The Difference Between Xi and Putin.
As the leaders of the two biggest rivals to the West,
Xi and Putin are frequently compared,
but the comparison makes no sense.
First of all, Putin created his political party, whereas Xi was created
by his political party. Putin is accountable to nobody in his party,
whose major representatives are mostly picked by Putin himself,
whereas Xi is accountable to his party, and that party is mostly a meritocracy.
I am not convinced that Xi is as powerful as Putin is in Russia.
There are also fundamental differences in the two parties. I am no communist,
but China's Communist Party is a meritocracy whereas Putin's party is
reminiscent of the mafia. If Putin has to fear anyone in Russia, it's the
plutocrats. On the other hand, the Chinese plutocrats have to fear the party.
Secondly, Putin won democratic elections, no matter what you think of them:
people were allowed to vote, and voted him. Xi was not voted in power by
the people, nor did they expect to. The relationship between power and
people is completely different in China since ancient times.
China's communism is basically a secular version of confucianism
(devoid of religious overtones) adapted to modern economic theory.
Putin is a descendant of right-wing populists like Mussolini and Hitler.
Thirdly, Putin oversaw the massacre of about 200,000 rebellious Muslims
(the Chechens) whereas Xi has "only" sent his rebellious Muslims (the Uygurs)
to "reeducation camps" where, as far as we know, prisoners are not being
Fourth, Putin's opponents have been murdered both at home and abroad, whereas
Xi's opponents at worst get jailed (and often it's a house arrest, not a real
prison cells). Not a single Chinese journalist, dissident, opponent has been
killed since Xi was appointed president.
In China you may lose your career if you criticize the Communist Party.
Putin, instead, physically eliminates his opponents.
Fifth, Putin has created a Russia that is
economically and technologically a backward country, but he inherited a
Russia that was on the verge of collapse, whereas Xi inherited a stable and
economic and technological state, and, so far, has not been able to improved it.
China's economic model is inspired by the West, from Germany's Industry 4.0
to Silicon Valley's "dotcom" startups via Taiwan's "learn by doing" strategy.
Putin's economic model is limited to selling natural resources and weapons.
Xi's challenge is to reinvent China's economy now that has achieved industrialization.
China doesn't have enough natural resources and it has to manufacture goods
and services in order to feed its 1.4 billion people.
Putin doesn't care about industrialization because it can feed his 150
million people with oil, natural gas and high-end weapons
(Russia's commercial industry was destroyed when the Soviet Union collapsed).
Both men have displayed "imperial" ambitions, i.e. expanding the influence of their
country outside the borders, but Putin's imperialism is purely political:
Russia does not need natural resources (it is the world's biggest exporter of
natural resources); whereas China's "imperialism" is economic in nature
(it is becoming the world's biggest importer of natural resources).
China's "empire" is a natural extension of its domestic infrastructure.
This is reflected in their cyber-hacking strategies: China's hacking is
mostly about industrial espionage, whereas Russia's hacking
tends to be political in nature (like when it attacked the Democratic Party
to help its favorite Trump in the 2016 elections).
See Does China steal?.
Both are wary of Western encirclement. Russia has been attacked twice from
the West (Napoleon and Hitler) and views NATO as a third attempt.
China is surrounded by US bases and warships (South Korea, Japan, Taiwan,
Singapore, Australia, Afghanistan, and so on), and its natural rival for
Asian domination, India, is a multi-party democracy like the USA that speaks
the same English language and that has signed a nuclear treaty with the USA.
Both are wary of US interference. The USA has accused Russia of interfering
in the 2016 elections that ended up with a president aligned with Putin,
but there is little question that the USA has interfered in dozens of the
elections of many countries and even overthrown governments (sometimes through
military invasions). There is, in particular, little question that US
presidents have regularly supported protest movements against mainland China
(notably in Tibet) and against Putin in person (the origin of Putin's obsession
with Hillay Clinton).
Both Xi and Putin have launched
initiatives that undermine the USA's role on the
world stage, but, again, Xi's actions tend to be economic in nature (the One Belt One Road initiative and various economic treaties), whereas Putin's actions
tend to be military in nature (like in Syria and Ukraine).
We have not heard of a single case where China imposed a trade deal to a
nation using its navy the way the Europeans did at the beginning of their
imperial expansion. China befriends dictators on purely economic
terms (Venezuela is a good example), regardless of ideology, the same way
it befriends democracies (several in South America).
Russia supports only dictators on purely ideological terms
(only anti-Western dictators).
China trades with Iran because it needs oil, Russia doesn't need oil but
it trades with Iran simply because Iran is an enemy of the USA.
In many cases China buys (natural resources) whereas Russia sells (weapons).
The biggest difference of all, of course, is that Putin has 3,000 nuclear
weapons, whereas Xi has only about 200, despite the fact that China's
economy is almost ten times bigger than Russia's (one of the many
aberrations of the 21st century).
So far China has only militarized a few islands that were never used,
whereas Russia has invaded countries (Ukraine and Syria).
Both Putin and China are honestly annoyed by the USA's
wars of conquest, that were wildly mismanaged and sometimes ill-intentioned:
the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (one justified, the other one not) left
behind terrorism and chaos; the Arab Spring left behind terrorism and chaos;
the interventions in Serbia and Sudan to create new states (Kosovo and South
Sudan) left behind permanent conflicts.
After the USA creates a problem, the international community has to rush to
fix it. Russia sees itself as the one that solved a problem in Syria that
was created by the USA and that the USA couldn't solve.
China, mostly, views the USA as an unreliable partner and an unreliable
world leader because every four or eight years the US president changes and so
does the country's strategy.
It is therefore not surprising that Xi (a communist son of a communist) and
Putin (the inspiration for the neofascist movements around the world)
tend to ally against the USA at the United Nations. Whenever the USA
begins lecturing the world about a crisis somewhere, they are justified in
fearing that the USA will create yet another problem and then walk away from it.
The thing that Xi and Putin have in common (as did Xi's predecessors) is that
they are very rational. One wishes the same could be said of Western
politicians such as Donald Trump and the "Brexit" clowns.
Why the World Listens to Russia.
A Russian official (Andranik Migranyan of the Moscow State Institute of International Relations) is reported as having said to a Western journalist: "You toppled the most successful government in North Africa". That was a reference to Qaddafi's regime. For the West, Qaddafi was a brutal madman who ruled Lybia for more than 40 years. For the much of the world, however, Qaddafi was the man who turned Lybia into the richest country in north Africa (way ahead of Western allies such as Egypt and Morocco) and one of the richest in the whole Islamic world. It was also amazingly stable and reliable by the standards of the third world. Now it is no man's land.
Most of the world views that case as the norm of US interventions.
Wherever the US intervenes with the pretext of "liberating" the nation, chaos ensues.
Then the USA withdraws, leaving a helpless population to suffer from terrorism, warlords, drug gangs etc. And then the USA returns to drop bombs from drones.
The USA lost in Iraq, Afghanistan and now Syria. Russia won in Syria.
The USA caused the mess in Iraq, Lybia, South Sudan, Kosovo, and countless other places.
Russia is restoring peace in Syria.
Given the precedents, the world is wary when the USA verbally attacks a regime,
such as in Iran and Venezuela, and the same world finds comfort in Russia's
immediate defense of such regimes. When it looked like the USA was about to
invade Venezuela, the world feared for another Lybia, another country torn
in a bloody civil war for years to come. When Russia acted to prevent such
an invasion, much of world breathed a sign of relief (probably including many
US allies, who have little appetite for supporting yet another
US-led invasion, especially now that the USA is led by the most incompetent
and corrupt statesman in the world).
Putin is also admired at a personal level. He obviously enjoys strong support
Most Russians believe that Putin truly believes in "making Russia great again".
Putin is honestly pursuing Russia's (short-term) interests on the world stage,
whereas US politicians are pursuing their own personal interests or Israel's interests (See The USA is a banana republic).
Contrary to Western stereotypes, the polls in Russia are fairly accurate.
Putin pays close attention to his approval ratings to see what works and what doesn't.
According to Alexander Oslon, who runs the Public Opinion Foundation,
Putin and his advisers are addicted to polls.
Russia is one of the oldest societies in the world because of it has one of
the lowest life expectancy rates in the world. Therefore the opinion of
old voters matters a lot. Old people remember that Russia collapsed twice
into chaos: in 1917 (when communism seized power) and in 1991 (when communism
Old Russians want a stable government before anything else.
Anywhere in the world, old voters are more motivated than young people to vote,
but it is in Russia that this natural tendency reaches a peak and becomes
an aberration: pensioners are just about the most powerful voting group of
the nation. There are 36 million pensioners in Russia compared with a population
of 83 million workers. Men retire at 60 and women at 55, which in most countries
are still considered productive years (but keep in mind that in Russia
the life expectancy for men is 66 and for women 76).
The only significant threat to Putin's power since the protests
of 2011 (which Putin blames on Hillary Clinton)
came in 2018 when Russia announced pension reforms.
Putin's approval rating plummeted from 80% to under 50%, and a few weeks later
Putin's United Russia party lost at the polls in at least four
regions (two went to the communists and two to the nationalists).
Putin himself is not young: he is 67 and is surrounded by people of his generation.
Russia's interference in US elections is doubted by the radical right-wing media of the USA, but it is widely believed in Russia, where Putin has always done this kind of things. More importantly, it is viewed as a victory by Putin: the Russians admire him for inflicting this humiliation to the much vaunted US democracy. Russia outsmarted the USA. When Trump's victory was announced, the Russian parliament gave Putin a standing ovation. When news that Mueller had found "no collusion" transpired, Putin supporters marched in the streets of Moscow celebrating another Putin triumph. Think of it: they were celebrating that the Mueller report said "Putin didn't succeed", which is an odd thing for Putin supporters to celebrate if you take the report's conclusions literally; except that Putin's supporter interpreted as "Putin certainly colluded with Trump and now even managed to get away with the crime - he fooled the USA twice".
Guess what? The rest of the world thinks so too
It's not only ordinary people
around the world
who think that Trump is "compromised" with Russia and therefore won't stand up
to Russia; it is also the very leaders of the nations already or potentially
involved in disputes with Russia.
The fact that Trump colluded with Russia is... a fact, whatever you definition
of "collusion" is.
Whether he did it intentionally or because he is a low-IQ bumbling fool
the consequence is the same: the USA cannot be trusted in matters that relate
Both allies and rivals assume that Putin now has the ability, through Trump to
undermine any US policy against Russia.
Putin's successes around the world have made him a much more credible voice.
In fact, he may now be more respected outside Russia than inside Russia.
One can view this phase of Putin's career as his "international" phase,
following a phase in which he was busy stabilizing Russia (and getting
rid of opponents).
TM, ®, Copyright © 2019 Piero Scaruffi All rights reserved.
Back to the world news | Top of this page
Articles on Russia before 2019