Eurasia Topics

**harrybarracuda** · 21-03-2021, 04:39 PM

Originally Posted by panama hat

Mainly Bashar al-Asaad

Nah he'd be long gone if Putin hadn't taken over.

**panama hat** · 21-03-2021, 04:52 PM

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Nah he'd be long gone if Putin hadn't taken over.

True, but he is the one who started this whole mess - no pity for the guy at all.

**Klondyke** · 21-03-2021, 05:12 PM

Originally Posted by panama hat

True, but he is the one who started this whole mess - no pity for the guy at all.

Similarly, the dictators in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, you name it...

**panama hat** · 21-03-2021, 05:22 PM

Originally Posted by Klondyke

Similarly, the dictators in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, you name it...

Are you demented? (rhetorical question)

**Klondyke** · 21-03-2021, 07:22 PM

Originally Posted by panama hat
True, but he is the one who started this whole mess - no pity for the guy at all.

Originally Posted by Klondyke

Similarly, the dictators in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, you name it...

On the other hand, there are dictators (e.g. Putin, Xi, to name just two) who do not destroy their country but bring it to an immense boom...

**panama hat** · 22-03-2021, 01:55 AM

Originally Posted by Klondyke

there are dictators

The 'good' dictators

**Backspin** · 22-03-2021, 02:11 AM

Originally Posted by panama hat

True, but he is the one who started this whole mess - no pity for the guy at all.

Plus the moron thinks posting some American propaganda posters us an argument

**Backspin** · 22-03-2021, 02:14 AM

Originally Posted by panama hat

Mainly Bashar al-Asaad

Tell us. Is the Libya war over because Gaddafi is gone ? Obviously not. Which makes you a demented idiot

How's Irans going these days ? A lot that solved

**panama hat** · 22-03-2021, 02:22 AM

You're making less sense than usual, Skidmark - you seem more unhinged today. Too many 'dark-web' drugs?

**Klondyke** · 22-03-2021, 11:00 AM

Originally Posted by panama hat

The 'good' dictators

And what's more: "killers" ...

Not everybody can be a loving grandfather playing with the grandkids... (However, when the time comes...)

**panama hat** · 22-03-2021, 11:09 AM

Originally Posted by Klondyke

And what's more: "killers" ...

Yes. Very good, you're finally getting it

**OhOh** · 23-03-2021, 10:06 PM

Talks in Alaska can be transformative for US-China ties

March 22, 2021 by M. K. BHADRAKUMAR

"The testiness in the United States’ relations with China surged to the surface last week. The back-and-forth at the US-China talks at Anchorage, Alaska (March 18-19) marked a defining moment. The US readout was skimpy in detail while a more detailed Chinese account has appeared on the website of the State Council of China.The US and Chinese media both reported an acrimonious exchange at the beginning of the talks with the customary photo-op and initial remarks extending for half an hour, much of it a forceful rebuttal of recent US rhetoric against China by Yang Jiechi, Politburo member and director of the CCP Central Foreign Affairs Commission.

Yang fired back at the US’ recent anti-China rhetoric, bringing into focus the US’ “condescending” approach to the talks; the fallacy of the US’ rhetoric on human rights; Black Lives Matter and deep-seated problems of American racism; the social and economic inequality in America and so on.

To quote Yang,

“I don’t think the overwhelming majority of countries in the world would recognise the universal values advocated by the United States, or that the opinions of the United States could represent international public opinion. And those countries would not recognise that the rules made by a small number of people would serve as the basis for the international order.”

No doubt, Yang went prepared to unilaterally expand the scope of the traditional photo-op into a very public verbal jousting in front of TV cameras. The intensity of the hour-long opening exchanges while the cameras whirred has no precedents in US-China relations since the two countries established diplomatic ties in 1978.

What might have been the Chinese intentions? Clearly, Yang was as much conscious of the international audience as of the Chinese public opinion.

The optics he transmitted was that any US ingress into China’s sovereignty, core interests and internal affairs will meet with firm unwavering resistance and countermeasures.

Second, he flagged the need to accept and adapt rationally to the differences between the two countries.

Third, Yang asserted that China’s comprehensive capability and development potential has reached such a level that the US’ containment strategy is doomed to fail. On the other hand, the acceptance of this reality will enable the two countries to seek cooperation with strategic patience and restraint even in an unfriendly atmosphere. As a Chinese commentary put it, “Those days of being beaten down without striking back are over.”

Nonetheless, the Times report from Anchorage said the talks also “yielded a substantive conversation that lasted far longer than initially planned.” The Chinese communist party daily Global Times in an editorial comment concurs: “After a fierce, tit-for-tat opening, the close-door strategic dialogue afterward between China and the US in Alaska went smoothly and the result was far better than people’s expectations. Both sides completed three rounds of talks. Both admitted in their press conferences that the talks were “candid” and each sought to work with the other side in some fields.”

Indeed, Xinhua reported at the end of the talks that the discussions resulted in the establishment of a Working Group to enhance communication and cooperation on climate change, and that wide-ranging discussions covered a whole range of topics. Yang later described the talks as “direct, frank and constructive.” He said, “This talk helped boost understanding, although the two sides still have big divergences on some issues.”

In a subsequent analysis, however, David Sanger at the Times played down the acrimonious part and put in perspective the current US-China confrontation as a competition over technology, cyberconflict and influence operations that would “bear little resemblance” to a Cold War. Sanger wrote that China’s “pathway to power is building new networks rather than disrupting old ones… Their power arises not from their relatively small nuclear arsenal or their expanding stockpile of conventional weapons. Instead, it arises from their expanding economic might and how they use technology.”

Sanger recalled that Jake Sullivan, Biden’s national security adviser, had also opined in the past that “it could be a mistake to assume that China plans to prevail by directly taking on the United States military in the Pacific.” Sanger quoted Sullivan: “The central premises of this alternative approach (toward China) would be that economic and technological power is fundamentally more important than traditional military power in establishing global leadership, and that a physical sphere of influence in East Asia is not a necessary precondition for sustaining such leadership.”

How long the Biden administration’s charade of “containment” of China will be sustainable remains to be seen. In a recent interview with David Ignatius at the Washington Post, Robert Gates, a rare bipartisan figure in American foreign policy who served as CIA director and Secretary of Defence, put it this way:

“If we can’t figure out a way to tackle the big problems facing this country, whether it is infrastructure or immigration or education or a host of others, then I think we are in deep trouble, and that is much more of a danger to the country than any foreign threat, far more than Russia or China. And the question is whether we can get past that.”

Gates added, “I like to say that the biggest threat is confined to the two square miles that encompass the White House and the Capitol building, and if the president can’t figure out a way, and if the congressional leader won’t figure out a way to respond, in terms of working together, then I think that the divisiveness that we have seen, and the dangerous divisiveness that we have seen probably will only get worse.”

The best outcome of the Anchorage talks would be that the US eschews the Manichean rhetoric and seeks to adapt to a more multipolar global system and an increasingly powerful and important China. Plainly put, China has eroded US power not only in Asia but internationally, both exploiting the anti-globalism of the Trump years to expand its influence in international institutions and by simply creating its own multilateral platforms.

The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (which includes the ASEAN countries plus Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, and Japan) is a telling example. China has outmanoeuvred the US in the global economy. Meanwhile, the global economy needs an overhaul to address the climate crisis, rampant economic inequality, automation, and other developments, and cooperation with China is essential here for developing new rules.

The narrative that China poses a threat to the “rules-based order”, etc. assumes that there is a singular liberal order and that US interests and the content of the liberal order are identical. In an outstanding essay in 2019 titled China in a World of Orders: Rethinking Compliance and Challenge in Beijing’s International Relations, Alastair Iain Johnston, Professor of China in World Affairs in the Government Department at Harvard, identified at least eight “issue-specific orders” in the international system — and some of these China accepts; some it rejects; and some it is willing to live with. “Given these multiple orders and varying levels of challenge, the narrative of a US-dominated liberal international order being challenged by a revisionist China makes little conceptual or empirical sense,” he wrote.

Fundamentally, the US’ sense of crisis stems from the decline of its comprehensive competitiveness. Herein lies the paradox:

The US’ hegemonic framework remains roughly the same but its internal supportive power is weakening. This contradiction cannot be resolved by strengthening ties with all those allies with shrinking economies.

Catch-up on the home front becomes a prerequisite."

https://www.indianpunchline.com/talk...us-china-ties/

**harrybarracuda** · 23-03-2021, 11:27 PM

The best outcome of the Anchorage talks would be that the US eschews the Manichean rhetoric

Oh FFS, Hoohoo's stupid wobbly has given skidmark a new word to pretend he understands.

The rest of it is the usual state propaganda bollocks.

**harrybarracuda** · 23-03-2021, 11:32 PM

While we're on the subject of two-faced, lying c u n t s...

MOSCOW (Reuters) - The Kremlin said on Tuesday it had deliberately decided it would not reveal the name of the Russian-made vaccine which President Vladimir Putin is due to take later on Tuesday “We are deliberately not saying which shot the president will get, noting that all three Russian (-made) vaccines are absolutely reliable and effective,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters.

My money is on Pfizer-Biontechski.

**panama hat** · 24-03-2021, 02:43 AM

One has to love the transparency of places like Russia and China

**Klondyke** · 24-03-2021, 10:40 AM

Originally Posted by panama hat

One has to love the transparency of places like Russia and China

Do they have still the classified dox frozen for zillions years (JFK, dr. Kelly, you name it...)

**panama hat** · 24-03-2021, 11:06 AM

^ Just to keep it in the present . . . which vaccine did Putin take? Any photos from the guy who loves to look tough? (By the way, I have zero doubt that he is quite a tough guy)

**OhOh** · 24-03-2021, 01:42 PM

Afghanistan - More Dead End Proposals Seek Time To Allow U.S. Face Saving Exit.

Posted by b on March 23, 2021 at 18:18 UTC

"The Doha agreement between the U.S. and the Taliban includes a promise by the Taliban to not attack U.S. troops or major cities. In exchange the U.S. promised to leave Afghanistan by May 1. The problem for the U.S. is that leaving Afghanistan will inevitable lead to a new Taliban regime, likely within a few months. It would make the U.S. look weak. That is something that Washington inherently dislikes.

In early March the Biden administration launched a new Afghanistan peace initiative. It proposed to create a new interim government with participation of the Taliban and under a new constitution. The idea is to uphold some picture of normalcy that can hold for a few months while the U.S. skips out. We said that the idea was unlikely to fly:

President Ghani is furious about Blinken's letter. Other interest groups in the Afghan government also reject it. They think it is a bluff. Unless the U.S. stops the money flow to Kabul and pulls out its troops there is no need for Ghani and other to proceed.

The Taliban will also reject the proposals. They want the U.S. to leave and they feel sure that, after that, they can win the civil war and reinstall their Islamic Emirate. Their backers in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are likewise convinced that there is no need to change course.
The new U.S. proposal is a dead end.

Today President Ashraf Ghani made a counterproposal which has a similar chance to be realized:

Afghan President Ashraf Ghani will propose a new presidential election within six months, under a peace plan he will put forward as a counter-offer to a U.S. proposal that he rejects, two senior government officials told Reuters. Ghani will unveil his proposal at an international gathering in Turkey next month, signalling his refusal to accept Washington's plan for his elected government to be replaced by an interim administration, the officials said.

"The counterproposal which we are going to present at the Istanbul meeting would be to call for early presidential elections if the Taliban agree on a ceasefire," one senior government official said on condition of anonymity.

Another Afghan government official said: "The president would never agree to step aside and any future government should be formed through democratic process, not a political deal."
A third senior official also said Ghani's proposal would include possible early elections, although he did not specify the exact time frame for the vote. The third official said Ghani had already shared his road map with Khalilzad.

.The Afghan officials said that as part of Ghani's counter-proposal, his government would ask the U.N. to closely observe the new election to ensure it is accepted by all sides.

There is no way that a credible election could happen in Afghanistan within the next few years. If the U.S. wants to get out of Afghanistan while leaving behind some functioning government its must move Ghani out of the way. As The U.S. holds the purse without which Ghani can't do anything that should not be too hard to do.
Meanwhile the Taliban have offered their own plan which would allow for the U.S. to have some time to save face:

The Taliban has confirmed that they have shared a 90-day reduction in violence (RIV) plan with the US, but said there has been no overall agreement on the plan so far. Taliban spokesman Mohammad Naeem told TOLOnews that the reduction in violence will not mean a ceasefire, but it will result in a decrease in all operations by the group in Afghanistan.
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken in his letter to President Ashraf Ghani referred to this plan and has reiterated that it will stop the Taliban from announcing its so-called spring offensive.
But Taliban spokesman Mohammad Naeem said the plan was proposed by the Taliban in December and an agreement has not yet been reached.
“We proposed a draft in December, which involved all operations being reduced, but so far a final agreement has not been reached,” Naeem said on Monday.

When the Soviet Union had troops in Afghanistan it trained the Afghan army to a reasonable standard. It also provided weapons that were easy to use and needed little maintenance. After the Soviets left Afghanistan that army held out against the U.S. supported Mujahedins for another three years. It only faltered when the Soviet Union cut off its financial and material assistance.
The U.S. never managed to train the Afghan army and police to any reasonable standard. It also provided weapons and systems that can not be maintained without external assistance. Without U.S. backing on the ground and in the air that army will likely fold within days:

Over the past two decades, the United States has invested more than $88 billion to build, train and equip Afghan troops and police – and yet the Taliban is clearly a superior fighting force.
...
John Sopko, the brutally honest inspector general for reconstruction in Afghanistan, has been sounding the alarm for years about how corruption, waste, and fraud was effectively neutering the U.S. government’s effort to breathe life into the Afghan security forces. “The Afghan military – and particularly the Afghan police – has been a hopeless nightmare and a disaster,” Sopko warned Congress in January 2020.

“Based on all the work we’ve done, it seems obvious that the biggest mistake we’ve made was to try to build an Afghan Army in our own image and likeness,” Sopko said. “In other words, an Army that uses the systems and the equipment and the weapons that our army does. And yet, this is a country where a huge portion of the population are illiterate, where there’s very little electricity, and very little internet.”

“Currently, the Afghan government has limited capability to move food, ammunition, medical supplies, and so on, to units in the field,” Sopko said. “As SIGAR [the Office of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction] has highlighted recently, the Afghans also lack any capability to maintain their equipment. Without development of these core functions, the ANDSF will never be able to sustain itself.”

Despite two decades and billions of dollars of support, Afghan security forces cannot survive without outside assistance. The Taliban can. That advantage will be decisive whenever U.S. troops leave the country.

The money and time was wasted because the U.S. never had the strategic foresight to plan for leaving Afghanistan. But leave it must.
Just a few days ago there was a warning that a renewal of a U.S. fight against the Taliban would likely create high U.S. casualties with little chances of success.

Lotfullah Najafizada @LNajafizada - 8:13 UTC · Mar 20, 2021 Exclusive TOLOnews footage shows the downing of the army helicopter immediately after take off from Behsud where the helicopters were lifting police casualties. Sources tell us that an anti-aircraft missile was used in the attack by AliPoor’s militias. video

Alipoor is a warlord and leader of ethnic Hazaras, a mainly Shiite community. His militia are currently in conflict with the government but also mistrust the Taliban. But if Alipoor's militia have access to man portable air defense missiles (MANPADs) and know how to use them, the Taliban will also have those capabilities. The U.S. military is highly dependent on air transport and air support. A renewed fight would be too costly.

There is nothing left for the U.S. but to leave."

https://www.moonofalabama.org/2021/03/afghanistan-more-dead-end-proposals-seek-time-to-allow-us-face-saving-exit.html#more

Another ameristani broken agreement.

Shades of the Saigon "organised departure."

One difference is that allegedly the Afghani citizens have, and unafraid of using, its stock of manpads.

Eurasia Topics-53f89411693b1b9cd257f6511ae81814-jpg

**harrybarracuda** · 24-03-2021, 04:19 PM

The problem for the U.S. is that leaving Afghanistan will inevitable lead to a new Taliban regime, likely within a few months.

Months?

More like weeks.

But it doesn't need to be a problem for the US. If they say any talitubbies planning terrorist attacks, they should just go ahead and obliterate the whole area with some fuel air bombs or whatever else will do the job.

**harrybarracuda** · 24-03-2021, 04:21 PM

Originally Posted by panama hat

^ Just to keep it in the present . . . which vaccine did Putin take? Any photos from the guy who loves to look tough? (By the way, I have zero doubt that he is quite a tough guy)

I already told you.

PҒЇZЄЯ-ЪЇФЙГЭҪЊ

**panama hat** · 25-03-2021, 02:13 AM

^ Darn, can't read руссиан

**Backspin** · 25-03-2021, 03:57 AM

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

I already told you.

PҒЇZЄЯ-ЪЇФЙГЭҪЊ

Pfizer and Astrozenica have been in the news for all the wrong reasons lately. Sputnik 2 has been clear sailing so far. It was also the first registered vaccine.

23 die in Norway after receiving Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine

**OhOh** · 25-03-2021, 12:21 PM

Chinese, Russian FMs hold talks, reach strategic consensus

Updated: Mar 24,2021 09:05 AM Xinhua

"NANNING —

State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi held talks on March 23 with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, with the two sides reaching strategic consensus.The talks, held in the city of Guilin, in South China's Guangxi Zhuang autonomous region, were the 51st meeting between Wang and Lavrov. "This shows the high level of China-Russia comprehensive strategic partnership of coordination," Wang said.

Strategic communication, coordination

No matter how the international situation changes, the comprehensive strategic coordination between the two countries will only strengthen and expand, rather than weakening or shrinking, the foreign minister said.

The two sides agreed that strategic guidance by the two heads of state constitutes the political strength of bilateral ties, while jointly fighting the pandemic has further deepened the traditional friendship between the people of both countries.

They also agreed that pragmatic cooperation has strongly boosted the two countries' economic and social development, and their international coordination has contributed stability and positive energy to the world.

In the face of rapid changes in the international situation, carrying out timely strategic communication and coordination is not only important to China and Russia, but also beneficial to the world, Wang said.

.This year marks the 20th anniversary of the signing of the China-Russia Treaty of Good-neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation. Noting that the two sides have agreed to renew the treaty and make it more relevant in the new era, Wang said this demonstrates the new heights, new ideas and new results of China-Russia cooperation.

The two sides should strengthen strategic coordination, firmly fight back against false information regarding China and Russia, beef up cooperation on information security, support each other in maintaining the security of their own governments and systems, and safeguard their legitimate rights and common interests, as well as maintaining stability in the areas around the two countries, Wang said.

China is willing to discuss establishing a mutual recognition mechanism for health codes with Russia, on the basis of friendly consultation and fully accommodating each other's concerns, Wang said, calling on the two sides to further deepen vaccine cooperation and help improve the accessibility of vaccines in developing countries.

He also urged the two sides to take their Year of Scientific and Technological Innovation as an opportunity to tap the potential for cooperation on 5G, big data, the green economy, the internet, climate change, environmental protection and the health industry, working toward the goal of $200 billion in trade volume.

Lavrov said the friendship between the two countries is very solid with higher quality.

"Russia is willing to work with China to implement the consensus reached by the two heads of state, maintain close high-level exchanges, make preparations for the extension of the Russia-China Treaty of Good-neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation, and take the bilateral relationship to a higher level," Lavrov said.

Global governance

After the talks, the two foreign ministers signed several bilateral-cooperation deals as well as a joint statement on global governance, calling on the international community to put aside their differences, build consensus, strengthen coordination and safeguard world peace and geostrategic stability.

On the topic of human rights, the two sides said all countries should oppose politicizing human rights issues, reject using human rights as an excuse to interfere in other countries' internal affairs, abandon double standards, and engage in dialogue on the basis of equality and mutual respect, according to the statement.

There is no unified standard for the model of democracy, the statement said. The legitimate right of sovereign countries to choose their own development paths should be respected, and interfering in sovereign countries' internal affairs under the pretext of "advancing democracy" is not acceptable, the statement said.

In face of heightened international political turbulence, there is an urgent need to hold a summit of permanent members of the UN Security Council, to facilitate direct dialogue and discussion of solutions to problems facing all human beings and help maintain stability of the world, the statement said.

China is willing to further strengthen cooperation with Russia under the multilateral framework, jointly safeguard multilateralism, maintain the international system with the UN at the core and the international order based on international law, while firmly opposing unilateral sanctions as well as interference in other countries' internal affairs, Wang said."

http://english.www.gov.cn/statecouncil/wangyi/202103/24/content_WS605a9047c6d0719374afb49d.html

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions following talks with Foreign Minister of China Wang Yi, Guilin, March 23, 2021

23 March 202110:15

"Ladies and gentlemen, It gives me great pleasure to be in this wonderful place, enjoying the unique nature of this province. We really do admire these landscapes, but I can assure you that this has not prevented us from holding extremely business-like and practical talks. They were held in a traditionally friendly and trust-based manner.

We pointed out once again that Russia and China continue their close and fruitful cooperation in virtually all spheres on the international stage despite the coronavirus pandemic, in all the spheres which have been identified as our priorities during contacts between President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of China Xi Jinping.

We will continue to strengthen our relations of comprehensive partnership and strategic interaction. We have had a useful discussion on ways to boost our practical cooperation in the conditions created by the current epidemiological restrictions.

We highlighted the preparations being made for Russian-Chinese contacts at the high and highest levels. We have submitted to our partners a draft joint statement of our heads of state on the 20^th anniversary of the Treaty on Good-Neighbourliness and Friendly Cooperation between the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China.

We discussed our positions on the main international topics and found them similar. Moscow and Beijing stand for developing interstate relations on the principles of mutual respect and a balance of each other’s interests, justice and non-interference in others’ internal affairs. We reject zero sum political games and the illegal unilateral sanctions, which our Western colleagues have been using increasingly more often.

We share the opinion that Russian-Chinese foreign policy interaction remains a vital factor in global affairs. We pointed out the destructive character of US aspiration to undermine the UN-centric international legal framework by using the military-political alliances of the Cold War period and creating similar closed alliances. We noted the growing importance of the joint activities of Russia, China and a wide range of other countries to preserve the current system of international law in the context of the increasing Western attempts to promote its concept of a rules-based international order.

We expressed our appreciation for the high level of coordination at various multilateral platforms, including the UN, the G20, the SCO, BRICS, RIC, APEC, as well as EAS and other ASEAN-based regional cooperation bodies. We spoke about the preparations for the summit of the UN Security Council permanent members, which has been proposed by President Putin and supported by President Xi Jinping.

As Minister Wang Yi said, we have signed a joint statement, which reflects the views of Russia and China on vital issues such as democracy, human rights, international law and the necessity to find collective approaches to solving global problems.

We signed an annual plan for consultations between our foreign ministries. It stipulates numerous contacts this year at the level of deputy foreign ministers and the heads of relevant departments designed to hold practical discussions on a wide range of global and regional matters.

Speaking on behalf of our delegation, I would like to once again express our deep gratitude to our Chinese friends for their hospitality and for substantive joint work.

Question:

How does Russia plan on moving away from using international payment systems controlled by the West? Are there any specific agreements with China to create a common system as opposed to the Western ones? What can it be based on? Russia’s Mir card or China’s UnionPay system?

Sergey Lavrov:

This work has been underway for quite a long time now in different areas. We have our own financial messaging system. The respective financial departments of Russia and China plan to expand its use.

For many years now we have been trying to transfer trade to settlements in national currencies. There’s a corresponding mechanism which is quite effective. We are switching to the national currency in our trade with other major partners.

This is the imperative of our time. The people behind the global monetary system suddenly decided they were unhappy with the way other countries, in particular China, are using this system. China is beating the West at its own game. Hence, the reaction of the United States. Wang Yi covered this in detail. You cannot do global business by means of ultimatums and sanctions, or force other countries to behave as expected of them. We have a proverb: You can't force your love on another person. Unfortunately, the United States has not learned this and is acting from the opposite position.

I’m convinced that Russia and China will do their best to ensure their safety and protection against the threats coming from the states that are unfriendly towards our respective countries. This also applies to ways of conducting trade, mutual settlements and everything else that makes us stronger.

Question (translated from Chinese and addressed to Wang Yi):

Chinese and Russian vaccines are being delivered to dozens of countries all around the world. There are unfounded speculations that China is promoting “vaccine diplomacy” and Russia is trying to increase its influence. What can you say about this?

Sergey Lavrov (speaking after Wang Yi):

I fully support what Wang Yi said. From the outset of the pandemic, Russia and China have been showing an example of openness, cooperation and mutual assistance. This interaction continues to this day, including in the sphere of vaccine production and distribution. Our respective institutions remain in contact on these matters.

On March 22, President Vladimir Putin chaired a meeting on vaccine production and distribution. He clearly spoke in favour of everyone being guided solely by considerations of humanity and the interest of saving lives rather than geopolitical or commercial approaches to overcoming competition. Everyone, including our partners in the West who are trying to portray Russia and China as vaccine diplomacy scammers, must keep this in mind. This is not true.

Question:

China and Russia are under sanctions pressure from the United States and the EU. Do our countries plan to share their experience of confronting this pressure? How justified is the opinion that both countries’ tense relations with the Western powers make them move ever closer to one another?

Sergey Lavrov:

We have covered Russia and China’s reaction to sanctions and the illegitimate unilateral restrictions already today. We share the understanding that these methods are unacceptable in international life. We have more than once stated our position on this score, including in the Joint Statement. I’m convinced that this approach will be reiterated in a clear and unambiguous manner in the document on the occasion of the 20^th anniversary of the Treaty on Good-Neighbourliness and Friendly Cooperation between Russia and China that our leaders will approve.

In addition to our principled approaches that are set forth in public documents, we closely cooperate with many countries at the UN in order to counter these practices. As you are aware, the UN has a Special Rapporteur on unilateral coercive measures. This is already a fairly serious practical move to clarify the unacceptability of this policy. The United States, Europe and the West in general are, in fact, replacing diplomacy, the art which they are losing, with the steps seeking to impose their own rules on everyone else. In their opinion, these rules rather than international law must underlie the international order. Sanctions are among these rules.

Russia and China do not ally against anyone. Geographically, our country is located on the vast Eurasian continent. China is our good neighbour, as is the EU. We have always been interested in promoting our relations across all areas. Europe has severed these relations and destroyed the mechanisms that have been created over many years. There are only a few European partner countries that have a desire to act based on their national interests.
Objectively, this led to cooperation between Russia and China developing faster than what is left of relations with the European countries. Importantly, there are no relations with the EU as an organisation. The infrastructure was destroyed by unilateral decisions made by Brussels. If and when the Europeans decide to eliminate this anomaly in contacts with their largest neighbour, we will be ready to build up relations between us on the basis of equality and a search for a balance of interests. But so far, all has been quiet on the Western front, whereas the East offers a very intense agenda, which is getting more varied every single year."

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions following talks with Foreign Minister of China Wang Yi, Guilin, March 23, 2021 - News - The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation

**OhOh** · 25-03-2021, 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

obliterate the whole area with some fuel air bombs or whatever else will do the job.

Originally Posted by OhOh

In exchange the U.S. promised to leave Afghanistan by May

I hope you aren't suggesting that the ameristani "agreement" to stop committing acts of war, go back home and leave is another instance of its government lying.

Along with the ameristani government not protecting the Afghanistani citizens "human rights".

**OhOh** · 25-03-2021, 02:36 PM

Further to:

Originally Posted by OhOh

Chinese, Russian FMs hold talks, reach strategic consensus

An experienced Asian ex diplomat, whose 3 decades diplomatic career was devoted to assignments on the territories of:

The former Soviet Union and to Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan.

Other overseas postings included South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany, and Turkey. I write mainly on Indian foreign policy and the affairs of the Middle East, Eurasia, Central Asia, South Asia and the Asia-Pacific.

Writes on the topic:

Russia, China to resist US but engagement is preferred option

March 24, 2021 by M. K. BHADRAKUMAR

"The US President Joe Biden’s “killer” remark about his “soulless” Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin was outrageous by any yardstick — even by his own long history of diplomatic gaffes. But Moscow won’t accept it as a sign of dementia. Moscow is certain that Biden was in full possession of his faculties and was speaking in the immediate context of two US intelligence reports — regarding foreign election interference in 2020 and Donald Trump and his supporters’ bid to exploit the ensuing discord to propagate that the election was “stolen”.

In short, Moscow sees Biden’s remark as driven more by the exigencies of domestic politics where the Democrats are yet to consolidate their election success and demonising Russia continues to be useful. Moscow paid more attention to Biden’s subsequent remark that he could “walk and chew gum at the same time” — ie., interact with Putin whichever way he likes.

It reflects supreme self-confidence that the US needn’t fear the consequences of its behaviour, as the Kremlin bends over backward to prevent it from spiralling into open hostility. The condescending attitude is nothing new. Former secretary of state Madeline Albright, the “godmother” of some key figures in Biden’s foreign policy team, once described the US as “the indispensable nation.”

Hence Putin’s decision to call Biden’s bluff and invite him to come for a livestream discussion with him on the future of the US-Russia relationship. The Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said, “Certain comments were made by Mr. Biden, and these remarks are quite unprecedented, so in order not to let these statements harm bilateral Russian-American relations, which are already in a deplorable state, President Putin suggested discussing the situation but doing so openly.”

He added with a straight face, “Since Biden’s remarks themselves were quite unprecedented, then it’s not possible to rule out unprecedented modes of communication.” Indeed, for a couple of days, Biden seemed pondering over Putin’s proposition, even hinting Friday that “I’m sure we’ll talk at some point.” But the Russian Foreign Ministry confirmed on Monday that the White House finally decided to turn down Putin’s taunting invite.

“One more opportunity has been missed to find a way out of the deadlock in Russian-US relations created through the fault of Washington. Responsibility for this lies entirely with the United States,” it said. To be sure, the Russian-American relations are entering a new phase, thanks to Biden’s intemperate remark. Washington may not enjoy in future the latitude to “walk and chew gum” same time.

The point is, Biden’s behaviour highlighted that in comparison with the highly-structured Soviet-American confrontation where both sides took each other most seriously, the US attitude in the recent years acquired an air of flippancy, lacking interest to take responsibility for words or actions, leave alone in producing any new constructive bilateral agenda for the relationship — and even not to jeopardise the global strategic stability.

By a curious coincidence, Beijing has also shifted to a somewhat similar frame of mind lately. In fact, Putin spoke on the same day that Yang Jiechi, Politburo member and director of the Central Foreign Affairs Commission Office of the Chinese Communist Party, also emphasised at the talks in Alaska with top American diplomats that Beijing will do no matter what it takes to resist US bullying and interference in China’s internal affairs and safeguard its core interests. (See my blog Talks in Alaska can be transformative for US-China ties)

It is entirely conceivable that Moscow and Beijing have been exchanging notes before concluding that the Biden Administration is setting a trajectory for its Russia-China diplomacy principally with an eye on the domestic audience. From a foreign policy perspective, Biden’s team is holding a weak hand. The US’ political economy is in serious disarray and disrepair and Trump left America adrift like a beached whale. On the other hand, the burning desire to pitch for global hegemony — matched, equally, by the seething fury and despair that China is set to overtake it shortly — has gotten the better of rational thinking.

The talks in Alaska signalled a historic shift in Chinese attitudes, summed up neatly in those three resounding sentences from Yang — “So let me say here that, in front of the Chinese side, the United States does not have the qualification to say that it wants to speak to China from a position of strength. The U.S. side was not even qualified to say such things even 20 years or 30 years back, because this is not the way to deal with the Chinese people. If the United States wants to deal properly with the Chinese side, then let’s follow the necessary protocols and do things the right way.”

To be sure, the meeting between China’s State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi and the visiting Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in Guilin City on March 22-23 underscored beyond doubt that the Biden administration’s dual containment strategy has boomeranged. The Chinese press release (here) signals that joint resistance to the US’ pressure tactic and countermeasures will henceforth be the leitmotif of the Sino-Russian strategic coordination. This marks a qualitatively shift toward overt strategic coordination to “firmly fight back” against perceived US attempts to threaten the “the security of their own governments and systems…, their legitimate rights and common interests… (and) stability in the areas around the two countries.”

Lavrov’s trip aimed to boost strategic coordination with China, but Moscow does not aim to turn the US into a permanent enemy. Moscow and Beijing share the perspective that Biden’s policies are tougher than Trump’s. China, in particular, had hopes that Biden will act more reasonably but these hopes have been dashed, so China is trying to find other ways to strengthen its position — the strategic coordination with Russia forms part of it. As for Russia, it tried to turn Biden’s “killer” remark around to create a setting for engagement between Putin and Biden.

Biden’s domestic compulsions are real. Thus, even as Secretary of State Antony Blinken left for the NATO foreign ministers meeting in Brussels (March 23-24), he got a written reminder from two powerful Democratic senators — Sen. Bob Menendez, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, Subcommittee Chairman for the Subcommittee on Europe and Regional Security Cooperation — to “accelerate the process of building new sanctions packages” apropos the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline project between Russia and Germany. The senators urged Blinken “to use all the tools available to stop the pipeline’s construction.”

On the contrary, both Russia and China would prefer that the US returns to the path of mutual respect and diplomacy. Indeed, the setting up of a US-China working group on climate change heralds the arrival of John Kerry on the scene. As for the Kremlin, it is quietly pleased that amidst all the sound and fury over the “killer” remark, the US-Russia consultations on space security went through as planned on Tuesday. Peskov reiterated that the Kremlin valued the cooperation with the US in outer space and hoped for its continuation.

In some ways, arguably, the theatrical developments also work fine for the Kremlin. Interestingly, Russia’s State Duma (parliament) passed legislation today allowing Putin to run for president for two more 6-year terms after the present term ends in 2024 — effectively until 2036. No doubt, the Russian public will accept the need of continuity in Kremlin leadership in such times of trouble.

Beijing cannot but be aware of the Russian paradigm. The red line for Russia and China is that the US seeks regime change through colour revolutions. Hence their determination to pool efforts and work together to counter US hegemony and reshape the international political system based on the principle of equality. Trust Biden to respond.

Certainly, it was no coincidence that the White House decision carrying the imprimatur of Biden to restore the Minsk embassy to ambassadorial level — signifying the summary denouement to an attempted colour revolution that Moscow countered with extraordinary grit and doggedness — was transmitted to the Belarus foreign minister on March 22 soon after Blinken’s return from Alaska. Clearly, Biden’s diplomatic experience is not to be doubted.

Both Russia and China estimate that the US plan to encircle them by deploying an alliance system is doomed to fail and realism will dawn sooner or later. They are convinced that they are on the right side of history."

https://www.indianpunchline.com/russia-china-to-resist-us-but-engagement-is-preferred-option/

Hopefully 'arry will share with us his usual two sentence explanation with us. They do illustrate his diplomatic expertise so well.

Thread: Eurasia Topics

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions