&w=3840&q=100)
Behind the ‘no-limits' partnership: Secret Russian intel document labels China ‘the enemy'
While President Vladimir Putin continues to publicly champion Russia's close ties with China, describing the relationship as a 'strategic golden era,' a confidential document from Russia's domestic security service paints a starkly different picture behind the scenes. read more
Despite public declarations of a 'no-limits' partnership between Moscow and Beijing, a Russian intelligence document suggests deep-seated mistrust within the Kremlin toward China, according to a report by The New York Times.
Inside the halls of Lubyanka, headquarters of Russia's Federal Security Service (FSB), a covert intelligence unit labels China not as a partner but as 'the enemy'.
The report, based on an internal memo from Russia's FSB, outlines mounting concerns over Chinese espionage activities targeting Russian military, scientific and geopolitical assets. While President Vladimir Putin has portrayed Russia's relationship with China as entering a 'golden era,' a secret planning document—the authenticity of which has been confirmed by multiple Western intelligence agencies —reveals that Chinese intelligence is being treated as a major threat behind closed doors.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
The eight-page FSB memo, believed to have been drafted in late 2023 or early 2024, was obtained by Ares Leaks, a cybercrime group and later reviewed by The New York Times. Though undated, it appears to outline current counterintelligence priorities and highlights efforts by Chinese agents to recruit Russian scientists and officials as well as to gain access to advanced military technologies. Chinese operatives are also suspected of surveilling Russia's war in Ukraine to study Western combat tactics and weapons systems.
Among the FSB's major concerns is the possibility of covert territorial ambitions. The memo alleges that Chinese researchers and academics might be laying the groundwork to justify future claims on Russian land. Further, it warns of espionage operations in the Arctic, where Chinese mining companies and academic institutions are believed to be operating as intelligence fronts.
In response, Russian counterintelligence launched a programme titled 'Entente-4' just days before the beginning of the Russia-Ukraine war in 2022. The programme—ironically named after the historical Franco-Russian alliance, was designed to prevent Chinese infiltration at a time when Moscow's military and intelligence focus had shifted heavily westward.
Since then, according to the report, the FSB has tracked an increasing number of attempts by Chinese intelligence to penetrate Russian political and business circles. The document details orders for surveillance of Russian people closely tied to China and heightened monitoring of the Chinese messaging app WeChat. This includes hacking phones and gathering personal data using a specialised FSB tool.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Interestingly, the document also notes Beijing's own internal distrust. Chinese agents returning from Russia are reportedly subjected to polygraph tests, while Russian nationals in China, especially students or those married to Chinese citizens, are considered prime targets for recruitment.
The internal FSB assessments reflect a delicate balancing act: actively countering Chinese espionage while maintaining a façade of diplomatic unity. Officers have been instructed to avoid any public references to Chinese intelligence as a threat, so as not to strain bilateral ties.
Some experts interpret the memo as evidence that Russia could be pried away from China with the right diplomatic strategy. Others suggest the opposite: that Putin is fully aware of the risks, yet sees the benefits of deepening ties with Beijing as outweighing any concerns.
As The New York Times notes, China has become an economic lifeline for Russia amid Western sanctions, supplying everything from consumer electronics to critical military components. And with over 40 meetings between Putin and Xi Jinping in recent years, the strategic alignment appears too deeply entrenched for mistrust to alter its course, at least for now.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India.com
2 hours ago
- India.com
‘Silent Enemy', ‘Dangerous Adversary': What Russia's Spy Files Reveal About Its Best Friend China
Moscow, New York, New Delhi: While Vladimir Putin sings praises of an 'unbreakable friendship' with China, a leaked internal document from Russia's top security agency paints a very different picture – one that could shatter illusions of brotherhood between the two authoritarian giants. In the damning eight-page report leaked from the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB), Beijing is labelled not as a partner, but as a 'dangerous adversary' silently undermining Moscow from within. According to the classified files accessed by The New York Times, the FSB has sounded alarm bells over China's growing espionage operations. The document accuses the country of covertly recruiting Russian agents, targeting disillusioned scientists, stealing sensitive military technologies and snooping on Russian Arctic expeditions – right under Moscow's nose. The timing of the leak could not be more dramatic. As Putin wages war in Ukraine and leans on China to survive Western sanctions, these revelations hit like a geopolitical thunderclap. The FSB report warns that Chinese operatives are using mining companies and academic partnerships as cover to gather intelligence and assert long-term claims on Russian territory, especially in the Arctic – a resource-rich zone Moscow considers its strategic jewel. Even more shocking, the document alleges that China has been spying on Russian troop movements in Ukraine to extract battlefield data to study Western weapon systems in action. Secret Spy File Leaked by Hackers Lacking a date, the FSB document is believed to have been drafted in late 2023 or early 2024. It was leaked by a hacking group known as Ares Leaks and later verified by The New York Times after consulting six Western intelligence agencies – all of whom confirmed its authenticity. While Moscow has stayed publicly mum, the leak is one of the strongest indicators that show that the trust between Russia and China may be a facade. The report outlines clear counter-espionage priorities aimed at stopping Chinese infiltration. It signals deep-rooted mistrust behind the scenes. Friends with Benefits? China and Russia have portrayed a united front. Since the Ukraine invasion, Beijing has bought up discounted Russian oil and gas, propped up Moscow's collapsing tech supply chains with chips and software and filled the vacuum left by fleeing Western companies. The two nations have even discussed joint moon bases and co-producing films. But the FSB's own assessment makes it clear that the so-called 'friendship without limits' may in fact be a marriage of convenience and an increasingly toxic one at that. As China continues to rise and Russia bleeds in Ukraine, Putin's trust in Xi might soon cost him more than just military secrets. It could unravel one of the world's most strategically fragile alliances. Russia and China may smile in public but in the shadows, the knives are already out.
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
Montek Singh Ahluwalia at Idea Exchange: ‘China challenged the US and what's been unleashed is the weaponisation of tariffs'
Montek Singh Ahluwalia, economist and former Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission of India, on India's way around US tariffs, the need for less protectionism and why trade with China needs careful thought. The session was moderated by Ravi Dutta Mishra, Principal Correspondent, The Indian Express. Ravi Dutta Mishra: In the multiple trade negotiations that are underway, India may be forced to lower tariffs. Will there be an adverse effect on our manufacturing as we open ourselves to Western countries? Are we ready for it? President (Donald) Trump has described India as a tariff king and, on this, he is right. Our tariffs are much higher than most other developing countries. I have consistently said our tariffs are too high and they should be reduced in our own interest. This process was started in the 1991 reforms and was continued through successive governments, including the Vajpayee government. The economy did well in this period and our export performance also improved. Unfortunately, the policy was reversed in 2017 and our exports have done poorly since then. Indian manufacturers are uncompetitive due to a variety of reasons such as high tariffs, bureaucratic controls and logistical deficiencies. However, this means they are not competitive at the current exchange rate. Depreciating the currency is one way of making them more competitive. It helps those competing against imports and also helps exporters. P Vaidyanathan Iyer: How do the Trump tariffs impact the world and the US economy? That's a difficult question to answer since we don't know where the tariffs will end. The US has imposed 10 per cent on all imports and 25 per cent on selected items. In addition, it has imposed so-called reciprocal tariffs at different levels for different countries. The reciprocal tariffs have been paused until July 9 pending the outcome of negotiations that are underway with different countries. We don't know how far these tariffs will be modified. However, it is quite clear that the US will end up with protection levels much higher than in recent memory. It will also have different tariffs for the same product for different countries, which is a departure from the most-favoured nation principle. P Vaidyanathan Iyer: Do you think there is any rational basis for what the US is doing? Frankly, no. The US has been concerned about two developments for some time but what they are doing is not the solution for either of them. One long-standing concern, which resonates with the US public is the hollowing out of old industries in the so-called 'rust belt'. This is actually a natural process in which industries that had become uncompetitive have shifted to other countries that are more competitive. Against this so-called 'loss', the US has also gained massively because it became dominant in the financial sector and the tech sector. Both sectors have produced an expansion in high-paying jobs. The logical way to deal with the loss of jobs in the older industries would have been to encourage new industries, where the US is competitive, to expand in the states being hollowed out and to reskill the workforce in these areas. On US tariffs | The US tariff action has created a great deal of uncertainty. This may well be a deliberate tactic to give theM a bargaining advantage by unsettling trading partners but this will affect investment, including FDI The second US concern is the remarkable rise of China. They clearly thought that integrating China into the global system would make China more like other democracies but that didn't happen. China has gained enormously from globalisation but it has also explicitly stated a confrontational objective of challenging the US economically, technologically and also militarily. The Biden administration had adopted a targeted policy of constructing trade restrictions on China, especially in sensitive areas. What has been unleashed now is a much broader weaponisation of tariffs against many more countries. This seems to be driven by the spurious argument that they are running trade surpluses. Most economists don't think one should worry about bilateral trade balances, and especially trade balances in goods while leaving out services. The US/EU position exemplifies the problem. The US is running a large trade deficit against the EU in goods but it has an almost equal sized surplus in services. Taking goods and services together, the US/EU trade is balanced. The problem is the US is not just any country. If the US were a small country, then we could point out its errors and simply refuse to enter into any such negotiations. But the US is the largest economy in the world and the largest importer and therefore, in principle, the largest market. So you cannot ignore it. Therefore, even though their position is not theoretically defensible, most countries are trying to see what they can get out of it through negotiation. Ravi Dutta Mishra: Our unwillingness to open up to China led to us abandoning RCEP. Can we just open up to the West and ignore RCEP? That's a very important point. Asia is where most of the growth will take place in the future and we should certainly not ignore it. As you said, we backed out of signing the RCEP agreement because our producers lobbied that they can't compete if duty-free access is given to Chinese imports. It is true that China is widely regarded as a non-transparent trader which subsidises its exports in many ways. However, if this was the main reason for not signing RCEP, we should apply to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Trade Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). This grouping does not include China but covers other important Asian countries, including Japan and South Korea. We have free trade agreements with these countries but they are old and limited arrangements. We need to enter into deeper arrangements which also align behind the border standards. P Vaidyanathan Iyer: We have seen more than three decades of reforms and liberalisation. Are there certain sectors which still require protection? Whenever an industry is unable to compete with imports, it will demand for protection to save it. If you go into it more deeply, they will tell you they can't compete because they have to cope with poor infrastructure, poor logistics, high cost of power, burdensome procedures, poor access to bank credit, etc. All this is true. But the solution lies in rectifying these problems, not conceding protection. That takes time but that is why lowering of duties in a free trade agreement is always phased over time. We have to realise that while granting protection is a simple solution, it only helps the industry protected, while hurting others, all of whom suffer from the same handicaps. Exports are particularly badly hit by protection because it only raises the domestic cost structure, making exports less competitive. I should point out that our exports have done very poorly in the past five years and this also the period when we started raising import duties. P Vaidyanathan Iyer: What do you think of the PLI type schemes which are designed to encourage the domestic industry. Do you see this as tantamount to protection or are they stepping stones for the industry to prepare for global competition? PLIs are a way of protecting the industry by extending a subsidy. It has the advantage of providing support without raising the price of the protected product as would happen if duties were raised. The cost is borne by the budget. The example of East Asia is often cited to support the idea that industries can be encouraged through subsidy in the initial stages, which allows them to become competitive. In the East Asian cases, the success of the industry support effort was ultimately judged on whether they became internationally competitive. If they failed to penetrate export markets as expected, the subsidy was withdrawn. Our PLI schemes do not have any such linkage with export performance. On trade with China | where China has become the only source (of import), There is a case for increasing domestic production. There is also a case for diversifying supply linkages to other sources It is, perhaps, too early to pronounce judgment on PLIs, but we should conduct a serious independent evaluation of these schemes. This task should not be performed by the ministry running the scheme. It should be entrusted to another body, such as NITI Aayog or the Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister, for an independent view. Ministries always support whatever schemes they are running or at most suggest some marginal improvements. That's why third party evaluation is needed. P Vaidyanathan Iyer: What should be our trade policy vis-à-vis China? China is the second-largest economy in the world and under normal circumstances we should view it as a potentially important trade partner. However, it is also true that we have serious security concerns about China. We have to address these different types of problems. First, there is the problem of non-transparent subsidisation which may hurt our domestic industry. This is best handled by an efficient and speedy system of imposing countervailing duties to counter unfair trade practices. The second problem relates to situations where we have become unduly dependent upon China, enabling it to hurt our economy by denying us exports that we want. The pharmaceutical industry is an example. We pride ourselves on being the pharmacy of the world because we have genuine strength in formulations and other products. However, we have become excessively dependent on China for supplying active pharmaceutical ingredients. This is not a case for rejecting Chinese imports as such but we should reduce dependence on them by developing our own sources domestically or if there are other supply sources available, we should diversify. There is a case for increasing domestic production, and introducing a PLI, if necessary. There is also a case for diversifying supply linkages to other sources. A similar problem arises in the case of various rare earths and minerals, which are needed for our energy transition and where we don't have domestic reserves. China has already weaponised this monopoly. The solution in such cases clearly lies in building access to these items wherever they are available from other countries and perhaps encouraging our own industry to build production capacity elsewhere. A third problem arises in the case of products, particularly advanced electronic products that can be infested with malware. For example, the use of untrusted products in key systems such as the telephone system, the air traffic control system, the electric grid, the banking and payments system, etc. present the possibility of a cyber attack which could impose serious damage. Cyber attacks are happening even without compromised equipment and we need heightened vigilance in these areas but compromised products increase our vulnerability. In such cases, countries have to resort to some combination of relying on domestic supply or importing only from 'trusted sources'. I would emphasise that these considerations should not lead to extreme positions excluding all Chinese imports. Solar cells are a good example. Solar cells are not like chips in the sense that you cannot interfere with the functioning of a solar cell from the outside. China has built capacity more than double the world's current demand for solar chips, as a result of which the price of solar chips has collapsed globally. Importing these chips will allow us to expand our solar generation capacity rapidly and reduce the cost of solar electricity. Should we benefit from this or insist on domestic production of chips at a higher cost? We need to evolve a carefully tailored policy that allows us to derive the benefits of trade with China, without making us vulnerable to pressure. On indian tariffs | President Trump has described India as a tariff king and he is right. Our tariffs are much higher than most other developing countries. I have consistently said they should be reduced in our own interest Sandeep Singh: While the Trump tariffs have caused a disruption, is there some positive effect for Indian manufacturing? The only possible positive effect we can expect is if the US wants to discourage imports from China-centred supply lines and shift to supply lines based on more trusted partners. If India is treated as a more trusted partner, then it creates an opportunity. Of course, the extent of benefit will depend upon whether we can attract the FDI and technology needed to fit into the altered supply chain. Some shifting out of China has been taking place but the countries that benefited were Vietnam and Malaysia, not India. A good example of what looks like a success is the possibility that India-made iPhones will serve a large part of the US market. I have seen reports of President Trump saying he wants Apple to produce all iPhones for the American market domestically. That amounts to insisting on 'reshoring' rather than 'friend shoring'. We should explain that iPhones produced in India are only assembled in India and almost half the value consists of IP which accrues to Apple. The phone also has thousands of components produced in other countries. The assembly stage is actually a low-tech activity, although it creates a lot of jobs which is important. It also gives us a hold from where we could progressively supply more components. If assembly is performed in the US at US wages, it will substantially increase the cost of the phones. Hopefully, these considerations will be used by Apple to defend its India strategy. Aggam Walia: You mentioned deregulation and now the ball is in the states' court. They have to lead the charge. How do you assess this view? Also, many states, both publicly and privately, have been asking for a greater share of the Centre's taxes. Do you think that is tenable? As far as deregulation is concerned, there has to be both Centre and state agenda. The Central government has said they are setting up a committee to recommend a deregulation package. I hope we see early outlining of the proposed agenda, a discussion of what is proposed and then an early implementation. The scope for deregulation at the state level is also great. It would be a great idea if some CMs took the lead and set up committees that could help identify critical areas where deregulation can be implemented. It would help small and medium enterprises the most, since they are most burdened by complex procedures. Ideally, an institution like NITI Aayog could document what the Centre has actually done on deregulation and put pressure on the states to follow suit. On the devolution of taxes, the 16th Finance Commission, is the Constitutional body responsible for making recommendations and they will look into it. I feel the states definitely need more devolution of taxes and it is better to have larger automatic transfers rather than rely on the Central government schemes where the Centre funds part of the cost but designs the scheme. Frankly, the more advanced states are now much more capable and they need more resources. There is a linked issue here and that is that the states don't delegate downward to local bodies. Unfortunately, this can't be done through the Finance Commission. It has to be done by the state government delegating downward. Very few states are willing to do this.
Hans India
3 hours ago
- Hans India
Widespread outrage over derogatory remarks against Amaravati
Mangalagiri: A recent incident involving a channel analyst and journalist making highly derogatory remarks about Amaravati has sparked widespread outrage, with many alleging a well-organised conspiracy behind the comments. Public and official circles are urged to conduct a thorough investigation into the matter. The controversial statements, which targeted the capital region, its residents, particularly women, and the rich historical and Buddhist heritage of the area, cannot be dismissed as mere individual opinion. The channel, far from disassociating itself from the comments or condemning them during the discussion, allowed them to be aired without challenge. This inaction suggests a deliberate attempt to insult and ridicule Amaravati and its people with vile language, according to a statement from Deputy Chief Minister Pawan Kalyan. The Deputy Chief Minister's statement highlights a concerning lack of historical awareness among those engaging in 'vile propaganda' against Amaravati. The region boasts a profound historical and spiritual significance, with inscriptions from the Maurya and Ikshvaku dynasties, and Kakatiya rulers. Chinese traveler Xuanzang's writings attest to the region's flourishing Buddhist heritage. 'This is the land where Acharya Nagarjuna walked,' the statement read, emphasising that Mahayana Buddhism, along with other traditions, thrived here, making it a sacred place for Buddhists. The Amaravati school of sculpture found patronage in Sri Lanka and Southeast Asian countries where Buddhism spread. 'Have those making such vile comments ever considered the sentiments of people who believe in these faiths?' the statement questioned. The statement further accuses previous rulers and their associates of consistently attempting to tarnish Amaravati's image through malicious remarks, likening the capital to a 'cremation ground' and branding it with casteist labels. Farmers who donated land for the capital were allegedly harassed with false cases and suppressed politically when they protested for the capital to remain. Notably, 32 per cent of the farmers who contributed land belong to SC and ST communities. The previous government is accused of filing SC/ST atrocity cases against these very farmers who were protesting for Amaravati to remain the capital. Additionally, 14 per cent were BC farmers, 20 per cent from the Reddy community, 18 per cent Kamma, 9 per cent Kapu, and 3 per cent Muslim farmers. The recent derogatory comments made on the TV channel are seen as an insult to all women in the capital region, irrespective of their caste or community (SC, ST, BC and others). 'The malicious intent of this group appears to be to cast a negative light on a region being developed as a people's capital,' the Deputy Chief Minister's statement concluded. It vowed that the State government will act decisively against individuals involved in such conspiracies and malicious propaganda, and those behind them. Police are expected to take legal action against those who made the vile remarks.
