Skip to content

All posts by ZYH - 3. page

Global Times: It Is Not Russia Who ‘Weaponizes’ Food

China’s state media Global Times published an opinion article by Zheng Fengtian, the director of the Rural Development Institute of Renmin University of China, stating that it is not Russia who weaponizes food.

The article said, “Russian President Vladimir Putin said in an interview with the media that the West is trying to ‘shift’ the responsibility for problems in the world’s grain market to Russia. Ukraine, however, has multiple food transportation channels to choose from. Also, Russia will not stop Ukraine’s grain shipments from being shipped out. At the same time, he also announced that Russia’s wheat exports in the next agricultural year will increase to 50 million tons.”

The article continued, “Following its strategic needs, the United States and the West put the responsibility for this global food crisis on Russia and use a number of means to put pressure on Russia to release food. Putin, however, retorted when he had a phone conversation with Italian Prime Minister Draghi. He said, ‘It is groundless for the West to blame Russia for the supply of agricultural products in the international market.’ Putin attributed the current crisis to the sanctions that the United States and the West imposed on Russia. It is the anti-Russian restrictions imposed by the US and the EU that make the situation worse. Indeed, it is precisely because of these economic sanctions that the global food supply chain has been disrupted and food prices have soared. Instead of providing a viable solution, the United States and its allies are currently escalating conflicts by increasingly providing  new weapons and equipment, which will only increase future global food security risks.

“When the Russian side expressed its willingness to provide 50 million tons of grain to ‘help overcome the food crisis,’ the United States and the West accused it of ‘blackmail’ because the Russian side proposed that ‘sanctions against Moscow should be lifted.’ A U.S. Pentagon spokesman said Russia weaponized food. In fact, ‘weaponizing food’ is a common practice of the United States. It is precisely because the United States has used grain as a “weapon” many times that grain has become a main source of the problem in the current global trade. Even the developed countries dare not freely hand over grains to the international market.

“On the one hand, the United States continues to add fuel to the conflict between Russia and Ukraine and intensifies sanctions against Russia. On the other hand, the United States has made arrangements in its own country ahead of schedule to grab Russia’s share of the world’s food market. According to reports, U.S. President Biden has increased the number of counties eligible for “double crop insurance” nationwide by 681 to 1,935, and the federal government’s investment in domestic fertilizer production has increased from $250 million to $500 million, to stimulate fully the export of American agricultural products and increase the external dependence on American food. It seems that the real intention of the United States is to expand its hegemonic advantages to the field of food security.”

Source: Global Times, June 6, 2022

The U.S. Government Should Bear Considerable Responsibility for the Russia-Ukraine Conflict

China’s state media Global Times published a commentary article stating that the U.S. should bear the responsibility for the Russia-Ukraine war. Below are the major points in the article:

“The Ukraine crisis has been going on for more than two months. According to the U.S. State Department, the U.S. has pledged about $3.7 billion in security aid to Ukraine since February 24. A growing number of international sources point out that the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine conflict is largely the result of the arrogance and successive mistakes of the US-led Western bloc over the past 30 years. The U.S. government should bear considerable responsibility. The current actions of the United States will not help end the crisis, but will continue to play up confrontation.”

“The Russian-Ukrainian conflict is, in a sense, a proxy war waged by the United States in Europe. However, the cost of the war is mainly borne by European countries.”

“The U.S. divides the world into different camps according to its own standards, which itself violates the spirit of democracy and will only bring more chaos to the world and more disasters to the people of all countries.”

“International public opinion generally believes that the Biden administration has continuously promoted ‘returning to multilateralism’ since taking office, but in fact, it is using ideological boundaries to form factions and force the selection of sides to divide the world. The United States continues to strengthen small circles and small groups such as the ‘Quadrilateral Mechanism,’ the ‘Five Eyes Alliance’ and the ‘G7.’ The fundamental purpose is to maintain the hegemony of the United States.“

“The Ukrainian crisis is yet another example of America’s push for hegemony. One of the root causes of this war is America’s opposition to European countries developing closer economic ties with Russia.”

“Analysts pointed out that the Ukrainian crisis reflects the unilateral definition of a ‘rules-based international order’ by the United States for a long time based on its own standards. Its essence is to maintain the rule order of the HEGEMONIC power of the United States.”

Source: Global Times, May 12, 2022

Global Times: “Expel Russia” Is a False Proposition

China’s state-run media Global Times published an opinion article expressing concern over the U.S. attempt to expel Russia from international communities. The following is a translation of the article:

After the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the United States and the West imposed multiple sanctions on Russia and attempted to isolate Russia internationally. The latest move is that the United States and other Western countries called on most of the G20 members to work together to remove Russia from the organization.
The United States is attempting to undermine international law and the multilateral order through the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. This is a trend that deserves the international community’s high vigilance … In fact, this pan-politicized operation by the U.S. has neither a solid legal basis nor wide support from the international community.

First, from the perspective of international law, it is difficult to find a legal basis for expelling Russia. Membership in an international organization is not determined by one or two countries, but by the constitution of the international organization. If the articles of an association have relevant provisions, the procedures shall be performed in accordance with the provisions of the articles. In general, international organizations do not have the right to directly expel or suspend membership if the constitution does not provide for it.
As the main forum for international economic cooperation, the G20 needs to follow the principle of consensus. Trying to deprive a member of its membership is bound to undermine the unity of the G20 and impact global economic governance, which is not in the interest of any party.

Second, international mainstream voices do not actually support the expulsion of Russia. Although the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution to suspend Russia’s membership in the Human Rights Council, after the vote, Serbian President Vucic said that Serbia voting in support of the resolution was out of fear of the threat of sanctions if Serbia voted no. This fully shows that under the coercion and inducement of the U.S. and the West, a large part of the true voice of the international community has been silenced in the hustle and bustle of the U.S. and the West. So to what extent can such voting results reflect the mainstream understanding of the international community? Moreover, many G20 member countries such as China and Indonesia have expressed their opposition to the remarks about boycotting Russia in the G20. The Brazilian foreign minister severely criticized the way Western countries handled the conflict between Russia and Ukraine and opposed the expulsion of Russia from the G20. Even in the World Tourism Organization, many member states disapprove of suspending Russia’s membership. Under the discourse hegemony and selective reporting of the United States and the West, the voice of expelling Russia seems to be very loud, but in fact most countries are the “silent majority.”

Third, international organizations do not want to expel Russia. In the context of the prolonged epidemic and intensified conflicts, what international organizations need more is solidarity and cooperation to overcome difficulties, rather than widening the gap and deepening the estrangement. Therefore, it is not difficult to understand that few international organizations openly support the expulsion of Russia.

In a word, to a large extent, “expelling Russia” in the international system is actually just a false proposition that American and Western politicians have made. The reality is that economic globalization has made the international community highly interconnected. This move by the U.S. side will not only tear apart the international system, but will not help resolve the current Ukraine crisis; nor is it in line with the general trend of the era of globalization. In the end, the era when one country or several countries have the final say has passed. The U.S. and the West should carefully reflect on what rights they have and what qualifications they have to issue orders to other countries.

Source: Global Times, April 25, 2022

Luo Siyi: Lessons from the Ukraine War: Counting on U.S.’ ‘Kindness’ Is Pointless

Luo Siyi, a Senior Researcher at the Chongyang Financial Research Institute, Renmin University of China, published an article on (the Observer) discussing the intentions of the U.S.  in the context of the Russia-Ukraine war. Some excerpts from the article follow:

“For more than 20 years, the foreign military expansion of the United States has been obvious. Even so, the occurrence of the Ukraine war also represents a qualitative change in U.S. military policy. Before the Ukraine war, the United States had only taken military action against developing countries that were far weaker in military power and did not possess nuclear weapons.”

“However, the U.S. threat to bring Ukraine into NATO, triggering a war in Ukraine, shows that U.S. military policy is not limited to attacking developing countries that are far weaker than itself. Although the United States knew in advance that its eastward expansion of NATO into Ukraine would affect Russia’s most important interests (a move that clearly crossed Russia’s red line when Russia’s extremely powerful military and nuclear capabilities are on par with the United States),  it was still prepared to take the risk.”

The U.S. is combining its basic political stance (the U.S. insists that Ukraine ‘has the right’ to join NATO) along with the military facts (the U.S. provides arms to Ukraine). It clearly shows that the U.S. has deliberately provoked a confrontation between Russia and Ukraine, even though this will inevitably lead to the United States and Russia being in a direct conflict. Therefore, when assessing the Ukraine crisis, it should be noted that the U.S. escalated its military threats from targeting developing countries. Such threats are unjust but without the direct risk of triggering a world war to targeting a powerful country like Russia, which may lead to a global military conflict.”

”The United States is fully aware that the one-China policy involves China’s most important national interests and is the foundation of U.S.-China relations. To abandon the one-China policy is to cross China’s red line, which is more dangerous than trying to incorporate Ukraine into NATO. So it is clear that the U.S. is trying to undermine the one-China policy in a provocative way, just as it deliberately decided to cross Russia’s red line on Ukraine.

“On the question of whether the U.S. provocation against China and Russia is temporary or long-term and permanent, the clear conclusion of this article is that the U.S. military escalation trend will continue.”

Source:, April 22, 2022

Jin Canrong: China Should Increase its Military Spending to Two Percent of GDP

In discussing the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Jin Canrong, a professor on American issues at the School of International Relations, Renmin University of China, made a statement in an interview with the Guancha (Observer). He advised that China should quickly increase its military spending to 2 percent of GDP in preparation for a potential war with Taiwan over its independence and with the American right wing forces.

Jin said, “From a technical point of view, the Ukraine issue can indeed be seen as a rehearsal for the Taiwan Strait crisis. This is a good learning opportunity. China can learn a lot from it, such as how to fight militarily, what pressures may be encountered politically, how to resolve these pressures, and more.

“For this conflict, different parties have learned experiences from different aspects. For example, for Taiwan, I believe this is a shock to the Taiwan authorities, but judging from their current position, it seems that they have not interpreted it in the right direction. For example, they say that Taiwan’s military strength is stronger than Ukraine’s. They also keep comforting themselves that, ‘for the United States, Taiwan’s strategic value is greater than Ukraine’s.’ This perception is dangerous.

“There is still a danger that some ‘Taiwan independence proponents, along with the U.S. right wing forces, will take the initiative to provoke a Taiwan Strait crisis because they also know that, from the perspective of development, time is advantageous to the mainland. They may not want to follow the rhythm of the mainland anymore. Believing that the mainland is not ready yet, they will make trouble ahead of time. This places higher requirements on our work. We must strengthen military preparations so that we can smash their plans at any time.

“In addition, I agree with a proposal by Lao Hu (Hu Xijin, former chief editor of Global Times), who although our military expenditure has increased 7.1 percent over last year, it is still low in general. It is less than 2 percent of GDP. Considering that the danger (of war) is increasing, it is very necessary to raise our military spending to 2 percent of GDP. We cannot underestimate the risk of the “Taiwan independence” forces and the American right-wing extremists.”

Source:, April 2, 2022

People’s Daily: Who Is Intentionally Perpetuating the (Russian-Ukraine) Conflict?

China’s propaganda machine People’s Daily published a commentary on the Russian-Ukraine war under the title, “Who Is Intentionally Perpetuating the Conflict?” The author’s name is Zhong Sheng. This is a pen name that sounds like “The voice of China.”

The article states, “The Russian-Ukrainian conflict broke out and the stock prices of U.S. military industry companies rose sharply. Who is making a fortune from this war? Who is intentionally perpetuating the conflict? It is a self-explanatory fact.”

The commentary continued, “The Ukrainian crisis has put more pressure on the already burdened world economy. However, according to a former U.S. Department of Defense official, in Washington, many lobbying companies, military enterprises and people in the Capitol are quietly popping champagne to celebrate. The U.S. stock market data showed that, from February 24 to March 28, Lockheed Martin shares rose more than 13 percent, Northrop Grumman rose more than 13.4 percent, and General Dynamics rose more than 10 percent. The Russian-Ukrainian conflict broke out and the stock prices of U.S. military industry companies rose sharply. Who is making a fortune from the war? Who is intentionally perpetuating the conflict? The answer is self-explanatory.”

“Provoking the Russian-Ukrainian conflict and profiting from it is the desired wish of the U.S. military-industrial complex. It influences U.S. foreign policy through interest groups. It constantly challenges Russia’s bottom line. By exaggerating the “military threat from Russia.” It sells security anxiety and exaggerates the need for European countries to increase defense spending significantly and to strengthen “military deterrence.”

The article concluded, “The United States has long regarded itself as a ‘beacon of democracy.’ In recent years it has tried to exaggerate the narrative of ‘democracy against authoritarianism.’ However, a strong contrast between the lack of U.S. domestic anti-epidemic funding and the huge profits that the military industry makes, as well as the U.S. history of creating wars and conflicts all over the world, have eroded the democracy and human rights appearance it has so promoted with holes and scars everywhere. The United States, which has such  interest groups as the military-industrial complex, is a hegemonic chariot corrupted by money. What it brings to the world and its ordinary people is only turmoil and harm.”

Source: People’s Daily, April 2, 2022

Global Times Editorial: Don’t Let the “Bucha Incident” Be Used to Fan the Fire

Below is an excerpt from an editorial that China’s state-run media Global Times wrote on the “Bucha killing” in Ukraine:

“The United Nations Security Council held a meeting on April 5, discussing the  Ukraine situation, with the ‘Bucha incident’ being the focus. Ukraine alleged that the Russian army killed a large number of civilians during the occupation of Bucha which is located in the western suburbs of Kyiv. Russia resolutely denied it and submitted the evidence of the Ukraine side’s fake propaganda to the Council.”

“Unfortunately, after the ‘Bucha incident’ was exposed, the initiator (the United States) of the Ukrainian crisis has not shown any signs of urging peace and promoting talks. On the contrary, it is ready to exacerbate the Russia-Ukraine tensions and create obstacles to the peace talks between the two sides by increasing sanctions against Russia, providing more weapons to Ukraine, and continuously pressuring Russia in diplomacy and in public opinion. In particular, Washington expressed that it will provide a series of heavy weapons systems to Ukraine. The U.S. national security consultant, Jake Sullivan, said that the extent and depth of sending weapons and military equipment to Ukraine will be ‘unprecedented.’ We have to say, it is very irresponsible to fan the flames.

“Many Western media describe the ‘Bucha incident’ as the turning point in the Russian conflict. This is a vague judgment. Is it a direction in which the situation is further deteriorating? This is precisely why the peace-loving people need to be vigilant. At present, the direction of  the ‘Bucha incident’ seems to have deviated from the normal orbit, and the elements of a public opinion war and psychological war are getting stronger. However, any attempt to use the Ukrainian crisis so as to unilaterally occupy the ‘moral high-ground,’ and continuously push up conflicts to extract the geostrategic interests, will in the end, trigger a larger humanitarian tragedy.

“People have reason to suspect that some people in the U.S. and the West are hiding a ‘double standard’ and a not so simple political purpose over the ‘Bucha incident.’ The reason is that, over the years, the military forces of some countries have committed numerous crimes in killing civilians with impunity. According to incomplete statistics, as many as 100,000 Afghan civilians have died under U.S. gunfire, and a significant number of them were children. The Australian special forces have killed 39 unarmed Afghan civilians, including juveniles, by slitting their throats only for ‘practice.’ What’s more, in order to obstruct the International Criminal Court’s (ICC’s) investigation of U.S. war crimes in Afghanistan, the U.S. government went so far as to restrict the issuance of visas for ICC staff and threatened to impose sanctions on them.”

The “‘Bucha incident’ once again reminded the international community that, while having a serious investigation, it is also necessary to avoid fanning the flames and ‘passing the knife.’”

Source: Global Times, April 5, 2022

Hu Xijin: Why Russia Is Strategically Very Important to China

Hu Xijin, the former chief editor of the CCP’s mouthpiece Global Times, published an article explaining China’s position in the Russia-Ukraine war. Below is a translation of the article:

“Some people in China have always advocated that we should follow the West in condemning and sanctioning Russia as a nice gesture to improve relations with the United States. This claim is very naive. Let me explain here plainly and clearly why Russia is crucially and strategically important to China.

“The most obvious reason is that China and Russia are mutually supportive diplomatically. This, however, is only the most superficial reason. I don’t need to say more about Russia’s support for China on Taiwan, Hong Kong, Xinjiang, Tibet and other issues. The most important thing is the ‘back-to-back’ mutual strategic relationship between China and Russia.

“Let me ask you, who is the number one strategic adversary of the United States today? It is China, not Russia! Now that Russia is in the whirlwind, the United States is putting most of its pressure on Moscow. In the Trump era, Washington wanted to improve its relations with Russia.” Pence once said, “Forget Russia. Please believe that, over time, the primary edge of American pressure will definitely turn back to China. At that time we will feel how valuable it is to have the support of Russia, even just a neutral Russia.”

“Even now, Russia has suddenly taken away a large part of the pressure from the United States. Russia and the United States will be dead (worst) enemies to each other for a long time into the future. Since the trade war began, China has been at the forefront of fighting against U.S. hegemony. Now it is happening that Russia is standing at the forefront. Isn’t it equally significant for China to accumulate power? It is a completely different geopolitical situation for the two countries, China and Russia, to resist U.S. hegemony than for one country to face the U.S. alone.

“The China-Russia comprehensive strategic partnership of coordination in the 21st century is very special and its ‘no upper limit’ connotation is a deterrent to the United States. For example, if the United States carries out extreme strategic coercion against China, with Russia as a partner, China will not be afraid of the United States’ energy blockade and our food supply will be more secure, as will many other raw materials. It will be even harder for the United States to make up its mind to have a comprehensive strategic showdown with China.

“In the event of a war between China and the United States in the Taiwan Strait or the South China Sea, China’s conventional forces will increasingly have the power to overwhelm the U.S. military. With Russia as a super-nuclear force hostile to the United States (regardless of whether Moscow supports China at that time or is neutral), it will be more difficult for the United States to deal with China using nuclear blackmail. Because China itself is a feared nuclear power, the United States must also be wary of Russia’s leap from nuclear parity with the United States to nuclear superiority.

“The strengths of China and Russia have strong strategic complementarity. The geopolitical potential formed by the two countries is boundless. For example, the Sino-Russian strategic relationship has a certain potential effect containing Japan. It also has a certain influence on India. Also, importantly, China and Russia together are powerful enough to strategically stabilize Central Asia.

If China and Russia are successfully divided by the United States, today’s Russia will immediately face a strategic dead chess fate. In the future Sino-U.S. conflicts, China will also face a dead chess fate. Today we are facing many challenges and uncertainties in the east and south. If Russia is pulled away by the United States, and China and Russia return to the hostility of the 1970s, China will be back to the 1960s’situation of ‘anti-American imperialist’ and ‘anti-Soviet (revisionist)’ at the same time. Fighting on both fronts, is that conceivable?

Some people suggest to abandon Russia in exchange for reconciliation with the United States. How naive it is to make such a claim. The ultimate goal of the United States on Russia is only to make it no longer a ‘nuclear threat,’ whereas its goal on China is to make China completely lose its development ability and its competitiveness. It is best to divide China into several pieces. Each piece becomes a parallel piece next to Japan, South Korea, and the ASEAN countries so that every individual one is controlled by the U.S. They will buy its weapons, and produce cheap goods for the U.S.

“Those naive Chinese people should stop dreaming. China should not take the initiative to challenge the United States and should try to avoid Sino-U.S. confrontation, but we must use our own strength to make the United States accept peaceful coexistence with China. Russia is China’s most important partner to achieve this goal. Therefore, China can’t do anything against Russia, i.e., against China-Russia relations today. The Chinese government’s balanced stance on the Russian-Ukrainian conflict is most in line with China’s actual and long-term national interests.”

Source:, March 20, 2022