Russia, China begin joint military drills in Sea of Japan
Moscow
China and Russia have begun joint naval drills in the Sea of Japan as they seek to reinforce their partnership and counterbalance what they see as a United States-led global order.
The Chinese and Russian governments have deepened their ties in recent years, with China providing an economic lifeline to Russia in the face of Western sanctions over Moscow's invasion of Ukraine.
The Joint Sea-2025 exercises began in waters near the Russian port of Vladivostok and will last for three days, China's Ministry of National Defence said in a statement on Sunday. The two sides will hold 'submarine rescue, joint anti-submarine, air defence and anti-missile operations, and maritime combat'.
Four Chinese vessels, including guided-missile destroyers Shaoxing and Urumqi, are participating in the exercises, alongside Russian ships, the ministry said.
After the drills, the two countries will conduct naval patrols in 'relevant waters of the Pacific'.
China and Russia have carried out annual drills for several years, with the 'Joint Sea' exercises beginning in 2012.
Last year's drills were held along China's southern coast.
With this year's drills in the Sea of Japan, in its annual report last month, Japan's Ministry of Defence warned that China's growing military cooperation with Russia poses serious security concerns.
'The exercise is defensive in nature and is not directed against other countries,' the Russian Navy Pacific Fleet said earlier this week, according to a report by the US Naval Institute's online news and analysis portal.
On Friday, the Chinese Defence Ministry said this year's exercises were aimed at 'further deepening the comprehensive strategic partnership' of the two countries.
China has never denounced Russia's more than three-year war nor called for it to withdraw its troops, and many of Ukraine's allies, including the US, believe that Beijing has provided support to Moscow.
European leaders asked China last month to use its influence to pressure Russia to end the war, now in its fourth year, but there was no sign that Beijing would do so.
China, however, insists it is a neutral party, regularly calling for an end to the fighting while also accusing Western countries of prolonging the conflict by arming Ukraine.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
23 minutes ago
- Al Jazeera
Trump accuses banks of discriminating against his supporters
United States President Donald Trump said he believes that banks discriminate against him and his supporters, adding that Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase had previously refused to accept his deposits. 'They totally discriminate against, I think, me maybe even more, but they discriminate against many conservatives,' he told CNBC in an interview on Tuesday. 'I think the word might be Trump supporters more than conservatives.' Trump made the comments when asked about a report by the Wall Street Journal that said he planned to punish banks that discriminated against conservatives, but did not address the order specifically. The order instructs regulators to review banks for 'politicized or unlawful debanking' practices, according to a draft reviewed by the Reuters news agency. 'Well, they did discriminate,' Trump said of actions taken by JPMorgan Chase after his first term in office. 'I had hundreds of millions, I had many, many accounts loaded up with cash … and they told me, 'I'm sorry sir, we can't have you. You have 20 days to get out.'' Trump said, without providing evidence, that he believed that the banks' refusal to take his deposits indicated that the administration of former US President Joe Biden had encouraged banking regulators to 'destroy Trump'. Trump said he subsequently tried to deposit funds with Bank of America and was also refused, and eventually split the cash among a number of smaller banks. 'The banks discriminated against me very badly,' he said. In a statement, JPMorgan did not address the president's specific claim that it had discriminated against him. 'We don't close accounts for political reasons, and we agree with President Trump that regulatory change is desperately needed,' JPMorgan said. 'We commend the White House for addressing this issue and look forward to working with them to get this right.' Bank of America declined to comment. 'Reputational risk' During Biden's administration, regulators could have asked the banks why they were providing banking services to Trump because of the 'reputational risk' issue, a source familiar with the matter told Reuters news agency. Another source said that banks were under intense scrutiny and pressure with regards to what qualified as a reputational risk for banks and they needed to be careful due to Trump's legal entanglements. The source also added that at present JPMorgan continues to have a banking relationship with members of the Trump family that dates back to years ago and that they also bank a number of campaign accounts related to Trump. After Trump took power, the Federal Reserve announced in June it was directing its supervisors to no longer consider 'reputational risk' when examining banks, scrapping a metric that had been a focus of industry complaints. The Wall Street Journal reported late on Monday that the expected executive order would instruct regulators to investigate whether any financial institutions breach the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, antitrust laws or consumer financial protection laws by dropping customers for political reasons. It said the order could be signed as early as this week, authorising monetary penalties, consent decrees or other disciplinary measures against violators. The White House had no immediate comment on the reported order. Trump in January said the CEOs of JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America denied services to conservatives. At the time, the two banks denied making banking decisions based on politics. 'This seems to be rhetoric that will likely be forgotten by lunchtime,' said David Wagner, head of equities at Aptus Capital Advisors. 'I don't see any material impact on banks, as there are many other drivers that will ultimately presage performance for banks, such as deregulation.' Both banks' stocks are taking a hit on Wall Street. As of 11am in New York (15:00 GMT), JP MorganChase is down 1.6 percent and Bank of America is down 1.4 percent. While Wells Fargo was not named in particular, the competing financial institution's stock is down 1.3 percent as well. Markets respond Banks have consistently argued that any complaints about 'debanking' should be aimed at regulators, as they argue that onerous rules and bank supervisors policing firms can discourage them from engaging in certain activities. 'The heart of the problem is regulatory overreach and supervisory discretion,' the Bank Policy Institute, an industry group, said in a statement. 'The banking agencies have already taken steps to address issues like reputational risk, and we're hopeful that any forthcoming executive order will reinforce this progress by directing regulators to confront the flawed regulatory framework that gave rise to these concerns in the first place.' In January, Trump claimed that Bank of America was debanking conservatives in a Q&A session at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland with Bank of America CEO, Brian Moynihan. 'I hope you start opening your bank to conservatives, because many conservatives complain that the banks are not allowing them to do business within the bank, and that included a place called Bank of America,' Trump said at the time. Separately, in March, the Trump Organization, a holding company for the Trump family's business ventures, sued Capital One Financial for closing accounts for what the Trump Organization alleged were political reasons.
Al Jazeera
an hour ago
- Al Jazeera
Rwanda agrees to accept ‘third-party' migrant deportations from the US
Rwanda has confirmed it will accept deported migrants from the United States, as President Donald Trump continues to push for mass deportation from the North American country. On Tuesday, a spokesperson for the Rwandan government, Yolande Makolo, acknowledged that the African country had agreed to receive up to 250 deported individuals. Rwanda is now the third African country, after South Sudan and Eswatini, to strike a deal with the US to accept non-citizen deportees. 'Rwanda has agreed with the United States to accept up to 250 migrants, in part because nearly every Rwandan family has experienced the hardships of displacement, and our societal values are founded on reintegration and rehabilitation,' Makolo said in a statement obtained by the Reuters news agency. But the Trump administration's efforts to rapidly deport migrants from the US have raised myriad human rights concerns, not least for sending people to 'third-party countries' they have no personal connections to. Some of those countries, including Rwanda, have faced criticisms for their human rights records, leading advocates to fear for the safety of deported migrants. Other critics, meanwhile, have blasted Trump for using African countries as a 'dumping ground' for migrants with criminal records. In this week's statement, Makolo appeared to anticipate some of those criticisms, underscoring that Rwanda would have the final say over who could arrive in the country. 'Under the agreement, Rwanda has the ability to approve each individual proposed for resettlement,' she said. 'Those approved will be provided with workforce training, healthcare, and accommodation support to jumpstart their lives in Rwanda, giving them the opportunity to contribute to one of the fastest-growing economies in the world over the last decade.' Trump's mass deportation campaign In 2024, Trump successfully campaigned for re-election in the US on the premise that he would expel the country's population of undocumented immigrants, a group estimated to number around 11 million. But many of those people have been longtime members of their communities, and critics quickly pointed out that Trump lacked the infrastructure needed for such a large-scale deportation effort. In response, the Trump administration has surged money to immigration-related projects. For example, his 'One Big Beautiful Bill', which was signed into law in July, earmarked $45bn for immigration detention centres, many of which will be run by private contractors. An additional $4.1bn in the law is devoted to hiring and training more officials with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), with another $2.1bn set aside for bonuses. But the Trump administration has made expelling migrants from the country a top priority, prompting legal challenges and backlash to the rapid pace of such deportations. Critics say deported migrants have been denied their right to due process, with little to no time allotted to challenge their removals. Then, there are the cases where undocumented migrants have been deported to 'third-party countries' where they may not even speak the language. Within weeks of taking office in January, Trump began deporting citizens of countries like India, China, Iran and Afghanistan to places like Panama, where migrants were imprisoned in a hotel and later a detention camp. Trump also accused more than 200 men, many of them Venezuelan, of being gang members in order to authorise their expedited removal to El Salvador in March. Lawyers have since cast doubt on Trump's allegations, arguing that many of their clients were deemed to be gang members based on little more than their tattoos and fashion choices. El Salvador reportedly received $6m as part of a deal to hold the men in a maximum security prison, the Terrorism Confinement Centre or CECOT, where human rights abuses have been documented. The men were ultimately released last month as part of a prisoner exchange with Venezuela, but a federal court in the US continues to weigh whether the Trump administration violated a judge's order by allowing the deportation flights to leave in the first place. Deportations to Africa In May, the Trump administration unveiled efforts to start 'third-party' deportations to countries in Africa as well, sparking further concerns about human rights. Initially, Libya was floated as a destination, and migrants were reportedly loaded onto a flight that was prepared to take off when a judge blocked its departure on due process grounds. The Libyan government later denied reports that it was willing to accept deported, non-citizen migrants from the US. But the Trump administration proceeded later that month to send eight migrants on a flight to South Sudan, a country the US State Department deems too dangerous for Americans to travel to. That flight was ultimately diverted to Djibouti, after a judge in Massachusetts ruled that the eight men on board were not given an adequate opportunity to challenge their removals. Seven of them hailed from Laos, Vietnam, Cuba, Mexico and Myanmar. Only one was reportedly from South Sudan. The Trump administration said all eight had criminal records, calling them 'sickos' and 'barbaric'. A spokesperson pledged to have them in South Sudan by the US Independence Day holiday on July 4. The US Supreme Court paved the way for that to happen in late June, when it issued a brief, unsigned order allowing the deportation to South Sudan to proceed. The six conservative members of the bench sided with the Trump administration, while the three left-leaning justices issued a vehement dissent. They argued that there was no evidence that the Trump administration had ascertained the eight men would not be tortured while in South Sudan's custody. They also described the deportations as too hasty, depriving the men of their chance to appeal. 'The affected class members lacked any opportunity to research South Sudan, to determine whether they would face risks of torture or death there, or to speak to anyone about their concerns,' the justices wrote, calling the government's actions 'flagrantly unlawful'. In mid-July, the Trump administration also began deportations to Eswatini, a tiny, landlocked country ruled by an absolute monarchy. It identified the five deported individuals as hailing from Laos, Vietnam, Jamaica, Cuba and Yemen. 'This flight took individuals so uniquely barbaric that their home countries refused to take them back,' administration spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin wrote on social media. Lawyers for the five men have since reported they were denied access to their clients, who are being held in a maximum-security prison. Cozying up to Trump? Little is known so far about the newly announced deportations to Rwanda. It is not yet clear when deportation flights to Rwanda will begin, nor who will be included on the flights. Reuters, however, reported that Rwanda will be paid for accepting the deportations in the form of a grant. The amount is not yet known. Rwanda also has set parametres for whom it may accept. No child sex offenders will be allowed among the deportation flights, and the country will only accept deported individuals with no criminal background or whose prison terms are complete. But the deportation announcement continues a trend of Rwandan authorities seeking closer relations with the Trump administration. In June, President Trump claimed credit for bringing peace between Rwanda and its neighbour, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). He invited leaders from both countries to attend a ceremony at the White House and sign a peace deal. Critics, however, noted that the deal was vague and did not mention Rwanda's support for the M23 paramilitary group, which has carried out deadly attacks in the DRC. The deal also appeared to pave the way for Trump to pursue another one of his priorities: gaining access to valuable minerals in the region, like copper and lithium, that are key to technology development. In an interview with The Associated Press news agency, Rwandan political analyst Gonzaga Muganwa said that his government's recent manoeuvres seem to reflect the mantra that 'appeasing President Trump pays'. Muganwa explained that Tuesday's agreement to accept migrants from the US will strengthen the two countries' shared bond. 'This agreement enhances Rwanda's strategic interest of having good relationships with the Trump administration,' he said.
Al Jazeera
3 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Why is Ghislaine Maxwell so central to Trump-Epstein conspiracy theories?
Late last month, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) asked the courts to unseal grand jury transcripts in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, the imprisoned former girlfriend and associate of deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The request was an attempt to calm the furore after the DOJ announced in June that it would not release any additional documents from the investigation into the high-profile sex trafficker. Judges asked lawyers for Maxwell, Epstein and their victims to respond to the court by Tuesday regarding their positions on the release of the documents. As the deadline arrives and judges consider whether to grant the DOJ's request, we look at who Maxwell is and what the case is about. Who is Ghislaine Maxwell? Maxwell, the daughter of the late British media baron, Robert Maxwell, is the only Epstein associate who was convicted in connection with his activities. A former girlfriend of Epstein who later became his business associate, Maxwell was found guilty in December 2021 of helping Epstein sexually abuse teenage girls. She was sentenced to 20 years in prison. What was Maxwell found guilty of? At her trial, four women testified that Maxwell groomed them as teenagers to participate in sexual acts with Epstein and sometimes participated in the abuse. She was ultimately found guilty on five of six counts: sex trafficking of minors, conspiracy to entice a minor to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, conspiracy to transport a minor with the intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, transporting a minor with the intent to engage in criminal sexual activity and conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of minors. Epstein himself faced federal charges related to sex trafficking of minors and conspiracy. Why are these records being sought now? Conspiracy theories have long swirled around Epstein's influence and his death. The wealthy financier, whose high-profile friends included current US President Donald Trump and powerful figures on both the liberal and conservative sides of the political spectrum, was found dead in his jail cell in August 2019 before he could stand trial. While his death was ruled a suicide, many prominent figures in Trump's MAGA (Make America Great Again) movement have long doubted that narrative, insisting – without firm evidence – that Epstein might have been killed to stop him from revealing the identities of some of his clients. Some government officials appointed by Trump in his second term, including FBI Director Kash Patel, have previously fanned the flames of those conspiracy theories. In February, Attorney General Pam Bondi said an Epstein client list was 'sitting on my desk right now to review', adding that she was following a directive from Trump to look at the files. But in July, Bondi's Justice Department issued a memo concluding that there was no client list and the financier had died by suicide – an apparent turnaround that sparked calls for Bondi's resignation from parts of the MAGA movement. Trump initially tried to dismiss that response from his support base and then tried to portray the criticism his administration was facing as orchestrated by opposition Democrats to distract from his supposed achievements as president. But the pressure hasn't let up. The Wall Street Journal reported that Trump had written a birthday note to Epstein in 2003 with the implication that the two knew each other better than the president has let on. Trump denied writing the letter and has sued the newspaper and the author of the article. But amid the mounting scrutiny, he also ordered Bondi to seek the release of all grand jury testimony in the Epstein case. Still, scrutiny over his administration's actions has only grown. Last week, Maxwell was moved to an all-women federal prison camp after a meeting with a senior DOJ official. Who are the people named in the Epstein case? In 2024, a court unsealed about 950 pages of documents that included the names of several public figures who had known Epstein well. The presence of their names on the documents does not in itself imply any wrongdoing – although some have faced accusations that they sexually exploited women. Some of the most prominent figures in the documents include: Prince Andrew: Johanna Sjoberg, who is one of the many women who have accused Epstein of sexual abuse, said in the documents that the British royal put his hand on her breast in Epstein's Manhattan townhouse in 2001. Virginia Giuffre, another of Epstein's accusers, also alleged that Andrew sexually abused her two decades ago when she was 17, an allegation the prince called baseless. Giuffre's lawsuit against Andrew was settled in 2022. Alan Dershowitz: An unnamed accuser said Epstein 'required' her to have sexual relations with the Harvard University law professor on multiple occasions when she was a minor. David Copperfield: Sjoberg testified to meeting the American magician at one of Epstein's houses. She added that she observed him to be a friend of Epstein's. Bill Clinton: While Sjoberg said she did not meet the former US president, she testified that Epstein said to her: 'Clinton likes them young,' apparently referring to girls. Clinton has repeatedly rejected all allegations that he was involved in anything unlawful and has said he had no interactions with Epstein for several years before the financier's arrest. Trump: Sjoberg mentioned an incident when she flew with Epstein, Giuffre and a few others on a plane from Palm Beach, Florida, in 2001. When the plane was unable to land in New York due to a storm, they had to land in Atlantic City and went to one of Trump's casinos. Why does it matter whether these trial transcripts are unsealed? The documents could show the information that the grand jury had before it while deliberating the case. Bondi's DOJ said in a filing that the transcripts contain nothing that is not already known publicly. It could help Trump and his team beat back accusations from the president's base that they have anything to hide. Is Maxwell going to testify to Congress? The House of Representatives Oversight Committee subpoenaed Maxwell in late July, seeking her deposition on Monday. Maxwell's lawyer has said she is willing to testify before Congress. But the committee has since said it is willing to postpone Maxwell's deposition while the Supreme Court decides whether to take up her appeal against her 2021 conviction.
