Last year I wrote a column on the comparative rises of China and India as regional and global powers and discussed which might end up the more powerful. The article generated a big response and a lot of discussion, so since this column is along the same track I hope it receives the same sort of attention and generates debate.

China and Russia have dominated headlines for the past month; China with its successful Olympic Games, and Russia for its resurgent aggression in Georgia and militaristic rhetoric. The sight of thousands of Chinese performers moving in sync during the opening ceremonies elicited a wary, slightly paranoid response from those watching the country’s resurgence with caution. Russian tanks rolling into Georgia and the administration of Putin and Medvedev acting with impunity towards world opinion has been an equally formidable sight.

Yet which is the bigger threat? Which country, China or Russia, is in more of a position to disrupt the status quo in the near East or abroad? China is by far the more visible, in both the political and economic arenas; stories of off shoring manufacturing to China, their centralized political and economic system and their vast pool of labor have captured the rapt attention of journalists, economists, business people and politicians over the past decade. Lately some have issued dire predictions of a slipping American society, and the rise of a powerful and wealthy authoritarian China, destined to become the world’s next hegemony.

Perhaps they will, yet I believe that Russia represents the far greater threat to stability in Eurasia.

Though it is clichéd to say so, I can think of no better description for the Summer Olympics in Beijing than as China’s coming out party, an occasion to announce to the world the re-emergence of China on the world scene. I say re-emergence because it is a critical distinction that the Chinese people themselves are quick to make. For almost all of modern history, the Chinese have been the most advanced, stable, wealthy and powerful civilization in the world. Now, as they re-engage with the world, they see it as a resurgence, putting behind them the dark days of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution.

This means they are ambitious, yes, but not bent on global domination. They want what we here in the United States have: money, education, opportunities and a voice in world affairs. This does not come through military or political conflict. Engaging in trade and friendly diplomatic relations with the U.S. and European Union are what will create wealth for Chinese citizens and give their government a greater voice in world affairs.

This means the Chinese government will not do anything to jeopardize the fantastic economic growth they have experienced since the 1980’s when Deng Xiaoping announced that “to get rich is glorious.” Indeed, since the Tianmen Square protests, the government’s only source of legitimacy is that it delivers economic growth, so remaining on friendly terms with its trading partners (mostly G7 countries) is a matter of self-preservation.

Nationalism is rampant in China, but only becomes visible when it’s perceived that another country or people are opposed to China’s resurgence and the enrichment of its citizens. With the possible exception of Japan, China has no grievances with other countries and isn’t willing to jeopardize its economic growth by picking fights.

The legitimacy of the Russian government of Putin and (nominally) Medvedev, on the other hand, is dependent on the price of oil and a new, muscular belligerence, especially in the USSR’s former satellite states or what’s known as the “near East:” particularly Ukraine, Georgia, Poland, and the Baltic states. The Russians feel they have lost the respect from the West they used to have as the USSR.

However, Russia has one key strategic advantage over China: Russia supplies the EU with a third of its demand for oil and 40 percent of its natural gas, and those shares will only grow over the next five decades. Russia’s chokehold on European energy may be a blunt policy instrument, but it’s a rather big blunt instrument. In the past, Putin has not hesitated to exercise this power, at one point cutting off the flow of oil and gas to Georgia in response to Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili’s pro-Western advances.

Thus, China’s continued rise and the existence of the Communist party are unalterably linked to its further peaceful engagement with its economic and political partners, whereas Russia, buoyed by the high price of oil, is free to flex its military, political and economic muscles in its near abroad, with possibly devastating consequences for the EU.

That is why Russia represents by far the greater threat.

John Jose is a junior finance and economics major. He can be reached for comment at [email protected].