Really good points. Thank you for the constructive post, which we miss these days.
Well on the recent events, China made it clear that US policy makers should always put China into equation when dealing with Russia. Thus China would be internationally responsible for Russia's actions. This is a great source of power but also a great responsibility. I guess from now on, China will be percieved as a direct adversary instead of a potential one for US policy makers.
That's very interesting take although any Russian diplomat would disagree with. I am not sure whether siding with Russia on major global issues would by default mean being accountable for all of Russia's behavior. In the case of Ukraine Crisis, China has chosen not to overtly support Russia and adopted an oft-used rhetoric of political solution between the related (direct) parties.
The US in fact attempted a pact with Russia during the Reset period but for some reason it derailed. That could be due to private interests and in-fighting in Washington. As most of us know, Washington is a not a unitary colossus, but an amalgamation of private and group interests that keep fighting and trying to steer the country to their own benefit. They do it more elegantly due to sophisticated methods and instruments, but, still, this does not rule out the fact that the inner struggle has been rather fierce.
In my opinion, the winning side decided to estrange Russia and bring it on to China in the form of the Pivot. With Russia on the board or not, I believe China had already been decided as the new enemy. The mistake they made included taking Russia lightly. And China has proven to be an able international actor. None of the neo-liberal and neo-realist postulations by US political scientists have come about.
As I've told before being able to stop the "mini cold war" (Asia pivot) is China's first serious challenge in the region now, because there will be less and less middle east or Russia in US foreign policy and more and more Asia-Pacific. Meaning China is becoming the main target of the US foreign policy.
I believe both Middle East and Russia will loom larger in the US foreign policy, and even largely so if a Republican gets the White House. On the Eastern front, on the other, escalation and war effort against DPRK has been stalled by China. The TPP is all over the place. The effort to stop China's island development program has failed and become the new normal. Today, nobody is talking about it except some MA students who want to get published online. China declared an ADIZ and rendered the DiaoyuDai a disputed island (thanks to Japanese recklessness, I should add).
For a long time after it's opening up China had never made any real effort to lead the anti-western polar of the world. It always seeked a balance among the "west" and the "east" in terms of relations. However those policies naturally came to an end. China has no way going back to it's old foreign policy after saving Russia from US imposed sanctions.
But the trade relations with the US has been just as good. And geopolitical struggle has always been on the agenda. The Taiwan Straits Crisis took place in 1996. They bombed our embassy in Belgrade. The spy-plane accident in the 2000s. So, there has always been a struggle while China made business connections with all over the world. The balancing is in fact stronger these days as the US declines as the representative of the West. Now the UK and Germany can jump onto the AIIB wagon despite the US explicitly says the otherwise. And I cannot think of a better "East-West integration" program than the One-Belt, One-Road program, which has been announced in 2013. I agree that China will have to take more assertive posture but I do not see China being pushed to choose between East or West. China is just too big to choose. It embraces all.
However I would wish for a different solution. It's a world wide know fact that US politics can bought. And it's a solid fact that China has a very strong diaspora and multinational cooperations (unlike Russia). Why not make lobby and push for what China wants in the US -just like Israel and many other European country does- instead of jumping on the bandwagon with Russia who has no clear international policy option other than publicly "brawling" US?
That I would strongly disagree with. Especially if influencing US politics means hiring some lobby agency (probably, Jewish?) in Washington (I guess Turkey has done that) and try to influence decision making in the Congress.
Buying US politics is for Armenian diaspora, Israeli lobbyists, Arab oil sheikhs, or Turkish government who wants to fight Nancy Pelossi in Congress. That's just un-great powerish.
A great power like China would not resort to such tactics. For once, when it comes to China, the US is not that almighty. If China does not like something it vetoes (if it is on the UNSC) like it did two times with respect to Syria, or simply says 'no,' like it did with island development in SCS or ADIZ in ECS.
China, in this sense, does not jump on any bandwagon, be it Russian or US. The relationship with Russia is one of the equals. We are not obliged to do anything just for the sake of being a partner (this is unlike NATO which obliges the UK to fight alongside the US in the Middle East even when the general public does not want so). The SCO is not a NATO. China's foreign policy is not formulated in the conventional hard alliance or hub-and-spokes way.
@Chinese-Dragon