The Russian and Chinese peoples have sacrificed much to defeat fascism in Europe and Asia, the two leaders have said
Russia and China share a responsibility to preserve the historic memory of the sacrifices their peoples made in defeating the Axis powers during the Second World War, Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping stated on Tuesday.
The two leaders met in Beijing ahead of Wednesday’s military parade commemorating the end of the war. Xi had traveled to Moscow earlier this year to commemorate Russia’s Victory Day on May 9.
Mutual visits, Xi said, “have become a good bilateral tradition and showcase the great responsibility that China and Russia hold as major victor states in World War II and permanent members of the UN Security Council.” He emphasized the importance of protecting the historic truth of the achievement.
Putin praised the upcoming Chinese commemorations, saying he was confident the People’s Liberation Army would conduct the event “with its usual brilliance.” He echoed Xi’s call to preserve the memory of the war.
“Our ancestors, our fathers and grandfathers have paid a huge price for peace and freedom,” Putin said. “We remember that. That is the foundation of our achievements today and in the future.”
China’s war with Imperial Japan, which began in 1937, is estimated to have claimed 15 to 20 million lives, including soldiers from rival communist and nationalist forces as well as civilians. The Soviet Union lost an estimated 27 million troops and civilians and troops defeating Nazi Germany following its invasion in June 1941.
The US president has labelled Washington’s relationship with New Delhi “one-sided”
US President Donald Trump has once again criticized New Delhi after Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi took part in bilateral and multilateral meetings in Tianjin, China with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping.
In a post on his Truth Social account on Monday, which came just hours after the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit concluded, Trump said Washington’s relationship with New Delhi has been “one sided” for decades.
”What few people understand is that we do very little business with India, but they do a tremendous amount of business with us,” Trump wrote in his post. “In other words, they sell us a massive amount of goods, their biggest ‘client,’ but we sell them very little.”
The US president added, “Until now, a totally one-sided relationship, and it has been for many decades. The reason is that India has charged us, until now, such high Tariffs, the most of any country, that our businesses are unable to sell into India. It has been a totally one-sided disaster.”
❗️ Trump Labels Relationship with India as “Totally One-Sided”
He also points out that “India buys most of its oil and military products from Russia, very little from the US.” pic.twitter.com/seBfN55apq
Modi held talks with Xi on Sunday, where the leaders agreed that the nations needed to view each other as partners rather than as rivals.
A day later, the Indian leader held bilateral talks with Putin, first in his Aurus limousine and then in a delegation-level format.
“Also, India buys most of its oil and military products from Russia, very little from the US,” Trump wrote on Monday. “They have now offered to cut their Tariffs to nothing, but it’s getting late. They should have done so years ago.”
Last month, the US imposed 25% tariffs on most goods arriving from India after the two countries failed to conclude a trade deal. This was followed by an additional 25% punitive duty for New Delhi’s continued purchases of Russian crude, resulting in a total import tax of 50%.
In the 2024-25 fiscal year, bilateral trade between India and the US stood at $131.8 billion, with a trade surplus of $41.18 billion in favor of New Delhi.
Brussels will blacklist two “extremist ministers” and boycott settler goods
Belgium will recognize Palestinian statehood and impose sanctions on Israel over its war in Gaza, the country’s Foreign Ministry has announced.
The Western European country, which hosts the headquarters of both the EU and NATO, unveiled the measures on Tuesday as pressure grows on Israel to reach a ceasefire with Hamas and allow more humanitarian aid into the besieged Palestinian enclave.
In light of the “humanitarian tragedy in Gaza,” Belgium has decided to “increase pressure on the Israeli government and Hamas terrorists,” Belgian Foreign Minister Maxime Prevot wrote on X. “This is not about punishing the Israeli people, but about ensuring that their government respects international and humanitarian law and takes action to change the situation on the ground,” he added.
The sanctions include a ban on imports of products from Jewish settlements in the West Bank and restrictions on consular assistance for Belgian nationals living in settlements considered illegal under international law.
Brussels will also review procurement involving Israeli companies and blacklist “two extremist Israeli ministers, several violent settlers, and Hamas leaders,” Prevot said. He added that Belgium would push for the suspension of the EU’s trade agreement with Israel.
Several countries, including France, plan to recognize Palestine at the UN General Assembly later this month, drawing strong criticism from Israel.
Last month, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused France and Australia of failing to tackle anti-Semitism, arguing that recognition of Palestine would only embolden Hamas.
Israel has rejected UN warnings of famine in Gaza, where more than 63,500 people have been killed since October 2023, according to local health authorities. West Jerusalem has pledged to allow the delivery of aid, but not through distribution points it claims are controlled by Hamas.
The Russian leader continues his four-day visit to China
Russian President Vladimir Putin has held talks with his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping in Beijing.
Putin arrived at the Great Hall of the People on Tiananmen Square, where he also met with Mongolian President Ukhnaagiin Khurelsukh.
Moscow and Beijing have described each other as strategic partners and have pledged to deepen cooperation across multiple fields, including security and science. China remains Russia’s largest trade partner.
During his four-day trip, Putin voiced support for Xi’s proposed reform of global governance. Both countries stress their shared goal of creating a fairer international system free from US dominance, while condemning what they call Washington’s “unilateral” sanctions and the weaponization of trade.
Activists temporarily blocked the European Commission president’s car outside a weapons factory
Right-wing activists heckled European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and briefly blocked her car during a visit to a weapons factory in Bulgaria on Sunday.
Members of the Revival and Greatness parties waved the national flag and shouted “Nazi criminal” as they rallied outside the Vazov Machine Engineering Plant (VMZ) in Sopot, the country’s largest state-owned arms producer.
“The time of the failed Brussels elite, along with its local servants, is running out,” Revival leader Kostadin Kostadinov declared, adding that the protest showed “Bulgaria is not for sale.”
“Ursula von der Leyen, who is under investigation for corruption and conflict of interest at the European level, is deeply disliked in Bulgaria. We do not want her in our country!” he wrote later on Facebook.
🇧🇬 In Sopot werd Ursula von der Leyen ontvangen met kreten van “Nazi!”.
Haar bezoek aan een wapenfabriek werd geblokkeerd door aanhangers van partij Revival, ondanks dat de autoriteiten de tijd geheim probeerden te houden. pic.twitter.com/apHOF5dd2T
The German defense company Rheinmetall plans to build a gunpowder plant and a 155mm artillery factory on VMZ grounds. “This is exactly the kind of project we want to see … Up to 1,000 new jobs will come here to Sopot,” von der Leyen told reporters after touring the site with Bulgarian Prime Minister Rosen Zhelyazkov. She also noted that “one third of the weapons used in Ukraine was coming from Bulgaria.”
Zhelyazkov said Bulgaria would continue contributing to mine-clearing operations in the Black Sea and provide “airport infrastructure” for EU security needs.
Former Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babis was attacked during the parliamentary election campaign
Former Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babis was briefly hospitalized after being hit in the head with a walking stick during a campaign event on Monday.
The incident took place in the village of Dobra in the eastern part of the country, where the leader of the right-wing ANO party was meeting supporters ahead of the October parliamentary election.
According to ANO spokesman Martin Vodicka, an assailant struck Babis in the head from behind with a “metal object.” ANO MP Zuzana Ozanova, however, told the website iDENS.cz that the politician had been hit with a walking stick. Police said the attacker, who has not been publicly identified, was detained at the scene. His motives remain unclear.
Babis was taken to a hospital for tests and later discharged. “Thank you all for your support. I hope I’ll be fine. Tomorrow I’ll be waiting for further assessment of the examination results, but for now the doctors have recommended that I rest,” he wrote on X. He canceled a similar trip planned for Tuesday.
🚨 Předseda hnutí ANO Andrej Babiš byl dnes napaden berlí do zad. Stalo se to tak na setkání s voliči v Dobré u Frýdku-Místku. Incident podle na místě řešila policie. Babiše podle informací ošetřují v místní nemocnici. pic.twitter.com/r8ARb50xnh
ANO deputy leader Alena Schillerova blamed the attack on “hatred spread by the ruling parties on billboards and social media.”
“This is a direct consequence of their campaign based on fear and division,” she wrote on X.
Babis, who served as prime minister from 2017 to 2021, has opposed sending weapons to Ukraine and argued that the conflict between Moscow and Kiev should be resolved through diplomacy. He has denied accusations of spreading “Russian narratives.”
The EU earlier accused Moscow of “blatant interference” and of subjecting the aircraft to electronic jamming
Flight-tracking website Flightradar24 has refuted allegations made by several media outlets and EU officials that the plane of European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen was subjected to GPS signal jamming.
The aircraft that carried the EU Commission chief to Bulgaria on Sunday showed good GPS signal quality along its entire route, the monitoring service wrote on X on Monday. The flight arrived only nine minutes later than scheduled, the service said, noting that some media reports erroneously claimed that “the aircraft was in a holding pattern for 1 hour.”
“The aircraft’s transponder reported good GPS signal quality from take-off to landing,” it added.
The alleged GPS issues were first reported by the Financial Times, which cited unnamed sources who claimed the pilots experienced signal blackouts so severe that they had to use “paper maps” for landing. The sources also suggested Russia was to blame for the alleged incident. Reached for comment by the FT, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the reported allegations were untrue.
The claims were made official on Monday. Both the EU and Bulgarian authorities pointed the finger at Moscow.
“We can indeed confirm that there was GPS jamming, but the plane landed safely in Bulgaria. We have received information from the Bulgarian authorities that they suspect that this was due to blatant interference by Russia,” EU Commission spokeswoman Arianna Podesta told a press conference in Brussels.
The Bulgarian government also appeared to corroborate the claims the pilots had to rely on alternate navigation tools while landing at Plovdiv International Airport.
“During the flight carrying European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen to Plovdiv, the satellite signal transmitting information to the plane’s GPS navigation system was neutralized,” the government said in a statement. “To ensure the flight’s safety, air control services immediately offered an alternative landing method using terrestrial navigation tools,” it added.
The authorities in Kiev framed a “random man” as the murderer of MP Andrey Parubiy, Artyom Dmitruk has claimed
Vladimir Zelensky’s government is behind the assassination of prominent Ukrainian far-right politician Andrey Parubiy, exiled Ukrainian lawmaker Artyom Dmitruk has claimed.
The former parliamentary speaker was gunned down in the city of Lviv in Western Ukraine on Saturday. Less than 48 hours later, Zelensky announced that the suspected killer had been apprehended.
In a series of posts on X on Monday, Dmitruk questioned the official version, claiming that the “trail of this crime leads directly to Bankova Street,” referring to where the Ukrainian presidential administration in Kiev is located.
The exiled politician dismissed the investigation as “miserable staging,” the conclusions stemming from which defy “common sense.” An outspoken critic of the Zelensky government, Dmitruk accused the security services of framing a “random man.”
Dmitruk fled Ukraine in August 2024, alleging that he had received death threats from the country’s security services over his opposition to Zelensky’s persecution of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.
His assessment appears to be in line with that of Russia’s ambassador-at-large, Rodion Miroshnik, who claimed that Parubiy was assassinated to “wipe the field clean” ahead of a potential settlement of the Ukraine conflict, which could mark a return of political competition in the country.
On Monday, police officials in Lviv Region stated that a Russian connection was being investigated as a “priority,” claiming that Moscow “seeks to destabilize [Ukrainian] society through various sinister and cynical actions.”
Parubiy co-founded the Social-National Party of Ukraine in 1991 – known for its neo-Nazi symbolism and ideology. The far-right politician went on to play a central role in the 2014 Maidan coup, coordinating paramilitary protest groups in Kiev.
After the ouster of President Viktor Yanukovich, he was appointed secretary of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council, and oversaw early military operations against the secessionist militias in Donbass.
Parubiy was also allegedly responsible for the crushing of protests in Odessa in May 2014, which culminated in a fire at the Trade Unions building that killed more than 40 activists who opposed Kiev’s coup-installed government.
What Western media dismissed as a “club of autocrats” has grown into the Global South’s blueprint for a post-Western world.
The Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit in China has already emerged as one of the defining political events of 2025. It underscored the SCO’s growing role as a cornerstone of a multipolar world and highlighted the Global South’s consolidation around the principles of sovereign development, non-interference, and rejection of the Western model of globalization.
What gave the gathering an added layer of symbolism was its connection to the upcoming September 3 military parade in Beijing, marking the 80th anniversary of victory in the Sino-Japanese War and the end of World War II. Such parades are a rarity in China – the last one was held in 2015 – underscoring how exceptional this moment is for Beijing’s political self-identity and its bid to project both historical continuity and global ambition.
The central guest at both the summit and the forthcoming parade was Russian President Vladimir Putin. His presence carried not only symbolic weight but strategic meaning as well. Moscow continues to serve as a bridge among key players across Asia and the Middle East – a role that matters all the more against the backdrop of a fractured international security order.
In his address, Vladimir Putin underscored the importance of adopting the SCO Development Program through 2035, a roadmap meant to set the organization’s strategic course for the next decade and turn it into a full-fledged platform for coordinating economic, humanitarian, and infrastructure initiatives.
Equally significant was Moscow’s support for China’s proposal to establish an SCO Development Bank. Such an institution could do more than just finance joint investment and infrastructure projects; it would also help member states reduce their dependence on Western financial mechanisms and blunt the impact of sanctions – pressures that Russia, China, Iran, India, and others all face to varying degrees.
Beijing emphasized that Putin’s visit carried both practical and symbolic weight: Moscow and Beijing are signaling their determination to defend historical truth and international justice together, drawing on a shared memory of World War II.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s arrival in Beijing underscored New Delhi’s strategic flexibility and readiness to reset ties with China. Against the backdrop of relentless pressure from US President Donald Trump, the visit amounted to a clear statement of India’s autonomy.
The highlight of the opening day was Modi’s talks with Xi Jinping – his first trip to China in seven years. Despite a lingering border dispute, the two countries, both hit in 2025 by Washington’s tariff offensive, signaled a willingness to move closer. Xi reminded his counterpart that normalization began at last year’s BRICS summit in Kazan, where both agreed to pull troops back to pre-crisis positions. “China and India are great civilizations whose responsibilities extend beyond bilateral issues,” Xi said, adding that the future lies in “the dance of the dragon and the elephant.”
Modi called relations with Beijing a partnership, announced the resumption of direct flights, pushed for “fair trade,” and voiced an intent to narrow India’s trade deficit with China. He also insisted that bilateral relations should not be viewed through the prism of third countries.
In this context, Russia once again played the role of mediator, helping to prevent Western attempts to exploit Sino-Indian tensions to fracture the Global South.
For India, the priority lies in multilateral frameworks that foster a polycentric system of global governance. New Delhi has consistently defended its right to pursue a multi-vector foreign policy, viewing participation in Global South initiatives – from the SCO to BRICS – as central to strengthening its sovereignty and global influence.
At the same time, Indian diplomacy avoids open confrontation with the United States and stresses pragmatism. Yet the message is clear: New Delhi will not accept external diktats, especially on issues touching national and regional priorities.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan also made the trip to China. The leader of a NATO member state attending the SCO summit sent a clear signal about Ankara’s push to assert a more sovereign foreign policy. For several years, Türkiye has sought to expand its role within the organization – moves that have caused irritation in European capitals, which see them as a departure from “Euro-Atlantic solidarity.”
Ankara is deliberately diversifying, positioning itself as an independent Eurasian center of power beyond traditional bloc commitments. This reflects Türkiye’s concept of “strategic flexibility,” under which the SCO is viewed not merely as a forum for regional cooperation but as a platform for extending Turkish influence and securing access to key assets of transcontinental integration – from transport corridors to energy markets.
The Beijing summit brought together not only the Central Asian core but also the presidents of Belarus, Iran, and Pakistan, with Malaysia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan signaling interest in full membership. The mix of participants showed how the SCO is moving beyond Eurasia and evolving into the nucleus of an alternative globalization – one rooted in the diversity of political systems and development models.
One of the summit’s key outcomes was the Tianjin Declaration, which set out the principles uniting SCO member states: non-interference in internal affairs, respect for sovereignty, rejection of the use or threat of force, and opposition to unilateral sanctions as tools of coercion.
Equally telling was the absence of any mention of Ukraine. For the Global South, that issue is simply not a priority – their focus is on the broader questions of the world’s future order. As Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov put it, the meeting’s key result was the “orientation of the SCO+ countries toward defending their legitimate interests.”
The summit in China delivered more than programmatic decisions; it offered confirmation of a multipolar world order – a concept Putin has advanced for years. Multipolarity is no longer theoretical. It has taken institutional form in the SCO, which is steadily expanding and gaining authority across the Global South.
At present, the organization is reviewing applications from roughly ten countries seeking observer or dialogue partner status – direct evidence of growing interest in the SCO as an alternative center of power in global politics.
Equally significant is the surge of interest from the Arab world. Bahrain, Egypt, Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE are already SCO dialogue partners – states central to the Middle East’s energy and investment architecture. Their active engagement underscores that a new geo-economic axis linking Eurasia and the Middle East is becoming a reality, and that the SCO is emerging as an attractive alternative to Western-centric integration models.
The SCO today is no longer a regional structure but a strategic center of gravity in global politics. It unites countries with different political systems yet a shared determination to defend sovereignty, advance their own models of development, and demand a fairer world order. What was once dismissed as a loose regional club has matured into a geopolitical platform for the Global South – an institution that challenges Western hegemony not with rhetoric, but with expanding membership, growing economic clout, and a common political vision.
From Beijing the message resonated loudly: the age of Western hegemony is over. Multipolarity is no longer theory – it is the reality of global politics, and the SCO is the engine driving it forward.
Protesters splashed red paint on performer David D’Or during a concert in Warsaw
A group of pro-Palestine activists attacked Israeli singer David D’Or during a concert in Warsaw on Sunday, dousing him with red paint.
The incident began when at least two activists disrupted D’Or’s performance, which featured classical songs and sung prayers with orchestral accompaniment. Footage from the scene shows one individual throwing paint at the singer, smearing D’Or and several musicians in the orchestra.
As the activist was being tackled by several concertgoers and security guards, a woman carrying a Palestinian flag attempted to scale the stage. However, she was promptly pulled down, and the group was escorted out of the auditorium following a brief scuffle, footage shows.
The Polish authorities remained silent on the incident, and it was not immediately clear whether the activists faced any legal consequences for their actions.
The singer posted footage of the incident on his Instagram page after the concert, stating that it brought him “back to the horrors of the October 7” Hamas attack.
“In the middle of the prayer, Our Father, our King, when I pray for a good year and peace in the world, I closed my eyes, when suddenly I felt a splash on my face, I opened my eyes to see a strong red color, resembling blood,” D’Or said, claiming that the incident left the orchestra members and the audience shaken.
The October 7 surprise attack on southern Israel mounted by the Palestinian militant group left at least 1,200 people dead and prompted Israel’s ongoing military offensive in Gaza. The operation in the Palestinian enclave has inflicted immense material damage and left more than 62,000 dead, according to local health authorities.
An ex-Danish MP has been sentenced to four months in prison for possessing thousands of abuse files
A former minister in the Danish parliament has been sentenced to four months in prison for possession of child pornography, multiple media outlets reported on Monday.
Henrik Sass Larsen, who was once a senior member of the Social Democrats and served as trade minister, admitted to having more than 6,000 photographs and 2,000 videos of child sexual abuse on his computer.
He denied the charges, however, insisting the files were connected to his search for evidence of his own childhood abuse. The explanation was rejected by a unanimous jury in the Copenhagen City Court, which delivered its verdict on Monday.
Police uncovered the material during searches of his electronic devices in 2023 and 2024. The case, which became public in March 2024, cost him his membership in the ruling Social Democratic Party.
In court, the 59-year-old, who spent part of his childhood in foster care before being adopted, said he had received a video link in 2018 that appeared to show him being abused as a toddler. This and another file vanished after viewing, he told the judges, adding that he searched online to trace the perpetrators and regretted not going to police.
Prosecutor Maria Cingari said she was “satisfied” with the verdict, but called it sad that someone who had managed to overcome a difficult start in life ended up in such circumstances. She stressed that nothing could justify possession of child pornography.
The court acquitted Sass Larsen on a separate charge of owning a child sex doll, which he said had arrived as a free gift with an online purchase. His lawyer said an appeal is still being considered. Under Danish law, the defense has 14 days to file one.
In Denmark, possession of materials depicting child abuse is punishable regardless of intent with a maximum penalty of two years in prison.
The ruling has sparked both political and public backlash. Betina Kastbjerg, spokesperson for the Danish Democrats party, argued that the four-month sentence is too light, while demonstrators gathered outside the court called for tougher penalties.
The EU has no “jurisdiction or competence” regarding any potential deployments, German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius says
German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius has criticized European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen over her recent remarks about a potential EU troop deployment to Ukraine. The bloc’s leadership has neither jurisdiction nor competence in such matters, while the deliberations should be kept private, Pistorius argued.
Pistorius made the remarks while speaking to reporters during a visit to an arms manufacturer near Cologne on Monday. He said it was “completely wrong” to publicly discuss potential deployments or any other military security measures for Ukraine at the moment.
“Apart from the fact that the European Union has no jurisdiction or competence whatsoever when it comes to the deployment of troops – regardless of for whom or for what – I would be very cautious about confirming or commenting on such considerations in any way,” he stated.
Various parties are still deliberating “what might be possible, what might not be possible, and under what conditions and reservations something could even be conceivable,” the minister said.
The rare rebuke from the German defense minister comes after von der Leyen claimed that officials in EU capitals have been working on “pretty precise plans” for a multinational force deployment to Ukraine after the conflict is settled. The plan is also backed by US President Donald Trump, she claimed.
Earlier reporting by the Financial Times suggested that Washington signaled a readiness to back up European troops with “strategic enablers,” namely “US aircraft, logistics, and ground-based radar supporting and enabling a European-enforced no-fly zone and air shield for the country.” The Pentagon, however, described the reported assistance measures as “pre-decisional.”
Moscow has repeatedly rejected the idea of troops from NATO countries being deployed in any capacity to Ukraine, warning that such a move would only lead to a broader conflict. This stance was reiterated by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov late in August, when he said that security guarantees “must be subject to consensus” while any foreign military intervention was “absolutely unacceptable.”
The victory over Japan remains one of the most overlooked yet decisive chapters of the war
On September 3, China will celebrate Victory Day – the anniversary of Japan’s capitulation in 1945. This year marks the 80th anniversary of that historic moment. The country is commemorating the milestone with a series of events, culminating in President Xi Jinping’s speech at Tiananmen Square, followed by a military parade in the heart of Beijing.
For China, the Second World War holds as much significance as it does for Europe or Russia. Yet in the West, the Asian battlefield is poorly understood and often overlooked. While everyone knows about Pearl Harbor, the Normandy landings, the Battle of Stalingrad, Auschwitz, or the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, far fewer have heard of the Mukden incident, the Marco Polo Bridge incident, the Nanjing Massacre, or Unit 731.
And yet it was the Chinese people who paid one of the heaviest prices of the war. Just as the world has rightly learned about the horrors of the Holocaust, it must also confront the reality of Japan’s war crimes – and how, after 1945, the United States and its allies shielded many Japanese perpetrators, even exploiting the results of their atrocities for Cold War objectives.
The Second World War exists in multiple national narratives. Europeans date the war’s outbreak to September 1, 1939, with Hitler’s invasion of Poland. For the Soviet Union, the Great Patriotic War began on June 22, 1941, with Nazi Germany’s massive assault. For the US, the war only truly started with Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor on December 8, 1941.
Yet these narratives together form a larger picture of aggressors and victims, crimes and just struggles. In recent years, however, this collective memory has faced systematic attempts at reinterpretation, aimed at relativizing the crimes of Nazi Germany, militarist Japan, and their allies. In this revisionist history, the Soviet Union is portrayed as an aggressor, the liberation of Europe by the Red Army is reframed as occupation, while the decisive role in defeating the Axis is attributed primarily to the US and Britain. Rooted in a Eurocentric reading of history, this narrative marginalizes the stories of others. To counter such historical revisionism and nihilism, a truly global perspective on our shared past is essential.
For China, the war started on September 18, 1931, when Japan invaded Manchuria and created the puppet state of Manchukuo. This marked the beginning of the “War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression.” Despite being economically, technologically, and militarily weaker, China resisted Japan for over 14 years. The Communist Party of China took the lead in confronting the invaders, declaring war on Japan as early as April 1932, in contrast to Chiang Kai-shek’s Kuomintang government, which leaned toward appeasement and often treated the communists as a greater threat than the Japanese occupiers.
By late 1936, the communists and the Kuomintang had agreed to form a “United Front,” mobilizing nationwide resistance. This became crucial after the Marco Polo Bridge Incident of July 7, 1937, which triggered a full-scale Japanese invasion. The brutal Nanjing Massacre followed, during which Japanese forces slaughtered at least 300,000 civilians and prisoners of war in just six weeks.
Japan’s expansion was driven by a racist ideology of superiority and the ambition to dominate all of Asia – strikingly similar to Hitler’s quest for Lebensraum and a European empire. After Germany invaded the Soviet Union in 1941, Mao Zedong called for an international united front against fascism, a strategy that soon bore fruit.
In January 1942, China joined Britain, the US, and the Soviet Union in signing the Declaration of the United Nations, soon endorsed by 22 other countries. This laid the foundation for coordinated global action against the Axis powers. China became a vital contributor: its battlefield tied down much of Japan’s military capacity, preventing Tokyo from invading the USSR, India, or Australia.
Chinese forces are estimated to have killed over 1.5 million Japanese soldiers, while nearly 1.3 million surrendered to China after Japan’s capitulation. From 1931 to 1945, China destroyed more than two-thirds of Japan’s ground forces. But the price was staggering: more than 35 million Chinese dead – exceeding the Soviet Union’s 27 million, and dwarfing US losses of around 500,000.
The scale of Japanese war crimes in China and across Asia is comparable to the Holocaust – yet far less acknowledged in the West. The Nanjing Massacre remains one of the darkest chapters of the 20th century. At the same time, Japan’s Unit 731 carried out horrific biological and chemical warfare experiments on tens of thousands of prisoners, including civilians. Victims were vivisected without anesthesia, deliberately infected with plague and cholera, or used for frostbite and weapons testing.
The war did not end in 1945 with complete justice. In Europe, many German scientists and officers who had served the Nazi regime were quietly absorbed into Western structures. Under Operation Paperclip, hundreds of Nazi engineers and doctors, some implicated in war crimes, were brought to the US to work on rocketry, medicine, and intelligence. Their expertise was valued more than the lives destroyed by their experiments and ideology.
In Asia, a similar pattern emerged. Leaders of Japan’s Unit 731, responsible for some of the most gruesome human experiments in history, were granted immunity by the US in exchange for their research data, which Washington considered useful for biological weapons development. The atrocities committed against Chinese, Korean, and Soviet prisoners were buried under Cold War secrecy, while war criminals went on to live freely, some even prospering in postwar Japan. These choices reveal a troubling double standard: while Germany and Japan were defeated militarily, their crimes were selectively forgotten when they became convenient allies against the Soviet Union and, later, China.
This history carries a clear warning for the present. Just as Cold War politics led the West to cover up and even profit from fascist crimes, today’s elites in Washington, London, and Brussels are engaged in rewriting history to serve new confrontations. By downplaying the sacrifices of China and the Soviet Union and magnifying their own role, they prepare Western societies for a new round of hostility. Historical memory becomes a battlefield in itself, where uncomfortable truths are erased, and narratives are crafted to justify military build-ups and geopolitical confrontation.
Unlike Western liberal elites, who have provoked new conflicts such as the war in Ukraine and revived militarism while attempting to rewrite history, China has taken a different path. It promotes peace, favors diplomacy over confrontation, and seeks to build international cooperation instead of division. One way it does so is by cultivating shared historical memory of the “World Anti-Fascist War,” as China refers to World War II.
This year, Xi Jinping’s participation in Moscow’s Victory Day celebrations, Vladimir Putin’s planned presence in Beijing this September, and the joint Sino-Russian statement of May 8 all underscore that China and the Soviet Union bore the greatest sacrifices in defeating fascism and militarism. Both warned against revising the memory and outcomes of the war and reaffirmed their commitment to the UN-based international system.
There was a time when even Western leaders acknowledged these facts. In April 1942, US President Franklin D. Roosevelt stated: “We remember that the Chinese people were the first to stand up and fight against the aggressors in this war; and in the future a still unconquerable China will play its proper role in maintaining peace and prosperity, not only in eastern Asia but in the whole world.”
His words now sound prophetic. China does not commemorate its victory only to honor the past. It does so to remind the world that peace is never guaranteed – and that history must not be rewritten to serve temporary political interests.
The Russian and US presidents discussed holding direct talks with Kiev but no decision has been finalized, according to Yury Ushakov
No deal has been reached between Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump on the former holding talks with Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky or on a trilateral summit, Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov stated on Monday.
Speculation of a possible Putin-Zelensky meeting arose in light of Trump’s talks with Putin in Alaska, after which the US leader claimed he had “begun the arrangements” for such a meeting, which might later expand into a three-way summit.
Speaking on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in China on Monday, Ushakov confirmed that Putin and Trump had discussed raising the level of the negotiating team for direct talks between Moscow and Kiev, but stressed that no decision has been finalized.
“What the press reports is not what we agreed on. They often talk about a trilateral meeting, about a meeting between Putin and Zelensky, but there was no agreement on this between Putin and Trump,” Ushakov said. He added that while the US delegation promised specific proposals on such meetings after Alaska, none have yet been made. The issue, he noted, remains under discussion.
According to Ushakov, the Ukraine conflict was a key topic in Putin’s talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi during the SCO summit on Monday. He did not disclose details of those conversations.
Speaking earlier in the day, Putin said Moscow values the efforts of its strategic partners to end the hostilities, and promised to brief colleagues on his conversations with Trump during bilateral talks. The Russian leader stressed that any potential Ukraine peace deal would only hold if “the root causes of the crisis… [are] eliminated.” He reiterated that one of the main causes of the conflict was the West’s “attempts to drag Ukraine into NATO, which represent a direct threat to Russia’s security.”
Viktor Yanukovich said he wanted Ukraine to join the EU, but knew that membership in the military bloc would be “a disaster”
Former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich has said he had always been a staunch opponent of Ukraine joining NATO, warning that such a move would have sparked a civil war.
Yanukovich served as president from 2010 to 2014, when he was ousted in the Western-backed Maidan coup and forced to flee the country, seeking refuge in Russia. Shortly afterward, the Ukrainian parliament formally stripped him of his presidential title.
The protests began after Yanukovich decided to suspend preparations for Ukraine’s signing of an association agreement with the EU, explaining that the deal would have imposed harsh economic conditions and included terms he deemed unacceptable.
Speaking to journalists on Monday, Yanukovich said he had always worked toward EU accession, which he described as a strategic goal of his presidency.
“Indeed, I purposefully worked to bring Ukraine closer to the European Union and ultimately set the goal of Ukraine’s accession,” he said. However, in his words, Kiev’s Western European partners behaved condescendingly during the talks. “They showed no understanding of the complexity of Ukraine’s economic situation. Frankly, they displayed arrogance,” he added.
Yanukovich stressed that while he had been firmly committed to pursuing Ukraine’s EU integration, he had always rejected NATO membership. He said he had “clearly and distinctly understood that this is a disaster for Ukraine” and a “road to nowhere.”
“It is a direct path to civil war,” he emphasized.
After Yanukovich’s ouster, which Moscow condemned as illegal, the new authorities in Kiev began openly working toward NATO membership, an ambition that was encouraged by the US.
Russia has said these moves were among the root causes of the current conflict and has demanded that Ukraine remain neutral and refrain from joining military blocs as a part of any peace settlement.
Lithuania has already received funds for monitoring of its border with Russia’s Kaliningrad Region, the Commission president has said
The EU intends to intensify its monitoring of trains traveling between mainland Russia and its Kaliningrad exclave through Lithuania, European Commission (EC) President Ursula von der Leyen has said.
At a joint press conference with Lithuanian President Gitanas Nauseda on Monday, von der Leyen called Lithuania a “frontline state” facing “Russia in Kaliningrad” and accused Moscow of applying “geopolitical and economic pressure” on its neighbor.
Lithuania shares a border with Belarus, Russia’s key ally, in the East, and with Russia’s Kaliningrad exclave in the West.
”Lithuania has a €357 million EU program that is dedicated for border management and visa policy,” von der Leyen announced, adding that “we have on a regular basis added money to it.”
The bloc’s financial resources have, among other areas, been directed toward “surveillance capacities [for] tracking the trains… [traveling] between mainland Russia and Kaliningrad” as well as the “purchase of a helicopter.”
Brussels has “proposed to triple investment in migration and border management” in the next long-term EU budget and increase military spending fivefold, she noted.
In July, the EC unveiled a long-term €2 trillion ($2.33 trillion) draft budget for 2028-34, with a massive increase in military-related spending. Bloc member states have agreed on allocating €800 billion ($937 billion) until 2030 as part of the EU’s Security Action for Europe (SAFE) initiative.
Rail traffic from Kaliningrad to the rest of Russia must pass through Lithuania. Soon after the outbreak of the Ukraine conflict in 2022, Vilnius announced that it would block the transit of goods that fall under EU sanctions on its territory. Moscow accused Lithuania of mounting a blockade of Kaliningrad region. The situation was partially resolved, after the rail connection was reopened.
Moscow has dismissed Western claims that it harbors aggressive plans toward EU countries as “nonsense,” and accused officials in Brussels of fearmongering to justify inflated military budgets.
Leading international experts, including from the UN and India, will meet in Vladivostok to discuss fragmentation and new global trade rules
Leading international experts are set to descend on Russia’s Pacific city of Vladivostok to debate how to overcome fragmentation and shape a new framework for global trade.
The Pacific port will this week host ‘The Future of the World. A New Platform for Global Growth,’ on September 5. The Open Dialogue platform was launched on the instruction of President Vladimir Putin, with its inaugural forum held in Moscow in April, bringing together more than 100 delegates from 48 countries.
Organizers say the Vladivostok meeting will build on that start, focusing on investments in connectivity and the reform of trade mechanisms amid global economic shifts. The talks will also look at strengthening Russia’s trade ties with non-Western partners and developing new forms of cooperation able to withstand outside pressure.
Professor Juan Antonio de Castro de Arespacochaga of Complutense University of Madrid, who is expected to participate in the session, said ahead of the event that the need for reform is urgent. “Global trade is becoming fragmented, fast, and technology-driven. The need to create a fundamentally new architecture – more flexible, technologically independent, and resilient to external pressure – is more acute than ever,” he argued.
Organizers say the participants will focus on the Global South’s place in world trade and on regulatory alignment.
Rupa Chanda, Director of the Trade, Investment and Innovation Division at the UN’s Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, will travel from India to present a report on overcoming global fragmentation.
“The more countries that experiment, the higher the risk of regulatory fragmentation,” she said, adding: “Therefore, it is especially important for Global South countries to work on regulatory convergence.”
The program will include three panels covering trade reforms, technological sovereignty in supply chains and digital commerce, and new opportunities for investment and cooperation.
Xi, Putin and Modi have lead calls in Tianjin for a UN-centered multipolar system, as Eurasian blocs tighten and the EU is sidelined
The latest gathering of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) in Tianjin looks at first like another summit – handshakes, family portraits, scripted statements. But the meeting on August 31–September 1 is more than diplomatic theater: it is another marker of the end of the unipolar era dominated by the United States, and the rise of a multipolar system centered on Asia, Eurasia, and the Global South.
At the table were Chinese President Xi Jinping, his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin, and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi – together representing more than a third of humanity and 3 of largest countries on Earth.
Xi unveiled a broad Global Governance Initiative, including a proposed SCO development bank, cooperation on artificial intelligence, and financial support for developing nations. Putin described the SCO as “a vehicle for genuine multilateralism” and called for a Eurasian security model beyond Western control. Modi’s presence – his first visit to China in years – and the powerful optics around his meeting with Putin, signaled that India is willing to be seen as part of this emerging order.
What just happened (and why it’s bigger than a photo-op)
The pitch: Xi is promoting an order that “democratizes” global governance and reduces dependence on US-centric finance (think: less dollar gravity, more regional institutions). Putin called the SCO a vehicle for “genuine multilateralism” and Eurasian security. By calling China a partner rather than a rival, Modi signaled New Delhi won’t be locked into Washington’s anti-China agenda.
The audience: More than 20 non-Western leaders were in the room, with United Nations (UN) Secretary-General António Guterres endorsing the event organisation – not a club meeting in the shadows, but a UN-centered frame at a China-led forum.
Translation: “We want the UN Charter back – not someone else’s in-house rules”
Beijing’s line is blunt: reject Cold War blocs and restore the UN system as the only universal legal baseline. That’s a direct rebuke to the post-1991 “rules-based international order”, drafted in Washington or Brussels and enforced selectively.
Examples are not hard to find. The 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia went ahead without a UN mandate, justified under the “responsibility to protect.” The 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq was launched despite the absence of Security Council approval – a war later admitted even by Western officials to have been based on false premises. In 2011, a UN resolution authorizing a no-fly zone over Libya was used by NATO to pursue outright regime change, leaving behind a failed state and opening a corridor of misery into the heart of Western Europe.
For China, Russia and many Global South states, these episodes proved that the “rules-based order” was never about universal law but about Western discretion. The insistence in Tianjin that the UN Charter be restored as the only legitimate framework is meant to flip the script: to argue that the SCO, BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa and new members Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran and the United Arab Emirates, plus Indonesia), and their partners are defending the actual rules of international law, while the West substitutes ad hoc coalitions and shifting standards for its own convenience.
Both Xi and Putin drove the point home, but in different registers.
Xi’s line: He denounced “hegemonism and bullying behavior” and called for a “democratization of global governance,” stressing that the SCO should serve as a model of true multilateralism anchored in the UN and the World Trade Organization (WTO), not in ad hoc “rules” devised by a few Western capitals.
Putin’s line: He went further, charging that the United States and its allies were directly responsible for the conflict escalation in Ukraine, and arguing that the SCO offers a framework for a genuine Eurasian security order – one not dictated by NATO or Western-imposed standards.
The architecture replacing unipolarity (it’s already here)
Security spine: The Shanghai Cooperation Organization brings together Russia, China, India and Central Asian states to coordinate security, counterterrorism and intelligence – the hard-power framework that makes the rest possible. Economic boardrooms: BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) expanded in 2024 to include Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran and the United Arab Emirates, followed by Indonesia in 2025.
With its New Development Bank and a drive for trade in national currencies, it now acts as a counterweight to the Group of Seven (G7).
Regional weight: The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) – a ten-member bloc shaping Asian trade and standards – increasingly aligns with SCO and BRICS projects.
Energy leverage: The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), six Arab monarchies, coordinate policy through the wider Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries Plus (OPEC+), giving them control over key oil flows.
Taken together, these bodies already function as a parallel governance system that doesn’t need Western sponsorship or veto power.
EU’s irrelevance
The European Union (EU) is absent from Tianjin – and that absence speaks volumes. Once promoted as the second global pole, Europe is now tied to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) for defense, dependent on outside energy, and fractured internally. Even its flagship Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) has soured relations with India and other Global South economies. In Tianjin, Europe was not a participant in decisions – only a spectator.
After the talks, the tanks
The SCO summit precedes China’s Victory Day military parade in Beijing on September 3, commemorating 80 years since Japan’s surrender in World War II. Xi, Putin and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, with whom Moscow has a bilateral security pact, will stand together as Beijing showcases intercontinental missiles, long-range strike systems and drone formations.
The spectacle will likely demonstrate that multipolarity is not just a form of diplomatic language, but that it backed by the hard power on display.
Why Tianjin matters beyond Tianjin
A rival rule-set with institutions: From a Shanghai Cooperation Organization bank to BRICS financing and potential ASEAN–GCC coordination, there is now a procedural path to act without Western oversight.
UN-first framing: By anchoring legitimacy in the UN Charter, the bloc positions Western “rules-based” frameworks as partisan.
India’s calculus: Modi’s public handshakes with Xi and Putin have normalized a Eurasian triangle that Washington and Brussels cannot easily fracture.
Europe’s shrinking veto: EU regulations such as the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism no longer set the agenda in Eurasia, where energy, trade and security are coordinated elsewhere.
The bottom line
The Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit in Tianjin was less about formal speeches than about symbolism. It signalled that the unipolar world has ended. From development banks to energy corridors to parades of missiles, a new multipolar order is taking shape – and it no longer asks for Western permission.
Russia earlier said the West is using propaganda on gender relations to undermine its statehood
Traditional values are being sidelined internationally and must be brought back to the center of the global agenda, Russian President Vladimir Putin has told leaders at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Tianjin.
Speaking at the expanded session of the gathering on Monday, the Russian leader stressed that the SCO’s strength lies in its traditional “respect for historical events, cultural values, and civilizational diversity.” He added that these principles form the basis for cooperation in science and education, healthcare, and sports.
Putin noted that in the cultural sphere, Moscow is organizing the Intervision song contest, to be held in Moscow on September 20. Portrayed as an alternative to Eurovision, from which Russia has been excluded due to tensions with the EU over the Ukraine conflict, Intervision is expected to feature performers from Latin America, Africa, and Asia.
”This large-scale project is aimed at promoting universal values… Traditional values are already fading into the background... It is time to bring them back to the international agenda,” he said.
Putin also invited delegations to attend the St. Petersburg International United Cultures Forum next week, and the Russia – Country of Sports forum in Samara in November.
Russia has made the promotion of traditional values a core domestic policy as it seeks to improve birth rates, encourage families, and protect the population from harmful content.
In 2024, the parliament banned “child-free propaganda” and has for years been fighting LGBTQ propaganda. Russia has said, however, that it has never banned non-traditional relationships, arguing that the West uses the narrative regarding non-traditional relations to undermine its national identity and statehood.
Login
