The mass media on Putin’s “isolation” at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) was intentionally misquoted by Western Gov’t mouthpiece media 西方政府喉舌媒體故意歪曲普京在上海合作組織“孤立”的新聞

John V Wash MD in San Francisco: In its “coverage” today of the SCO the NYT picks on one phrase that Modi used to indicate his “distancing” from Putin. Actually Modi was saying this was not the era of war – and if you look at the last quarter century that might appear to be a rebuke to US/NATO more than anyone else.

Similarly the msm has picked on one sentence from Putin to imply that there is a rift between him and Xi, although the words might have been wisely chosen by Putin to ease pressure on China for backing him.

Notice that there is only one message there – Putin isolated. The narrative of the day.

BUT the fact is that Putin was very welcome and a central personage at the SCO which now represents 40% of the world’s population, more than 30% of its GDP and 60% of its land mass, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Cooperation_Organisation strategically located across Asia and into the Middle East and beyond, with Turkey and Iran now becoming members. (Those figures on GDP and population are figures before Iran and Turkey joined. And the percentage of GDP if done in PPP-GDP would be much higher.)

In comparison the G7 represents 32% of global ppp-gdp and about 10% of the global population. The percentage of global GDP represented by the G7 has dropped by 70% over the last 10-20 years!

It is clear which way the wind is blowing.

And the countries of the SCO are all struggling to escape the predations of the US unipolar world. Putin was vocal in calling out the evils of “unipolarity” at the conference.

The US and G7 were nowhere to be seen. So who is isolated?

ps. Elensky was not invited to do a big screen cameo. And the narrative in the msm has shifted back to Ukraine as victim rather than Ukraine as victor.

18 minute presentation on SCO by The Duran. https://youtu.be/IV26025Kx8I
Well worth watching.

***

You said: “Andy Boreham directly quotes Chinese diplomats advocating peace in Ukraine and taking a neutral stance between Russia and Ukraine.”  I watched the video and found that the Chinese diplomats did not so describe China’s position.   Hua Chunying said that the security interests of all parties should be respected and urged peace and negotiations between the parties. Wang Wenbin and Zhao Lijian urged de-escalation and peace.  Nowhere did the Chinese spokespersons use the word “neutral” to describe China’s position.

You may think that I am splitting hairs here.  But I am not.  This is an important issue on China’s position on Ukraine.  The fact that China is on friendly terms with both Russia and Ukraine does not imply that China is neutral, as you seem to think.  National sovereignty and territorial integrity are matters of principle and not something to be bargained away for temporary advantage.  I am sure that if Russia took military action in response to nuclear weapons in Lithuania and violated Lithuania’s territorial integrity, China would still abstain as it did on Ukraine.  Such a vote would show a clear stand on principle and not one calculated to curry favor with Lithuania or the west.

Once China’s position on Ukraine is cast as neutral, it leads the listener or reader to the interpretation that China is not condemning the aggressive eastward expansion of NATO.  This phrasing may make people (peace activists?) think that China is not supporting Russia enough and become disappointed in China.  But what Hua Chunying said clearly demonstrates that China blames the situation on the relentless NATO expansion that threatens Russia’s national security.  Xi said it elsewhere very clearly as well: the security interest of one nation should not be held above the security interests of other nations.

As for the China daily article, I note that it is explicitly stated that “The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.”  Be that as it may, we need to consider why China Daily decided to publish this article.  The main gist of the article is to show that China is the one who has Ukrainians’ best interest at heart as compared to the west to counter the western narrative that China is heartless and not helping in the conflict.  The article is not one to convince peace activists that China condemns the eastward expansion of NATO, which it clearly does as shown by other Chinese statements elsewhere.

As I said, the choice of words in the China daily article is probably not the best.  I do not recall Chinese officials ever describing its position on Ukraine as being neutral.  When the word “neutral” is put in a different context or used without further explanation, so describing China’s position runs the danger of mischaracterizing China’s position.  We are engaged in a propaganda war.  In such a war, the choice of words is particularly important. 

China is in a delicate place on Ukraine.  On one hand it must stand firm on the issue of national sovereignty and territorial integrity.  On the other, it is trying not to be drawn into an anti-west alliance with Russia that would be counterproductive in the larger scheme of trying to replace the US-centric unipolar world with a multipolar world that both China and Russia are working together to achieve.  The US is the one trying desperately to force nations to take sides and join the western anti-Russia alliance.  Most nations do not want to take sides, and China should not fall into such a trap, ending with two large camps battling each other, like in the first cold war.

The importance of China’s firm stand on the right of all nations to national sovereignty and territorial integrity and against foreign interference in the internal affairs of nations is a really important one.  It is the bulwark against all imperialist actions of western powers in the global south.  A key reason as to why so many nations want to join the Shanghai Cooperative Organization and avoid being aligned with the US is for this reason.  Smaller nations are comfortable to join such a group without feeling being threatened or undermined by larger nations in the group.  An organization based on mutual respect, cooperation and non-interference in each other’s internal affairs is well placed to form the new multipolar world.  Even nations with disputes with each other have either joined or looks likely to join.