On Tuesday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping will discuss major international issues on Wednesday.
“(R)ecent developments in international affairs, especially on the European continent, are now very tense, and this definitely requires discussion between the allies, between Moscow and Beijing,” he said.
They’ll address “very aggressive rhetoric” by Biden regime hardliners and their subservient NATO counterparts, along with other issues of importance.
A statement by China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin said the following:
“President Xi Jinping will have a virtual meeting with President Putin on December 15.”
“The two heads of state will take stock of the bilateral relations and cooperation outcomes over this year, make top-level design for the relations next year, and exchange views on major international and regional issues of common concern.”
“(T)his video conference will further enhance our high-level mutual trust, vigorously promote China-Russia ‘back-to-back’ strategic coordination and the robust development of all-round practical cooperation.”
“This will provide more stability and positive energy for the complex and fluid international landscape.”
A Kremlin press service statement said that following talks between Putin and Britain’s Boris Johnson, Russia will present a draft agreement that calls for halting further NATO expansion eastward toward its borders.
It’ll also express strong opposition to continued supplying of heavy weapons to Ukraine and other nations bordering Russia’s territory.
“Bearing (the above) in mind, Vladimir Putin stressed that it is necessary to immediately begin talks to reach clear agreements excluding NATO’s further expansion eastwards and the deployment of weapons threatening Russia in neighboring countries, first of all in Ukraine.”
“The Russian side will present corresponding draft documents” on this and related issues.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Moscow will present its proposal for security guarantees to the Biden regime later this week by diplomatic channels.
According to Tass, a statement from Johnson’s office stressed the importance of complying with Minsk I and II conflict resolutions — to halt Kiev’s war on Donbass, it failed to explain.
Ongoing since April 2014, Kiev never complied with what it agreed to observe — with full support from Washington, Britain and other NATO regimes.
In cahoots with hegemon USA, Britain is militantly hostile toward Russia.
Pledges by their ruling regimes aren’t worth the paper they’re written on.
The Downing Street document also “expressed (UK) concern over the (nonexistent) buildup of Russian forces on Ukraine’s border (sic).”
It called for diplomacy “to deescalate tensions and identify durable solutions” — ignoring US/UK policies toward Russia that heighten tensions and reject diplomatic resolution of differences.
The Johnson regime stressed its “commitment to Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty, and warned that any destabilizing action would be a strategic mistake that would have significant consequences.”
Ignored was that Ukraine’s only enemies are invented. No real ones exist.
The same goes for the US, Britain and other NATO countries, a reality ever since the alliance was formed in 1949.
Separately on Monday, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said if US-dominated NATO regimes refuse to sign a (binding) moratorium on the deployment of intermediate-range nuclear forces in Europe, Moscow will position appropriate defensive weapons to counter its security threat, adding:
“The absence of progress in the direction of a political-diplomatic solution to this problem will make it so that our response is military.”
“That is, it will be a confrontation, the next round, the deployment of such tools from our side.”
US-dominated NATO “assurances (of) no plans to deploy such nuclear instruments don’t convince us at all.”
“First of all, as a principle, there is no trust towards the NATO alliance.”
Putin stressed that Moscow “repeatedly warned that the termination of the treaty on intermediate and short-range missiles means the region is now facing the possibility of these strike weapons appearing across its vast space, and a new arms race as a result.”
A Final Comment
Addressing interventionist Blinken’s China bashing remarks in Jakarta on Monday, Wang said the following:
“(W)hile trumpeting (a nonexistent) ‘China threat,’ (Blinken said the Biden regime) does not want conflict (sic).”
“Such a self-contradictory approach is not in keeping with the spirit of the meeting between Chinese and US heads of state and will hardly be recognized by countries in the region.”
“If the US really wants to play a constructive role in promoting peace and development in the Asia-Pacific region as it claims, it should earnestly respect the ASEAN-centered regional cooperation architecture, instead of drawing ideological lines, creating small cliques and inciting bloc confrontation.”
“It should respect the efforts made by China and ASEAN countries to maintain peace and stability in the South China Sea, instead of frequently sending vessels and aircraft to (its waters for purposes of) flex(ing) muscle(s) and provok(ing) trouble.”
“It should be a promoter of dialogue and cooperation in the region, instead of a saboteur that drives wedges between regional countries and undermines regional solidarity and cooperation.”
US policies that “incite division, estrangement and confrontation (are) not welcome in the world, nor will (they) work in the Asia-Pacific region.”