Voice from China: This is why Moscow and Beijing stand together, now more than ever
On May 9, 2025, Moscow held a grand military parade on Red Square to mark the 80th anniversary of the Soviet victory in the Great Patriotic War.
Approximately 27 foreign heads of state attended the Red Square parade, highlighting Russia's influence on the international stage and signaling a break from Western diplomatic isolation. It also reinforced Russia's ties with friendly nations. However, the parade was not merely a response to Western sanctions and containment. More importantly, it served as a powerful historical symbol and collective memory – a tribute to the immense sacrifices made for the victory in the global anti-fascist war, and a solemn reaffirmation of that great triumph and enduring honor.
At President Putin's invitation, President Xi Jinping paid a state visit to Russia from May 7 to 10 and attended the Victory Day events. President Xi Jinping's visit to Russia signals a shared commitment by China and Russia to promote an accurate understanding of World War II history, defend the post-war international order centered on the United Nations, and uphold the purposes and principles of the UN Charter. At the bilateral level, the two countries will continue to deepen their partnership through high-level exchanges, using the stability of their relationship to offset global uncertainty and advancing strategic coordination to safeguard international fairness and justice.
Eighty years ago, China and the Soviet Union fought side by side in the World Anti-Fascist War (World War II), forging a deep friendship through shared sacrifice. At this year's military parade, President Putin praised the Chinese people's significant contributions to the victory. In a signed article in Rossiyskaya Gazeta, President Xi Jinping also emphasized the decisive roles played by both countries.
Today, Western countries manipulate ideology through historical nihilism, double standards, and discursive reconstruction, deliberately downplaying, distorting, or even rewriting the historical contributions of China and the Soviet Union in World War II. By reshaping the narrative, they seek to undermine the foundations of the post-war international order and perpetuate their global dominance. Against this backdrop, the renewed call by the Chinese and Russian leaders to 'jointly uphold a correct view of WWII history' serves as a powerful rebuke to historical revisionism and falsification. It reflects a shared strategic resolve to break the West's monopoly on historical discourse and to defend international justice and collective memory. This is not only a shared responsibility to safeguard historical truth, but also a deep convergence between China and Russia in promoting the democratization of international relations, building a fair and equitable global order, and opposing unilateral hegemony.
On May 8, China and Russia signed a series of cooperation documents, including two major joint statements. The first focuses on further deepening the China-Russia comprehensive strategic partnership of coordination for the new era; the second is a joint statement on global strategic stability. In addition, the two heads of state witnessed the exchange of multiple cooperation agreements in areas such as education, investment, culture, and science and technology. These documents not only ensure the continuity and stability of bilateral ties at the strategic level, but also reflect the steady deepening of practical cooperation across key sectors.
The 'Joint Statement on Further Deepening the China-Russia Comprehensive Strategic Partnership of Coordination for the New Era' not only reaffirms the two countries' firm commitment to safeguarding the international system with the United Nations at its core and the international order based on international law, but also elevates the promotion of a correct view of World War II history to a strategic element of institutionalized bilateral cooperation. Key measures include jointly organizing commemorative events, conducting research and exhibitions on the crimes of Nazi Germany and Japanese militarism, locating the remains of fallen soldiers, restoring memorial sites, and deepening cooperation on WWII historical memory in education, archives, media, and youth exchanges.
The 'Joint Statement on Maintaining Global Strategic Stability' reaffirms the two countries' consistent stance on preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, safeguarding the international arms control and disarmament system, and more. It also systematically establishes a comprehensive dialogue and cooperation framework that includes nuclear security, strategic deterrence balance, and governance of militarization of emerging technologies. Notably, this statement marks the first time that biological security, chemical weapons control, and military ethics in artificial intelligence have been included in the global strategic stability agenda, signaling a significant breakthrough for China and Russia in shaping a new international security paradigm for the future.
At the bilateral cooperation level, President Xi Jinping and President Vladimir Putin witnessed the exchange of 28 cooperation documents between China and Russia, covering areas such as trade, biosafety, investment protection, digital economy, scientific facilities, quarantine, media, film, and youth exchanges. This broad agenda strengthens traditional sectors like energy and trade, while strategically positioning both countries in emerging fields like digital economy and scientific innovation, and deepening people-to-people ties through cultural, educational, and youth cooperation.
Amid unprecedented global changes, the trajectory of China-Russia relations continues to attract international attention. Some speculate about a formal alliance or potential rifts due to diverging interests. In response, China and Russia have demonstrated through deepening cooperation that they are building a new type of major-country relationship based on 'highest mutual trust, coordination, and strategic value.' As President Xi has emphasized, their relationship is driven by clear historical logic, strong internal momentum, and shared civilizational heritage, not aimed at or influenced by any third party.
History is not only a repository of memories of the past, but also serves as the foundational basis for contemporary international relations, shaping value identities and acting as the spiritual pillar for a fair and just international order. The outcomes of World War II crystallized into the cornerstone of multilateralism, with the United Nations at its core, establishing the fundamental principles that govern modern international relations. These principles, derived from the collective sacrifices of the war, have provided a framework for diplomacy, conflict resolution, and global cooperation. As the world faces new challenges, the importance of these historical lessons becomes increasingly evident – reminding us that the stability of the global order rests on our ability to respect shared values, adhere to international norms, and safeguard the multilateral system. In this context, the victory in WWII is not just a historical event, but an enduring legacy that continues to shape global governance and the international system.
As the renowned Russian historian Vasily Klyuchevsky once said, 'Those who refuse to learn from history will ultimately pay a heavy price for their ignorance and arrogance.' China also has a saying: 'Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.' The significance of history lies in guiding us forward. Upholding the achievements of WWII and safeguarding the international system centered on the United Nations is a shared responsibility and mission for both China and Russia.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
42 minutes ago
- Russia Today
US to cut Ukraine aid
The White House will be slashing military funding for Ukraine as the administration of US President Donald Trump seeks a peaceful resolution to the conflict, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has said. The Pentagon chief made the statement before the House Appropriations Committee in Congress on Tuesday. 'It is a reduction in this budget,' Hegseth said when asked about upcoming military aid funding for Ukraine. 'This administration takes a very different view of that conflict,' he added. Trump has worked towards negotiating an end to the Ukraine conflict and has diplomatically re-engaged with Russia. Since he took office in January, Moscow and Kiev have restarted direct talks for the first time since 2022, when Ukraine unilaterally left the first Istanbul negotiations. 'A negotiated peaceful settlement is in the best interest of both parties and our nation's interests especially with all the competing interests around the globe,' Hegseth said. The Trump administration has also touted an 'America First' pivot and significantly cut foreign assistance, including aid to Ukraine, promising to channel funds towards domestic issues. Last week, US Vice President J.D. Vance echoed Trump's criticism of his predecessor Joe Biden, accusing his administration of spending 'crazy' amounts of money on supporting Kiev. 'They sent $300 billion to Ukraine,' without 'trying to force a diplomatic settlement,' he said. In April, Trump signed a major deal with Kiev allowing the US priority access to Ukraine's mineral wealth, in what he described would be a way for Washington to 'get back' the hundreds of billions it spent on Ukraine under Biden. Ukraine's Vladimir Zelensky has often complained of a constant shortage of US-supplied air defenses, and waning assistance from Washington in recent months. Additionally, the Trump administration rerouted some 20,000 anti-drone missiles – initially earmarked for Kiev under Biden – to the Middle East, the Ukrainian leader claimed on Sunday.
Russia Today
an hour ago
- Russia Today
WHISPERING GIANT: Russia's quiet power leaves the West in the dust
One of the central paradoxes of Russia's foreign policy is this: while its primary goal has always been to secure full autonomy in its decision-making, success has often hinged on the international environment in which it pursues that aim. Even today, as Russia enjoys a degree of internal stability unmatched in the past 25 years, global shifts are helping shape the country's ability to resist what can only be described as the increasingly destructive efforts of the collective West. Chief among these global changes is the unmistakable decline of Western Europe's centrality in world affairs. Though the region still remains geographically and symbolically important – given its proximity to Russia and its alignment with the United States – it has lost the capacity to act as an independent player in global politics. Simply put, Western Europe no longer matters as much. It is no longer the center of decision-making or initiative, but a stage on which others perform. The true centers of gravity today are countries like China and India. Their behavior no longer forms the 'background noise' of international affairs – it drives global developments. For Russia, this transformation is both a strategic opportunity and a conceptual challenge. On the one hand, it liberates Moscow from the old and often fruitless task of seeking allies within the West to safeguard its interests, particularly along its most dangerous frontiers. On the other hand, it compels Russia to reconsider the nature of its role in the world. What does global responsibility look like for a nation whose foreign policy has never been driven by messianic ideals or the desire to impose its values on others? Historically, Russia's strategic posture has not been animated by ideological expansionism. Unlike the Western European colonial empires, Russia never pursued dominance over distant territories to extract resources or spread its worldview. Even during the height of its imperial strength, such as in the 19th-century annexation of Central Asia, the Russian Empire did not develop a colonial policy comparable to that of Britain or France. The reason lies not in a lack of capacity, but in a fundamentally different orientation: Russia has always been more concerned with preserving its internal sovereignty and strategic autonomy than with exporting its model. Even the oft-cited concept of 'Moscow as the Third Rome' is misunderstood in the West. It was never a call to global proselytizing. Unlike the United States, which often ties its foreign policy to ideological missions, Russia's approach is deeply pragmatic and rooted in the idea of national self-preservation. The Soviet period, of course, was an exception. The revolutionary zeal of 1917 gave Moscow a temporary ideological edge, and during the Cold War, the USSR promoted its values as part of a broader geopolitical confrontation. But even then, ideological outreach was quickly subordinated to the central strategic aim: maintaining national stability in opposition to American-led containment. Another consistent feature of Russia's foreign policy has been the tactical use of divisions within the West. Whether confronting Sweden, Napoleonic France, or Nazi Germany, Russia always benefited from securing at least one Western partner. In the Crimean War of the 1850s and again during the Cold War, Russia suffered political setbacks in part because the Western front was unusually united. After the Cold War ended unfavorably for Moscow, Russian strategy relied on the hope that the EU would eventually drift from Washington's orbit and reclaim some degree of autonomy. That, clearly, has not happened. Internal crises, the erosion of elite leadership, and the rise of bureaucratic inertia have left Western Europe politically paralyzed. When the Ukraine crisis escalated into a military confrontation, the region's powers not only failed to act independently – they leaned even harder on the United States. This failure of EU emancipation has not strengthened Washington, however. On the contrary, Western Europe's strategic irrelevance only underscores the West's shrinking role in global affairs. That chapter of world history – where Europe stood at the helm – is now closed. Today, Russia faces a world where resistance to Western pressure no longer requires fractures within the Western alliance. What matters now is the emergence of a truly global system – one in which power is no longer concentrated in Euro-Atlantic hands. In this environment, Russia's ability to assert its interests has improved not because the West is weaker per se, but because the world is more balanced. The failure of the previous US administration to 'isolate' Russia is significant not only as a diplomatic defeat for Washington, but as evidence of this wider trend. The global South has not turned against Russia. On the contrary, many emerging powers are increasingly assertive in defining their own paths, free of Western tutelage. This structural shift works to Russia's advantage. And yet, this new reality also imposes obligations. In a world that is waiting for Russia's presence, Russia must now ask: what kind of global actor does it wish to be? This is not a question of abandoning its historical pragmatism or inward-facing strategic culture. Rather, it is about integrating that realism with the unavoidable demands of global responsibility. Unlike the missionary democracies of the West, Russia does not seek to reshape the world in its own image. But as one of the few nations capable of independent action on the global stage, it must now participate in shaping that world, not simply reacting to it. This is the conceptual challenge of the coming years. How can Russia remain true to its tradition of self-defined interest while also engaging with a multipolar world that increasingly demands initiative, leadership, and presence? The answer will not be found in grand ideological blueprints or universalist visions. It will lie, as it always has for Russia, in a careful balancing of national sovereignty with the strategic realities of a changing global article was first published by Valdai Discussion Club, translated and edited by the RT team.
Russia Today
an hour ago
- Russia Today
EU wants to prolong Ukraine conflict
The European Commission's latest sanctions package, which targets the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF), among other entities, is driven by the bloc's desire to prolong the Ukraine conflict, according to Kirill Dmitriev, the RDIF's CEO and a presidential investment envoy. The 18th sanctions package, unveiled by EC President Ursula von der Leyen on Tuesday, targets Russia's energy exports, infrastructure, and financial sector. It includes measures against the RDIF, its subsidiaries, and investment projects in an effort to stop it from funding initiatives to 'modernize the Russian economy.' By going after RDIF, Russia's sovereign wealth fund, the EC acknowledges it is 'an important channel' for strengthening Russia's industrial base, Dmitriev said in a statement. Von der Leyen's remarks were 'driven by the EU's desire to prolong the Ukraine conflict and its deep dissatisfaction with RDIF's efforts to restore Russia-US relations,' as well as the fund's role in Moscow's peace initiatives, he added. Dmitriev has played a prominent role in efforts to improve relations between Moscow and Washington, which reached its lowest point in decades under the administration of Joe Biden. The official took part in high-level meetings in Saudi Arabia and visited Washington in April for talks on potential joint investment projects in rare earths and energy. The EU's proposal also signals opposition to cooperation between Russian and European businesses, which the RDIF 'actively supports in Russia,' according to Dmitriev. In a post on X on Tuesday, Dmitriev noted that Russia has 'a number of joint investments with the leading EU companies' and said that the fund has 'helped significantly' many European firms that continue to operate in the country. The new sanctions package also proposes a ban on the use of Nord Stream gas infrastructure, a reduction in the oil price cap, and a halt to imports of all refined products derived from Russian crude. The draft will now be debated by EU member states and must be approved unanimously to take effect. Previous rounds have faced pushback from countries such as Hungary and Slovakia, which argue the sanctions hurt the EU more than Russia. Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico wrote on Facebook on Tuesday that Bratislava won't back the package unless the EU offers 'a real solution to the crisis' that his country would face from a halt in Russian energy supplies. Russia has rejected the Western sanctions as illegitimate and counterproductive. President Vladimir Putin has said the removal of sanctions is among the conditions for a settlement of the Ukraine conflict.
