Russian and Chinese Naval Fleet Sails Near US Ally
Separately on Friday, China said its military ties with Russia were not aimed at "any third party" and urged "relevant parties" to view the cooperation objectively and rationally.
Newsweek has contacted the Russian and Chinese foreign ministries for comment via email.
Russia and China-both major rivals of the United States-have formed a quasi-alliance, describing their ties as an "unlimited partnership." Moscow and Beijing have gradually expanded their military cooperation, having organized 113 joint war games since 2003.
Under the U.S. containment strategy in the western Pacific, Japan forms part of an island chain-alongside Taiwan and the Philippines-intended to keep the U.S.'s adversaries at bay. Tokyo frequently reports movements of Russian and Chinese forces near its territory.
Japan's Defense Ministry said two Chinese vessels and a Russian warship transited the Soya Strait-also known as La Pérouse Strait-on an eastbound voyage, heading into the Sea of Okhotsk from the Sea of Japan (referred to as the East Sea in South Korea) on Friday.
The waterway lies between the Russian island of Sakhalin to the north and the Japanese island of Hokkaido to the south. A map provided by the Japanese military shows the flotilla transited beyond Japan's territorial waters, which extend up to 13.8 miles from the coastline.
The Chinese ships were identified by their hull numbers as the destroyer CNS Shaoxing and the supply ship CNS Qiandaohu, while the Russian ship was the destroyer Admiral Tributs. The Russian Pacific Fleet also confirmed that the ships took part in a "coordinated patrol."
The patrol followed the conclusion of the Russia-China Joint Sea 2025 war game, held near Vladivostok in Russia's Far East from August 1 to 5. The drill included joint air defense, counter-sea, and anti-submarine operations, the Chinese Defense Ministry said.
The primary objectives of the patrol include "maintaining peace and stability" in the Asia-Pacific region, conducting maritime surveillance, and protecting the "economic assets" of both countries in the region, the Russian Pacific Fleet said in a statement on Thursday.
During a news briefing on Friday, Jiang Bin, a spokesperson for China's Defense Ministry, urged "relevant parties"-which were not identified-to stop spreading what he described as "groundless speculation and smears" about defense cooperation between China and Russia.
The spokesperson also reiterated that Beijing and Moscow adhere to the principles of "non-alliance and non-confrontation," while jointly safeguarding the world's peace and stability.
Jiang Bin, a spokesperson for China's Defense Ministry, said at a news briefing on Friday: "Exercise Joint Sea is an institutionalized cooperation program between the Chinese and Russian navies. Since its inception in 2012, the exercise has been held 10 times and has become a key platform for China-Russia military cooperation."
A 2025 Japanese defense white paper said: "China has been swiftly increasing its national defense expenditures, thereby extensively and rapidly enhancing its military capability in a qualitative and quantitative manner and intensifying its activities in the East China Sea, including around the Senkaku Islands, and the Pacific."
It added: "Russia has also been observed engaging in joint activities with China involving aircraft and vessels."
It remains to be seen how far the Russian and Chinese naval vessels will operate during their joint patrol. Japan is expected to report further movements of the flotilla in the coming days.
Related Articles
US-Russia Peace Deal Proposed, Huge Win for Putin: ReportMap Shows China Surrounded by ConflictsHow 'Trump Bridge' May Soon Reshape Warzone Bordering Russia, Iran, TurkeyWho is Brian Driscoll? Former FBI Acting Director Forced Out
2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time Magazine
22 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
Europe Casts Doubt on Trump-Putin Summit Without Ukraine
European leaders said peace talks between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska next week are unlikely to succeed without Ukraine's involvement. 'The path to peace in Ukraine cannot be decided without Ukraine,' a statement signed by the leaders of France, Italy, the U.K., Germany, Poland, and Finland read. 'We remain committed to the principle that international borders must not be changed by force. The current line of contact should be the starting point of negotiations,' it continued. The public show of support for Kyiv came in response to Trump's announcement at the White House on Friday that he would hold a summit with his Russian counterpart to discuss a potential end to the war in Ukraine. The talks in Alaska will be the first time the leaders of the U.S. and Russia have met since 2021. Trump provoked a backlash from allies for excluding Ukraine from the meeting, but also for saying ahead of the talks that Kyiv would have to give up territory as part of a deal to end the fighting. 'We're going to get some back, and we're going to get some switched,' Trump said. 'There'll be some swapping of territories to the betterment of both.' Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky quickly denounced the idea of giving up territory to Russia in a video address on Saturday, vowing that Ukraine would not 'gift their land to the occupier' and warning that any peace talks that didn't involve Kyiv would 'bring nothing.' The statement from European leaders backed Zelensky on both counts. Zelenskyy responded by thanking European allies in a post on X on Sunday: "The end of the war must be fair, and I am grateful to everyone who stands with Ukraine and our people." Some reports indicate that Russia is demanding that Ukraine give up the Donbas region and Crimea in return for ending the war. Russia has already annexed Crimea and its forces occupy most of the Donbas and further swathes of eastern Ukraine. Matthew Whitaker, U.S. Ambassador to NATO, told CNN on Sunday that "No big chunks or sections are going to be just given that haven't been fought for or earned on the battlefield," without further elaborating. Three U.S. officials told NBC News that the White House is discussing inviting Zelensky to the summit, though decisions have not been finalized. The White House did not immediately respond to TIME's request for comment. European leaders have come to Ukraine's defense, condemning Russia's war in Ukraine and vowing to continue to provide military and financial support to Kyiv as necessary. Officials have also expressed a broader interest in including European leadership in peace negotiations due to concerns about the region's own security. 'We underline our unwavering commitment to Ukraine's sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity,' the statement added. 'We are united as Europeans and determined to jointly promote our interests. And we will continue to cooperate closely with President Trump and with the United States of America, and with President Zelenskyy and the people of Ukraine, for a peace in Ukraine that protects our vital security interests.'
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
NATO Ambassador Matthew Whitaker: 'It's possible' Zelensky attends Trump-Putin talks in Alaska
U.S. Ambassador to NATO Matthew Whitaker said 'it's possible' that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky attends the upcoming meeting between President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska. CNN's Dana Bash asked Whitaker on 'State of the Union' if Zelensky would be invited to the Alaska summit to discuss a ceasefire deal. 'I certainly think it's possible,' Whitaker said. 'You know certainly, there can't be a deal that everybody that's involved in it doesn't agree to.' Trump is set to meet Putin in Alaska on Friday to discuss an end to the 3-year-long Ukraine-Russia war. The White House said there would be talk of land concessions. 'You're looking at territory that's been fought over for three and a half years. A lot of Russians have died, a lot of Ukrainians. So we're looking at that, but we're actually to get some back and some swapping. It's complicated. It's actually — nothing easy. It's very complicated. But we're going to get some back. And we're going to get some switched,' Trump said on Friday. There has also been some speculation that the White House could invite Zelensky to Alaska. 'The President remains open to a trilateral summit with both leaders. Right now, the White House is planning the bilateral meeting requested by President Putin,' a senior White House official told NewsNation's Libbey Dean on Saturday. Putin on Saturday also shared a ceasefire proposal with special envoy Steve Witkoff. The deal would be a complete halt in fighting, in exchange for Easter Ukraine, according to the Wall Street Journal. 'Any decisions that are against us, any decisions that are without Ukraine, are at the same time decisions against peace. They will not achieve anything,' Zelensky wrote on X in response. 'These are stillborn decisions. They are unworkable decisions. And we all need real and genuine peace. Peace that people will respect.' The summit has received mixed reactions, but Whitaker said he believes 'his direct engagement by President Trump is obviously leading us closer to a peace.'
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Big law firms withdraw from challenging Trump
But Winston declined to represent the FBI agents, three people with knowledge of the matter said. It was one of several cases Winston turned down in quick succession, they added, that would have pitted the firm against an openly retributive president. Advertisement Some of the country's largest law firms have declined to represent clients challenging the Trump administration, more than a dozen attorneys and nonprofit leaders told ProPublica, while others have sought to avoid any clients that Trump might perceive as his enemies. That includes both clients willing to pay the firms' steep rates, and those who receive free representation. Big Law firms are also refusing to take on legal work involving environmental protections, LGBTQ+ rights and police accountability or to represent elected Democrats and federal workers purged in Trump's war on the 'deep state.' Advocacy groups say this is beginning to hamper their efforts to challenge the Trump administration. Advertisement Their fears intensified after Trump signed a battery of executive orders aimed at punishing top firms over old associations with his adversaries. But as the Winston episode shows, Big Law began to back away from some clients almost the minute he returned to power. The country's top firms remain deeply wary, even though the president has lost all four initial court challenges to those executive orders. 'The President's Policy is working as designed,' said a lawsuit the American Bar Association filed against the administration in June. 'Even as federal judges have ruled over and over that the Law Firm Orders are plainly unconstitutional, law firms that once proudly contributed thousands of hours of pro bono work to a host of causes — including causes championed by the ABA — have withdrawn from such work because it is disfavored by the Administration.' The bar association itself has struggled to find representation, Advertisement The ABA and Susman Godfrey, which is representing the association in its lawsuit against the administration, declined to comment. Winston, Sidley and the White House did not respond to questions sent in writing. Trump's grievances with Big Law stem partly from its role in blocking his first-term agenda. In his executive order targeting Jenner & Block, a firm with close ties to the Democratic Party that fought Trump on transgender rights and immigration, he assailed the firm for allegedly 'abus[ing] its pro bono practice to engage in activities that undermine justice.' Another firm, WilmerHale, was where former Special Counsel Robert Mueller worked before and after leading the Russian interference investigation. The executive orders barred attorneys working for the firms from entering federal buildings where they represent clients, terminated the firms' government contracts, revoked partners' security clearances and required government contractors to disclose if they work with the targeted firms. Perkins Coie, one of Trump's first targets, began to lose business 'within hours,' 'I just think that the law firms have to behave themselves,' Trump said at a press conference in late March. Nine corporate law firms behaved themselves in the form of reaching public settlements with Trump. The deals require them to provide $940 million in total of pro bono support for Trump-approved causes. There has been no public indication of the White House calling on them to perform specific work, and Trump has not released any new executive orders against firms since April. Yet organizations that challenge the government are still feeling the chill. Advertisement 'There's been a real, noticeable shift,' said Lauren Bonds, the executive director of the National Police Accountability Project, a national nonprofit that brings lawsuits over alleged police abuse and was a frequent pro bono client of Big Law. In November, as soon as Trump won reelection, a top firm that was helping NPAP develop a lawsuit against a city's police force abruptly stopped attending all planning calls, Bonds said. Later, the firm became one of the nine that struck a deal with Trump, after which the firm half-heartedly told Bonds, she said, that it would reconsider the case in the future. Bonds declined to identify the firm. Activist nonprofits have long relied on free representation because they typically lack the resources to mount major lawsuits on their own. Civil rights cases in particular are complex undertakings usually lasting years. Many call for hundreds of hours spent deposing witnesses and performing research, as well as upfront costs of tens of thousands of dollars. Big Law, with its deep ranks of attorneys and paying clients to subsidize their volunteer work, is in a unique position to help. In exchange, the work burnishes the firm's reputation and serves as a draw for idealistic young associates. 'I know that [cases] have been shot down that in Trump Administration 1, firms would crawl over each other to get our name at the top of the case so that we could get the New York Times headline,' said a Big Law partner whose firm has not been one of Trump's targets. 'That's the environment. What's become radioactive has grown from a very small number of things to anything this administration and Trump might notice and get angry about.' Advertisement Jill Collen Jefferson, the president and founder of Julian, a small nonprofit that investigates civil rights violations, has felt the chill too. Three years ago, Julian partnered with the elite law firm Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, the country's No. 1 corporate firm most years by per-partner revenue, to bring lawsuits against the town of Lexington, Mississippi, and its police force for racial discrimination. 'It wasn't hard at all to get help,' she recalled. George Floyd's death had raised public support for police accountability, and the details Since January, when Trump began Jefferson now doubts Julian's ability to bring a police abuse lawsuit it had planned to file before the statute of limitations expires this month. Advertisement 'It's been a nightmare,' she said. 'People don't want to stand up, and because of that, people are suffering.' NPAP ultimately joined forces with another civil rights organization to salvage the case after its co-counsel disappeared from planning calls last November. But the suit will be 'less robust' without the firepower of a major law firm, Bonds said. And NPAP's capacity to file future suits is in question. Civil rights attorneys in NPAP's network have developed novel legal theories for challenging arrests by Immigration and Customs Enforcement under state constitutions, but they lack enough outside partnerships. 'There are cases that aren't being brought at a time when civil rights abuses are maybe at the highest they've been in modern times,' Bonds said. Big Law was often in the vanguard of fighting Trump's first administration. After he signed the 2017 travel ban affecting several predominantly Muslim countries, partners from Now, Davis Polk is among the many firms that are avoiding pro bono immigration cases, Winston & Strawn's annual pro bono reports show how its focus — or at least, its language — has changed. The firm's 2023 Eisen and Zaid, the lawyers representing the FBI agents, themselves became the target of Zaid sued to restore his security clearance in May, in a case that is ongoing. His lawyer, Abbe Lowell, is a high-profile defense attorney who left Winston this spring in order to form his own firm. Lowell said his goal is to represent those 'unlawfully and inappropriately targeted.' New York Attorney General Letitia James, who won a fraud judgment against Trump and is now a target of his DOJ, was one of his first clients. 'The Administration's attempt at retribution against Mark for doing his job — representing whistleblowers without regard to politics — is as illegal as its similar efforts against law firms that have been enjoined in every case,' Lowell wrote in an email to ProPublica. Good-government groups and small and mid-sized law firms have stepped into the breach, helping to file hundreds of lawsuits against the Trump administration. And the four firms that sued Trump over his executive orders are devoting thousands of pro bono hours to others challenging the administration. Perkins Coie, for example, has replaced Kirkland as Lambda Legal's partner in challenging Trump's transgender military ban. But until they build up the capacity to fully replace Big Law, Bonds said, some of the administration's legally dubious actions will go unchallenged. 'There's a financial resources piece that we're really missing when we can't engage a firm,' Bonds said. 'Even if there's a big case and we feel really confident about it, we'll just have to pass on it.'
