Talk:China–Russia relations

Missing Acronym Definition CSTO
This needs to be added to the article. Uncommon acronyms also should not be used before they are defined. Maticulous (talk) 22:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Low opinion of Russia by China
Why is it considered very low? If you go through Anti-Russian sentiment and other anti-national sentiment articles, you can see the BBC polls. The country with the most positive view on Russia is China. Some 50% may be not be much, but it is good compared to other countries. On the other hand, the country which Chinese people view as the most positive is Russia. The Chinese stay rather neutral in the polls except for Japan. Russia achieving over 50% is already very good. --2.245.230.116 (talk) 04:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 one external links on Sino-Russian relations since 1991. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140520052528/http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/05/19/china_has_russia_over_a_barrel_putin_oil_gas_energy to http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/05/19/china_has_russia_over_a_barrel_putin_oil_gas_energy
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120113124737/http://www.iea.org/index_info.asp?id=1479 to http://www.iea.org/index_info.asp?id=1479
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120106020226/http://gazprom.com/production/projects/pipelines/altai/ to http://www.gazprom.com/production/projects/pipelines/altai/
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110927061802/http://www.gazprom.com/production/projects/pipelines/shvg/ to http://www.gazprom.com/production/projects/pipelines/shvg/
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120121073354/http://www.aar.ru:80/en/investments/slavneft.html to http://www.aar.ru/en/investments/slavneft.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120116084237/http://www.sakhalinenergy.ru:80/en/aboutus.asp? to http://www.sakhalinenergy.ru/en/aboutus.asp
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111230183128/http://www.cnpc.com.cn:80/en/cnpcworldwide/russia/ to http://www.cnpc.com.cn/en/cnpcworldwide/russia/#
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100714082207/http://www.gazprom.com:80/production/projects/east-program/ to http://www.gazprom.com/production/projects/east-program/
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101127071711/http://www.inss.re.kr:80/app/board/view.act? to http://www.inss.re.kr/app/board/view.act?

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:39, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Sino-Russian relations since 1991. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110812092950/http://bestpravo.ru/fed2004/data03/tex14451.htm to http://bestpravo.ru/fed2004/data03/tex14451.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304032924/http://www.kommersant.com/p-1537/r_500/China_in_Line_for_Yuganskneftegaz/ to http://www.kommersant.com/p-1537/r_500/China_in_Line_for_Yuganskneftegaz/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130615154013/http://www.sptimesrussia.com/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=17107 to http://www.sptimesrussia.com/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=17107
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101003210550/http://www.gazprom.com/production/projects/pipelines/altai/ to http://www.gazprom.com/production/projects/pipelines/altai/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130620154607/http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/surprise-chinese-bid-raises-slavneft-stakes/241721.html to http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/surprise-chinese-bid-raises-slavneft-stakes/241721.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110628050822/http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2011/0321_china_energy_downs.aspx to http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2011/0321_china_energy_downs.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090620111314/http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-06/18/content_11558133.htm to http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-06/18/content_11558133.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120224214122/http://archive.greenpeace.org/majordomo/index-oldgopher/9505/msg00009.html to http://archive.greenpeace.org/majordomo/index-oldgopher/9505/msg00009.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sakhalinenergy.ru/en/aboutus.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110411102307/http://www.eoearth.org/article/Energy_profile_of_Sakhalin_Island,_Russia to http://www.eoearth.org/article/Energy_profile_of_Sakhalin_Island,_Russia
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090304024636/http://www.sectsco.org/EN/brief.asp to http://www.sectsco.org/EN/brief.asp
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.inss.re.kr/app/board/view.act

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 28 April 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the pages at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 20:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

– The titles are consistent with other titles such as China–United States relations, Soviet Union–United States relations and China–United Kingdom relations. 2601:183:101:58D0:30D3:4169:8B0B:30DB (talk) 14:57, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sino-Russian relations since 1991 → China–Russia relations since 1991
 * Sino-Arab relations → Arab–China relations
 * Sino-Pacific relations → China–Oceania relations
 * Sino-Third World relations → China–Third World relations
 * Sino-Persian relations → China–Iran relations before 1979
 * China–Iran relations → China–Iran relations since 1979
 * History of Sino-Russian relations → History of China–Russia relations
 * Sino-Soviet relations → China–Soviet Union relations
 * Cross-Strait relations → China–Taiwan relations
 * Sino-Korean relations → China–Korea relations
 * History of Sino-Korean relations → History of China–Korea relations
 * I am guessing that the nominator is unaware of the distinction between dashes and hyphens (since they provided two examples that are actually redirects to forms that use dashes). I have taken the liberty of adjusting the suggestions above to use dashes. Please feel free to revert my change if you think it was not appropriate. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * About the Persia/Iran aspect, I notice that someone recently clarified the time period dividing these two articles to identify 1979 as the year that separates the scope of the two articles. That change may be questionable. The usual dividing line between using the name "Persia" versus "Iran" is 1935 or World War II or shortly thereafter, driven by a declaration from Reza Shah in 1935 (although both names have been used historically and his son later declared in 1959 that the two names could be used interchangeably) – see Reza Shah. This renaming suggestion enshrines the date 1979 in the title of the article, whereas an earlier date (or not having a very explicit date) may be a more appropriate historical division. Moreover, the proposal would replace "Persian" with "Iran" for the earlier period of history. That does not seem appropriate, because "Persia" is certainly dominant in English before 1935. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:01, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The change from "Arab" to "Arab League" also seems questionable. The two are not synonyms. The provided rationale does not really explain all the proposed changes. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have changed this move request to Arab–China relations? 2601:183:101:58D0:654A:EADE:6EDC:B6FA (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose without further rationale of why these moves are needed. Certain current titles such as "Sino-Pacific relations" sound much more natural than the proposed "China–Oceania relations" and other proposed changes alter the scope of the articles in question.  —  AjaxSmack  01:45, 29 April 2018


 * Comment Specifically with regard to Cross-strait relations, I submit that this may be a special case, as there has been much discussion of how to name the 2 sides (i.e: Mainland, China, PRC, communists; versus Taipei, Taiwan, China, ROC, nationalists) so the current title is probably the only possible stable one. Thank you, GreyGreenWhy (talk) 07:04, 29 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose most, no reason given, "Sino-" is a term in common use for "China" in this context. No opinion on "Sino-Third World relations" which is a little weird and not sure I've ever heard that construction.  SnowFire (talk) 18:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Indian media blowing out of disportion
China never claimed Vladivostok again after the last treaty was finalized. But there was a Russian tweet that claimed a specific number of years celebration of annexing Vladivostok of 160 years. As if it's a good thing. Chinese social media protested against the celebration itself as it was ignorant of history and pain it caused them in the past. They were not protesting against Russian ownership of Vladivostok. Just the celebration.

Yet a previous edit using a poor + overly biased source likely from Indian media, was pushing it further and distorting out of context by claiming China Today is claiming Vladivostok and still in dispute over it. That's Misleading. They were just telling Russians to not be so insensitive about the past. Not that they were against the treaty. As the original Twitter user wrote:

"Please be professional, no twist! Some Indian media! This tweet is reporting Russian embassy’s celebration on Vladivostok recalled bitter memories of those humiliated days in the 1860 for Chinese, nothing related to land claims since border treaty signed."

https://mobile.twitter.com/shen_shiwei/status/1278726139872112641

It is undue weight to portray it out of context that China had issues with the new border. They officially and currently don't. It's inappropriate to claim as if China today diplomatically has territory disputes with Russia when that's not true at all.

https://eurasiantimes.com/fact-check-has-china-really-claimed-russian-port-city-of-vladivostok/

49.186.36.56 (talk) 02:52, 22 December 2021 (UTC)