Given Russia’s geopolitical position, it is naturally difficult to determine the geographical priorities of its external relations. Moreover, Russia’s colossal natural wealth and unique ability to fully provide itself with all the necessary resources, in principle deprive it of the need to consider external relations as an important part of its own development strategy.
There is no doubt that all of Moscow’s foreign policy declarations over the past 20 years contain a ritual indication that that the purpose of foreign policy is to ensure the economic development of the country. However, experience, real results and, most importantly, the foundations of Russian statehood lead one to regard the sincerity of these assurances with a very significant degree of doubt. In fact, Russia, like its main geostrategic adversary the United States, is one of only two countries in the world that can live entirely on domestic resources.
Amid such conditions, Moscow (despite assurances of the importance of foreign economic relations), determines the true priorities of its foreign policy not on what opportunities the external environment can give it, but on the danger this environment can pose for its ability to independently manage already available internal resources. The result is a foreign policy focused primarily on repelling threats and only secondarily on exploiting opportunities. We must admit that over the past few years, many of Russia’s foreign policy initiatives have faced precisely this insurmountable problem, among which the “turn to the East” strategy, formulated 10 years ago in the works of domestic researchers and statements at the highest level, is in first place.
From the start, the purely materialistic nature of the “turn” ideology clashed with the traditions of Russian foreign policy, and, more importantly, with the same system of setting priorities. Attempts to convince of the need to intensify relations with Asian countries on the basis of arguments that this would bring significant material benefits, and that you just need to try, ran into a completely objective obstacle. There was no need to try in dealing with the West; material benefits came by themselves, relying on 300 years of relations with the largest European partners. As a result, by 2019, about 80 percent of investments in the Far East were of domestic origin.
It is possible that precisely because of its limited economy, the “turn to the East” strategy in its concrete expression did not go beyond the establishment of really strong ties with China, together with which Russia has now begun to solve the really important problems of the international order. In all other respects, the “turn to the East” remained a rhetorically important but poorly implemented sphere of activity for the Russian state. At the same time, over the past 10 years, Russia has really significantly expanded its presence in various Asian international formats, increased its level of participation in various interstate forums and, in fact, begun to think more about the East, to understand its place in the system of its own foreign policy.
In turn, it is also difficult to consider ties with China as an exclusively product of the intensification of interactions with Asian countries over the past 10 years. Relations between Moscow and Beijing are of a strategic nature, they are united by a common vision of a just international order, in which there will be no place for the dominance of a narrow group of states. Russia and China are jointly responsible for the stability of a huge part of Eurasia.
Bilateral trade and economic relations are developing with the understanding that at some point Russia and China will indeed have to complement each other; as Chinese authors put it, “stand back to back” and jointly resist the attempts of the United States and its allies to regain control over the world economy and politics. Thus, in the vast and complex relations between Russia and China, it is actually difficult to find signs of a shared policy regarding the East; they would have developed quite dynamically even without it.
Recognising that it is precisely this interpretation of the nature, content and results of Russia’s “turn to the East” that is closest to reality, we cannot, however, ignore the potential impact on Russian politics amid the on-going military and political conflict in Europe.
Moreover, since its first weeks, most observers have agreed that a virtual break with the West will inevitably lead to increased ties between Russia and non-Western states, among which the most important are Asian countries in terms of economics and development. Against the backdrop the large-scale economic war that the entirety of the Western world launched against Moscow in 2022, it is Asia that looks to us as the most important buyer of traditional Russian exports, a source of technological products and a high-priority trade and economic partner in general. Many have even said that the development of ties with China and Asia should “replace” for Russia so-called traditional partnerships in the West.
In other words, the conflict, which is in fact a hybrid war, between Russia and the US and Europe, can be seen as a condition that will make the “turn to the East” no longer an option, but a necessity, and thus force the Russian state to take it seriously. This is, in fact, a rather new situation and subject for discussion for Russia, since it has never before in its history had to address the issue of the dependence of internal stability on interaction with various external partners. To what extent this is true, we have yet to figure out. But even now, one can make several assumptions that are directly related to what place relations with Asia will occupy for Russia in the coming years.
First, relations with China and, especially, other Asian states are still no way to resolve problems of an existential nature. Even taking into account the fact that cooperation with partners outside Europe in the energy sector will become an important factor in the sustainability of revenues to the Russian budget in the future, trade and economic relations in the East, in the face of attempts at a partial blockade by the West, solve the problem of maintaining the Russian presence in the world economy, despite the United States and its allies attempting to erase it from this global system of connections. Moreover, countries such as Japan and South Korea will be much less subject to pressure from the United States on the issue of trade with Russia. In the context of the growing confrontation with China, Washington does not benefit from the weakening of its Asian allies or their too-strong dependence on American assistance.
Second, Russia will have to solve the key tasks of national development on its own, without relying on external sources of technology, not to mention finances. The coming era will require states to have a much greater degree of de facto sovereignty and, in a sense, a capacity for limited autarky. Therefore, for all the importance of ties outside the West, Russia cannot simply reorient itself from one direction to another while maintaining its historically-formed strategy of dependence on external sources of development. In other words, long-haul aircraft will have to be made by Russia, in any event.
Third, it must be taken into account that even the most active ties in Asia cannot supplant relations with the states of the Islamic world, neighbouring countries and, in fact, Europe, where not everyone is inclined to build walls on their eastern border. The geopolitical position of Russia cannot be changed simply because of a military-political conflict. Not to mention the fact that from a historical and cultural point of view, it will always be difficult for Russia to build interactions in Asia that are similar in scale and spirit to those that it has in the South and West.
Summing up, we can say that amid modern conditions, relations with the Asian countries are indeed becoming not a choice, but a necessity. However, this does not mean the choice to pursue complete change in the most important guidelines affecting the national foreign and economic policy. Rather, it has an important tactical significance and, with due diligence on our part, can lead in the future to a more adequate Russian presence in world affairs, the centre of which is increasingly shifting to Asia.
From our partner RIAC
The Alliance of Downtrodden Empires
There are many commonalities and differences, to the point of contradiction, in the Russian, Iranian, and Turkish political and economic positions, calculations, and priorities. Nevertheless, Moscow, Tehran, and Ankara maintain an alliance or, at least, close coordination that includes conflict files, that all or some of which are involved in different arenas.
To explicate this, it is possible to go back to the modern history of the three states, and to the fall of their empires. The empires that had their center in geography continued for long periods of time with space for their expansion and contraction and for their wars and the alteration of the territorial and water borders between them.
Russia witnessed the fall of two empires that ruled and sometimes fused their surroundings, and they played a central role in international relations for centuries. From the Russian Empire, which expanded in Europe and Central Asia and extended from the maritime borders in the east to with Japan to the Polish lands in the west which collapsed during World War I, to the Soviet Union, which ruled from Moscow an empire similar to the one that its leaders had brought down before its power increased after World War II to include Europe the entire East. The fall of the Union in the early nineties was a humiliation for the Russians and bitterness for an imperialist ambition that became unable to achieve its aspirations. In that humiliation and the bitterness that followed and the difficulty of being satisfied with the nation-state borders, Putinism was formed, and its rise attempted to marry Russian nationalism, Tsarist Orthodoxy, and Stalinism, based on violent suppression of the independence rebellion (Chechnya). Direct military intervention in the periphery (Georgia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan), leading to two comprehensive wars in Syria to declare a return by force to the international arena, and a denial of the legitimacy of the existence of an entity in Ukraine under the pretext of an American and Western threat to national security.
Iran, for its part, has not adapted to its national borders since it was drawn after the fall of Qajar rule and the rise of Reza Pahlavi to power after the First World War. The imperial intransigence of the new Shah and then of his son Muhammad, with historical arguments or a connection to a Persian bond, brought down Iranian relations with Afghanistan, Iraq and Bahrain ambiguities and tensions that remained until 1979. Then the Khomeinist “exporting revolution” ideology after the overthrow of the Shah, and the erupting Iran-Iraq war that followed in the eighties, transformed the Iranian ambition into a basis for forming alliances and loyalty in the Shiite communities in nearby states. Relying on previous attempts to influence the states were minorities of the Persian League and the historical Persian influence. Iran’s political and strategic expansion was enshrined after the fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein regimes in Iraq. Tehran took advantage of the American occupation and the chaos it created to extend its influence to the west and complete a strategic arc that passes through Baghdad and Damascus, which is ruled by its ally Assad, and then reaches Beirut, where Hezbollah is founded and supported by Iran. Through it, it was able to engage directly with the Israelis, in order to raise a political-ideological position that provides popularity, and as a response to Tel Aviv’s threat to its nuclear program. Furthermore, Tehran provided finance and arms for Palestinian forces on one hand and Yemeni forces on the other, placing it at the heart of the conflict in Palestine and on the edge of the Red Sea overlooking vital navigation that affects the global economy.
As for Turkey, despite retreating from emerging ‘national’ borders and strict neutrality imposed by Atatürk through the establishment of the republic after the First World War and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Despite a subsequent political and cultural push towards Europe and the joining of the NATO after World War II, it remained the result of its nationalist discourse. As a result of the massacres that accompanied the fall of the Ottomans, its relations with its surroundings are tense. Of course, the matter applies to Soviet and then independent Armenia, to Greece and then Cyprus, where it intervened militarily in 1974, and it applies to Syria and Iraq, where the border problems and the depth of the Kurdish question, represent its most prominent concerns. Morevore, it relates to some regions of Central Asia where the geographical contact and historical frictions between empires, and where there are Turkish-speaking national minorities. To all of that in 2002 was added a very important element linked to the Islamic identity that Erdogan and his party had elevated. He returned Turkish priorities to an eastern and southern orientation and made Ankara invest in the remnants of the Ottoman League to build an Arab presence (in cooperation with Qatar), then it overtook that about years ago. Building an African economic presence and playing intermediary roles between countries and regional hubs to demonstrate influence beyond the borders of what was a sultanate for centuries.
Undoubtedly, the issue of warm waters, the control of straits, and sea lanes is a priority for the three parties, both in past and present, for economic and geopolitical reasons. In turn, this explains another aspect of the current alliance (and competition) between them.
The Black Sea and within it the ‘Sea of Azov’ is Russia’s only water port that can be permanently relied upon economically and militarily, as it reaches through the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles to the Mediterranean ‘where Moscow’s only base is in Syria’. Obviously this is because of the impossibility of the Russians using their northern, eastern and northwestern seas due to the freezing of its waters for long months. This fact, of course, puts them in direct contact with Turkey, their partner in the maritime domain, and their obligatory waterway to the world. The latter, in turn, seeks to expand its exceptional water presence and establish areas of influence, whether in the Black Sea between Russia and Ukraine, in the Aegean Mediterranean Sea facing Greece, or in the Libyan West to reach the southern Mediterranean shore and energy fields.
When it comes to the Iranian case, the same water priority takes on another dimension, related to the control of the straits in addition to access to the Mediterranean. From the Strait of Hormuz, the oil artery separating the Indian Ocean from the Gulf, to Bab al-Mandab ‘the entrance to the Red Sea connects to the Suez Canal and the Mediterranean’ to Syria, Lebanon, and their Mediterranean ports. Tehran is seeking to impose its control and presence through its armed forces or the forces of its allies ‘the Houthis, the Syrian regime and the Lebanese Hezbollah’.
As a consequence, the maritime water issue, as the overlapping areas of geographical influence, and the recent past, which did not go beyond the complex and confusing present with its consequences during the transition from the empire to the nation-state, bring the Russians, Iranians and Turks together, despite the distinctions and different aspirations.
If we add to all the above, hostile discourses against Western hegemony in the capitals of the three states, an intertwining in their roles and occupations in Syria for years, their economic cooperation in the face of old American and European sanctions on Iran and the latest ones on Russia, examining the characteristics of Turkish mediation between Kyiv and Moscow, monitoring the Russian, Iranian and Turkish cooperation projects with China and India, we will see the depth of the mutual need for coordination between the heirs of the ‘Downtrodden Empires’. This common needs seem sufficient so far to curb the antagonism between Ankara on the one hand and Moscow and Tehran on the other hand in the Azerbaijani-Armenian conflict. It also gives the impression of satisfactory to overcome the difficulties between them in the Syrian arena, where they share the Astana path despite their contradictory positions and locations. Additionally, it puts to limit the repercussions of the clash between Russia ‘through ‘Wagner’ mercenaries; and Turkey ‘through drones and field experts’ in Libya. Finally, it seems sufficient to perpetuate Russia’s request to Turkey to mediate in the Ukrainian war, despite Ankara selling Kyiv the famous ‘Bayraktar’ drones with which the Ukrainians hunt Putin’s tanks crawling on the ruins of their cities.
The bottom line is, situations are not likely to change in the near future, even if the relationship of the three states or one of them changes with the West, given that diversification of options, taking advantage of the position, role, contradictions, and blackmailing the opposing parties have become a feature of international politics today. There are no signs that this needs to be changed.
Russia responds to America’s plan to win WW III
The U.S. Government no longer designs nuclear weapons to prevent WW III, but instead to win WW III.
Whereas both the Soviet Union and the United States used to design their strategy and weapons so as to prevent a Third World War so that neither side would win but both sides (and much of the world) would be destroyed as thousands of nuclear warheads would suddenly be exploding during a nuclear war which would be completed within around an hour or so, the U.S. Government has gradually shifted away from such a “M.A.D.” or “mutually assured destruction” meta-strategy, and been replacing it with the “Nuclear Primacy” U.S. meta-strategy, in which Russia will be totally destroyed but the U.S. will emerge afterward as being sufficiently strong so as to hold unchallengeable sway over the entire planet (which hegemony has been the actual goal of the U.S. Government ever since 25 July 1945).
On 3 May 2017, I headlined “America’s Top Scientists Confirm: U.S. Goal Now Is to Conquer Russia”, and linked to a report that had recently been issued by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, about “revolutionary new technologies that will vastly increase the targeting capability of the US ballistic missile arsenal. This increase in capability is astonishing — boosting the overall killing power of existing US ballistic missile forces by a factor of roughly three — and it creates exactly what one would expect to see, if a nuclear-armed state were planning to have the capacity to fight and win a nuclear war by disarming enemies with a surprise first strike.” I pointed out there that this new technology, called the “super-fuse”, was exactly in accord with the replacement of M.A.D. by Nuclear Primacy. After all, though the proponents of “Nuclear Primacy” didn’t say that this phrase related ONLY to America’s “Primacy” in a U.S.-v.-Russia nuclear war, the context always was clear that this was the intention, and that the phrase meant the exact opposite of (and strongly opposed) any conceivable nuclear “primacy” for Russia. So, “Nuclear Primacy” — a phrase that was introduced in 2006 in the most prestigious scholarly journals, and subsequently adhered-to by all U.S. foreign policies though never explicitly stated (and never publicly advocated) by the U.S. Government — is, in actuality, the new U.S. meta-strategy, the one that now exists.
Other new U.S. military technologies also were discussed in that Bulletin of Atomic Scientists article: for example: “Because of improvements in the killing power of US submarine-launched ballistic missiles, those submarines now patrol with more than three times the number of warheads needed to destroy the entire fleet of Russian land-based missiles in their silos.” Of course, if this is true, then Russians were in a terrifying situation, at least as recently as 2017.
Russia’s response to this challenge had actually started even earlier, by no later than U.S. President Barack Obama’s having grabbed control over the Government of Ukraine in February 2014. (And in this video is shown that video’s full smoking gun of his coup, and here is the transcript and explanation of that crucial smoking gun.) Ukraine is the country that has the nearest foreign border to The Kremlin in Moscow — only 353 miles from Moscow, a mere five minutes of missile-flight-time, away, from the Ukrainian city of Sumy. Ukraine’s having the border with the closest proximity to Russia’s central command (The Kremlin) is the main reason why Obama grabbed it (in accord with his Nuclear-Primacy policies).
Compare that 353 miles to the 1,131 miles from Washington DC that Cuba is and that terrified JFK so much during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis as to have made him willing to launch nuclear war against the Soviet Union if Khrushchev wouldn’t remove the missile sites that the Soviet Union was attempting to build in Cuba. Cuba is over three times farther away from DC than Ukraine is from The Kremlin, and the missiles at that time were far slower than they are today, but when America’s NATO finally rejected, on 7 January 2022, Russia’s demand that Ukraine NEVER be allowed to join NATO, what alternative did Russia have left, other than to reverse Obama’s coup of Ukraine and to do it as soon as possible?
In preparation for Russia’s “Special Military Operation,” Russia has been introducing new weapons systems that are specifically designed to prevent “Nuclear Primacy.” Among the main ones is the Sarmat ICBM, which is vastly the world’s most terrifying weapon, because it will be virtually impossible to detect and track, carrying dozens of precision-targeted huge nuclear bombs, unstoppable by any existing technology, and having a range of 18,000 kilometers or over 11,000 miles, which would cover the entire U.S. empire. Just a few Sarmats could destroy the entire U.S. empire, all of the U.S. and its vassal-nations (self-described as being ‘democracies’ and ‘independent nations’ — neither of which is true).
A Princeton University group of scholars has produced their estimate of how a WW III would proceed, which they label as “Plan A”, and their video-summary of it was posted to youtube on 6 September 2019. As-of now, it has had nearly 4 million views, and five thousand viewer-comments. It assumes that the war would proceed in gradual steps of mutual escalation and ignores that the U.S. regime no longer is following the M.A.D. meta-strategy — that the U.S. regime has replaced M.A.D. by their Nuclear Primacy meta-strategy. Consequently, the Princeton estimates appear to be highly unrealistic, and not, at all, to be describing the type of unprecedentedly brief war that a WW III in our era would entail. A WW III in our time would be predicated upon being initiated in a blitz-nuclear attack by the United States, such as a war that is driven by the Nuclear Primacy meta-strategy would be done: Nuclear Primacy means a war to decapitate Russia’s central command in its first strike and within a mere 10 minutes or (if from Ukraine) even less from that blitz-launch. How would a decapitated Russia be able to retaliate, at all? Only by means of a “dead hand” system, which would automatically launch whatever would survive of its retaliatory capacities after that first, decapitating, nuclear-blitz, attack. The Sarmat would be a part of that, unless the U.S. regime starts WW III before the Sarmats become emplaced. In the meantime, Russia’s main concern will be to maintain a current dead-hand capability so as to make certain that at least the U.S. and its main vassal-nations will be eliminated in the event that the Nuclear Primacy meta-strategy becomes launched before Russia’s dead-hand system becomes completely implemented.
The way that a WW III would most likely start has been shaped by the U.S. regime’s objective of not being blamed for the war despite being the first side to nuclearize it; and this objective requires that Russia must have initiated the conventional phase of the war that will have led up to that nuclear phase. For example: if Russia fails to achieve its objective of capturing and holding enough of Ukraine so as to increase that 353 miles to, say, 1,000 miles (or whatever would be their required minimum), then the U.S. might send forces to Ukraine in order to prevent Russia from achieving that objective; and, if Russia then engages U.S. forces in direct combat, the U.S. might use that as their excuse to invade Russia, and, at some stage in that invasion, very suddenly, to blitz-nuclear attack The Kremlin, on the excuse (of course) that “the Russian regime doesn’t respond to anything but military force.” Then, the survivors of WW III will be able to be propagandized sufficiently to cast the blame for WW III onto Russia, and this will help to ease the U.S. regime’s successful take-over of the entire world (or what remains of it).
Already, it is a great propaganda-success on the part of America’s regime, that though they started the war in Ukraine by grabbing Ukraine in February 2014, Russia has gotten the blame for this war, when responding to that coup (which had started this war) eight years later, on 24 February 2022, with their “Special Military Operation.” In fact, most people now might think that Ukrainians always hated Russia’s Government and loved America’s Government, but even Western-sponsored polls of Ukrainians showed consistently that prior to Obama’s coup there, the vast majority of Ukrainians saw Russia as their friend; and America, NATO, and the EU, as their enemy; but that this reversed almost immediately, after the U.S. Government took over Ukraine, in 2014. In the propaganda-war, it’s almost as-if Russia hasn’t even entered the contest, at all.
The Global South be united to end the hegemonic evils of the West
Let me start writing this piece with my statement that “I hate all wars, and particularly the ongoing war in Ukraine because this is the sibling’s killings between the two great East Slavic nations”. Yet, I admit that I must support Russia as a major power of the world today and in the future for the sake of the world equilibrium and global multilateralism. Moreover, this war dragging on for seven months in Ukraine was manipulated to break out simply by the Anglo-American axis since they had aroused Russia to open the first shot.
There is no question that today’s world or a globalized world has been influenced and even transformed tremendously by the West or more precisely by Europe which started global expansion with advanced guns, deadly drugs and all sorts of ideas. For obvious reasons, they conquered the world step by step and then laid down the rules, norms and codes for all diverse nations and cultures. For good or bad, all the world today can communicate easily in English and through the technologies initiated from Europe. Focused on the practice of international relations and foreign affairs where sovereign states interact with each other, all of them have accepted the permanent embassies, international laws, summit conferences and the doctrine of balance of power, all of whom had been practiced in Europe for centuries before they reached out beyond.
However, it is by no means that the West or the ruling powers like the United States and its core allies, no matter where they are, e.g. in the West or in the East like Australia, have legal rights to dictate other countries to obey against their own interests. Moreover, it is notorious that the United States and Britain have for many times made laws and rules and then changed or break them for the sake of their own interests or in the name of the common values. This is the fundamental reason that the Anglo-American elite policy makers have been so arrogant and ignorant to push forward the unilateral world order. One salient case is that the AUKUS pact is an outrageous violation of international consensus of non-proliferation of the nuclear weapons and the related materials.
It is true that the West has been obsessed with the victory during the Cold War in which the former Soviet Union came to the end unexpectedly. For sure, there have been ample arguments over the core roots of a nuclear superpower’s collapse so rapidly and also so peacefully. This article opines that what made the Soviet Union fail primarily due to its domestic leadership and overstretched foreign policy rather than the superiority of the West over the Soviet Union. Particularly the former Soviet Union had a very limited diplomatic depth to maneuver to compete with the West. For example, India and the majority of the developing countries were too weak and too dependent on the West in overall items such as FDI, technologies and even manufactured goods. Then China was not only hostile towards the Soviet Union but also was eager to receive all core assistances from the West including Japan and the four little tigers in East Asia.
However, after three decades since the end of the Cold War, there is a new paradigm with new centers of power and new alliances emerging, not centered in the West, and that the nations of the Global South will not be bludgeoned into submission by the West. Given this, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization is a good case to show that radical transformation of the entire architecture of international relations has accelerated and then the development of a multipolar and more democratic and fair world order has entered its active phase. Accordingly, the SCO summit reaffirmed the “fact that the movement toward a multipolar world is the main strategic development line in global politics.” The nations that belong to the SCO are those that firmly believe that the modern world must be polycentric and based on the generally recognized norms of international law and the principles of equal and indivisible security with the central coordinating role of the United Nations and the UN Charter. As President Putin put it at the Samarkand Summit that the resistance to the move toward a multipolar world comes from those nations that are “trying to preserve their dominant role in international affairs and to control everything”—in Latin America, Europe, Asia and Africa. The policies of these “global leaders” may have worked for a while, “but this cannot continue forever; it is impossible.”
Historically, the ruling power like the Anglo-American axis have tried to strengthen their position by imposing illegitimate sanctions and exerting pressure in all areas, including many innocent countries which have been caused poor and stagnant. Consider this, Russia along with the majority of the South need to further promote the unifying interstate agenda, contribute to the search for effective responses to the numerous challenges and threats of our time and help settle acute regional conflicts. Once again, taking the SCO as the case, it has come of the age over the past two decades. There is no question that the SCO is now the largest regional cooperation organization in the world. Over half of the world’s population lives in its member states, accounting for about 25% of the global GDP—and those states have a powerful intellectual and technological potential and a considerable part of the global natural resources. In addition, it is scheduled that the Foreign Ministers of Russia, China, and India have numerous side meetings with the representatives from other member states of BRICS, the Community of Latin America and Caribbean States (CELAC) and the Troika of the GCC during the ongoing UNGA general debate.
In contrast, the United States and Britain have worked desperately to isolate Russia while continuing the weapons flow to Ukraine as they want to fight Russia until the last Ukrainian soldier. To that end, the U.S.-led West will continue to do what it has been doing without thinking of the possibility of making peace between the two Slavic nations. In the eyes of the Anglo-American elites, other nations are simply the pawns in the geopolitical game. Yet, that is not enough since the Western media have been hysteric to attack any person and particularly leading figures whom bravely challenge the West politically, socially, culturally and ideologically. As it is well noted that the Western media cover the Ukrainian war on a daily base while creating a reverse Pygmalion Effect that “aims to produce the worst outcome for Putin who has been described “mentally ill and a psychopath since childhood, lacking normal empathy.” Accordingly, “Putin will be dead in two years as he suffers from ‘several grave diseases.” What a childish game in the democratic and liberal West!
Since last June when the NATO summit, the U.S.-led Western alliance has clearly defined Russia as “the biggest and most direct threat to the security of the Alliance and to peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic region… because it aims to destabilize the countries of our east and south, in the far north.” Meanwhile, it is also noted that the NATO is not only looking at China as an honorable competitor but as a source of threat no less dangerous than Russia. It is true that it does not see China as a direct military threat to the alliance, as is the case with Russia, but it sees, at the same time, that ‘the declared ambitions of China, and its adoption of a wide range of political, economic and military tools to increase its global presence and demonstrate strength, and its use of malicious methods it aims to control key technological and industrial sectors, critical infrastructure, strategic materials, and supply chains, and use its economic influence to create strategic dependencies and enhance its influence, etc., which constitute a direct threat to the interests, security, and values of the Alliance. What is more arrogant and ignorant statement is that “the deepening of the strategic partnership between China and Russia is incompatible with the West’s values and interests,’ and therefore should be confronted with due firmness.” Given this mentality and hysteria among the Anglo-American elite, it is understandable that the West opines that this is the historic opportunity for the West to humble Russia and then to dictate China to follow their will like one century ago.
Today China and Russia are not only nuclear powers and have substantial strategic assets, but also responsible and rational UNSC members. To the peace and prosperity for all nations, they will work along with the Global South to recreate a multilateral world order according to international laws and norms on which the UN Charter is based. Both China and Russia seek no hegemony in the world or the region, yet they have strong will and sufficient strength to end any hegemonic order of the West.
Ukraine war-induced crisis affecting women and girls disproportionately
A new UN report reveals how the Ukraine war and its global impacts on food, energy, and finance are affecting...
Ireland: Rights experts call for redress for 50 years of systemic racism in childcare institutions
UN-appointed independent human rights experts on Friday called on Irish authorities to provide adequate redress for victims of racial discrimination and...
UN experts strongly condemn death of Mahsa Amini
UN independent human rights experts on Thursday strongly condemned the death of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini, who died in police custody...
A Virus Yet to Be Eradicated
Much as everything in this world, human memory knows its limits. Increasingly receding into a background of the past, episodes...
Untying the Ukrainian Knot: The Continental Union Project
As the fighting in Ukraine rages on, people continue to die, and infrastructure is being destroyed. This means that the...
Middle Eastern Geopolitics in The Midst of The Russo-Ukrainian War
Russia’s national interests have been harmed by the West’s efforts to obstruct Eurasia’s integration and provoke conflict. Support from the...
The Alliance of Downtrodden Empires
There are many commonalities and differences, to the point of contradiction, in the Russian, Iranian, and Turkish political and economic...
Economy3 days ago
Comparison of the US and Chinese economy
Defense4 days ago
A New Strategic Shifts and A New Strategic Concept of NATO
Central Asia3 days ago
Kyrgyz-Tajik Conflict: Small States Becoming Victim In Games Of The Great Powers
Americas4 days ago
Shaping Tenable Policy on North Korea: A U.S. Security Imperative
World News3 days ago
Real house keys were brought under the eyes of 7,000 business leaders: “The human cost of war”
New Social Compact3 days ago
Anatomy of right-wing populism
South Asia2 days ago
The Taliban and the current Afghanistan
Middle East3 days ago
Creating Building Blocks for Cooperative Security in the Middle East