Diplomacy International Politics

Joint Russia-China Statement Articulates United Opposition to Western Alliance

Their joint statement is a historic articulation of the major shift underway from the unipolar world that has existed since the fall of the Soviet Union.

Editor’s note: This blog post was first published on February 4, 2022. Given renewed interest in the alliance between Russia and China in the context of the Ukraine crisis, we have decided to reprint the post.

Robert Scheer has been studying, visiting, analyzing and reporting on Russia and China for six decades, including deep dives into the two countries’ complex, fraught history as neighboring powers with an often parallel history of peasant revolt, ascendent communist ideology and tension and conflict with the West. In his view, today’s joint statement is an historic, carefully considered articulation of the major shift underway from the de facto unipolar world that has existed since the fall of the Soviet Union and which was the eventual manifestation of post-FDR imperialist US foreign policy through the Cold War. Whatever the reader’s own historical and political framework, understanding the goals and rationales of these powerful nations on this small planet is essential. With President Biden making the provocative, escalating decision to send US troops to Germany and eastern Europe in the midst of tense Ukraine negotiations, and on the eve of a Winter Olympics hosted by China, which is being boycotted by US diplomats, the unchallenged authoritarian leaders of the Russia Federation and the People’s Republic of China met in person and produced the following statement:

Today, the world is going through momentous changes, and humanity is entering a new era of rapid development and profound transformation. It sees the development of such processes and phenomena as multipolarity, economic globalization, the advent of information society, cultural diversity, transformation of the global governance architecture and world order; there is increasing interrelation and interdependence between the States; a trend has emerged towards redistribution of power in the world; and the international community is showing a growing demand for the leadership aiming at peaceful and gradual development. At the same time, as the pandemic of the new coronavirus infection continues, the international and regional security situation is complicating and the number of global challenges and threats is growing from day to day. Some actors representing but the minority on the international scale continue to advocate unilateral approaches to addressing international issues and resort to force; they interfere in the internal affairs of other states, infringing their legitimate rights and interests, and incite contradictions, differences and confrontation, thus hampering the development and progress of mankind, against the opposition from the international community.

The sides call on all States to pursue well-being for all and, with these ends, to build dialogue and mutual trust, strengthen mutual understanding, champion such universal human values as peace, development, equality, justice, democracy and freedom, respect the rights of peoples to independently determine the development paths of their countries and the sovereignty and the security and development interests of States, to protect the United Nations-driven international architecture and the international law-based world order, seek genuine multipolarity with the United Nations and its Security Council playing a central and coordinating role, promote more democratic international relations, and ensure peace, stability and sustainable development across the world.

I

The sides share the understanding that democracy is a universal human value, rather than a privilege of a limited number of States, and that its promotion and protection is a common responsibility of the entire world community.

The sides believe that democracy is a means of citizens’ participation in the government of their country with the view to improving the well-being of population and implementing the principle of popular government. Democracy is exercised in all spheres of public life as part of a nation-wide process and reflects the interests of all the people, its will, guarantees its rights, meets its needs and protects its interests. There is no one-size-fits-all template to guide countries in establishing democracy. A nation can choose such forms and methods of implementing democracy that would best suit its particular state, based on its social and political system, its historical background, traditions and unique cultural characteristics. It is only up to the people of the country to decide whether their State is a democratic one.

The sides note that Russia and China as world powers with rich cultural and historical heritage have long-standing traditions of democracy, which rely on thousand-years of experience of development, broad popular support and consideration of the needs and interests of citizens. Russia and China guarantee their people the right to take part through various means and in various forms in the administration of the State and public life in accordance with the law. The people of both countries are certain of the way they have chosen and respect the democratic systems and traditions of other States.

The sides note that democratic principles are implemented at the global level, as well as in administration of State. Certain States’ attempts to impose their own ”democratic standards“ on other countries, to monopolize the right to assess the level of compliance with democratic criteria, to draw dividing lines based on the grounds of ideology, including by establishing exclusive blocs and alliances of convenience, prove to be nothing but flouting of democracy and go against the spirit and true values of democracy. Such attempts at hegemony pose serious threats to global and regional peace and stability and undermine the stability of the world order.

The sides believe that the advocacy of democracy and human rights must not be used to put pressure on other countries. They oppose the abuse of democratic values and interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states under the pretext of protecting democracy and human rights, and any attempts to incite divisions and confrontation in the world. The sides call on the international community to respect cultural and civilizational diversity and the rights of peoples of different countries to self-determination. They stand ready to work together with all the interested partners to promote genuine democracy.

The sides note that the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights set noble goals in the area of universal human rights, set forth fundamental principles, which all the States must comply with and observe in deeds. At the same time, as every nation has its own unique national features, history, culture, social system and level of social and economic development, universal nature of human rights should be seen through the prism of the real situation in every particular country, and human rights should be protected in accordance with the specific situation in each country and the needs of its population. Promotion and protection of human rights is a shared responsibility of the international community. The states should equally prioritize all categories of human rights and promote them in a systemic manner. The international human rights cooperation should be carried out as a dialogue between the equals involving all countries. All States must have equal access to the right to development. Interaction and cooperation on human rights matters should be based on the principle of equality of all countries and mutual respect for the sake of strengthening the international human rights architecture.

II

The sides believe that peace, development and cooperation lie at the core of the modern international system. Development is a key driver in ensuring the prosperity of the nations. The ongoing pandemic of the new coronavirus infection poses a serious challenge to the fulfilment of the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. It is vital to enhance partnership relations for the sake of global development and make sure that the new stage of global development is defined by balance, harmony and inclusiveness.

The sides are seeking to advance their work to link the development plans for the Eurasian Economic Union and the Belt and Road Initiative with a view to intensifying practical cooperation between the EAEU and China in various areas and promoting greater interconnectedness between the Asia Pacific and Eurasian regions. The sides reaffirm their focus on building the Greater Eurasian Partnership in parallel and in coordination with the Belt and Road construction to foster the development of regional associations as well as bilateral and multilateral integration processes for the benefit of the peoples on the Eurasian continent.

The sides agreed to continue consistently intensifying practical cooperation for the sustainable development of the Arctic.

The sides will strengthen cooperation within multilateral mechanisms, including the United Nations, and encourage the international community to prioritize development issues in the global macro-policy coordination. They call on the developed countries to implement in good faith their formal commitments on development assistance, provide more resources to developing countries, address the uneven development of States, work to offset such imbalances within States, and advance global and international development cooperation. The Russian side confirms its readiness to continue working on the China-proposed Global Development Initiative, including participation in the activities of the Group of Friends of the Global Development Initiative under the UN auspices. In order to accelerate the implementation of the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the sides call on the international community to take practical steps in key areas of cooperation such as poverty reduction, food security, vaccines and epidemics control, financing for development, climate change, sustainable development, including green development, industrialization, digital economy, and infrastructure connectivity.

The sides call on the international community to create open, equal, fair and non-discriminatory conditions for scientific and technological development, to step up practical implementation of scientific and technological advances in order to identify new drivers of economic growth.

The sides call upon all countries to strengthen cooperation in sustainable transport, actively build contacts and share knowledge in the construction of transport facilities, including smart transport and sustainable transport, development and use of Arctic routes, as well as to develop other areas to support global post-epidemic recovery.

The sides are taking serious action and making an important contribution to the fight against climate change. Jointly celebrating the 30th anniversary of the adoption of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, they reaffirm their commitment to this Convention as well as to the goals, principles and provisions of the Paris Agreement, including the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. The sides work together to ensure the full and effective implementation of the Paris Agreement, remain committed to fulfilling the obligations they have undertaken and expect that developed countries will actually ensure the annual provision of $100 billion of climate finance to developing states. The sides oppose setting up new barriers in international trade under the pretext of fighting climate change.

The sides strongly support the development of international cooperation and exchanges in the field of biological diversity, actively participating in the relevant global governance process, and intend to jointly promote the harmonious development of humankind and nature as well as green transformation to ensure sustainable global development.

The Heads of State positively assess the effective interaction between Russia and China in the bilateral and multilateral formats focusing on the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic, protection of life and health of the population of the two countries and the peoples of the world. They will further increase cooperation in the development and manufacture of vaccines against the new coronavirus infection, as well as medical drugs for its treatment, and enhance collaboration in public health and modern medicine. The sides plan to strengthen coordination on epidemiological measures to ensure strong protection of health, safety and order in contacts between citizens of the two countries. The sides have commended the work of the competent authorities and regions of the two countries on implementing quarantine measures in the border areas and ensuring the stable operation of the border crossing points, and intend to consider establishing a joint mechanism for epidemic control and prevention in the border areas to jointly plan anti-epidemic measures to be taken at the border checkpoints, share information, build infrastructure and improve the efficiency of customs clearance of goods.

The sides emphasize that ascertaining the origin of the new coronavirus infection is a matter of science. Research on this topic must be based on global knowledge, and that requires cooperation among scientists from all over the world. The sides oppose politicization of this issue. The Russian side welcomes the work carried out jointly by China and WHO to identify the source of the new coronavirus infection and supports the China – WHO joint report on the matter. The sides call on the global community to jointly promote a serious scientific approach to the study of the coronavirus origin.

The Russian side supports a successful hosting by the Chinese side of the Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games in Beijing in 2022.

The sides highly appreciate the level of bilateral cooperation in sports and the Olympic movement and express their readiness to contribute to its further progressive development.

III

The sides are gravely concerned about serious international security challenges and believe that the fates of all nations are interconnected. No State can or should ensure its own security separately from the security of the rest of the world and at the expense of the security of other States. The international community should actively engage in global governance to ensure universal, comprehensive, indivisible and lasting security.

The sides reaffirm their strong mutual support for the protection of their core interests, state sovereignty and territorial integrity, and oppose interference by external forces in their internal affairs.

The Russian side reaffirms its support for the One-China principle, confirms that Taiwan is an inalienable part of China, and opposes any forms of independence of Taiwan.

Russia and China stand against attempts by external forces to undermine security and stability in their common adjacent regions, intend to counter interference by outside forces in the internal affairs of sovereign countries under any pretext, oppose colour revolutions, and will increase cooperation in the aforementioned areas.

The sides condemn terrorism in all its manifestations, promote the idea of creating a single global anti-terrorism front, with the United Nations playing a central role, advocate stronger political coordination and constructive engagement in multilateral counterterrorism efforts. The sides oppose politicization of the issues of combating terrorism and their use as instruments of policy of double standards, condemn the practice of interference in the internal affairs of other States for geopolitical purposes through the use of terrorist and extremist groups as well as under the guise of combating international terrorism and extremism.

The sides believe that certain States, military and political alliances and coalitions seek to obtain, directly or indirectly, unilateral military advantages to the detriment of the security of others, including by employing unfair competition practices, intensify geopolitical rivalry, fuel antagonism and confrontation, and seriously undermine the international security order and global strategic stability. The sides oppose further enlargement of NATO and call on the North Atlantic Alliance to abandon its ideologized cold war approaches, to respect the sovereignty, security and interests of other countries, the diversity of their civilizational, cultural and historical backgrounds, and to exercise a fair and objective attitude towards the peaceful development of other States. The sides stand against the formation of closed bloc structures and opposing camps in the Asia-Pacific region and remain highly vigilant about the negative impact of the United States’ Indo-Pacific strategy on peace and stability in the region. Russia and China have made consistent efforts to build an equitable, open and inclusive security system in the Asia-Pacific Region (APR) that is not directed against third countries and that promotes peace, stability and prosperity.

The sides welcome the Joint Statement of the Leaders of the Five Nuclear-Weapons States on Preventing Nuclear War and Avoiding Arms Races and believe that all nuclear-weapons States should abandon the cold war mentality and zero-sum games, reduce the role of nuclear weapons in their national security policies, withdraw nuclear weapons deployed abroad, eliminate the unrestricted development of global anti-ballistic missile defense (ABM) system, and take effective steps to reduce the risks of nuclear wars and any armed conflicts between countries with military nuclear capabilities.

The sides reaffirm that the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons is the cornerstone of the international disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation system, an important part of the post-war international security system, and plays an indispensable role in world peace and development. The international community should promote the balanced implementation of the three pillars of the Treaty and work together to protect the credibility, effectiveness and the universal nature of the instrument.

The sides are seriously concerned about the trilateral security partnership between Australia, the United States, and the United Kingdom (AUKUS), which provides for deeper cooperation between its members in areas involving strategic stability, in particular their decision to initiate cooperation in the field of nuclear-powered submarines. Russia and China believe that such actions are contrary to the objectives of security and sustainable development of the Asia-Pacific region, increase the danger of an arms race in the region, and pose serious risks of nuclear proliferation. The sides strongly condemn such moves and call on AUKUS participants to fulfil their nuclear and missile non-proliferation commitments in good faith and to work together to safeguard peace, stability, and development in the region.

Japan’s plans to release nuclear contaminated water from the destroyed Fukushima nuclear plant into the ocean and the potential environmental impact of such actions are of deep concern to the sides. The sides emphasize that the disposal of nuclear contaminated water should be handled with responsibility and carried out in a proper manner based on arrangements between the Japanese side and neighbouring States, other interested parties, and relevant international agencies while ensuring transparency, scientific reasoning, and in accordance with international law.

The sides believe that the U.S. withdrawal from the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles, the acceleration of research and the development of intermediate-range and shorter-range ground-based missiles and the desire to deploy them in the Asia-Pacific and European regions, as well as their transfer to the allies, entail an increase in tension and distrust, increase risks to international and regional security, lead to the weakening of international non-proliferation and arms control system, undermining global strategic stability. The sided call on the United States to respond positively to the Russian initiative and abandon its plans to deploy intermediate-range and shorter-range ground-based missiles in the Asia-Pacific region and Europe. The sides will continue to maintain contacts and strengthen coordination on this issue.

The Chinese side is sympathetic to and supports the proposals put forward by the Russian Federation to create long-term legally binding security guarantees in Europe.

The sides note that the denunciation by the United States of a number of important international arms control agreements has an extremely negative impact on international and regional security and stability. The sides express concern over the advancement of U.S. plans to develop global missile defence and deploy its elements in various regions of the world, combined with capacity building of high-precision non-nuclear weapons for disarming strikes and other strategic objectives. The sides stress the importance of the peaceful uses of outer space, strongly support the central role of the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space in promoting international cooperation, maintaining and developing international space law and regulation in the field of space activities. Russia and China will continue to increase cooperation on such matters of mutual interest as the long-term sustainability of space activities and the development and use of space resources. The sides oppose attempts by some States to turn outer space into an arena of armed confrontation and reiterate their intention to make all necessary efforts to prevent the weaponization of space and an arms race in outer space. They will counteract activities aimed at achieving military superiority in space and using it for combat operations. The sides affirm the need for the early launch of negotiations to conclude a legally binding multilateral instrument based on the Russian-Chinese draft treaty on the prevention of placement of weapons in outer space and the use or threat of force against space objects that would provide fundamental and reliable guarantees against an arms race and the weaponization of outer space.

Russia and China emphasize that appropriate transparency and confidence-building measures, including an international initiative/political commitment not to be the first to place weapons in space, can also contribute to the goal of preventing an arms race in outer space, but such measures should complement and not substitute the effective legally binding regime governing space activities.

The sides reaffirm their belief that the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction (BWC) is an essential pillar of international peace and security. Russia and China underscore their determination to preserve the credibility and effectiveness of the Convention.

The sides affirm the need to fully respect and further strengthen the BWC, including by institutionalizing it, strengthening its mechanisms, and adopting a legally binding Protocol to the Convention with an effective verification mechanism, as well as through regular consultation and cooperation in addressing any issues related to the implementation of the Convention.

The sides emphasize that domestic and foreign bioweapons activities by the United States and its allies raise serious concerns and questions for the international community regarding their compliance with the BWC. The sides share the view that such activities pose a serious threat to the national security of the Russian Federation and China and are detrimental to the security of the respective regions. The sides call on the U.S. and its allies to act in an open, transparent, and responsible manner by properly reporting on their military biological activities conducted overseas and on their national territory, and by supporting the resumption of negotiations on a legally binding BWC Protocol with an effective verification mechanism.

The sides, reaffirming their commitment to the goal of a world free of chemical weapons, call upon all parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention to work together to uphold its credibility and effectiveness. Russia and China are deeply concerned about the politicization of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and call on all of its members to strengthen solidarity and cooperation and protect the tradition of consensual decision-making. Russia and China insist that the United States, as the sole State Party to the Convention that has not yet completed the process of eliminating chemical weapons, accelerate the elimination of its stockpiles of chemical weapons. The sides emphasize the importance of balancing the non-proliferation obligations of states with the interests of legitimate international cooperation in the use of advanced technology and related materials and equipment for peaceful purposes. The sides note the resolution entitled ”Promoting international Cooperation on Peaceful Uses in the Context of International Security“ adopted at the 76th session of the UN General Assembly on the initiative of China and co‑sponsored by Russia, and look forward to its consistent implementation in accordance with the goals set forth therein.

The sides attach great importance to the issues of governance in the field of artificial intelligence. The sides are ready to strengthen dialogue and contacts on artificial intelligence.

The sides reiterate their readiness to deepen cooperation in the field of international information security and to contribute to building an open, secure, sustainable and accessible ICT environment. The sides emphasize that the principles of the non-use of force, respect for national sovereignty and fundamental human rights and freedoms, and non-interference in the internal affairs of other States, as enshrined in the UN Charter, are applicable to the information space. Russia and China reaffirm the key role of the UN in responding to threats to international information security and express their support for the Organization in developing new norms of conduct of states in this area.

The sides welcome the implementation of the global negotiation process on international information security within a single mechanism and support in this context the work of the UN Open-ended Working Group on security of and in the use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) 2021–2025 (OEWG) and express their willingness to speak with one voice within it. The sides consider it necessary to consolidate the efforts of the international community to develop new norms of responsible behaviour of States, including legal ones, as well as a universal international legal instrument regulating the activities of States in the field of ICT. The sides believe that the Global Initiative on Data Security, proposed by the Chinese side and supported, in principle, by the Russian side, provides a basis for the Working Group to discuss and elaborate responses to data security threats and other threats to international information security.

The sides reiterate their support of United Nations General Assembly resolutions 74/247 and 75/282, support the work of the relevant Ad Hoc Committee of Governmental Experts, facilitate the negotiations within the United Nations for the elaboration of an international convention on countering the use of ICTs for criminal purposes. The sides encourage constructive participation of all sides in the negotiations in order to agree as soon as possible on a credible, universal, and comprehensive convention and provide it to the United Nations General Assembly at its 78th session in strict compliance with resolution 75/282. For these purposes, Russia and China have presented a joint draft convention as a basis for negotiations.

The sides support the internationalization of Internet governance, advocate equal rights to its governance, believe that any attempts to limit their sovereign right to regulate national segments of the Internet and ensure their security are unacceptable, are interested in greater participation of the International Telecommunication Union in addressing these issues.

The sides intend to deepen bilateral cooperation in international information security on the basis of the relevant 2015 intergovernmental agreement. To this end, the sides have agreed to adopt in the near future a plan for cooperation between Russia and China in this area.

IV

The sides underline that Russia and China, as world powers and permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, intend to firmly adhere to moral principles and accept their responsibility, strongly advocate the international system with the central coordinating role of the United Nations in international affairs, defend the world order based on international law, including the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, advance multipolarity and promote the democratization of international relations, together create an even more prospering, stable, and just world, jointly build international relations of a new type.

The Russian side notes the significance of the concept of constructing a ”community of common destiny for mankind“ proposed by the Chinese side to ensure greater solidarity of the international community and consolidation of efforts in responding to common challenges. The Chinese side notes the significance of the efforts taken by the Russian side to establish a just multipolar system of international relations.

The sides intend to strongly uphold the outcomes of the Second World War and the existing post-war world order, defend the authority of the United Nations and justice in international relations, resist attempts to deny, distort, and falsify the history of the Second World War.

In order to prevent the recurrence of the tragedy of the world war, the sides will strongly condemn actions aimed at denying the responsibility for atrocities of Nazi aggressors, militarist invaders, and their accomplices, besmirch and tarnish the honour of the victorious countries.

The sides call for the establishment of a new kind of relationships between world powers on the basis of mutual respect, peaceful coexistence and mutually beneficial cooperation. They reaffirm that the new inter-State relations between Russia and China are superior to political and military alliances of the Cold War era. Friendship between the two States has no limits, there are no ”forbidden“ areas of cooperation, strengthening of bilateral strategic cooperation is neither aimed against third countries nor affected by the changing international environment and circumstantial changes in third countries.

The sides reiterate the need for consolidation, not division of the international community, the need for cooperation, not confrontation. The sides oppose the return of international relations to the state of confrontation between major powers, when the weak fall prey to the strong. The sides intend to resist attempts to substitute universally recognized formats and mechanisms that are consistent with international law for rules elaborated in private by certain nations or blocs of nations, and are against addressing international problems indirectly and without consensus, oppose power politics, bullying, unilateral sanctions, and extraterritorial application of jurisdiction, as well as the abuse of export control policies, and support trade facilitation in line with the rules of the World Trade Organization (WTO).

The sides reaffirmed their intention to strengthen foreign policy coordination, pursue true multilateralism, strengthen cooperation on multilateral platforms, defend common interests, support the international and regional balance of power, and improve global governance.

The sides support and defend the multilateral trade system based on the central role of the World Trade Organization (WTO), take an active part in the WTO reform, opposing unilateral approaches and protectionism. The sides are ready to strengthen dialogue between partners and coordinate positions on trade and economic issues of common concern, contribute to ensuring the sustainable and stable operation of global and regional value chains, promote a more open, inclusive, transparent, non-discriminatory system of international trade and economic rules.

The sides support the G20 format as an important forum for discussing international economic cooperation issues and anti-crisis response measures, jointly promote the invigorated spirit of solidarity and cooperation within the G20, support the leading role of the association in such areas as the international fight against epidemics, world economic recovery, inclusive sustainable development, improving the global economic governance system in a fair and rational manner to collectively address global challenges.

The sides support the deepened strategic partnership within BRICS, promote the expanded cooperation in three main areas: politics and security, economy and finance, and humanitarian exchanges. In particular, Russia and China intend to encourage interaction in the fields of public health, digital economy, science, innovation and technology, including artificial intelligence technologies, as well as the increased coordination between BRICS countries on international platforms. The sides strive to further strengthen the BRICS Plus/Outreach format as an effective mechanism of dialogue with regional integration associations and organizations of developing countries and States with emerging markets.

The Russian side will fully support the Chinese side chairing the association in 2022, and assist in the fruitful holding of the XIV BRICS summit.

Russia and China aim to comprehensively strengthen the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and further enhance its role in shaping a polycentric world order based on the universally recognized principles of international law, multilateralism, equal, joint, indivisible, comprehensive and sustainable security.

They consider it important to consistently implement the agreements on improved mechanisms to counter challenges and threats to the security of SCO member states and, in the context of addressing this task, advocate expanded functionality of the SCO Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure.

The sides will contribute to imparting a new quality and dynamics to the economic interaction between the SCO member States in the fields of trade, manufacturing, transport, energy, finance, investment, agriculture, customs, telecommunications, innovation and other areas of mutual interest, including through the use of advanced, resource-saving, energy efficient and ”green“ technologies.

The sides note the fruitful interaction within the SCO under the 2009 Agreement between the Governments of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization member States on cooperation in the field of international information security, as well as within the specialized Group of Experts. In this context, they welcome the adoption of the SCO Joint Action Plan on Ensuring International Information Security for 2022–2023 by the Council of Heads of State of SCO Member States on September 17, 2021 in Dushanbe.

Russia and China proceed from the ever-increasing importance of cultural and humanitarian cooperation for the progressive development of the SCO. In order to strengthen mutual understanding between the people of the SCO member States, they will continue to effectively foster interaction in such areas as cultural ties, education, science and technology, healthcare, environmental protection, tourism, people-to-people contacts, sports.

Russia and China will continue to work to strengthen the role of APEC as the leading platform for multilateral dialogue on economic issues in the Asia-Pacific region. The sides intend to step up coordinated action to successfully implement the ”Putrajaya guidelines for the development of APEC until 2040“ with a focus on creating a free, open, fair, non-discriminatory, transparent and predictable trade and investment environment in the region. Particular emphasis will be placed on the fight against the novel coronavirus infection pandemic and economic recovery, digitalization of a wide range of different spheres of life, economic growth in remote territories and the establishment of interaction between APEC and other regional multilateral associations with a similar agenda.

The sides intend to develop cooperation within the ”Russia-India-China“ format, as well as to strengthen interaction on such venues as the East Asia Summit, ASEAN Regional Forum on Security, Meeting of Defense Ministers of the ASEAN Member States and Dialogue Partners. Russia and China support ASEAN’s central role in developing cooperation in East Asia, continue to increase coordination on deepened cooperation with ASEAN, and jointly promote cooperation in the areas of public health, sustainable development, combating terrorism and countering transnational crime. The sides intend to continue to work in the interest of a strengthened role of ASEAN as a key element of the regional architecture.

59 comments

  1. Thank you for publishing this statement.

    However this is incorrect: “unchallenged authoritarian leaders”.

    Putin stood for election and so did his constitutional amendments plus Communists challenge or at least bitch about things all the time as do those of the “right tendency”.

    In China there is always challenge and Court Intrigue witness Deng, Deng’s exile, Deng’s resurrection and recall the Gang of Four plus the periodic outbreak or protests here and there in villages, often to stop corporations from polluting local water supplies and such.

    It is the American and French presidents and the England Prime Minister who are unchallenged authoritarians with fake elections seemingly making them democratic rather than authoritarian.

    Capitalism is the flip side of fascism, period, no matter outward eyewash or window dressing and capitalism rules the West AND Russia plus China.

    1. Fascism is a specific form of late stage capitalism in which capitalists are forced out of necessity to operate their class dictatorship openly with a seamless mix of private business (corporations/banks) with state government (military industrial complex). The necessity of fascism for capitalists is in direct reaction to the emergence of global integration, democratic movements, workers movements, and other forms of rebellion against capitalist centralization. There is not a single historical example or current example of fascism being a part of any socialist state, quite the contrary, socialist states have been forced to defend themselves against the fascist movements of capitalist states. Your comment is not only an attempt at historical revisionism, it is itself an example of historical denial expressing fascist interests.

    2. you are deluded—monopoly capitalism observed in USA is fascism”. Lundberg, Mandel, Domhoff, Sennet, Taylor,Baran/Sweezy etc. excepting a few African nations 2 Latin American nations USA has the greatest wealth /income disparities –gini-coeffecient (not wikipedia lies)

  2. Glad to see that Russia and China have teamed up to oppose the big bully that is the U.S.. All large countries are evil, but evil unopposed acting with impunity is far worse.

    Meanwhile, the sheeple in the U.S. are sleeping through events that could amount to another Cuban Missile Crisis. If we come to the brink of nuclear war, they won’t be so concerned about things like the price of gas (which BTW is way too low for environmental reasons and is actually lower than the global average) or who hasn’t been vaccinated. People should be outraged and writing/calling their representatives & senators as well as the White House, calling for an end to U.S. aggression in eastern Europe. Instead, crickets, and the Doctor Strangeloves and General Rippers who run the military/intelligence/industrial complex just continue to escalate an already very dangerous situation in a part of the world in which THEY HAVE NO BUSINESS.

    1. Writing and calling “our representatives”?
      Who are “our representatives”?
      The interests of the 99% aren’t represented in congress, the white house, the courts, or the statehouse.
      That’s obvious to me, and should be obvious to anyone with eyes or ears.
      The voices of america propaganda machine work overtime to delude their viewers and readers.
      But, it takes willful ignorance to believe that our pleas to government fall on anything but deaf ears.
      Fool me once, and all that jazz.
      I appreciate your passion.
      I think it needs to be channeled in a different direction.
      Cops just murdered another kid in Minneapolis, in spite of the reaction to George Floyd’s murder.
      Breanna Taylor redux.
      Yet, calls, and letters, and protests, and riots, haven’t changed a thing.
      I wish you well.

  3. We drove these two powers together with our arrogance and hubris. Now that we have, the madmen and ideologues in Washington will make sure we go to war….with both of them.

    How’s that lesser evil thing working out? As much as I despise the Orange Monster, your lesser evil seems to be….more evil if that is even possible.

    Madman and psychopaths are at the controls while the American people bask in a sea of ignorance and brainwashing.

    Way to go America.

  4. Sorry, but I had to stop reading this tripe after the twentieth mention of “democracy” by two countries that haven’t the foggiest notion what real democracy is.

    “Unchallenged authoritarian leaders of the Russia Federation and the People’s Republic of China” exactly!

    1. Ah, so you stopped reading because the piece didn’t fit your pre-existing definition of “democracy”?

      Ever heard of Neil Postman? “Definitions, like questions and metaphors, are instruments for thinking. Their authority rests entirely on their usefulness, not their correctness. “Definition tyranny” is the process of accepting without criticism someone else’s definition of a word or a problem or a situation.”

      I suspect the quality of one’s definition reveals a lot about one’s sincerity and capacity for thought.

      I’m curious how you define “democracy” and what country or countries might be models of your definition? And why in the world would you stop reading almost immediately on the account of a declared impulse? Don’t we build community by meeting others and respecting perspectives?

      1. I never cease to be amazed at the belief that bicameral, multi-party voting is the pristine sense of democracy and no other forms can qualify. So, we get the absurdity of the purple fingers in Iraq showing that a person ‘voted’ for some candidate’s picture, and thus George W Bush’s goal of bringing democracy to Iraq has been fulfilled.
        America’s democracy never seems to obtain the wishes of the American people, but rather favors the wealthy and powerful, as has recently been statistically shown by a group of Princeton sociologists. We see this recently in America with the rejection of $15 minimum wage and so forth in Biden’s minimalist attempt to bring some economic relief to working class Americans.

      2. I’d be more curious why he had to announce that he’d stopped reading as if he was taking an ideological purity test.

        Whether he likes it or not the world is changing so I’m sure Americans will have many opportunities to display dazzling arrogance and staggering hypocrisy.

    2. Are you implying that what we have here in the US is real democracy. If so I think you had better review how democracy in the US really works.

    3. There’s an old saying about the word “assume”. For those who like that word it usually ends up making an ass out of u and me.

      As for the Red Twins, neither of these countries have tried democracy so their understanding and hands on experience of it is Zero.

      As for democracy in America, it actually has been tried but the profit margin was not enough for the Monsters. I can tell you where this will end up but I wouldn’t want to spoil the surprise. 😉

      1. If confident that if you tried to write a factual 100 word essay on the politics of either of these countries you’d fail utterly. Stop making an ass of yourself.

      1. Love the emotions pouring out, let alone zero points to support whatever position you have.

        My position, stated in numerous comments on this site, is that the USA (let alone the world) is in serious trouble and the realistic odds favor SHTF in the not too distant future. If that statement causes you distress you need to start looking at the forest and not just the trees. 🙂

  5. It covers all the key issues with considered, even forensic precision, although the English syntax could benefit from some improvement. I found it interesting and significant that there is no mention of either of these crucial and essential terms: 1) ecosystem, 2) bioregion. The expression “environmental protection” occurs only once, in the third paragraph from the end, & “biosphere” is not deployed anywhere in the text. Human rights feature, but not gender issues. I’ll sleep on it….it could be interpreted as a progressive document, and is commendable for its adoption of the UN Security Council as the pragmatic nucleus of ‘real-politique;’ but it more or less remains a “three scorpions in the bottle scenario.” So to mix metaphors, the ball is in the US court. Do they want partnership and potentially evolutionary developmental alliance, under acceptable UN rules, or perpetual capital dominance through interminable theatres of sacrificial war? Whatever atlas is in play, w e’re still left with a mightily understated map of planetary reality….Greater Europe, Africa, Oceania….so whatever happened to the Monroe Doctrine….is it dead or alive? There are some immensely commendable institutions in the so-called free world; shouldn’t we be focusing on what is admirable, functional, creative and inclusive?

    1. @David Llewellyn Foster
      Humans like us who prioritize or even really care about the natural world are a tiny fraction of humanity. There is no government on Earth that gives any priority to the natural world or the beings who live there. Earth First! co-founder Dave Foreman once said that we’re like antibodies for the Earth. We’re a tiny minority, but we have to keep fighting, not because we’ll win, but because it’s the right thing to do.

      1. typical ignorance….americans uniquely despise nature, documented by many
        ‘anti-intellectualism is american life’. Richard Hofstadter
        ‘the american people’. Geoffrey Gorer
        etc…..

  6. At lease Russia and China are trying to counter the psychopaths in D.C. from making nuclear war unavoidable. It is just Luck that that War, the last war, hasn’t happened yet.

  7. Now suggesting adherence to international law is ‘puppeting Russian talking points’. Great…

  8. Those who do not die from disease or starvation will have to die from war. It is just another tool for the elite to reduce the world population and to profit while doing so.

    Evil never sleeps.

      1. @george simmel
        Individualism IS evil, but so is the other extreme of totally ignoring individuals. The goal should be a proper balance between the Earth and all the life here, human societies, and individuals. The West takes individualism way too far, but China, for example, takes it too far in the other direction. The bigger picture should be prioritized, but if you treat people like they’re just disposable and meaningless, you’ll make their lives miserable for no good reason and waste whatever potential good they may do if they’re allowed to properly express themselves. Like all things in life, there can be too much focus on the society. Yin & Yang-type balance is what is needed.

      2. Jeff Cancel, I understand your advocation for balance, i.e. yin-yang, but please note that the very concept of the Dao is Chinese. Your notion that somehow China is unbalanced towards the collective is more a product of propaganda than the reality. Suffice to say that the imbalance of Western hyper-individualism is a corruption of humanity and the Eastern craving for submersion in the collective is a myth.

      3. @Ted+Tripp
        China was founded on homogenization of multiple cultures and societies. Many scientists and artists who didn’t go along with the new regime were killed. I’m not talking about Mao, I’m talking about the creation of what is now China that happened 1,000 years ago. That’s the main reason that dissent is not allowed, and neither is individual expression if it is not in line with the establishment. Some of that problem exists here, but to a MUCH smaller extent, though we’re certainly going in that direction.

        Homogenization is wrong and is a problem, whether it’s in the U.S. or in China. Countries should be small so that each local culture can live and act in the way it so chooses, and doesn’t have to conform to some behemoth government far away. All big countries are evil, and China is no exception.

      4. Chinese culture goes back thousands of years as it is probably the oldest extant culture and civilization on the planet. During that time, all kinds of atrocities that curdle our liberal values occurred. There has always been dissent, always been repression, always been major swings of ideology and government. I got my BA in Chinese Language and Literature, and although my focus was Chinese Buddhism, I still know a bit about Chinese culture and history. You are right, though, that current Chinese politics are nothing new; you are not right to think that is necessarily a bad thing, although I find your idea of a worldwide collection of cooperative 50 member tribes fascinating.

      5. @Ted+Tripp
        When people lived naturally as hunter-gatherers, the largest group of people was 40. So I’m actually cutting humans some slack by acceding to an extra 10. 🙂

        Homogenization is never a good thing. In nature, monocultures are far more susceptible to disease and destruction that varied ones. But even more important for humans, it’s immoral to force a culture on people. People in different regions should be allowed to have different cultures. China’s homogenization and killing of scientists and artists who opposed it 1,000 years ago was a perfect example of taking collectivism too far. I fully endorse the the concept of oneness of everything in the universe and that everyone should think, feel, and act as if we’re all part of the great whole, but at the same time, the value of individuals should be recognized and respected.

      6. I think you refer to the Song Dynasty in China, which is often considered a flowering of culture, science, technology, and art. I am not familiar with repression in that period, but I will defer to your scholarship. Nevertheless, I notice in history that in spite of one generation’s repression, several generations later the repressed qualities reappear. A recent example is the Cultural Revolution in China when after the paroxysms of unitary thinking were over, divergent thought reappeared as the current dynamism of Chinese society shows.
        Your note of the one and the many is quite correct in my thinking. In Zen Buddhism, there are two practices, samatha and vipasanna, where samatha, literally ‘stopping’, is an exclusively inward focus and vipasanna is an opening of consciousness. Some sects focus exclusively on one or the other practice, while Zen employs both. Emphasizing oneness at the expense of the multitude is a spiritual error as is emphasizing self at the expense of others.

      7. @Ted+Tripp
        What do you mean that “[e]mphasizing oneness at the expense of the multitude is a spiritual error”? How can oneness be overemphasized? Please respond, this is not a rhetorical question, though my POV is below.

        If you feel one with everyone (including nonhumans, I don’t call other species “things”), you won’t harm them except to eat. That’s the attitude that humans need to have, and it would solve most if not all problems, starting with environmental and ecological problems, if people acquired that attitude.

      8. Your statement. “If you feel one with everyone (including nonhumans, I don’t call other species “things”), you won’t harm them except to eat…” is precisely what I mean by the nexus of the one and the many.

    1. That is a nihilist viewpoint. War is not to reduce the population, it is to reduce the cost of labor lowering wages, lowering capital inputs and increasing the concentration or centralization of capital at a exponential rate. Capitalists have no interest in ever ‘wiping out the population’, this is a myth. Capitalists if anything need to expand the population growth rate AND lower the cost of labor at the same time. War is not ideologically driven, it is out of necessity for capitalists to accumulate wealth at a ever increasing rate, they literally have no choice. War is usually pushed for the hardest when the costs of labor are going up and there are no more ‘ultra cheap labor’ markets to exploit.

      1. @Joker
        War existed thousands of years before capitalism. War is a result of civilization, not capitalism. Capitalism just makes things worse. Civilization, which is the result of human overpopulation, is the problem.

      2. You’d better check with Bill Gates and Klaus Schwab… Global Depopulation (and Eugenics) is a big thing with Bill. He and Klaus have been collaborating on a scheme to both force lethal injections upon everyone, and compel the survivors into a Global ID, tied to all aspects of your life, including Vacx records… It’s a bit like China’s “Social Credit Scores” – assisted in their development by US/CIA Surveillance Valley companies (Palantir, etc.).

        The “Great Reset”/4th Industrial Revolution – envisions a MASSIVE population reduction (~90+%) and the rise of AI-controlled robotics…along with Transhumans.

        We’re entering the age of NeoFeudalism, Capitalism has been collapsing, or haven’t you noticed?

      3. War! Who needs it!
        From an anthropological viewpoint, in primitive societies war served two functions.
        First, there is ritual war where young men of a tribe face other young men of a tribe in contests for display of courage and the gaining of status. It can be thought of as a means of population control, getting rid of excess males, for it is only women who can survive the species.
        Second, it was a means for some to achieve pecuniary advantage as in wars, mostly raids, for the purpose of acquiring wives, slaves, and treasures.
        My sense is that modern war is an extension of both these primitive impulses.

  9. Thanks for doing this Robert… Just one question… What makes the Governments of Russia and China ostensibly more “authoritarian” than the Governments of The United States and Canada, the UK, EU and other NATO powers… They all seem to be advancing in LOCKSTEP on the WEF’s “Great Reset”(4th Industrial Revolution)/ UN Agenda 2030/GAVI(Gates) Agenda ID2020 authoritarian/depopulation goals, all at about the same pace…

    Are the ones who’re actively imposing the NeoFeudal World Order in the West, somehow less authoritarian than those who demand their Sovereignty in the East? Which side actively collaborates with the Ukrainian NAZI followers of Stepan Bandera, and Al Qaeda/ISIS…and which is resisting them?

    https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2018/09/15/is-langley-unleashing-jihad-against-china-in-xinjiang/

    1. Scheer reports understands little. his Russophobia was often expressed at truth dig before it disintegrated. indeed he reflects the peculiar american attitude towards authority observed by numerous sociologists, cultural historians

  10. This communique makes sense to me, a welcome contrast to the empty rhetoric emanating from Washington and it’s Allie’s.

  11. of course many have observed the vast differences between the anglophone economic model, the “Rhine ” model. both Linz and the analytical Marxist, Jonathon Elster demonstrate that the US model stands alone as a failure. Sacvan Bercovitch wrote in 2012, “only in USA has nationalism carried w it the christian meaning of the sacred. the revelation of America serves to blight and ultimately preclude the possibility of fundamental social change”
    “democracy” has nearly no meaning…a worthless slogan….the peculiar american usage of “authoritarianism ” is quite despicable . Engels observed that revolution is authoritarian, Wittgenstein observed that science is authoritarian. Kojeve, Acquinas, Kant, etc demonstrate that justice is authoritarian. the bizarre obsession with equality in USA is an aristocratic value—as any Marxist is fully aware…Kojeve—heidiggerian/Marxist , demonstrates that “equity” is a servile bourgeois value. the american values fuse or synthesize the two.

  12. Lots and lots of pretty, fancy words but likely left twisting in the breeze.
    Unless there are resources, money, power, and strength to enact the philosophy and overcome overwhelming opposition, then it is just merely beautiful unattainable ideas.
    Brilliant words by a poor man are ignored but silly speech by a rich/power man is celebrated.

    To the Victor belongs the spoils, how history is recorded, who is the good/bad guy, the view of truth, and best of all: implementation of brain washing by Lord McCauley, Feb 2, 1835 in British India.

  13. IT IS A NONSENSE FOR THIS LIBERAL EDITOR, WHILE BOOSTING OF DECADES LONG FAMILIARITY WITH ISSUES OF RISSIA AND CHINA, TO CONTINUE TO BUY INTO THE CANARD, THE MISNOMER, THAT SOMEHOW THERE IS SOMETHING INNATE TO CHINESE AND RUSSIAN PLOTICAL CULTURES WHICH PREDISPOSES THEM TO WESTERN CHARACTERIZATIONS OF “AUTHORITARIANISM” AND SO ON.

    AT ITS BASE, THIS CANARD IS ESSENTIALLY ABOUT THE RACIST ACILI PERVADING THE SO-CALLED WEST. HOW IS IT POSSIBLE TO CONTINUE TO PRESUPPOSE THAT SOMEHOW CHINA IS ANY LESS AUTHOURITARIAN THAN ANY COUNTRY IN THE WEST? HAVE THE CHINESE OR THE RUSSIANS IMPOSED FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS CHATTEL SLAVERY, COLONIALISM, NEO-COLONIALISM, NEOLIBERALISM, ON COUNTRIES OF THE SOUTH? HAVE THE CHINESE OR THE RUSSIANS CONTINUES FOR CENTURIES IN THEIR NATIONAL ANTHEMS TO GLORIFY CHATTEL SLAVERY? HAVE THE CHINESE OR THE RUSSIANS INSTITUTIONALIZED A WHITE SUPTEMACIST ETHOS UNIVERSALLY? HOW ARE THE ELECTED DICTATOTSHIPS IN THE WEST ANY DIFFERENT TO THE POLITICAL CULTURES OF RUSSIA AND CHINA? HAS THE WEST, AND AMERICA MORE PRECISELY, NOT ALWAYS BEEN AN ARDENT SUPPORTER OF FASCIST AND MILITARY REGIMES THROUGHOUT THE WORLD?

    WHITE WESTERN LIBERALS HERE AND ELSEWHERE CONTINUE TO ACT IN THE WAYS THEY HAVE ALWAYS DONE. FOR ALL THEIR ARGUMENTATIONS MERELY ENSURE THE GLOBAL STATUS QUO BY ACTING AS DISTRACTIONS IN THE SERVICE OF THEIR MORE “ILLIBERAL” KIN. THIS MISGUIDANCE WILL FOOL NO ONE IN THE SOUTH.

  14. This joint statement is of major significance in that it signals to the global community the establishment of a strong, multi-lateral counterbalance to US/European hegemonic governance. What is particularly interesting about this statement is the sheer number of implicit references to US global domination. Clearly the signatories resent the USA’s long held assumption that it alone can and should impose its own economic, social and cultural template on other states, and seek to do so by acting as the world’s ‘policeman’. No doubt at this juncture many other nations feel a similar resentment and frustration with US hegemony, not to mention the latters’ frequent hypocrisies regarding democratic norms. How many times has the US undermined and interferred with the democratically elected administrations of other less powerful nations? This statement indicates a determination on the part of China and Russia to further resist US imperialism and hegemonic domination in pursuance of a more robust, truly international world order. And as such it is to be welcomed.

    1. @Norman Wynter
      As I see it, here’s how the two sides play out. The west prioritizes individualism, while China prioritizes collectivism, i.e. the entire society. (I don’t know what Russia is after the Soviet Union broke up, but it’s more like China than the west.) The eastern view is a little more enlightened and evolved, because it encompasses at least some bit of oneness, whereas the individualist view is the unevolved ignorance that fails to recognize oneness. This isn’t to say that the East is great. Both sides have major flaws, such as the east taking collectivism so far that it treats individuals unnecessarily poorly. And both sides have their oligarchs and massive weapons, including nuclear weapons.

      One of the problems here is that people are easily tempted by materialism. That’s what people all over the world like about the U.S.: look at all the things you can have! People are also greatly tempted by selfish individual freedoms without the required responsibilities. In the east, they take collectivism so far that people can’t adequately express themselves if they contradict the establishment. China was founded on this idea.

      So, no good guys here, just one side not as bad as the other one. But that all said, absolute power corrupts, and the world badly needs a counterbalance to the U.S./western powers that has been missing since the Soviet Union collapsed.

      1. One more consideration of Western individualism and materialism, especially the attraction to the glitz and excitement offered by consumer culture, is the enormous quantity of energy required by that lifestyle. We know that this program is the very definition of unsustainable and the only way to effectively combat the climate crisis is a policy for de-growth in order to de-energize society, both East and West. Collectivism and cooperation will succeed while individualism and competition will fail.

      2. @Ted+Tripp
        I’m well aware. Above all I’m a radical environmentalist. As such, I know that overconsumption and overpopulation are the physical roots of all environmental problems, and both consumption and human population need to be greatly reduced. But overconsumption is not limited to the West. About 20 years ago, China decided to get its people off bicycles and into cars. That created massive consumption of both the the components needed to make the cars and of oil. The rich countries are clearly a bigger problem here, but any society that prioritizes materialism is a problem, and that’s just about everyone except for the tiny number of remaining hunter-gatherers.

        Also, it’s not just about global warming/climate change (even though that’s an existential issue that has to be adequately addressed immediately). Global warming/climate change is a mere symptom, and we have to fix a lot more than that.

        We need a proper balance between collectivism and competition. If you look at the absolute big picture, all life cooperates in some respect. But competition is also a natural part of life, and we need that too. We also need some individualism in order for people to express themselves adequately and to not feel unduly constrained. The problem is that the west has taken competition and individualism way too far.

      3. I do like the way you think, Jeff. Do you have a blog, a podcast, or any other venue? If not, I heartily encourage you to keep writing.
        BTW, I think that energy use and population are directly correlated, so that a world without fossil fuels, or without overuse of fossil fuels (as a liveaboard sailor I am addicted to certain technologies for rope, sails, bearings, etc, but can imagine a return to hemp and bronze, maybe bamboo), will have drastically less people. Your thoughts?

      4. @Ted+Tripp
        Thanks for the kind words. I’ve written an outline for a book, but I’ll probably never write it for multiple reasons. I don’t have anything else.

        As to population and human lifestyles regarding your specific question: The Earth can “only” support a billion people without artificial fertilizer, which requires fossil fuels. (A billion people is still far too many for ecological reasons, but that’s another issue.) Industrial society is war against the Earth and must be eliminated, and we could do so in 150-200 years if we were to try. But in order to do that and not cause most people to starve to death, human population would also need to be lowered to no more than a billion by that time.

        BTW, I used to sail too and I loved it! In 1995 I sailed from the San Francisco Bay to Papeete, Tahiti, to Honolulu, HI, and back to SF Bay. That was pretty much the end of my sailing, I’ve only sailed 5-10 times after that. I’d love to get back into it someday, but I don’t have the time for it now. In my dream world I’d love to live on a small tropical south Pacific island with a sailboat — I would never have left the south Pacific if I hadn’t run out of money, though I didn’t own a boat when I sailed there either — but that’s unfortunately not in the cards for me (for one thing, my wife isn’t into it at all, we weren’t together when I was sailing regularly).

      5. “Americans poorly understand that individualism produces uniformity”. Philip Slater
        “what unites the slavophiles, Alexandr Herzen, Peter Kropotkin and the Marxists is the belief that western individualism is an enemy of individuality”. Vladimir Golstein
        “individuality has entirely disappeappeded In USA”. Horkheimer/Adorno—al conversations described, “shallow, bombastic fatuous”
        David Riesman —liberal, Richard Sennet, Istvan Mezsaros (Marxian) describe america s as “over-conformist semi automatons”
        Arthur Koestler compared americans to 5th century Romans: “a similarly contactless society populated by automatons…a similarly soulless politically corrupt everybody for themselves society”

  15. Before publishing authoritarian BS propaganda, consider this:

    In China an Russia under Putin, outlets like Scheerpost would be shut down, and its ‘journalists’ jailed or simply disappeared…

    As to the text itself, to hear China and Russia talk about democracy in terms of “equality, justice, democracy and freedom” and “democracy is a universal human value”, when in China it is non-existent and violently suppressed while in Russia under Putin it has been consistently degraded into a farce (e.g., the closure of foreign media outlets after the beginning of the imperialist war of conquest on Ukraine, the anti-dissent legislation implemented now, and so on), and in an outlet which identifies itself with left-ish ideology no less, is a clear indication of the moral rot anti-liberal hatred (which Neo Progressives seem to share with extreme authoritarian fascism both countries mentioned represent) inevitably results in self defeating insanity inherit in supporting dictators like Vlad and Xi.

    1. Speaking of Totalitarianism… what’s YOUR COUNTRY DOING to imprison and torture the Journalist, who created a platform for Whistleblowers – and then used it to expose the Warcrimes and skullduggery of the most malevolent Empire on Earth? Last time I checked – Julian Assange was being held in Belmarsh Prison,on his was to a US SuperMax – for commiting the crime of Journalism.

      And far from what you say, there are lots of critical Press outlets in Russia…most of them are funded by the CIA’s “Regime Change” cut-out (NED) however…So that can be regarded with disfavor by the Russian Government… Meanwhile – what has the Empire done recently, to silence one of the best outlets for fair and critical journalism – RT?

      MAYBE fix your own house, first.

  16. Today, March 19, has so far showed the joint statement to be empty fluff. Russian military incompetence reduced them to beg China for help but the ‘ limit less’ is also empty words.

    Poor, poor China! It can not win, it is now trapped in a Lose-lose position.
    If Russia loses, ( likely), then history repeats where the West causes a Coup and anti China regime takes over the Kremlin. Then China is blocked in all directions, repeat All.
    Pakistan corridor is as fragile as an egg and Burma outlet is insignificant. An ally, turned to a super enemy along thousands of miles along the entire west and north border is untenable.

    It would be very easy to deprive China of energy, trade and Swift. In no time, Xi and communist party will wilt, And more centuries of humiliation.

    If China assists Russia, it will face another’ long march’, where its economy falls greatly. And there is much unrest as it cannot prevent Covid-19 any longer, especially when everyone is locked down.

    A miracle could happen if Stalin’s tactics are used but it still requires some help from China. The ONLY way out for both China and Russia are Asians from RFE, again.

    1. Rarely have I read such blatant, ill-informed warmongering. If you had any political cachet, you could join the ranks of delusional neocons such as Nuland, Blinken, and Sullivan.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: