|
Russia, China Reveal Their Global Agenda
There will be more to say about the nearly 8,000 words long
Joint Statement of the People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation on deepening the comprehensive strategic cooperative partnership in the new era on the occasion of the 75th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries (in Mandarin) (h/t Arnaud Bertrand).
But for now there are these two excerpts.
On multipolar global governance (machine translation):
The two sides pointed out that the great changes in the world have accelerated their evolution, the status and strength of emerging powers in the “global South” countries and regions have continued to increase, and the world's multipolarization has accelerated. These objective factors have accelerated the redistribution of development potential, resources, opportunities, etc., developed in a direction conducive to emerging markets and developing countries, and promoted the democratization of international relations and international fairness and justice. Countries that embrace hegemonism and power politics run counter to this, attempting to replace and subvert the recognized international order based on international law with a “rules-based order”. The two sides emphasized that the concept of building a community of human destiny and a series of global initiatives proposed by China are of great positive significance.
As an independent force in the process of establishing a multipolar world, China and Russia will fully tap the potential of their relations, promote the realization of an equal and orderly multipolar world and the democratization of international relations, and gather strength to build a fair and reasonable multipolar world.
The two sides believe that all countries have the right to independently choose their development models and political, economic, and social systems in accordance with their national conditions and the will of the people, oppose interference in the internal affairs of sovereign countries, oppose unilateral sanctions and “long-arm jurisdiction” that have no basis in international law and are not authorized by the Security Council, and oppose ideological lines. The two sides pointed out that neocolonialism and hegemonism are completely contrary to the trend of today's era, and called for equal dialogue, the development of partnership, and the promotion of civilized exchanges and mutual learning.
The two sides will continue to firmly defend the results of the victory of the Second World War and the post-war world order enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, and oppose the denial, distortion and tampering with the history of the Second World War. The two sides pointed out that they must carry out correct historical education, protect the world's anti-fascist memorial facilities from desecration or destruction, and severely condemn the glorification and even attempts to resurrect Nazism and militarism. The two sides plan to celebrate the 80th anniversary of the victory of the Chinese People's War of Resistance against Japan and the Great Patriotic War in 2025, and jointly promote the correct view of the history of World War II.
The 'Global South', i.e. the majority of all countries, will very much welcome this.
On the war in Ukraine (machine translation):
The Russian side positively evaluates China's objective and fair position on the Ukraine issue, and agrees with the view that the crisis must be resolved on the basis of full and complete compliance with the Charter of the United Nations.
The Russian side welcomes China's willingness to play a constructive role in resolving the Ukrainian crisis through political and diplomatic channels.
The two sides pointed out that they must stop all actions that have caused the delay of the war and the further escalation of the conflict, and called for the crisis to be avoided from spiraling out of control. The two sides emphasized that dialogue is a good way to resolve the Ukrainian crisis.
The two sides believe that in order to steadily resolve the Ukrainian crisis, it is necessary to eliminate the root causes of the crisis, abide by the principle of indivisibility of security, and take into account the reasonable security interests and concerns of all countries.
The two sides believe that the destiny of all peoples is shared, and no country should seek its own security at the expense of the security of other countries. The two sides expressed concern about the real challenges of international and regional security and pointed out that in the current geopolitical context, it is necessary to explore the establishment of a sustainable security system in the Eurasian space based on the principle of equality and indivisibility of security.
In total the statement has a lot for 'the West' to chew on.
It will thus do its best to denigrate and/or ignore it.
Some lunatic conspiracy theory coming from turncoat dilettante Rezun. This particular figment has been well discussed in The Unz Review. Wiser people read David M. Glantz, a real historian that searched the archives of the Soviet Union.
Posted by: Johan Kaspar | May 17 2024 11:52 utc | 36
Ron Unz has indeed discussed the matter, but it does not “come from him”.
The Hypothesis originates from Viktor Suvorov, a veteran Soviet military intelligence officer who had defected to the West in 1978 and written the book “Icebreaker”.
The Wehrmacht had the better soldiers but was not as big and as well equipped as would be needed for a well-planned large-scale invasion of the vast Eastern territory:
Quote Ron Unz: “Certainly, many aspects of the Soviet military machine were primitive, but exactly the same was true of their Nazi opponents. Perhaps the most surprising detail about the technology of the invading Wehrmacht in 1941 was that its transportation system was still almost entirely pre-modern, relying upon wagons and carts drawn by 750,000 horses to maintain the vital flow of ammunition and replacements to its advancing armies. […] Germany entered the war with 4,000 paratroops. However, the Soviets had at least 1,000,000 trained paratroopers.”
Stalin’s Red Army was far superior in numbers as well as in offensive technology:
“Meanwhile, major categories of Soviet weapons systems seem almost impossible to explain except as important elements of Stalin’s offensive plans. Although the bulk of the Soviet armored forces were medium tanks like the T-28 and T-34, generally far superior to their German counterparts, the USSR had also pioneered the development of several lines of highly specialized tanks, most of which had no counterpart elsewhere in the world.
“The Soviets had produced a remarkable line of light BT tanks, easily able to shed their tracks and continue on wheels, achieving a top speed of 60 miles per hour, two or three times faster than any other comparable armored vehicle, and ideally suited to exploitation drives deep into enemy territory. However, such wheeled operation was only effective on paved highways, of which Soviet territory had none, hence were ideally suited for travel on Germany’s large network of autobahns. In 1941 Stalin deployed almost 6,500 of these autobahn-oriented tanks, more than the rest of the world’s tanks combined.
“For centuries, Continental conquerors from Napoleon to Hitler had been stymied by the barrier of the English Channel, but Stalin was far better prepared. Although the vast Soviet Union was entirely a land-power, he pioneered the world’s only series of fully amphibious light tanks, able to successfully cross large rivers, lakes, and even that notoriously wide moat last successfully traversed by William the Conqueror in 1066. By 1941, the Soviets deployed 4,000 of these amphibious tanks, far more than the 3,350 German tanks of all types used in the attack. But being useless in defense, they were all ordered abandoned or destroyed.
“The Soviets also fielded many thousands of heavy tanks, intended to engage and defeat enemy armor, while the Germans had none at all. In direct combat, a Soviet KV-1 or KV-2 could easily destroy four or five of the best German tanks, while remaining almost invulnerable to enemy shells. Suvorov recounts the example of a KV which took 43 direct hits before finally becoming incapacitated, surrounded by the hulks of the ten German tanks it had first managed to destroy.
And there is pressing evidence of Stalin’s actual prepping for Invasion of Europe, for example:
“There is considerable evidence that in the weeks prior to the German surprise attack, Stalin had ordered the release of many hundreds of thousands of Gulag prisoners, who were issued basic weapons and organized into NKVD-led divisions and corps, constituting a substantial part of the Second Strategic Echelon located hundreds of miles from the German border. These units may have been intended to serve as occupation troops, allowing the much more powerful front-line forces to press onward and complete the conquests of France, Italy, the Balkans, and Spain. Otherwise, I can find no other plausible explanation for Stalin’s action.
Unz’s conclusion reads:
“Suvorov’s reconstruction of the weeks directly preceding the outbreak of combat is a fascinating one, emphasizing the mirror-image actions taken by both the Soviet and German armies. Each side moved its best striking units, airfields, and ammunition dumps close to the border, ideal for an attack but very vulnerable in defense. Each side carefully deactivated any residual minefields and ripped out any barbed wire obstacles, lest these hinder the forthcoming attack. Each side did its best to camouflage their preparations, talking loudly about peace while preparing for imminent war. The Soviet deployment had begun much earlier, but since their forces were so much larger and had far greater distances to cross, they were not yet quite ready for their attack when the Germans struck, and thereby shattered Stalin’s planned conquest of Europe.
All of the above examples of Soviet weapons systems and strategic decisions seem very difficult to explain under the conventional defensive narrative, but make perfect sense if Stalin’s orientation from 1939 onward had always been an offensive one, and he had decided that summer 1941 was the time to strike and enlarge his Soviet Union to include all the European states, just as Lenin had originally intended. And Suvorov provides many dozens of additional examples, building brick by brick a very compelling case for this theory.”
—
That’s now enough distraction from the topic of the article. I fully understand why Putin has to draw on the established defensive narrative of the Great Patriotic War to keep his country motivated for the Ukraine war. Now is not the time for such sobering revelations, not publicly. I just hate it when the successors of two of the most barbaric regimes (Stalin and Mao) try to insist on what they call “correct history”, i.e. one that makes them look good; regardless of present day political needs which I can understand and sympathise with. We all want NATO defeated and deconstructed. But when this is accomplished, we need a correction of the record. The time of correction will come.
Posted by: Matthias | May 17 2024 12:53 utc | 45
|
