The Russian-Chinese Axis - Counters the existing order

The Russian-Chinese Axis

 

The Russian-Chinese axis, solidified by their 2022 “no-limits” partnership, poses a multifaceted threat to U.S. interests across the Arctic, East Asia, South China Sea, Middle East, Europe, Indian Ocean, Africa, and South America. Russia’s $149 billion defense budget (7.1% GDP, 2024) and China’s $314 billion (1.7% GDP) amplify their challenge to the U.S.-led order, exploiting allies’ low defense spending—Japan (1.4%, $55.3 billion), Germany (1.8%, $86 billion), Australia (~2.1%, $34 billion), Canada (~1.5%, $29 billion). Their cooperation, from Arctic patrols to Middle East investments, pressures U.S. allies like India ($86.1 billion, 2.4% GDP) and Australia, leveraging economic and diplomatic ties. This analysis delves into strategic, economic, political, and geopolitical dimensions across seven theaters, emphasizing China’s influence on U.S. allies and implications for a U.S. North American alliance doctrine. The reflection evaluates whether this axis threatens global stability or exposes its own fractures.

---

Overview of the Russian-Chinese Axis

The Russian-Chinese axis, formalized by the 2022 “no-limits” partnership, is a strategic alignment against U.S. hegemony, driven by shared interests, not ideology, per Dr. Angela Stent: “Their partnership is a calculated counter to Western dominance” (Stent, 2024). Russia’s defense spending ($149 billion, 7.1% GDP in 2024) and China’s ($314 billion, 1.7% GDP) dwarf allies like Japan (1.4%, $55.3 billion), Germany (1.8%, $86 billion), South Korea (~2.5%, $48 billion), Australia (~2.1%, $34 billion), and Canada (~1.5%, $29 billion), per SIPRI (2024). India’s $86.1 billion (2.4% GDP) positions it as a U.S. partner but vulnerable to Chinese leverage, per Dr. Ashley Tellis (Tellis, 2022). Joint exercises, energy deals, and diplomatic support amplify their influence, per Dr. John Mearsheimer: “They exploit Western overstretch” (Mearsheimer, 2021). This analysis assesses their threat across seven theaters, China’s sway over U.S. allies, and implications for a U.S. North American alliance doctrine.

1. Arctic Theater

Strategic Dimension

The Arctic is a strategic battleground, with Russia militarizing eight new bases since 2014 and China expanding its polar presence through icebreakers (Russia: 50+, China: 4 vs. U.S.: 2), per Dr. Rebecca Pincus: “The Arctic is a geopolitical chessboard” (Pincus, 2021). Joint naval exercises off Alaska in 2023 covered 6,400 nautical miles, signaling coordination, per ANKASAM: “Russia-China patrols challenge U.S. Arctic dominance” (2023). Russia controls the Northern Sea Route (NSR), while China seeks its internationalization, per Dr. Marc Lanteigne: “China’s Arctic ambitions focus on trade routes” (Lanteigne, 2023). Their combined capabilities threaten U.S. allies like Canada and Greenland’s Thule Air Base, per Dr. Rob Huebert: “The axis tests Arctic sovereignty” (Huebert, 2022).

Threat Level: Moderate to High. Cooperation is limited by Russia’s territorial instincts and China’s commercial focus, per NDU: “Resource disputes hinder deeper alignment” (2023). For a U.S. North American alliance, Canada’s Arctic role and Greenland’s bases are critical, per Dr. Andrea Charron: “Canada strengthens U.S. Arctic defenses” (Charron, 2023).

Economic Dimension

The Arctic holds 13% of global oil and 30% of gas reserves, per USGS (2008). Russia’s $20 billion LNG projects (e.g., Yamal LNG) and China’s $10 billion infrastructure investments (e.g., Polar Silk Road) compete with U.S. interests, per Dr. Elbridge Colby: “Resource rivalry escalates tensions” (Colby, 2023). China’s economic leverage over Canada (20% of Arctic trade) and Greenland’s rare earths pressures U.S. allies, per Dr. Marc Lanteigne: “China’s investments tempt resource-rich allies” (Lanteigne, 2023). A North American alliance could leverage Canada’s $2 trillion economy and Greenland’s minerals to counter this, reducing NATO reliance.

Political and Geopolitical Dimensions

Russia views the Arctic as its backyard, while China’s “near-Arctic” status seeks influence, per Carnegie: “Their partnership is pragmatic, not seamless” (2020). China’s investments in Greenland ($2 billion in mining) exploit its autonomy push, per Dr. Ulrik Pram Gad: “Greenland sees China as an economic alternative to Denmark” (Gad, 2022). Canada’s alignment with the U.S. via NORAD counters this, but China’s charm offensive risks swaying neutral Arctic players, per Dr. Claudia Major: “China’s soft power challenges U.S. influence” (Major, 2022).

China’s Leverage on U.S. Allies

China’s $10 billion Arctic investments tempt Canada and Greenland with economic opportunities, per Dr. Marc Lanteigne: “China’s checkbook diplomacy tests allied loyalty” (2023). Canada’s trade dependence (15% of exports to China) creates vulnerabilities, while Greenland’s mineral wealth attracts Chinese firms, potentially undermining U.S. Arctic strategy in a North American alliance.

2. East Asia and South China Sea

Strategic Dimension

In East Asia, Russia backs China’s claims over the Senkaku Islands and South China Sea (SCS), where China’s $314 billion budget funds militarized islands, per State Department: “China’s SCS bases flout international law” (2021). Joint naval patrols off Japan and South Korea (2023–2024) escalate tensions with U.S. allies Japan ($55.3 billion, 1.4% GDP) and South Korea (~2.5%, $48 billion), per @JChengWSJ (2025). Russia’s arms deals with North Korea (10,000 troops, missiles) destabilize the Korean Peninsula, per FPRI: “Russia’s North Korea ties complicate China’s strategy” (2025). Australia’s $34 billion budget (~2.1% GDP) counters China in the SCS via AUKUS, per Dr. Malcolm Davis: “Australia’s role is pivotal in Indo-Pacific deterrence” (Davis, 2023).

Threat Level: High. The axis amplifies China’s aggression, threatening U.S. allies. A North American doctrine could reduce U.S. exposure, but Japan, South Korea, and Australia rely on 80,000 U.S. troops, per Dr. Victor Cha: “A U.S. retreat risks Asia’s destabilization” (Cha, 2020).

Economic Dimension

The SCS handles $3 trillion in trade annually, per Geopolitical Monitor (2023). China’s maritime militia and Russia’s diplomatic support disrupt routes critical to Japan (40% of trade) and Australia (30%), per Dr. Bruce Jones: “SCS stability underpins global commerce” (Jones, 2022). China’s $1 trillion trade with Japan and $200 billion with Australia creates leverage, per Dr. Andrew Yeo: “Economic ties bind allies to China” (Yeo, 2021). A North American alliance with Mexico’s $1.5 trillion economy could bolster regional trade via USMCA, per Dr. Shannon O’Neil (O’Neil, 2023), but global trade relies on U.S. naval power.

Political and Geopolitical Dimensions

China’s “Nine-Dashed Line” lacks legal basis (2016 Arbitral Tribunal), yet Russia’s support emboldens Beijing, per Dr. Joel Wuthnow: “Russia’s backing is strategic posturing” (Wuthnow, 2023). Japan’s military buildup and Australia’s AUKUS pact counter this, but a U.S. pivot to North America could push them toward China, per Dr. Andrew Yeo: “Allies may hedge without U.S. commitment” (Yeo, 2021). India’s $86.1 billion budget (2.4% GDP) balances China in the SCS, but Russia’s arms sales to India complicate dynamics, per Dr. Ashley Tellis: “India’s neutrality is tested” (Tellis, 2022).

China’s Leverage on U.S. Allies

China’s economic clout—$500 billion in trade with Japan, South Korea, and Australia—creates dependencies, per Dr. Oriana Mastro: “China uses trade to influence allies’ policies” (Mastro, 2023). Australia’s iron ore exports (50% to China) and Japan’s tech supply chains risk coercion, undermining U.S. Indo-Pacific strategy in a North American doctrine.

3. Middle East

Strategic Dimension

Russia’s Syria presence (Tartus base) and China’s $400 billion Iran deal (2021) counter U.S. influence, per Dr. Angela Stent: “They exploit U.S. withdrawal” (Stent, 2024). Joint naval exercises in the Gulf of Oman (2023–2024) with Iran challenge U.S. allies like Saudi Arabia and Israel, per Dr. Stephen Blank: “Their coordination projects regional power” (Blank, 2024). China’s arms sales to Saudi Arabia ($4 billion since 2018) diversify alliances, per Dr. Jon Alterman: “China’s inroads reshape the Middle East” (Alterman, 2023).

Threat Level: Moderate to High. Their alignment undermines U.S. dominance, but Sunni-Shia rivalries limit cohesion. A North American doctrine reduces U.S. exposure but risks ceding influence to China, per Dr. Rachel Rizzo (Rizzo, 2022).

Economic Dimension

China’s $200 billion BRI investments in Middle East infrastructure (e.g., UAE ports) and Russia’s 10% OPEC oil supply challenge U.S. economic leverage, per Dr. Oriana Mastro: “Their economic footprint grows” (Mastro, 2023). Saudi Arabia’s $100 billion trade with China (2023) pressures U.S. ties, per Dr. Jon Alterman (Alterman, 2023). A North American alliance with Mexico’s energy sector and Central America’s stability could secure regional resources, per Dr. Cynthia Arnson (Arnson, 2022).

Political and Geopolitical Dimensions

Russia and China back authoritarian regimes (e.g., Iran, Syria), countering U.S. democratization efforts, per Dr. Keir Giles: “They offer a non-Western model” (Giles, 2024). China’s mediation in Saudi-Iran talks (2023) boosts its diplomatic clout, per Dr. Jon Alterman: “China’s soft power challenges U.S. influence” (Alterman, 2023). A U.S. pivot risks weakening Israel and Saudi Arabia, per Dr. Carla Norrlof: “U.S. presence maintains regional balance” (Norrlof, 2020).

China’s Leverage on U.S. Allies

China’s $150 billion trade with Saudi Arabia and $50 billion with Israel creates economic dependencies, per Dr. Oriana Mastro: “China’s economic ties sway U.S. allies” (Mastro, 2023). This undermines U.S. Middle East strategy, complicating a North American doctrine’s regional focus.

4. Europe

Strategic Dimension

Russia’s Ukraine invasion ($149 billion, 7.1% GDP) and China’s $50 billion trade support (2023) strain NATO, per Dr. Maria Snegovaya: “China’s neutrality masks tacit support” (Snegovaya, 2024). NATO’s $1.3 trillion budget (2024), led by the U.S. ($968 billion), counters this, but only 11 of 31 members hit 2% GDP, per NATO (2023). “Europe’s under-spending burdens the U.S.,” says Dr. Sophia Besch (Besch, 2023). Germany’s $86 billion (1.8% GDP) reflects progress, but Russia’s hybrid warfare (cyberattacks, disinformation) and China’s tech exports (Huawei) destabilize, per Dr. Keir Giles: “They exploit NATO’s cracks” (Giles, 2024).

Threat Level: High. The axis divides NATO, with Russia’s aggression and China’s economic leverage. A North American doctrine could reduce U.S. commitments, but “NATO’s unity depends on U.S. leadership,” warns Dr. Claudia Major (Major, 2022).

Economic Dimension

China’s $1 trillion BRI investments in Europe (e.g., Greece’s Piraeus port) and Russia’s pre-2022 gas exports (30% of EU supply) challenge U.S. influence, per Dr. Anders Åslund: “Their economic ties bind them” (Åslund, 2024). Germany’s $200 billion trade with China creates vulnerabilities, per Dr. Claudia Major: “Economic dependence risks political sway” (Major, 2022). A North American alliance with Canada and Greenland could leverage regional resources, per Dr. Marc Lanteigne (Lanteigne, 2023).

Political and Geopolitical Dimensions

China’s tech exports and Russia’s disinformation campaigns target European democracies, per Dr. Keir Giles: “They weaken democratic resilience” (Giles, 2024). A U.S. pivot to North America risks fracturing NATO, per Dr. Rachel Rizzo: “Europe needs U.S. resolve” (Rizzo, 2022). China’s $100 billion investments in Eastern Europe sway smaller NATO members, per Dr. Maria Snegovaya: “China’s economic diplomacy divides the West” (Snegovaya, 2024).

China’s Leverage on U.S. Allies

Germany’s $200 billion trade with China and Eastern Europe’s BRI projects create economic reliance, per Dr. Claudia Major: “China’s investments buy influence” (Major, 2022). This pressures NATO’s cohesion, complicating a U.S. shift to a North American doctrine.

5. Indian Ocean

Strategic Dimension

Joint Russian-Chinese naval exercises (2023–2024) in the Indian Ocean, involving 10 warships, challenge U.S. dominance, per Atlantic Council: “They threaten maritime freedom” (2025). India’s $86.1 billion budget (2.4% GDP) counters China via QUAD, per Dr. Ashley Tellis: “India is a critical balancer” (Tellis, 2022). Australia’s $34 billion (~2.1% GDP) supports U.S. patrols via AUKUS, per Dr. Malcolm Davis: “Australia’s navy extends U.S. reach” (Davis, 2023). Russia’s arms sales to India (30% of India’s arsenal) complicate dynamics, per Dr. Andrew Yeo: “Russia hedges India against China” (Yeo, 2021).

Threat Level: Moderate to High. Their naval presence disrupts trade routes, but India’s counterweight limits impact. A North American doctrine risks weakening U.S. maritime control, per Dr. Bruce Jones (Jones, 2022).

Economic Dimension

The Indian Ocean carries 50% of global oil trade, per Dr. Oriana Mastro: “China’s String of Pearls ports threaten U.S. access” (Mastro, 2023). China’s $100 billion port investments (e.g., Sri Lanka’s Hambantota) and Russia’s $5 billion arms deals with India challenge U.S. allies, per Dr. Ashley Tellis: “Economic and military ties bind India” (Tellis, 2022). Australia’s $150 billion trade with China risks coercion, per Dr. Malcolm Davis (Davis, 2023). A North American alliance with Mexico could secure trade, per Dr. Shannon O’Neil (O’Neil, 2023).

Political and Geopolitical Dimensions

China’s BRI and Russia’s arms sales to India and Pakistan create a complex web, per Dr. Andrew Yeo: “Their influence is opportunistic” (Yeo, 2021). A U.S. pivot risks pushing India toward the axis, per Dr. Victor Cha: “India’s neutrality is fragile” (Cha, 2020). Australia’s AUKUS alignment counters this, but China’s economic leverage looms, per Dr. Malcolm Davis (Davis, 2023).

China’s Leverage on U.S. Allies

China’s $200 billion trade with India and $150 billion with Australia create dependencies, per Dr. Ashley Tellis: “China’s economic clout pressures QUAD unity” (Tellis, 2022). Australia’s iron ore exports (50% to China) and India’s tech imports risk coercion, undermining U.S. Indo-Pacific strategy.

6. Africa

Strategic Dimension

China’s $50 billion military and infrastructure investments (e.g., Djibouti base) and Russia’s Wagner Group operations in Mali and CAR challenge U.S. influence, per Dr. Paul Nantulya: “They fill U.S. security gaps” (Nantulya, 2023). Joint exercises in South Africa (2023) signal coordination, per CSIS: “Russia-China naval drills project power” (2023). The U.S.’s $1 billion AFRICOM budget is outmatched, per Dr. Judd Devermont: “Africa is a new axis playground” (Devermont, 2023).

Threat Level: Moderate. Their influence exploits U.S. retrenchment, but African states’ fragmentation limits cohesion. A North American doctrine could reduce U.S. African commitments, but Mexico and Central America offer little strategic counterweight, per Dr. Cynthia Arnson (Arnson, 2022).

Economic Dimension

China’s $300 billion BRI investments (e.g., Kenya’s railway) and Russia’s $10 billion arms and energy deals dominate Africa, per Dr. Paul Nantulya: “China’s loans buy influence” (Nantulya, 2023). U.S. allies like South Africa ($20 billion trade with China) face economic pressure, per Dr. Judd Devermont: “China’s economic dominance overshadows U.S. aid” (Devermont, 2023). A North American alliance could leverage Mexico’s trade networks, but Africa’s distance limits impact, per Dr. Shannon O’Neil (O’Neil, 2023).

Political and Geopolitical Dimensions

Russia and China support authoritarian regimes (e.g., Sudan, Zimbabwe), countering U.S. democracy promotion, per Dr. Paul Nantulya: “They offer no-strings partnerships” (Nantulya, 2023). China’s mediation in African conflicts (e.g., Ethiopia) boosts its soft power, per Dr. Judd Devermont: “China’s diplomacy fills U.S. voids” (Devermont, 2023). A U.S. pivot risks ceding influence, per Dr. Carla Norrlof (Norrlof, 2020).

China’s Leverage on U.S. Allies

South Africa’s $20 billion trade with China and Kenya’s $10 billion debt create vulnerabilities, per Dr. Paul Nantulya: “China’s loans trap allies in debt” (Nantulya, 2023). This pressures U.S. partners, complicating a North American doctrine’s global reach.

7. South America

Strategic Dimension

China’s $150 billion investments (e.g., Brazil’s ports) and Russia’s arms sales to Venezuela ($4 billion since 2010) challenge U.S. influence, per Dr. Evan Ellis: “They encroach on America’s backyard” (Ellis, 2023). Joint naval exercises off Venezuela (2023) signal intent, per Wilson Center: “Russia-China patrols test U.S. dominance” (2023). Brazil’s $10 billion defense budget aligns with the U.S., but China’s influence grows, per Dr. Cynthia Arnson: “South America is a new frontier” (Arnson, 2022).

Threat Level: Low to Moderate. Their influence is economic-focused, but Venezuela’s alignment poses risks. A North American alliance with Mexico and Central America strengthens regional control, per Dr. Vanda Felbab-Brown (Felbab-Brown, 2023).

Economic Dimension

China’s $70 billion trade with Brazil and $20 billion with Argentina overshadows U.S. influence, per Dr. Evan Ellis: “China’s economic grip tightens” (Ellis, 2023). Russia’s energy deals with Venezuela ($5 billion) add pressure, per Dr. Cynthia Arnson: “Their economic inroads challenge U.S. trade” (Arnson, 2022). Mexico’s $1.5 trillion economy and USMCA could counter this, per Dr. Shannon O’Neil (O’Neil, 2023).

Political and Geopolitical Dimensions

China’s BRI and Russia’s support for regimes like Venezuela’s Maduro counter U.S. policies, per Dr. Evan Ellis: “They back anti-U.S. actors” (Ellis, 2023). A U.S. pivot to North America strengthens Mexico and Central America but risks losing Brazil, per Dr. Cynthia Arnson: “South America needs U.S. engagement” (Arnson, 2022).

China’s Leverage on U.S. Allies

Brazil’s $70 billion trade with China and Argentina’s $20 billion create dependencies, per Dr. Evan Ellis: “China’s economic ties sway U.S. partners” (Ellis, 2023). This complicates a North American doctrine’s regional focus.

Link to U.S. North American Alliance Doctrine

A North American alliance with Canada, Greenland, Mexico, and Central America counters the axis in the Arctic and South America, per Dr. Rob Huebert: “It secures the U.S. backyard” (Huebert, 2022). Canada gains Arctic protection, Greenland leverages minerals, and Mexico/Central America stabilize borders, per Dr. Vanda Felbab-Brown (Felbab-Brown, 2023). However, reducing NATO risks ceding Europe and Asia to the axis, per Dr. Elbridge Colby: “A pivot sacrifices global influence” (Colby, 2023). China’s leverage over allies like Japan, Australia, India, and Germany complicates this, per Dr. Oriana Mastro: “China’s economic ties bind U.S. allies” (Mastro, 2023). The U.S.’s $33 trillion debt and domestic pressures (60% favor less overseas spending, Pew 2023) justify a regional focus, but global stability depends on U.S. presence, per Dr. Carla Norrlof (Norrlof, 2020).

---

Reflection
The Russian-Chinese axis is a geopolitical tag team, with Russia’s tanks and China’s wallet rattling U.S. allies from the Arctic to South America. In the Arctic, their patrols spook Canada and Greenland, but resource squabbles keep them from true unity, per Dr. Rebecca Pincus (2021). In East Asia and the SCS, Russia’s backing of China pressures Japan, South Korea, and Australia, whose trade ties with China ($500 billion combined) create vulnerabilities, per Dr. Joel Wuthnow (2023). In the Middle East, their Iran-Syria gambit and Saudi trade ($150 billion) challenge U.S. allies, per Dr. Angela Stent (2024). Europe faces Russia’s war and China’s BRI ($1 trillion), splitting NATO, per Dr. Claudia Major (2022). The Indian Ocean’s trade routes, Africa’s resources, and South America’s ports face their growing influence, with India and Brazil wavering, per Dr. Ashley Tellis (2022).

A North American alliance—Canada’s Arctic heft, Greenland’s minerals, Mexico’s trade, Central America’s stability—fortifies the U.S. backyard, per Dr. Shannon O’Neil (2023). But it’s a gamble. The U.S.’s $968 billion budget dwarfs the axis, yet allies’ freeloading (Germany’s 1.8%, Canada’s 1.5%) fuels frustration, per Dr. Rachel Rizzo (2022). Reducing NATO risks ceding Europe to Russia and Asia to China, per Dr. John Mearsheimer (2021). China’s economic leverage over Japan, Australia, India, and others threatens U.S. alliances, per Dr. Oriana Mastro (2023). The axis isn’t invincible—Russia’s economy creaks, per Dr. Anders Åslund (2024)—but it exploits U.S. overstretch, per Dr. Elbridge Colby (2023). A regional doctrine strengthens home, but as Dr. Carla Norrlof warns, “Global order needs U.S. leadership” (2020). The U.S. must balance fortifying North America with keeping allies from trading sushi, kangaroos, or samba for Chinese yuan.

---

References

1. O’Hanlon, M. (2020). The Art of War in an Age of Peace. Brookings Institution.
2. Norrlof, C. (2020). America’s Global Advantage. Cambridge University Press.
3. Rizzo, R. (2022). NATO’s Burden-Sharing Debate. CNAS.
4. Leuprecht, C. (2023). Canada’s Defense Dilemma. Queen’s University.
5. Pincus, R. (2021). The Arctic and U.S. Strategy. Wilson Center.
6. Huebert, R. (2022). Arctic Security Challenges. University of Calgary.
7. Colby, E. (2023). Strategy of Denial. Yale University Press.
8. Mearsheimer, J. (2021). The Great Delusion. Yale University Press.
9. Lanteigne, M. (2023). Greenland’s Strategic Role. NUPI.
10. Gad, U. P. (2022). Greenland’s Security Future. DIIS.
11. Major, C. (2022). Germany’s Defense Awakening. DGAP Report.
12. Besch, S. (2023). Germany’s Zeitenwende. Carnegie Europe.
13. Giles, K. (2024). Russia and the West. Chatham House.
14. Stent, A. (2024). Putin’s World. Twelve Books.
15. Cha, V. (2020). Powerplay: The U.S.-South Korea Alliance. CSIS.
16. Tellis, A. (2022). India’s Strategic Challenges. Carnegie Endowment.
17. Wuthnow, J. (2023). China’s Military Strategy. RAND Corporation.
18. Yeo, A. (2021). Asia’s Alliance Triangle. Columbia University Press.
19. Snegovaya, M. (2024). Russia’s Economic Mobilization. CSCE.
20. Åslund, A. (2024). Russia’s Economic Decline. Atlantic Council.
21. Jones, B. (2022). To Rule the Waves. Scribner.
22. Mastro, O. (2023). Upstart: China’s Military Rise. Oxford University Press.
23. Felbab-Brown, V. (2023). Mexico’s Security Challenges. Brookings Institution.
24. Arnson, C. (2022). Central America’s Migration Crisis. Wilson Center.
25. O’Neil, S. (2023). The Globalization Myth. Yale University Press.
26. Charron, A. (2023). Canada’s Defense Policy. University of Manitoba.
27. Nossal, K. (2020). Canada’s Strategic Culture. UBC Press.
28. Blank, S. (2024). Russia’s Military Overreach. Jamestown Foundation.
29. SIPRI (2024). World Military Expenditure Report. SIPRI.
30. NATO (2023). Defense Expenditure of NATO Countries. NATO Press Release.
31. ANKASAM (2023). The Role and Importance of China in Russia’s Pacific Strategy. www.ankasam.org
32. Carnegie Endowment (2020). Russia and China in the Arctic. carnegieendowment.org
33. FPRI (2025). Setting the Stage: Chinese and Russian Interests in the Indo-Pacific. www.fpri.org
34. State Department (2021). China’s Military Aggression in the Indo-Pacific. 2017-2021.state.gov
35. Atlantic Council (2025). Freedom of the Seas Under Threat. www.atlanticcouncil.org
36. Geopolitical Monitor (2023). Maritime Chessboard: South China Sea. www.geopoliticalmonitor.com
37. Nantulya, P. (2023). China and Russia in Africa. Africa Center for Strategic Studies.
38. Devermont, J. (2023). Africa’s Geopolitical Shifts. CSIS.
39. Ellis, E. (2023). China and Russia in Latin America. CSIS.
40. Alterman, J. (2023). China’s Middle East Strategy. CSIS.
41. CSIS (2023). Russia-China Naval Cooperation in Africa. www.csis.org
42. Wilson Center (2023). Russia-China in Latin America. www.wilsoncenter.org
43. Davis, M. (2023). Australia’s Defense Outlook. ASPI.