Yeah, I thought about 1905 and you may very well be right. Does anyone have any current information about Russian & Japanese mutual cultural attitudes or predjudice?
I think they're still fighting over four tiny islands that Russia took during WWII.  

But I don't think that's the reason Russia prefers China.  I suspect Russia sees China as a better potential ally than Japan.  Many are expecting China to be the next superpower.  Militarily and economically.  

The Russo-Japanese war of 1904 - 1905 was by no means the last time there was a major armed conflict between Russia and Japan.

During the 1930s, when Japan was heavily engaged in its imperialist expansionary adventure in China, Russia found it necessary to maintain a very large troop presense along the border between Manchuria and the far eastern parts of Siberia, as well as in Mongolia (then a de facto protectorate of the USSR).  For a very long time,Japan coveted the resource-rich areas of Siberia and had dreams of slicing off a nice chuck for itself.

It is not too widely known that in October 1939 Russia and Japan came to blows in the Mongolian desert in a place called Nomanhan. The Russians came out ahead this time around. This was no minor border skirmish, as the Japanese had something like 20,000 casualties and the Russians roughly 15,000. While the pressure on Russia eased after the Japanese started fighting the US in the Pacific, it was still necessary for Russia to maintain many divisions in the area in spite of their being badly needed on the Eastern front against the Germans.

In fact, the Japanese Army and Navy were bitter rivals: the Army favored attacking Russia to split off  a piece of Siberia, while the Navy was in favor of taking control of the Pacific to get at the resources of Southeast Asia.

So, the relations between the two countries was never good and probably still isn't.  

FWIW, CNN is now airing a story on the alliance between Russia and China.  They mentioned the energy deal, but emphasized the military alliance.  

They seem to think the old Russia and China vs. the U.S. dynamic is alive and well.  I think there's something to that.  Japan has no real military, and they're in our pocket, anyway.  If I were Russia, I'd court China, too.

Now the talking heads are lamenting the failure of "free trade."  Opening up to China was supposed to tame them by showing them the benefits of trade.  Instead, it's had the opposite effect.  They are getting more aggressive, not less.  

GW did say he is a "uniter not a divider."  In a sense that it is true.  He has succeeded in uniting the world against us.
There was a meeting of foreign ministers from Australia, Japan, and USA last week (http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/australia/joint0603-2.html).  USA and Japan also emphasized the corporation with India. I think that the alliance of USA, Japan, India, and Australia has been forged gradually in the last couple of years to contain China. Nuclear deal of USA with India should be part of this alliance. The weakest link of BRIC alliance, Brazil and India, seems to move away form the alliance slowly. In my opinions, the most important issue is how far Russia is willing to support China. There was a deal for gas pipelines but not oil pipelines.
Good observation, strandk.  One interesting aspect of an alliance composed of USA, Japan, India, and Australia is that among all four there is damn little oil produced.   As opposed to the China/Russia alliance, which has a lot of oil and, especially, NG.   With China, you have to count in their rapidly expanding bi-lateral deals for oil: Sudan, Iran, etc. and growing.

Frankly, it doesn't look too good for the home team unless we get to work real fast on both conservation and alternatives, as Hirsch says.   In this regard, the recent strong statements by Richard Lugar are totally on point.  I have to believe that people are going to see this in the not too distant future.

I have to wonder, when you mention those four nations, (Aus, USA, Jap, India) how much the global-influence of a Nation is necessarily hinged upon its access to raw materials and great labor-force.  Look at the British Empire, or just the way Humans, and by a further extension, the Transistor- use raw power itself.  It is a model of a smallish conduit that funnels and manages power.  Success is based on the effective, and sometimes the efficient Handling of that power, not necessarily that of being the energy supply itself.

So I look at the ascendency of China and wonder if the Next Dynasty comes from SIZE, or from Having the 'Right Idea for the time period in question' (IE, England combining their Market Systems with the need for Naval Dominance reinforced by the history of Norman and Spanish incursions)

.. I should have said
"The right MANAGEMENT Idea for that period.." since, as I re-read it, I'm looking at 'Power Conduits' that operate largely Extra-nationally, like Wal-Mart or Exxon..  They are leveraging the power-sources wherever they are, against the financial resources, whereever they are.. dependent, of course, upon the ability to transport the goods from the one to the other.  But aren't corporations in many ways competing at the scale of the nations for resources and influence, with the 'Power Management Idea' of doing so without the Ball-and-chain of a fixed piece of land or a population to have to answer to?
If I were to make a guess, I'd guess that the right management idea for the upcoming period will involve less stringent rules on some forms of intellectual property than the US currently has.

The US software industry flourished for decades with no patent protection.

Computers have provided the first manufactured good that's literally too cheap to meter: the transmission of data by the megabyte around the world. Business models that take advantage of the unlimited-sum nature of data copying will do better than those that try to fight it. For example, some book publishers are finding that putting complete books online for free increases sales of those books, and Megatunes.com is doing the same with music.

For more of my thoughts on intellectual property, click here.

Chris

Interesting points.

John Perry Barlow of the Grateful Dead would seem to agree with you in this.  He's said that their open policy about bootlegging was a boon to their success, not a drag on it.  I have been looking at the increasing amount of art that is finalized as 'Data', and therefore doesn't exist as a unique material object.  There is no 'Original'.  What does that do to Arts Auctioning, and then what does that mean for 'Ownership' of art at all?  Would people who could have just 'one of an unlimited number' of copies of a great Cezanne, a CB DeMille or one of Mozart's or Shakespeare's Manuscripts, etc, without ever getting to be that 'King of the Hill' who has 'THE ONE'..

.. and is universal access to one's very own source of power-generation (Solar, Wind, etc) just as great a threat to the 'Selective-Ownership Society' as that of our Art being so 'unownable'.

It's unfortunate that parts of Capitalism tend to succeed from conditions of imbalance, because it creates a demand by the capitalist society FOR imbalance.  It's a disincentive for cooperation, trust and peace.  Now sure, to do business with each other, these same conditions have to be present to some degree, but PROFIT is won by leveraging divisions.  Feeding from low cost supplies, offered to places with high-priced demand.  War Profiteering has never had it so good, and it's hard to keep the labor costs down if population gets too plentiful.

 

I think the US is in some ways trying to replay the old English strategy of building alliances on the continent to contain the strongest continental power.  In this version, though, instead of Great Britain offshore of Europe, it's the US offshore of Asia, building alliances to contain the Chinese.
There's also a good article in this week's Newsweek about this "alliance." The other remarks about in this thread are true enough, but....

I think Russia is merely bowing to the inevitable, though I'm sure they don't see it that way.

Nature (and politics) abhors a vacuum, and that's what Siberia is. The Chinese are already "invading" it, and if they're patient, they can probably take it without a fight. Given all its problems (demographic meltdown, AIDS, tuberculosis, alcoholism, corruption, ...), Russia won't be able to resist very effectively.

OTOH, China faces demographic problems of its own. They will all be living in interesting times.

Yes, I remember that my Russian friend showed me an editorial in Pravda regarding with Russian policy in Far East a year ago. It said that Russia would welcome remilitarization of Japan because Japanese military will become a good counterbalance against Chinese. It also mentioned that this would be a good way to avoid nuclear attacks from Chinese. Russians are much more comfortable with Europe than China. Russians are well aware of resource insecurity of Chinese. Russians have great concerns about Chinese illegal immigrants in Far East. To my eyes, USA and Russia seem to be dealing with China independently and from different reasons. Nobody wants to provoke China. But it would be very dangerous to fuel too much self-confidence in Chinese. That is why, as I said, the most important issue is how far Russia is willing to support China.
I think Russian's policy is brilliant in this regard. By making themselves a critical supplier of energy they are both supporting and putting China under some kind of control.

Of course they have the resources to do it.

And Europe.