibid., p. 52.

66

HASC, Statement of General Mark A. Milley, pp. 6-7.

67

菊地茂雄 [Kikuchi Shigeo]「中国の軍事的脅威に関する認識変化と米軍作戦コンセプトの展開̶̶統合全ドメイン指揮統制（JADC2）を中心に」『安全保障戦略研究』第2巻第2号、2022年3月、40頁。

68

Arakaki, “The United States and Competition with China,” p. 53.

69

CMPR 2022, p. ix.

70

Ibid.

71

HASC, Statement of Ms. Sasha Baker, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, before the House Armed Services Committee Strategic Forces
Subcommittee on Fiscal Year 2023 Strategic Forces Posture: Nuclear, Missile Defense, Space and Hypersonic Strike, United States House, 117th
Cong., March 1, 2022, pp. 2-3.

72

HASC, Statement of Dr. John Plumb, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Space Policy, before the House Armed Services Committee Strategic
Forces Subcommittee (HASC-SF) on Fiscal Year 2024 Nuclear Forces and Atomic Energy Defense Activities, United States House, 118th Cong.,
March 28, 2023, p. 2.

73

Theresa Hitchens, “It’s a FOBS, Space Force’s Saltzman confirms amid Chinese weapons test confusion,” Breaking Defense, November 29, 2021.

74

STRATCOM Commander Cotton has also expressed concerns over China’s emphasis on the development of lower-yield, precision-guided
weapons. HASC, Statement of Anthony J. Cotton, Commander, United States Strategic Command, before the House Armed Services Committee on
Strategic Forces, United States House, 118th Cong., March 8, 2023, pp. 5-7.

75

HASC, Statement of Ms. Deborah G. Rosenblum, Assistant Secretary of Defense, Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Defense Programs, before theHouse Armed Services Committee Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, United States House, 118th Cong., March 28, 2023, p. 2.

76

HASC, Statement of Charles A. Richard, Commander, United States Strategic Command, before the House Armed Services Committee on Strategic
Forces, United States House, 117th Cong., March 1, 2022, pp. 2-4.

77

Jonathan Tirone, “China’s Imports of Russian Uranium Spark Fear of New Arms Race,” Bloomberg, February 28, 2023.

78

During President Xi Jinping’s visit to Russia on March 20, 2023, Rosatom and the Atomic Energy Agency of China signed a comprehensive longterm cooperation program on fast breeder reactors and the nuclear fuel cycle. ROSATOM, “ROSATOM and the Atomic Energy Agency of China
signed the long-term cooperation program in the area of fast reactors and nuclear fuel cycle closure,” March 22, 2023.

79

HASC, Statement of Dr. John Plumb, pp. 2-3; DOD, “Russia Reportedly Supplying Enriched Uranium to China,” March 8, 2023.

80

Mike D. Rogers, Michael McCaul, and Michael R. Turner, “Letter on ROSATOM-PRC nuclear cooperation,” March 16, 2023.

81

HASC, Statement of Dr. John Plumb, p. 3.

82

HASC, Statement of Anthony J. Cotton, p. 8.

83

Hans M. Kristensen, Matt Korda, and Eliana Reynolds, “Russian nuclear weapons, 2023,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 79, No. 3 (2023),
pp. 175, 179-181.

76

84

Ibid., p. 188.

85

HASC, Statement of Ms. Deborah G. Rosenblum, p. 3.

86

Department of State [DOS], “New START Treaty.”

87

Ibid.

88

DOS, “U.S. Countermeasures in Response to Russia’s Violations of the New START Treaty,” June 1, 2023.

89

Ibid.

90

DOS, “New START Treaty Aggregate Numbers of Strategic Offensive Arms,” May 12, 2023.

91

DOS, “New START Treaty Aggregate Numbers of Strategic Offensive Arms,” September 1, 2022.

92

HASC, Statement of Charles A. Richard, pp. 2-4.

93

National Security Advisor Sullivan stressed the importance of concurrently strengthening deterrence and advancing arms control as they are “twosides of the same proverbial nuclear coin.” The White House, “Remarks by National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan for the Arms Control
Association (ACA) Annual Forum,” June 2, 2023.

94

Ibid.

95

NPR 2022, p. 21.

96

The Biden administration has indicated that it will cancel the nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missile (SLCM-N) development program that the
Trump administration had approved, while continuing to deploy the W76-2 low-yield nuclear warhead. NPR 2022, pp. 20-21.

97

The long-range stand-off cruise missile is believed to be mountable on the B-52H and B-21.

98

NPR 2022, pp. 20-21.

99

The White House, “Remarks by National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan.”

100 NPR 2022, p. 8.
101 Ibid., p. 9.
102 Ibid., p. 8.
103 Ibid., p. 9.
104 HASC, Statement of Dr. John Plumb, p. 5.
105 NPR 2022, p. 7.
106 Ibid., pp. 9-10.
107 Ibid., p. 10.
108 Ibid.
109 Ibid., p. 11.
110 Ibid., p. 13.
111

Ibid., p. 17.

112 Ibid., p. 10.

77