Hotznplotzn

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/47160442

Archived

• China's ties with Japan have spiraled over Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi's remarks, but President Xi Jinping is taking a more measured approach.
• Despite the dispute, Japanese brands such as Uniqlo, Muji, and Sushiro are still popular in China, with some even seeing an increase in business.
• Chinese authorities have avoided stoking public anger, with officials discouraging travel to Japan and limiting seafood imports, but not inciting widespread boycotts of Japanese products.

[...]

Asia’s top economies might be at loggerheads on the world stage, but for China’s 1.4 billion shoppers it’s largely business as normal. That’s because while Communist Party officials have discouraged travel to Japan, limited seafood imports and canceled some Japanese concerts and films, authorities have avoided stoking public anger to a level beyond their control.

It marks an evolution in China’s economic coercion playbook as leaders calibrate their retaliation to avoid denting already weak consumer spending at home or stirring up hard-to-contain social unrest.

[...]

“Inciting public anger could lead to unpredictable outcomes that would potentially be difficult for the government to manage,” said Jeremy Chan, a senior analyst at Eurasia Group and a former US diplomat in China and Japan. “Japanese foods and products remain immensely popular in China,” he added, calling the dispute over Takaichi’s comments “abstract” to the general public.

[...]

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/47161025

Archived

[...]

Within China, this technology helped identify and punish almost 900,000 officials last year alone, nearly five times more than in 2012, according to state numbers. Beijing says it is cracking down on corruption, but critics charge that such technology is used in China and elsewhere to stifle dissent and exact retribution on perceived enemies.

Outside China, the same technology is being used to threaten wayward officials, along with dissidents and alleged criminals, under what authorities call Operations “Fox Hunt” and “Sky Net.” The U.S. has criticized these overseas operations as a “threat” and an “affront to national sovereignty.” More than 14,000 people, including some 3,000 officials, have been brought back to China from more than 120 countries through coercion, arrests and pressure on relatives, according to state information.

“They’re actively pursuing those people who fled China. … as a way to demonstrate power, to show there’s no way you can escape,” said Yaqiu Wang, a fellow at the University of Chicago. “The chilling effect is enormously effective.”

[...]

Li [the Chinese dissident now living in the U.S.] drew ire because as a former official, he knew well and exposed the inner workings of local politics, including naming names. While in the U.S., he also started what he called the Chinese Tyrannical Officials Whistleblower Center.

“China places enormous emphasis on the political discipline of even former officials and (Communist) Party members,” said Jeremy Daum, Senior Fellow at Yale Law School’s Paul Tsai China Center. “So when one becomes a vocal critic of the country’s leadership, it doesn’t go over well.”

At a pro-democracy gathering in California in 2020, Li said, he was tailed and questioned by a stranger who knew his identity. That November, an activist secretly working for Beijing asked Li to a meeting and added him to a dissident group chat monitored by China’s police, a 2025 FBI indictment later revealed. In June, an FBI letter identified Li as the possible victim of a crime involving an unregistered Chinese agent.

[...]

Li’s future in the U.S. is unclear. The Trump administration has paused all asylum applications. If he doesn’t return, he could face trial in absentia; if convicted and deported, he could face life in prison.

“Electronic surveillance is the arteries for China to project power into the world ... each step that every one of your relatives takes is being monitored and analyzed with big data,” Li said. “It’s absolutely terrifying.”

[...]

Beijing tapped phones, seized assets and installed cameras outside the homes of friends and family. Some detained were denied surgery or other medical care, even those recovering from heart disease, cancer, and other illnesses. Li’s aunt was released from a hospital in a vegetative state with bruises on her head and all over her body. Even the Li family grave was dug up.

[...]

Li’s friend, Kong, was sentenced to over a decade in prison for allegedly taking bribes. The party claimed he had watched porn and ignored his work, which they blamed for the spread of COVID in his district. Furious, Li kept speaking out.

[...]

In February 2021, Li learned the Chinese government had asked Interpol to issue a Red Notice declaring to police worldwide that Li was a wanted man. Interpol retracted the Red Notice after Li filed a complaint.

Li began donning masks and hats in public and carrying multiple phones, wary of surveillance. He floated from safe house to safe house with Christians across the United States.

[...]

Li is now cut off from friends and family, denied legal assistance and clueless even to the details of the charges against him. So he is once again resorting to speaking out — this time on YouTube.

Li acknowledges the situation seems hopeless. But he’s pressing on.

“Why am I speaking up?” he said. “Today, it’s me. Tomorrow, it might be you.”

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/47161025

Archived

[...]

Within China, this technology helped identify and punish almost 900,000 officials last year alone, nearly five times more than in 2012, according to state numbers. Beijing says it is cracking down on corruption, but critics charge that such technology is used in China and elsewhere to stifle dissent and exact retribution on perceived enemies.

Outside China, the same technology is being used to threaten wayward officials, along with dissidents and alleged criminals, under what authorities call Operations “Fox Hunt” and “Sky Net.” The U.S. has criticized these overseas operations as a “threat” and an “affront to national sovereignty.” More than 14,000 people, including some 3,000 officials, have been brought back to China from more than 120 countries through coercion, arrests and pressure on relatives, according to state information.

“They’re actively pursuing those people who fled China. … as a way to demonstrate power, to show there’s no way you can escape,” said Yaqiu Wang, a fellow at the University of Chicago. “The chilling effect is enormously effective.”

[...]

Li [the Chinese dissident now living in the U.S.] drew ire because as a former official, he knew well and exposed the inner workings of local politics, including naming names. While in the U.S., he also started what he called the Chinese Tyrannical Officials Whistleblower Center.

“China places enormous emphasis on the political discipline of even former officials and (Communist) Party members,” said Jeremy Daum, Senior Fellow at Yale Law School’s Paul Tsai China Center. “So when one becomes a vocal critic of the country’s leadership, it doesn’t go over well.”

At a pro-democracy gathering in California in 2020, Li said, he was tailed and questioned by a stranger who knew his identity. That November, an activist secretly working for Beijing asked Li to a meeting and added him to a dissident group chat monitored by China’s police, a 2025 FBI indictment later revealed. In June, an FBI letter identified Li as the possible victim of a crime involving an unregistered Chinese agent.

[...]

Li’s future in the U.S. is unclear. The Trump administration has paused all asylum applications. If he doesn’t return, he could face trial in absentia; if convicted and deported, he could face life in prison.

“Electronic surveillance is the arteries for China to project power into the world ... each step that every one of your relatives takes is being monitored and analyzed with big data,” Li said. “It’s absolutely terrifying.”

[...]

Beijing tapped phones, seized assets and installed cameras outside the homes of friends and family. Some detained were denied surgery or other medical care, even those recovering from heart disease, cancer, and other illnesses. Li’s aunt was released from a hospital in a vegetative state with bruises on her head and all over her body. Even the Li family grave was dug up.

[...]

Li’s friend, Kong, was sentenced to over a decade in prison for allegedly taking bribes. The party claimed he had watched porn and ignored his work, which they blamed for the spread of COVID in his district. Furious, Li kept speaking out.

[...]

In February 2021, Li learned the Chinese government had asked Interpol to issue a Red Notice declaring to police worldwide that Li was a wanted man. Interpol retracted the Red Notice after Li filed a complaint.

Li began donning masks and hats in public and carrying multiple phones, wary of surveillance. He floated from safe house to safe house with Christians across the United States.

[...]

Li is now cut off from friends and family, denied legal assistance and clueless even to the details of the charges against him. So he is once again resorting to speaking out — this time on YouTube.

Li acknowledges the situation seems hopeless. But he’s pressing on.

“Why am I speaking up?” he said. “Today, it’s me. Tomorrow, it might be you.”

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/47161025

Archived

[...]

Within China, this technology helped identify and punish almost 900,000 officials last year alone, nearly five times more than in 2012, according to state numbers. Beijing says it is cracking down on corruption, but critics charge that such technology is used in China and elsewhere to stifle dissent and exact retribution on perceived enemies.

Outside China, the same technology is being used to threaten wayward officials, along with dissidents and alleged criminals, under what authorities call Operations “Fox Hunt” and “Sky Net.” The U.S. has criticized these overseas operations as a “threat” and an “affront to national sovereignty.” More than 14,000 people, including some 3,000 officials, have been brought back to China from more than 120 countries through coercion, arrests and pressure on relatives, according to state information.

“They’re actively pursuing those people who fled China. … as a way to demonstrate power, to show there’s no way you can escape,” said Yaqiu Wang, a fellow at the University of Chicago. “The chilling effect is enormously effective.”

[...]

Li [the Chinese dissident now living in the U.S.] drew ire because as a former official, he knew well and exposed the inner workings of local politics, including naming names. While in the U.S., he also started what he called the Chinese Tyrannical Officials Whistleblower Center.

“China places enormous emphasis on the political discipline of even former officials and (Communist) Party members,” said Jeremy Daum, Senior Fellow at Yale Law School’s Paul Tsai China Center. “So when one becomes a vocal critic of the country’s leadership, it doesn’t go over well.”

At a pro-democracy gathering in California in 2020, Li said, he was tailed and questioned by a stranger who knew his identity. That November, an activist secretly working for Beijing asked Li to a meeting and added him to a dissident group chat monitored by China’s police, a 2025 FBI indictment later revealed. In June, an FBI letter identified Li as the possible victim of a crime involving an unregistered Chinese agent.

[...]

Li’s future in the U.S. is unclear. The Trump administration has paused all asylum applications. If he doesn’t return, he could face trial in absentia; if convicted and deported, he could face life in prison.

“Electronic surveillance is the arteries for China to project power into the world ... each step that every one of your relatives takes is being monitored and analyzed with big data,” Li said. “It’s absolutely terrifying.”

[...]

Beijing tapped phones, seized assets and installed cameras outside the homes of friends and family. Some detained were denied surgery or other medical care, even those recovering from heart disease, cancer, and other illnesses. Li’s aunt was released from a hospital in a vegetative state with bruises on her head and all over her body. Even the Li family grave was dug up.

[...]

Li’s friend, Kong, was sentenced to over a decade in prison for allegedly taking bribes. The party claimed he had watched porn and ignored his work, which they blamed for the spread of COVID in his district. Furious, Li kept speaking out.

[...]

In February 2021, Li learned the Chinese government had asked Interpol to issue a Red Notice declaring to police worldwide that Li was a wanted man. Interpol retracted the Red Notice after Li filed a complaint.

Li began donning masks and hats in public and carrying multiple phones, wary of surveillance. He floated from safe house to safe house with Christians across the United States.

[...]

Li is now cut off from friends and family, denied legal assistance and clueless even to the details of the charges against him. So he is once again resorting to speaking out — this time on YouTube.

Li acknowledges the situation seems hopeless. But he’s pressing on.

“Why am I speaking up?” he said. “Today, it’s me. Tomorrow, it might be you.”

Archived

[...]

Within China, this technology helped identify and punish almost 900,000 officials last year alone, nearly five times more than in 2012, according to state numbers. Beijing says it is cracking down on corruption, but critics charge that such technology is used in China and elsewhere to stifle dissent and exact retribution on perceived enemies.

Outside China, the same technology is being used to threaten wayward officials, along with dissidents and alleged criminals, under what authorities call Operations “Fox Hunt” and “Sky Net.” The U.S. has criticized these overseas operations as a “threat” and an “affront to national sovereignty.” More than 14,000 people, including some 3,000 officials, have been brought back to China from more than 120 countries through coercion, arrests and pressure on relatives, according to state information.

“They’re actively pursuing those people who fled China. … as a way to demonstrate power, to show there’s no way you can escape,” said Yaqiu Wang, a fellow at the University of Chicago. “The chilling effect is enormously effective.”

[...]

Li [the Chinese dissident now living in the U.S.] drew ire because as a former official, he knew well and exposed the inner workings of local politics, including naming names. While in the U.S., he also started what he called the Chinese Tyrannical Officials Whistleblower Center.

“China places enormous emphasis on the political discipline of even former officials and (Communist) Party members,” said Jeremy Daum, Senior Fellow at Yale Law School’s Paul Tsai China Center. “So when one becomes a vocal critic of the country’s leadership, it doesn’t go over well.”

At a pro-democracy gathering in California in 2020, Li said, he was tailed and questioned by a stranger who knew his identity. That November, an activist secretly working for Beijing asked Li to a meeting and added him to a dissident group chat monitored by China’s police, a 2025 FBI indictment later revealed. In June, an FBI letter identified Li as the possible victim of a crime involving an unregistered Chinese agent.

[...]

Li’s future in the U.S. is unclear. The Trump administration has paused all asylum applications. If he doesn’t return, he could face trial in absentia; if convicted and deported, he could face life in prison.

“Electronic surveillance is the arteries for China to project power into the world ... each step that every one of your relatives takes is being monitored and analyzed with big data,” Li said. “It’s absolutely terrifying.”

[...]

Beijing tapped phones, seized assets and installed cameras outside the homes of friends and family. Some detained were denied surgery or other medical care, even those recovering from heart disease, cancer, and other illnesses. Li’s aunt was released from a hospital in a vegetative state with bruises on her head and all over her body. Even the Li family grave was dug up.

[...]

Li’s friend, Kong, was sentenced to over a decade in prison for allegedly taking bribes. The party claimed he had watched porn and ignored his work, which they blamed for the spread of COVID in his district. Furious, Li kept speaking out.

[...]

In February 2021, Li learned the Chinese government had asked Interpol to issue a Red Notice declaring to police worldwide that Li was a wanted man. Interpol retracted the Red Notice after Li filed a complaint.

Li began donning masks and hats in public and carrying multiple phones, wary of surveillance. He floated from safe house to safe house with Christians across the United States.

[...]

Li is now cut off from friends and family, denied legal assistance and clueless even to the details of the charges against him. So he is once again resorting to speaking out — this time on YouTube.

Li acknowledges the situation seems hopeless. But he’s pressing on.

“Why am I speaking up?” he said. “Today, it’s me. Tomorrow, it might be you.”

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/47160775

Archived

[...]

A barrage of human rights groups and others, including Index on Censorship, Amnesty International and Save the Children, have all criticised or opposed the ban.

Tom Sulston, head of policy at Australian charity Digital Rights Watch, told Index that they were broadly supportive of the idea that internet access is a human right. While the new law only restricts teens from accessing 10 specific sites – X, TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, Threads, Facebook, YouTube, Reddit, Kick and Twitch – he said that the space these social media companies represent is enormous.

“They do occupy this space as the town square of digital society,” Sulston said. “So, is it proportionate to remove that right of access to a group of people in order to protect their safety, or under the guise of protecting their safety? We don’t think so.”

[...]

There is now an interesting legal conversation to be had about the ban, Sulston said. On 26 November, two 15-year-olds launched a legal challenge to the law, supported by rights group the Digital Freedom Project (DFP), in Australia’s High Court. They are arguing that all Australians have a constitutional implied right to freedom of political communication.

“Young people like me are the voters of tomorrow,” said one plaintiff Macy Neyland in a statement. “Why on earth should we be banned from expressing our views?” Neyland added that the situation was “like Orwell’s book Nineteen Eighty-Four”.

Noah Jones, who is also suing the government, told the media: “We’re disappointed in a lazy government that blanket-bans under-16s rather than investing in programmes to help kids be safe on social media. They should protect kids with safeguards, not silence.”

A direction hearing for the teens’ court challenge will be heard in February at the earliest.

[...]

Digital Rights Watch’s Sulston said that he was also worried about autocracies eyeing up the law. According to digital rights non-profit Access Now, 2024 was the worst year on record for internet shutdowns.

“Young people are not represented democratically, even in democratic societies. If you’re under the age to vote, then you get nothing,” Sulston said. “So being able to organise and develop political understanding and take political action online is really important for that cohort. You can see why it would be very attractive for authoritarian regimes to clamp down on that.”

But Sulston said that even though he considered the law a “disaster” and there was no evidence that it would improve children’s lives, it had already been showcased at the UN General Assembly and “deemed a great success”.

He said: “It’s really hard to see what a path to change looks like, because no matter how harmful it is, it seems we’re stuck with it.”

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/47160775

Archived

[...]

A barrage of human rights groups and others, including Index on Censorship, Amnesty International and Save the Children, have all criticised or opposed the ban.

Tom Sulston, head of policy at Australian charity Digital Rights Watch, told Index that they were broadly supportive of the idea that internet access is a human right. While the new law only restricts teens from accessing 10 specific sites – X, TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, Threads, Facebook, YouTube, Reddit, Kick and Twitch – he said that the space these social media companies represent is enormous.

“They do occupy this space as the town square of digital society,” Sulston said. “So, is it proportionate to remove that right of access to a group of people in order to protect their safety, or under the guise of protecting their safety? We don’t think so.”

[...]

There is now an interesting legal conversation to be had about the ban, Sulston said. On 26 November, two 15-year-olds launched a legal challenge to the law, supported by rights group the Digital Freedom Project (DFP), in Australia’s High Court. They are arguing that all Australians have a constitutional implied right to freedom of political communication.

“Young people like me are the voters of tomorrow,” said one plaintiff Macy Neyland in a statement. “Why on earth should we be banned from expressing our views?” Neyland added that the situation was “like Orwell’s book Nineteen Eighty-Four”.

Noah Jones, who is also suing the government, told the media: “We’re disappointed in a lazy government that blanket-bans under-16s rather than investing in programmes to help kids be safe on social media. They should protect kids with safeguards, not silence.”

A direction hearing for the teens’ court challenge will be heard in February at the earliest.

[...]

Digital Rights Watch’s Sulston said that he was also worried about autocracies eyeing up the law. According to digital rights non-profit Access Now, 2024 was the worst year on record for internet shutdowns.

“Young people are not represented democratically, even in democratic societies. If you’re under the age to vote, then you get nothing,” Sulston said. “So being able to organise and develop political understanding and take political action online is really important for that cohort. You can see why it would be very attractive for authoritarian regimes to clamp down on that.”

But Sulston said that even though he considered the law a “disaster” and there was no evidence that it would improve children’s lives, it had already been showcased at the UN General Assembly and “deemed a great success”.

He said: “It’s really hard to see what a path to change looks like, because no matter how harmful it is, it seems we’re stuck with it.”

Archived

[...]

A barrage of human rights groups and others, including Index on Censorship, Amnesty International and Save the Children, have all criticised or opposed the ban.

Tom Sulston, head of policy at Australian charity Digital Rights Watch, told Index that they were broadly supportive of the idea that internet access is a human right. While the new law only restricts teens from accessing 10 specific sites – X, TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, Threads, Facebook, YouTube, Reddit, Kick and Twitch – he said that the space these social media companies represent is enormous.

“They do occupy this space as the town square of digital society,” Sulston said. “So, is it proportionate to remove that right of access to a group of people in order to protect their safety, or under the guise of protecting their safety? We don’t think so.”

[...]

There is now an interesting legal conversation to be had about the ban, Sulston said. On 26 November, two 15-year-olds launched a legal challenge to the law, supported by rights group the Digital Freedom Project (DFP), in Australia’s High Court. They are arguing that all Australians have a constitutional implied right to freedom of political communication.

“Young people like me are the voters of tomorrow,” said one plaintiff Macy Neyland in a statement. “Why on earth should we be banned from expressing our views?” Neyland added that the situation was “like Orwell’s book Nineteen Eighty-Four”.

Noah Jones, who is also suing the government, told the media: “We’re disappointed in a lazy government that blanket-bans under-16s rather than investing in programmes to help kids be safe on social media. They should protect kids with safeguards, not silence.”

A direction hearing for the teens’ court challenge will be heard in February at the earliest.

[...]

Digital Rights Watch’s Sulston said that he was also worried about autocracies eyeing up the law. According to digital rights non-profit Access Now, 2024 was the worst year on record for internet shutdowns.

“Young people are not represented democratically, even in democratic societies. If you’re under the age to vote, then you get nothing,” Sulston said. “So being able to organise and develop political understanding and take political action online is really important for that cohort. You can see why it would be very attractive for authoritarian regimes to clamp down on that.”

But Sulston said that even though he considered the law a “disaster” and there was no evidence that it would improve children’s lives, it had already been showcased at the UN General Assembly and “deemed a great success”.

He said: “It’s really hard to see what a path to change looks like, because no matter how harmful it is, it seems we’re stuck with it.”

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/47160442

Archived

• China's ties with Japan have spiraled over Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi's remarks, but President Xi Jinping is taking a more measured approach.
• Despite the dispute, Japanese brands such as Uniqlo, Muji, and Sushiro are still popular in China, with some even seeing an increase in business.
• Chinese authorities have avoided stoking public anger, with officials discouraging travel to Japan and limiting seafood imports, but not inciting widespread boycotts of Japanese products.

[...]

Asia’s top economies might be at loggerheads on the world stage, but for China’s 1.4 billion shoppers it’s largely business as normal. That’s because while Communist Party officials have discouraged travel to Japan, limited seafood imports and canceled some Japanese concerts and films, authorities have avoided stoking public anger to a level beyond their control.

It marks an evolution in China’s economic coercion playbook as leaders calibrate their retaliation to avoid denting already weak consumer spending at home or stirring up hard-to-contain social unrest.

[...]

“Inciting public anger could lead to unpredictable outcomes that would potentially be difficult for the government to manage,” said Jeremy Chan, a senior analyst at Eurasia Group and a former US diplomat in China and Japan. “Japanese foods and products remain immensely popular in China,” he added, calling the dispute over Takaichi’s comments “abstract” to the general public.

[...]

Archived

• China's ties with Japan have spiraled over Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi's remarks, but President Xi Jinping is taking a more measured approach.
• Despite the dispute, Japanese brands such as Uniqlo, Muji, and Sushiro are still popular in China, with some even seeing an increase in business.
• Chinese authorities have avoided stoking public anger, with officials discouraging travel to Japan and limiting seafood imports, but not inciting widespread boycotts of Japanese products.

[...]

Asia’s top economies might be at loggerheads on the world stage, but for China’s 1.4 billion shoppers it’s largely business as normal. That’s because while Communist Party officials have discouraged travel to Japan, limited seafood imports and canceled some Japanese concerts and films, authorities have avoided stoking public anger to a level beyond their control.

It marks an evolution in China’s economic coercion playbook as leaders calibrate their retaliation to avoid denting already weak consumer spending at home or stirring up hard-to-contain social unrest.

[...]

“Inciting public anger could lead to unpredictable outcomes that would potentially be difficult for the government to manage,” said Jeremy Chan, a senior analyst at Eurasia Group and a former US diplomat in China and Japan. “Japanese foods and products remain immensely popular in China,” he added, calling the dispute over Takaichi’s comments “abstract” to the general public.

[...]

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/47116727

Archived

[...]

"We are recording an actual increase in the de-sovereignization of part of Russian territory in favor of China. This primarily concerns the use of resource-rich lands and the sale of scarce resources to China," Ukraine's President is cited after a report by the Head of the Foreign Intelligence Service of Ukraine, Lieutenant General Oleh Ivashchenko.

"We are also recording that China is taking steps to intensify cooperation with Russia, particularly in the field of the defense industry. Intelligence services of our partners have similar information."

[...]

In a related report, U.S. outlet Newsweek cites Patrick Cronin, the Asia-Pacific security chair at the Hudson Institute: “Xi Jinping views Russia as an indispensable strategic partner in constructing a post-U.S.–led world order.

“Reconciling these competing impulses points toward a strategy of slow, steady accretions of effective sovereignty, punctuated by performative shows of solidarity, from parades to joint military drills, that mask an emerging asymmetry," Cronin adds.

Cronin said however that China "clearly appears poised to expand its influence across its shared borderlands through a mix of brazen cyber intrusions and opportunistic moves to anchor itself inside Russia’s increasingly enfeebled economy."

[...]

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/47116727

Archived

[...]

"We are recording an actual increase in the de-sovereignization of part of Russian territory in favor of China. This primarily concerns the use of resource-rich lands and the sale of scarce resources to China," Ukraine's President is cited after a report by the Head of the Foreign Intelligence Service of Ukraine, Lieutenant General Oleh Ivashchenko.

"We are also recording that China is taking steps to intensify cooperation with Russia, particularly in the field of the defense industry. Intelligence services of our partners have similar information."

[...]

In a related report, U.S. outlet Newsweek cites Patrick Cronin, the Asia-Pacific security chair at the Hudson Institute: “Xi Jinping views Russia as an indispensable strategic partner in constructing a post-U.S.–led world order.

“Reconciling these competing impulses points toward a strategy of slow, steady accretions of effective sovereignty, punctuated by performative shows of solidarity, from parades to joint military drills, that mask an emerging asymmetry," Cronin adds.

Cronin said however that China "clearly appears poised to expand its influence across its shared borderlands through a mix of brazen cyber intrusions and opportunistic moves to anchor itself inside Russia’s increasingly enfeebled economy."

[...]