Editor's note: Stephen Ndegwa is a Nairobi-based communication expert, lecturer-scholar at the United States International University-Africa, author and international affairs columnist. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

At present, we may be unable to discern why Russian President Vladimir Putin was piqued when he recently declared that his country's relations with China are "not directed against anyone" but rather are in the interests of both countries. 

Addressing the plenary session of the 18th annual meeting of the Russian think tank Valdai Discussion Club on October 21, Putin reiterated that "we have talked about this many times. We are friends with China in mutual interest, and (our relations) are not directed against anyone."

The Russian president took a swipe at the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), noting that Sino-Russia military cooperation had no intention of forming a bulwark similar to the West's ring-fencing of the U.S. and Europe. Well, this sounds like a good place to start when attempting to put some background behind Putin's sentiments.

Putin could have been referring to the fact that the U.S. has abused NATO's original mission to achieve selfish hegemonic purposes. Experts, for instance, point to Italy's inclusion in NATO's presence in Afghanistan in the U.S.' longest war, noting that they apparently resented their participation since they had no direct grievance in Afghanistan.

According to a controversial report published in The Times of London on October 6, 2020, Italy bribed the Taliban to reduce Italian casualties as much as possible. "The Italian intelligence service made routine payments of tens of thousands of dollars to particular Taliban and insurgent commanders in areas where Italian troops were operating in Afghanistan." Betrayal cannot get worse than that.

So, who is fooling who? Even NATO members are not reading from the same script, which means that the U.S. is not genuine in its military interventions and uses cover-ups, sometimes even under the banner of the United Nations, to execute its machinations.

Unless extremely provoked, Russia and China have not been known to start any confrontations. China's interventions are synonymous with investment and infrastructural development overseas, while Russia is known more for its space pursuits that rivaled the U.S. mission during the Cold War era.

But the paranoia of a close Sino-Russia partnership is real. The two countries are among the top three largest countries in the world. At the nearest point, Russia and the U.S. are just four kilometers apart.

One would have thought that in this age of enlightenment and liberalism, there would be no insecurity about a relationship between two mature entities. But no, some are still hell-bent on micromanaging others and trying to dictate who one can and cannot engage with.

It is foolhardy to think Sino-Russia relations are in vain. Some leaders do not rejoice in the success of other countries and perpetually conjure machinations to undermine and destroy their progress and partnership.
On October 13, Putin warned countries outside this region against meddling, saying that the resolution of the disputes in the area ought to be settled by the international community through the available instruments. It is an open secret that the U.S. has serious interests in this region for geopolitical and financial reasons.

The U.S. administration has also owned up to this fact. In a paper titled "U.S.-China Strategic Competition in South and East China Seas: Background and Issues for Congress," updated in October 2021, the South China Sea has emerged as an arena of U.S.-China strategic competition.

Let us look at who is more insecure between the U.S. and the Sino-Russia tripartite. It is estimated that currently, America has at least 800 military bases across the world. Russia has 13, and China has only three. Japan is cited as having the highest number of U.S. bases, numbering 120, which betrays the latter's covert interests and operations in the region, and the former's vulnerability. It also explains the U.S.' cockiness in Southeast Asia. The superpower feels that with such an inordinate number of bases in Japan, it can keep the latter's neighbors, China and Russia, in check.

With such a massive military presence globally, it is inexplicable why the U.S. and its allies would begrudge innocent relations between Russia and China. The two countries have come from far. According to American scholar Joseph Nye, the two countries have gone through three stages: the "constructive partnership" in 1992, "strategic partnership" in 1996 and treaty of "friendship and cooperation" in 2001.

This is a multilateral world, and no one should purport to have the powers of determining how and with whom others should engage. The identity of the usual suspects in the foregoing scenario is rather obvious. It is time for the naysayers and pessimists to live and let live.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com.)