Putin to visit China for regional summit and WWII commemorations
Russian President Vladimir Putin will visit China later this year for a regional summit, talks with leader Xi Jinping and commemorations marking 80 years since the end of World War II in Asia, the Kremlin said Thursday, June 19.
Putin and Xi – who often refer to each other as "dear friend" – have deepened their relations amid Russia's three-year offensive on Ukraine. The two countries signed a "no-limits" strategic partnership just days before Russia launched its full-scale military campaign in February 2022.
Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov said Putin will attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in Tianjin, a Chinese-led regional forum, on August 31-September 1. Putin and Xi will hold bilateral talks on September 2, and then the Russian leader will head to the WWII events scheduled in Beijing for September 3.
Xi was guest of honour at a vast military parade in Moscow on May 9, marking 80 years since the defeat of Nazi Germany in Europe. Both Russia and China have been accused by critics of distorting the history of WWII and seeking to use the conflict to justify their expansionist foreign policies. China marks the end of WWII in September, when Japanese forces officially surrendered.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Euronews
37 minutes ago
- Euronews
How did Israel's attacks impact Iran's nuclear programme?
On Thursday morning, Israel attacked Iran's Arak heavy water reactor, one of the country's largest nuclear facilities, located 250 kilometres southwest of the capital Tehran. The facility had been completely evacuated, with no damage to the civilian areas surrounding the reactor, according to Iranian sources. According to the US non-profit Missile Defence Advocacy Alliance, the Arak nuclear reactor, also known as IR-40, is a heavy-water nuclear reactor that began operating in 2003. However, its design origins are unclear, with foreign experts believed to have contributed to its construction, including the Russian design firm Nikit. Reports indicate that Iran sought to present the reactor as "not to be used to produce nuclear material of military purity", but it was capable of producing about 9 kilograms of plutonium, raising US concerns that this could enable Tehran to manufacture a plutonium-based nuclear weapon. After signing the Iran nuclear deal in 2015, the international community conditioned the modification of the Arak reactor on the lifting of sanctions. In 2016, Iran announced that it had filled the reactor core with cement. However, in February of the same year, Tehran exceeded the maximum permissible heavy water stockpile limit for the first time, a limit that was also surpassed again in November 2016. In addition, Tehran transferred more than 80 metric tonnes of heavy water, formerly intended for the Arak reactor, to Oman. Although Iran still has control over this quantity, its cross-border transfer was not considered a breach of the agreement. In one of Israel's extensive military attacks on Iran, the strikes which began last Friday targeted critical nuclear sites, severely damaging its nuclear programme, according to multiple reports, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) data and recent satellite imagery. The strikes targeted three major uranium enrichment sites across the Middle Eastern country. At Natanz's central underground facility, the electrical infrastructure was reportedly completely destroyed, including backup power plants, leading to the possible damage or destruction of thousands of centrifuges, as confirmed by IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi. At the same site, a smaller near-surface facility, the PFEP pilot plant, was declared completely destroyed. It contained advanced centrifuges that enriched uranium up to 60%. No visible damage was reported to the Fordow bunker facility. However, Fordow produces the most significant amount of uranium enriched to 60%, which is a few simple steps away from reaching the level of making a nuclear bomb. Four further sites were targeted in Isfahan, including a uranium conversion centre and facilities to work on uranium metallurgy technology, which is essential for making the core of a nuclear weapon. The centrifuge production workshops in Karaj and Tehran, also struck in Israeli attacks, were previously monitored by the IAEA, but the number of remaining undeclared workshops is unknown. Furthermore, at least 14 Iranian nuclear scientists have been killed since the attacks began, according to multiple sources in the region. The Israeli military said nine of them were a "key element" in Tehran's pursuit of a nuclear weapon. According to IAEA estimates as of Tuesday, Iran has enough uranium enriched up to 60% to make up to nine nuclear bombs. It also has further uranium enriched to a lesser degree that could be used to produce additional bombs. Tehran has announced that it will take "undeclared" measures to protect nuclear material and equipment and may reduce co-operation with the IAEA, while Iran's parliament is considering a bill to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), following North Korea's example. If the uranium conversion facility in Isfahan goes offline, Iran will have to find external sources of uranium hexafluoride (UF6), the key ingredient in the enrichment process.
France 24
an hour ago
- France 24
Israel-Iran war undermines Beijing's Mideast diplomatic push
Beijing's muted response to the outbreak of war on June 12 between Israel and Iran speaks volumes about the awkward diplomatic position it finds itself in. Chinese President Xi Jinping waited four days before expressing his views, calling on both sides on Tuesday 'to de-escalate the conflict as soon as possible' while offering to 'play a constructive role' on the diplomatic front without adding much in the way of details. While China wants to present itself as a superpower with diplomatic clout on the international stage – capable of acting as a mediator that is an alternative to the United States – the current conflict is underscoring the limits of its international leverage. Iran, a strategic partner for China Beijing is economically very close to Tehran, principally because of Iran's energy resources. 'China is by far the largest importer of Iranian oil,' according to a State Department statement in March. Most of the Gulf states' oil exports to Asia – including Iran's – pass through the chokepoint of the Strait of Hormuz. If the strait were to be closed, that could have a big impact on China, says Andrea Ghiselli, a specialist in China's international relations at the University of Exeter in the UK. Iran could close the Strait of Hormuz to oil tankers 01:18 For now, 'the oil price hasn't gone up that much', Ghiselli says. 'But it can be a huge problem if Iranian exports are halted, or especially if the Strait of Hormuz is closed. That would be a real issue.' Iran has in the past threatened to close the Strait, through which some 20 percent of the world's global oil trade passes. China and Iran signed a 25-year partnership deal in 2021 that included an agreement for Iran to join China's giant New Silk Roads investment programme. Beijing is counting on its strengthened ties to Iran to extend its influence in the Middle East – and not just economically. The regime in Tehran 'opposes American hegemony, which, broadly speaking, is also one of the general goals of Chinese foreign policy', Ghiselli says. In forging ties with Iran, China wants to show neighbouring countries like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which are more allied to Washington, that Beijing can be an alternative to the United States. Iran, therefore, represents a gateway for Beijing into the region, says Marc Lanteigne, a China specialist at The Arctic University of Norway. The fall of the regime in Tehran 'would be a major blow to Beijing's Gulf diplomacy, as well as its plans to develop deeper trade relations with the region as a whole", Lanteigne says. 'Regime collapse in Iran would almost certainly spiral outwards to other parts of the region' to undermine the stability that Beijing has worked to foster. It is thanks to Beijing, for example, that arch foes Iran and Saudi Arabia signed an agreement to normalise relations in 2023. 'That is in danger of going up in smoke as a result of this war," says Lanteigne. China has every interest in the Iranian government surviving this war. And Xi made no secret of his displeasure with the Israeli offensive when he spoke on Tuesday: 'We oppose any actions that infringe upon the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of other countries. Military conflict is not the solution to problems, and rising regional tensions do not align with the common interests of the international community,' state news agency Xinhua quoted him as saying. China condemns Israel's attack on Iran 03:53 Words, words, words But Xi's options in the region are limited. "At the moment, the Iranian authorities are looking around and wondering where their friends are,' Ghiselli says, noting that even Russia 'has decided to close its consulate in Tehran '. 'Iran doesn't need communiqués or declarations, but concrete help, like anti-aircraft systems or fighter jets," Ghiselli adds. Some analysts say, however, that it is unthinkable that Beijing would supply arms to Iran. 'Iran has never been seen as an ally,' by China, Ghiselli says. Tehran is 'an important partner, of course, but the Chinese are very clear that they don't want to be drawn into regional conflicts'. This is even more true as US President Donald Trump adopts an increasingly belligerent tone towards Iran. Against this backdrop, sending weapons to Tehran would run the risk of dragging China into a proxy conflict with the United States. Beijing is currently 'trying to stabilise relations with Washington', says Lanteigne, and doesn't want to 'clash with the Trump administration at this point'. This leaves Xi with the option of playing a 'constructive role" in diplomacy, as a possible mediator in future peace negotiations. Risk of loss of influence Beijing has had some notable successes as a diplomatic intermediary in the region. In addition to normalising ties between Iran and Saudi Arabia, China also facilitated the 'national unity' agreement between Palestinian factions signed in July 2024. But this time, Israel would have to agree to Beijing's mediation. 'Beijing would be pleased to further its credentials as an alternative peacemaker to the West, but in this case there is little China can do directly because China's leverage on Israel is modest at best. Especially given Chinese criticism of Israeli operations in Gaza,' notes Lanteigne. 'It is unlikely that the Israeli government would accept China as a mediator, especially since the Trump government has de facto thrown its support behind Israel and has hinted that it may get more involved in the conflict,' he adds. China can try to intervene but not much more, which is 'probably a frustrating moment for them', Ghiselli says. 'It's definitely an important test for their diplomacy.' And any overt sign of weakness risks tarnishing Beijing's image in the region. China could lose allies or strengthen the China sceptics in key countries like Iran, where 'there is also a critical current of opinion that Beijing is, above all, taking advantage of Iran's international isolation to obtain cheap oil and flood the Iranian market with Chinese products', Ghiselli says.
Euronews
an hour ago
- Euronews
Is this the UN's last chance to take the right side in history?
"War is the continuation of policy with other means," Carl von Clausewitz's haunting observation has echoed through generations of statesmen, soldiers and scholars. It is not a celebration of violence, but a sober reflection on the nature of power, diplomacy and human conflict. Today, this quote is more than an abstract idea; it is a lens through which we must examine the paralysis of international institutions, particularly the United Nations, in the face of the Iranian nuclear threat, which went unabated for so long. I have always believed in the importance and power of international organisations and have worked closely with UN bodies, participating in efforts that sought to uphold human rights, protect civilians, and foster international cooperation. Like many who grew up in the shadow of World War II, I saw the UN as potentially a moral beacon, a structure built on the ashes of the crematoria, forged by a collective promise: Never Again. Nevertheless, here we are. In 2025, the global Jewish population is finally expected to reach its pre-Holocaust size. That should be a cause for hope, for reflection, and for solemn gratitude. Instead, the Jewish State is left to militarily confront a regime, the Islamic Republic of Iran, that has never tried to hide its desire to annihilate Israel. From its leaders' genocidal rhetoric to its funding of terrorist proxies and pursuit of nuclear weapons, Iran's intentions were never speculative. They are spoken clearly, broadcast openly and carried out violently. Where was the outcry? Where was the moral clarity that once defined the post-war global order? Israel has no aversion to diplomacy, but sometimes diplomacy must follow, not precede, the clear demonstration that Iran cannot and will not achieve its goals. For now, that lesson has to be taught on the battlefield. As enshrined in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, 'Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations…' Israel's actions are not acts of aggression; they are acts of lawful self-defence, taken to prevent another 7 October but on a far greater scale, which itself was the first act in this war of aggression by the Islamic Republic and its proxies. Any institution truly committed to peace and security must recognise this right and support it, not condemn it out of fear or political convenience. The world should see in Israel's determination to destroy the Iranian genocidal threat that diplomacy is a tool, not a virtue in itself. It must be wielded strategically, with eyes open. The hard truth is that diplomacy only works when backed by strength, when the other side believes that refusal to compromise carries unacceptable consequences. Without that, negotiations become little more than performance, a charade designed to delay, deflect, and deceive. This is the lesson from Tehran going back decades. This is also a lesson that institutions like the United Nations have tragically forgotten. Where I once placed deep faith in the UN's moral mission, I now watch with a heavy heart as that promise falters. Working for many years with UN institutions, I witnessed the good they can do, but also the growing tendency toward equivocation, toward moral relativism, toward a fear of action against evil, of taking sides, even when the facts scream for judgment. Time and again, the UN settled for diluted resolutions aimed at appeasing the unappeasable - an approach that prioritised false balance over moral clarity. For too long, there had been no unequivocal condemnation of the Iranian regime's threats against Israel. No unambiguous denunciation of its proxies' murderous attacks on civilians. Silence, or, worse, symmetry, dominates the global discourse, as though a liberal democracy defending itself against an existential threat is no different from a theocratic regime calling for genocide. This silence is not neutral. It is a message, and it will not go unnoticed. This moment is not simply about Israel and Iran. It is about whether the world still remembers the moral foundations upon which institutions like the UN were built. If the UN cannot stand against a regime that openly declares its intention to destroy a member state, and a people, then what, exactly, does it stand for? Clausewitz's maxim is not an endorsement of war. It is a warning: when diplomacy loses credibility, war becomes the tool of last resort. The United Nations must ask itself what role it played in this equation. It failed to take a stand against naked aggression and the constant shrill of incitement to genocide. The Israel-Iran conflict is not just another diplomatic crisis. It is a test of the international system's moral spine. The Iranian regime was never made to understand that it could not succeed in its nuclear and annihilationist ambitions. This is perhaps the UN's last opportunity to take the right side in the history of humanity. If it fails now, it risks irrelevance, or worse, complicity. Israel has taught the international community a stinging lesson: for peace to prevail, it must be defended, not only with words, but with resolve and action. Robert Singer is the chairman of the Center for Jewish Impact and the former CEO of World ORT and the World Jewish Congress.
