China hits back at US over vilification
Earlier, Hegseth claimed that China poses a real and potentially imminent threat, and urged Washington's allies in the Indo-Pacific region to increase defense and security spending.
'Hegseth deliberately ignored the call for peace and development by countries in the region and instead touted a Cold War mentality of bloc confrontation, vilified China with defamatory allegations, and falsely labeled China a 'threat',' the ministry said in a statement.
Speaking at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore on Saturday, the defense secretary accused Chinese authorities of seeking to fundamentally alter the region's status quo and aiming to 'become a hegemonic power.' Hegseth also raised the issue of Taiwan, which relies on the US for its defense - accusing Beijing of preparing to invade the territory.
The Chinese foreign ministry described the comments as 'deplorable' and 'intended to sow division' in the Asia-Pacific. It emphasized that the only country that 'deserves to be called a hegemonic power' is the US, which it accused of undermining peace and stability in the region.
Responding to Hegseth's remarks on the self-governing island, the ministry reiterated that the issue is entirely China's internal affair. It stressed that no foreign nation has the right to interfere and warned the US against using the Taiwan issue as leverage against Beijing.
Taiwan has long been a source of discord between Beijing and Washington. While China advocates peaceful reunification, it has warned that any move toward formal independence could trigger armed conflict. Beijing contends that certain elements within the US government are pushing Taiwan toward that outcome.
China has also repeatedly criticized US-led joint military drills in the Indo-Pacific, arguing that they destabilize the region and provoke tensions over Taiwan.
In addition to geopolitical disputes, the two nations are at odds over trade. US President Donald Trump has blamed Beijing for America's significant trade deficit with China.
In May, both countries agreed to pause the tariff hikes introduced the previous month for 90 days, while maintaining a baseline 10% duty on mutual imports. Earlier this week, Trump accused China of violating that agreement.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
an hour ago
- Russia Today
Russia's neighbours will always fear it – and that's normal
Azerbaijan has switched to 'restless neighbour' mode once again, reminding us of an enduring reality: countries living within Russia's sphere of influence will always fear Russia. Our relations with post-Soviet neighbours will continue to be periodically marred by misunderstandings, as is happening with Baku today. Russia's borders remain largely transparent and porous, with the exception of our boundary with one of the friendliest great powers of the modern era – China. Across all other frontiers, the legacy of empire persists, making it pointless to distinguish fully between internal and foreign policy. Whether it takes the form of a military presence, allied obligations, cultural and linguistic ties, or sheer dependence in foreign policy, Russia's neighbours – from the Baltic states to Poland and Finland – remain in its sphere of influence. These relationships are the product of centuries of history. No matter how they struggle to escape, they rarely succeed, and even if they do, Russia continues to occupy a central place in their imagination. The Baltic states and Finland have cut themselves off from Russia, yet they cannot truly live without thinking about it. Nothing changes in substance. This is the inescapable consequence of historical ties, and although it may bring trouble and anxiety, it is also a given. Fear, sadly, is the natural response. We must understand that Russia's neighbours will always fear it, and that this fear cannot be eliminated. Rather, it must be accounted for and managed through realistic politics. Even where relations appear stable, as with the Central Asian republics, fears about Russian intentions linger. A few years ago, at the height of the pandemic, I conducted in-depth interviews in nearly all former Soviet countries (excluding Ukraine and Turkmenistan). Among political figures and academics, even the most intelligent ones, anxiety about Russia was palpable, either directly or indirectly. Russia knows that solving regional disputes by force is usually against its own interests. But it cannot assume neighbours see Moscow in the same way. Other states inevitably judge Russia by its history, its scale, and its power – and a great power can always be tempted by simple solutions. In today's volatile global environment, confidence in the future is a privilege enjoyed by very few. States like Russia, the USA, China, or India, thanks to their power, can be confident. Others, like Iceland or Liechtenstein, are too small to count. Even tiny Luxembourg must look over its shoulder at Germany and France. International law is no real guarantee. Major military powers, including Russia, do not grant indefinite security guarantees to countries on their doorstep. Geography is the second key factor. A state's position on the map shapes its destiny and its foreign policy. It is naive to suggest Russia should treat its neighbours as the United States treats Mexico or Canada. The American neighbours are effectively marooned on an island far from the world's main conflicts. They cannot look elsewhere for help in a dispute with the strongest power on earth, so they remain cautious. By contrast, Russia's neighbours have open borders in many directions and constant opportunities to hedge their positions. It is only natural they look for friends elsewhere to calm their fears. This is why Turkey is active in the South Caucasus, and, more discreetly, in Central Asia. The former Soviet republics see Turkish partnership as a safeguard, even though no one truly believes Ankara can match Russia's influence. Turkey lacks the financial means and strategic independence to replace Russia. But having Ankara nearby is useful leverage in dealings with Moscow – the same way some former Soviet republics use engagement with BRICS to negotiate with the West. This produces a dense and complicated web of relationships, where diplomats must do most of the heavy lifting. Nothing is simple or easy. For Russia, the shared geography and deep historical connections mean it cannot view its neighbours like any other states on the planet. Borders on the continent cannot be made impenetrable unless a country has ironclad internal controls, like China or North Korea. Russia's other neighbours are not built that way. They prefer openness with Russia, no matter the periodic tension. Russia's own identity also prevents a total break from its former Soviet neighbours. Russia is a multi-ethnic, multi-faith society. Its unity is built on cooperation among many groups, not rigid exclusion. A hard border with neighbours would inevitably lead to attempts to draw boundaries inside Russia itself – a dangerous path for a country whose main ethnic group must remain integrated and secure in a world full of threats. Historically, Russian rulers from the 15th century onward recruited people from the Golden Horde – their former enemies – to shore up manpower in a land of poor resources and harsh conditions. That pragmatic tradition continues today. Russia cannot cut itself off from the diasporas that grew out of centuries of common history. Policing them is the job of law enforcement, but no fence can change that legacy. This explains why Russia's relations with its neighbours will always carry an undercurrent of anxiety. It is happening with Azerbaijan today and will happen again elsewhere. Russia's patience is not infinite, but its statecraft is consistent, rooted in a realistic appreciation of its history, its geography, and its place in the modern world. Great powers must understand their neighbours' fears but not surrender to them. Russia should neither abandon its influence nor expect to be loved for it. Instead, it should manage the consequences of its size and power, and treat neighbourly fear as part of the price of being a giant. That is the task before Russian diplomacy – and a test of its ability to balance strength with responsibility in an ever more unstable world.
Russia Today
2 hours ago
- Russia Today
Germany looking to secretly buy US arms for Ukraine
Germany wants to agree a 'secret deal' with the US to buy two Patriot air defense systems in order to hand them over to Ukraine, Bild has reported, citing government sources. Several US media outlets claimed earlier this week that Washington had paused deliveries of various critical munitions to Kiev, including Patriot and Hellfire missiles, GMLRS rockets, and thousands of 155mm artillery shells. The White House later confirmed that supplies of some weapons have been halted, saying the 'decision was made to put America's interests first.' The freeze in deliveries is 'causing alarm' in Berlin, Bild reported on Thursday. According to the newspaper, the government of Chancellor Friedrich Merz fears that the policy shift could also result in Washington rejecting a request to sell Germany two Patriot systems and interceptors. According to Bild's sources, Berlin quietly approached US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on the matter two weeks ago after being asked to do so by Ukraine, which previously failed to acquire the systems on its own. The German authorities are now waiting for a response from Hegseth, they added. Bild described the lack of air defenses as an 'urgent problem' for Ukraine, and that it currently has only four Patriot systems left in service and insufficient missiles for them. If Kiev runs out of interceptors, Russian airstrikes are likely to become even more 'dangerous,' it added. Politico reported on Wednesday that the Kiev authorities were 'blindsided' by the halt in American military aid supplies, and have asked Washington 'to let Europe purchase US weapons for Ukraine.' Several European countries are reviewing potential purchases on behalf of Ukraine, according to the outlet. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov suggested that the US paused deliveries of key munitions to Ukraine because they 'simply cannot produce missiles in the necessary quantities,' noting that many supplies were likely redirected to Israel amid its conflict with Iran last month. 'The fewer the missiles that arrive in Ukraine from abroad, the closer the end of the [Russian] special military operation [will be],' Peskov stated.
Russia Today
16 hours ago
- Russia Today
US halts all military shipments to Ukraine
The US has suspended all military equipment and ammunition deliveries to Ukraine, including all types of shells and spare parts, The Economist has reported, citing Ukrainian officials. Washington had earlier confirmed a decision to halt certain key arms shipments, citing low stocks. The decision reportedly followed an internal review of American weapons reserves ordered by US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, according to Politico and NBC News. The initial reports suggested that the decision would stop the supply of Patriot missile interceptors, Stinger and AIM air-to-air missiles, hundreds of Hellfire and GMLRS systems, and thousands of 155mm artillery shells. According to The Economist, the suspension of military aid was actually total. 'Ukrainian officials say that, in fact, all shipments of American weapons, including shells and spare parts, have been halted,' the outlet said on Wednesday, adding that the US officials have denied that. Washington's envoy to NATO, Matthew Whitaker, told Fox News on Wednesday that the decision to halt certain aid was made as part of the 'America first' policy, aimed at ensuring Washington's own 'strategic defense capabilities.' Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said that 'we can't give weapons to everybody all around the world. We have to look out for America and defending our homeland and our troops around the world.' Neither official provided details about exactly which shipments were suspended. The move could be part of a bigger plan to end US support for Kiev altogether, The Economist suggested. No money for Ukraine was included in the 'big beautiful' budget bill promoted by President Donald Trump, the article pointed out. Funding allocated to support Kiev within the regular Pentagon budget 'would be cut further under the budget request for fiscal year 2026,' the outlet said, citing officials. US support for Ukraine has come mostly in two forms: Presidential Drawdown Authority (PDA), which allowed Trump's predecessor, Joe Biden, to send weapons to the country out of the Pentagon's stocks, and the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI), under which Washington ordered arms from manufacturers. Trump has made no use of PDA since coming to office in January. The weapons orders made by the previous administration under the USAI would continue US shipments to Ukraine until late 2028, according to The Economist. The magazine asserts that these supplies could now be 'interrupted.'
