“Xi Jinping backs Vladimir Putin’s demand for Nato to halt eastwards expansion” Telegraph

We did this to ourselves.

“Beijing backs Moscow’s demand for binding security guarantees that Nato will not expand in Ukraine or elsewhere in eastern Europe, according to the Kremlin.

President Vladimir Putin talked to Chinese leader Xi Jinping in a video call on Wednesday about “mounting threats to Russia’s national interests from the US and the Nato bloc, which consistently move their military infrastructure close to the Russian borders,” according to a briefing. 

In response, Mr Xi said he understood Russia’s concerns and “specially stated his support” for Moscow over the issue, said Russian foreign affairs adviser Yuri Ushakov.

Mr Xi added that “both China and Russia need to carry out more joint actions to more effectively safeguard our security and interests,” according to Chinese state broadcaster CCTV.

“At present, certain international forces are arbitrarily interfering in the internal affairs of China and Russia under the guise of democracy and human rights, and brutally trampling on international law and the norms of international relations,” Mr Xi reportedly said.

It comes as Moscow said on Wednesday it had delivered its concrete proposals for legal security guarantees to halt Nato’s eastwards expansion to a top US diplomat visiting Russia at the moment so that talks can begin immediately.” telegraph

Comment: As I said above we have driven the Russians into the arms of the real menace, Communist China. pl


This entry was posted in China, government, Russia. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to “Xi Jinping backs Vladimir Putin’s demand for Nato to halt eastwards expansion” Telegraph

  1. sbin says:

    Real menace to American citizens is located in DC.

    • Marlene says:

      Add also who is at the helms of the EU and NATO..

    • Stevelancs says:

      You are absolutely right.
      This is a breach of trust of sorts because I subscribe to receive Dmitry Orlov’s observations, but I think probably it is a good idea for you to see the other side of the situation …
      Just yesterday Russia Foreign Ministry published a couple of documents which people have been struggling to interpret ever since, to little useful effect. I would like to offer my own explanation of what these documents mean, which will probably differ a great deal from most other explanations you are likely to hear. Time will tell how close they are to the truth; for now, I am happy to simply add to the spectrum of ideas that are available to it.

      The two documents describe in detail what Washington must do to avoid the consequences of breaking its verbal agreement entered into with Mikhail Gorbachev to not expand NATO eastward toward Russia’s borders—essentially, to freeze NATO forces where they were in 1997, before NATO expanded farther east. The documents also address other aspects of deescalation, such as removing all US nuclear weapons from foreign territory and confining US forces to waters and airspace from which they cannot threaten the territory of Russia.

      One line of explanation, most recently expressed in Washington and elsewhere, is that these documents are a negotiating gambit (not an ultimatum), to be discussed privately (to avoid complete loss of face by the US) and in consultation with NATO members and partners, plus, maybe, the European Union, the Council of Europe, the OSCE, Amnesty International and Greenpeace (to avoid making their combined irrelevance apparent to all). I agree that there is little to be gained from public discussions; after all Moscow has already achieved the required bombshell effect through the public release of these documents and in forcing Washington to acknowledge their receipt and to consent to “negotiations”.

      I disagree that there is anything to be negotiated: these documents are not intended to be used as a starting point for negotiations; they are an invitation for Washington to acknowledge and remedy its transgressions. Washington broke the deal it made with Moscow not to expand east. It could do so because in the years following the breakup of the USSR Moscow was too weak to resist and run by people who thought it possible for Russia to integrate into the West, perhaps even to join NATO. But that era has ended some time ago and the collective West now has to put its collective toes back behind the red line—whether voluntarily or not—and that is the only thing yet to be determined. That is the only choice to be made: stand down voluntarily and make amends or refuse and be punished.

      I also disagree that this choice—between making amends and accepting punishment—has anything to do with the EU, or NATO, or various “members” or “partners”. Moscow has no relationship with NATO, seeing it as a mere piece of paper that grants Washington rather questionable legal authority to deploy its military forces in countries around the world. Moscow has some vestigial diplomatic representation with the EU, but doesn’t see it as important and concentrates on bilateral relations with EU members. As for its Eastern European neighbors, the Ukraine is, viewed from Moscow, a US colony and thus entirely a US concern, Poland can go and partition itself again (or not), and, as far as those tiny yet politically annoying statelets of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, so sorry, but the Russian army is equipped with binoculars, not microscopes.

      The choice, really, is between facing an increasing risk of a nuclear exchange between two nuclear superpowers—one that is rapidly fading in strength and one that is growing stronger all the time—and reducing that risk as much as possible. Only the two nuclear superpowers need to come to an understanding; everyone else can simply do as they say so that nobody gets hurt. In the case of the Europeans, they should be quite interested in doing so (if they still know what’s good for them) because NATO’s eastward expansion has left them with huge nuclear target signs painted all over them which they would do well to try to remove. Not only that, but NATO’s encroachment on Russia’s borders has increased the risk of a nuclear confrontation breaking out accidentally: all those nuclear-armed bombers, ships and submarines could make a wrong turn somewhere and then—kaboom!—no more Europe.

      You might thing that those bombers and ships and submarines must loiter around Russia’s borders in order to “contain” Russia, but this is false. Russia does an acceptably good job of containing itself, and the little territorial disputes that are likely to crop up here and there periodically are certainly not going to be solved by increasing the risk of nuclear war. The Russian Federation has land borders with over a dozen countries, most of which have Russian citizens living on both sides of them, and that makes land disputes inevitable, but none of them will ever be worth blowing up the planet over.

      You might think that NATO forces need to show activity and act dangerous in order to justify their existence and their ridiculously bloated defense budgets. Also, if they didn’t get a chance to be threatening toward Russia, they might become despondent and just sit around drinking, doing drugs and having gay sex, and that would be bad for morale. (But then what’s wrong with a little gay sex between consenting off-duty gender-ambiguous servicepersons?) I’d think that these are all rather minor, if not trifling, concerns, considering that what’s on the other side of the scale is the risk of a planetary conflagration.

      You might also think that Washington’s eastward expansion is not a crime because, you see, Gorbachev failed to get its promise not to expand east committed to in writing. Well, let me offer you a tiny insight into the inner workings of Russian civilization. If you enter into a verbal agreement with the Russians, break it, and then taunt them by saying “But you didn’t get it in writing!” you have just made the problem much worse for yourself. We all make mistakes and must sometimes break our promises, in which the proper course of action is to be contrite, apologize sincerely and offer to make amends. If, instead, you claim that the promise is null and void because a certain piece of paper cannot be located, then you have compounded you dishonorable conduct with willful disregard and have singled yourself out for exemplary punishment. This punishment may be slow to arrive, taking decades, perhaps even centuries, but you can be sure that you will be punished eventually.

      Once upon a time Moscow was weak and Washington strong, but now the balance has shifted in Moscow’s favor and the time for Washington’s punishment has finally come. The only remaining question is, What form will this punishment take? The one proposed by Moscow is in the form of submission to public humiliation: Washington signs the security guarantees drafted in Moscow, drags itself back to its kennel and lies quietly like a good doggo licking its balls to console itself. And that’s the more pleasant alternative, a win-win sort of thing, offered in good faith.

      The less pleasant alternative would be, I can’t help but imagine, much less pleasant, very confusing and quite dangerous. Think about Poseidons—undetectable nuclear-powered torpedos—endlessly cruising in thousands of feet of water of water off the continental shelf along the US coasts, ready to wash them off with entirely accidental tsunamis, their sporadic pings causing the Joint Chiefs of Staff to soil their diapers every time. Think about NATO planes, ships and submarines quietly going missing for no adequately explored reason, their crews later turning up on some faraway beach very drunk and wearing Speedos in the colors of the Russian flag. Think of hypersonic something-or-others periodically doing zigzags in low Earth orbit over the US mainland, causing every cable TV channel to broadcast Russia Today, in turn causing CNN’s talking heads to explode in impotent fury.

      I would think that, in their own enlightened best interest, right-thinking Americans, regardless of party affiliation or lack thereof, would want to clamor for their elected representatives to quit making any more trouble and to just sign the damned security guarantees! But that’s just my own, private opinion.

  2. plantman says:

    I never particularly liked Zbigniew Brzezinski, but at least the man could think. He warned about an alliance between Russia and China and how it would hurt US interests.
    But, now, the arrogant morons who set policy for the US, think we are invulnerable and can dictate behavior as if was still 1950 and the world lay in ruins.

    This is so frustrating to watch. We just withdrew from a 20 year-long campaign in which we found it impossible to beat a ragtag militia of goat-herding jihadis, and now we want to mix it up with the Russians? God help us!

    Man, we need some new leadership fast!

  3. blue peacock says:

    Thanks to the duopoly and their fellow travelers running governmental institutions, think-tanks, academia and big corporate & financial interests who are willing to sell the American working class down the river for a few yuan.

    Ultimately, we the American voter is responsible. The buck stops with us.

  4. jim ticehurst says:

    Fore Told..I Have read In An Ancient Book..about a Similar Period…called “The Last Days,,” When a Great Fisherman..Will Set His Hooks…into the Lips of the King of the North…and The King of The East..In The Persian Style…and Gather then Together..on a Great Plain..Near Iran…With All Thier Armys..to do Battle..in a Mighty War..And They will Be Destroyed..Then The Great Fisherman…Who was a Prince…Will Become King..

  5. Eric Newhill says:

    Uh yup,Who coulda seen that comin?

  6. longarch says:

    the American voter is responsible. The buck stops with us.

    If the government by the people, of the people, for the people is not corrupt, then it is reasonable to assign the citizens responsibility. If the government is corrupt past the point of no return, it is no longer a real government, it is merely a collection of narcissistic, psychopathic criminals.

    The voter is responsible if the votes are counted honestly and elections are not stolen.
    If the votes are faked and the elections are stolen, the voter is no longer responsible for the election. This does not mean that the common man is no longer responsible.

  7. cofer says:

    I’m afraid you’re pass the point where your vote could make the difference. You must have heard Biden echoing Stalin this week.

    • Fred says:


      The lead poisoning epidemic unleashed by Bernie Bro James Hodgkinson simply points out who has been shooting at whom. The Las Vegas shooting, well the FBI could investigate Bubba Wallace’s noose victimization, but not figure out that all the years of “white supremacist” threats couldn’t possibly influence the black Waukesha terrorist. They did manage to stop the “kidnapping ” of governor Whitmer, by organizing the whole thing.
      Do you think there will be an FBI staged insurrection, not to include J6 of 2021? Because after all these years and all the bloviating on the net I don’t see anyone on the right shooting anyone, not even school board members protecting rapists in high school.

      • cofer says:

        Of course not, nothing will happen, We’re in for some dark times.

      • Ishmael Zechariah says:

        re: after all these years and all the bloviating on the net I don’t see anyone on the right shooting anyone, not even school board members protecting rapists in high school
        I have wondered about this. Tis a puzzlement.
        Ishmael Zechariah

        • Fred says:


          There are many numbed by poor education, electrnonic and narcotic addiction, and the relentless leftist drumbeat against Western civlization. The doubling down of ‘woke’ amongst the leftist leadership class is only fuelling the awakening of the average American to reality. Just today we can all read about racial quotas being pushed by investment firms
          ” BlackRock Inc. on Tuesday said it wants U.S. companies to aim for a board that is 30% diverse”
          and the approval of criminal conduct in the legal professinon:
          “”Kevin Clinesmith, the former senior FBI lawyer who was placed on probation as a convicted felon for falsifying a surveillance document during the Trump-Russia investigation, has been returned to good standing as a member of the D.C. Bar Association.””

          That’s on top of Rittenhouse being found not guilty, Jessee Smollet guilty, and a record inflation rate – plus an open border.

          It won’t take more than the next federal election to see where we are really going. The fraudulent conduct of federal police forces in things like the Smollet investigation versus the Epstein coverup, not to mention Clinton and Biden’s computers, are all out in the open for those with a willingness to see truth. Covid is just the icing on the cake. If the next election doesn’t bring a massive change in leadership then I think the breakup will begin in earnest, along with real violence that isn’t directed at the hoi poloi.

  8. Babeltuap says:

    Rome fell for many reasons but one I was unaware of was rampant voter fraud. Another was the use of non loyal mercenaries.

    We have both those going on right now but there are some old Magna Carta “liberties” still in decent shape. People are migrating to them but if they bring with them what made them move it’s over with.

  9. blue peacock says:


    If the government is corrupt and a collection of narcissistic, psychopathic criminals, then as citizens it is our responsibility to withdraw consent and remove such a government.

    It appears however the citizenry is divided and there is no consensus. Half back Tweedle Dee and the other half Tweedle Dum. Two sides of the same coin. And there’s only a “fringe” minority who value Liberty over “Safety”.

  10. What’s worse the successive waves of NATO expansion have actually reduced the security of the previous members. Go ahead: how would adding Ukraine or Georgia increase U. S. security?

    • sbin says:

      Would be like adding Detriot Baltimore and Gary Indiana to your state and thinking you did good.
      Why not South Sudan?

  11. O.B. says:

    The major source of dislike of American leadership towards Chinese leadership is the recognition of a similar scope in their goals.
    There is however a very different degree of preparedness between the two.

Comments are closed.