Eurasia earlier played a unifying role in the Old World. Modern Russia, absorbing this tradition, must resolutely and irrevocably abandon violence and war, the old methods of unification belonging to gone and overcome epochs. In the modern period, the cause is one of cultural creativity, inspiration, insight, and cooperation. This is what the Eurasianists say. Despite all their temporary forms of ties, the peoples of Europe and Asia are still largely sitting in their own cubicles, living according to the interests of their own bell towers. Eurasian “place-development” will give impulse to this common cause in ways very much its own. The purpose of the Eurasian peoples is to, by their example, carry the other peoples of the world down this path.

Putin’s ominous presentation — aimed as much at a Russian electorate bereft of positive economic news as at Western audiences — brings to mind the late Soviet First Secretary Nikita Khrushchev’s boasts at the height of the Cold War that ICBMs were rolling off Soviet assembly lines “like sausages” and that his country would swallow U.S. forces in West Berlin in one gulp. All of this as Khrushchev’s own general staff and senior advisers knew that the feared missile gap between the United States and the Soviet Union was a myth, that the Soviets had fallen behind in the nuclear arms race, and that their leader’s bellicose rhetoric was hot air — bombast to compensate for Potemkin missiles.

As I discussed on CGTN America, the easy answer is found in Trump’s ego: The president simply cannot not let an immediate rebuttal go unchallenged and, indeed, the staA more complex explanation is found in the underlying tension between two competing positions and visions of economic development. The United States is an advanced industrialized economy that relies upon liberal, free market principles to spur innovation and grow the economy. In contrast, China seeks to occupy a similar position in global commerce, but though a managed economy led by national champions, often state-owned enterprises, and a top-down industrial policy. While there are missing nuances in this characterization, this fundamental difference should be the starting point for any level-headed approach to addressing the dispute.kes must be raised instantly and substantially. However, as I noted, there is more to the dynamic than Trump’s fire and fury.

Wang, during his meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, declared that “China-Russia relations are in the best period of history.” He added that the two sides should seek even closer coordination in the future, saying that “since the current international and regional situation is still full of various uncertainties, it is necessary for China and Russia, two close strategic partners, to strengthen communication and coordination.” In talks with both Lavrov and Russian President Vladimir Putin, Wang stressed the need for China and Russia to coordinate on regional and global issues of interest, help safeguard each other’s national interests, and support each other in taking up larger roles on the world stage.

Chinese Defense Minister Wei Fenghe is wrapping up his five-day trip to Russia, which has included his participation at the VII Moscow Conference on International Security. Speaking to Sputnik, international politics observers outlined what factors motivated General Wei’s visit, and what’s at stake for global security. Stepping into office last month, Wei did not shy away from revealing the purpose of his trip, saying it was a “signal” to Washington about the “close ties between the armed forces of China and Russia, especially in this situation.” We’ve come to support you,” Wei said after meeting with Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu. The Russian Defense Minister reciprocated his counterpart’s sentiments, saying that the visit “underlines the special character of relations between Russia and China.”

the Russian General Staff warned about an imminent attack on Syria. The statement did not elaborate. Of course, some information is classified but an independent and impartial analysis of publicly available information leads one to the same conclusion. Let’s look at the facts. Losing Syria would be tantamount to suffering a major defeat in its confrontation with Iran, which it considers its arch-enemy. The plans include a rollback of Russian forces. Syria is the right place to do that. If the Russian military is openly warning the world of an imminent strike, that is a serious threat. And it does not look like a one-strike operation. This time we’re in for something much more serious — a large-scale operation to “contain” Russia, beat back Iran, win the support of the rich oil-exporting Arab nations and make them pay huge sums for American weapons, and show the world the US is omnipresent and adamant in its desire to dictate its will.

German experts believe that Russia only has the RS-28 Sarmat missile from all the new weapons that President Putin had presented. The German experts do not doubt that Sarmat ICBMs are capable of striking the USA via the North and the South poles of the Earth. However, they do doubt as far as all other arms systems are concerned. The Germans believe that all other systems are still under development. Moreover, they think that Russian engineers only have sketches of them. They point to the fact that the United States abandoned the idea to build cruise missiles with a nuclear engine and a virtually unlimited range during the 1960s, Deutsche Welle reports. Of course, the report from the German experts is not an act of slander and malice in its entirety. Russia does have a lot of problems to deal with. However, reports on the topic “the Russian army is a paper tiger” appear regularly. We can only say to this that President Putin never speaks about the things that do not exist, nor does he do the things that he can not do.

The US assumption about China’s leverage on North Korea is primarily based on the North’s unilateral economic dependence on China. The logic follows that North Korea would abandon its nuclear and ballistic missile programs as long as China imposes sufficient sanctions. However, this linear and mechanical application of the linkage between economic advantage and security behavior is misleading. China’s national interest is a threefold combination, namely the maintenance and enrichment of the nuclear proliferation treaty on a global governance level, establishing Northeast Asian security mechanism on the regional governance level and a sound relationship and traditional friendship with North Korea on the bilateral level. Should the US respect China’s multiple interests and cooperate with China accordingly, the US would help China to achieve full impacts on all fronts. The US bilateral alliance system has been proven insufficient to address the North Korea issue. China’s role on the peninsula remains vital. The effectiveness of China’s leverage on North Korea is not unidimensional but demands timely and sustained cooperation from the US. It is time for China and the US to think big and innovatively look for convergence.

The past couple of years has witnessed the most strenuous period of Russia’s relations with the West. The improvement in their relations since the end of the Cold War has almost run out. However, today’s Russia, without satellite states, is incomparable with the strength of the former Soviet Union when dealing with the strategic pressure from the West. Russia still has three cards in its hand. First, it’s a major nuclear power, which prevents the West from engaging in direct military conflict; second, Russia’s rich resources make it highly self-sufficient to counter sanctions; third, Russia’s strong national spirit has united Russian society in support of Vladimir Putin. Eliminating the third card and pressuring Russian society toward dismay and instability will weaken the political foundation of Putin’s rule.

President of the St. Petersburg Club of Conflictologists, Colonel Boris Podoprigora, told Pravda.Ru, that “the American technical intelligence was aware of Russia’s new developments.” “The absence of refutations suggests that they are largely in possession of the situation that was outlined by Vladimir Putin in his speech and then in the interview with an American journalist,” the military expert said in an interview with Pravda.Ru. “It’s hard for me to say to which extent the US military-industrial complex is ready to counter challenges that come from Moscow, but I realise that only two countries in the world – Russia and the United States – are able to act, as they say, on collision courses,” the political scientist summed up the conversation with Pravda.Ru.