Are Russia and China, (and others) following an appeasement policy towards aggressive, blatantly fascist policy and practice of the US?
In our 2022 analysis, we have stated that the current situation is wrongly being studied and assessed based on the 1st WW rather than the condition and situation of second WW. Each passing day since then confirms the correctness of our assessment. We start reading and hearing discussions based on 2nd WW conditions and situation, mainly the question of "appeasement " policy and "neutrality" that dominated early phases of it. It is a welcomed development in the right direction.
In his analysis, Stalin had said;
“To what are we attribute this one-sided and strange character of the new imperialist war? How is it that the non-aggressive countries, which possess such vast opportunities, have so easily and without resistance abandoned their positions and their obligations to please the aggressors? Is it to be attributed to the weakness of the non-aggressive states? Of course not! Combined, the non-aggressive, democratic states are unquestionably stronger than the fascist states, both economically and militarily.
To what then are we to attribute the systematic concessions made by these states to the aggressors?”
“The chief reason is that the majority of the non-aggressive countries, particularly Britain and France, have rejected the policy of collective security, the policy of collective resistance to aggressors, and have taken up a position of non-intervention, a position of "neutrality."
In reference to “neutrality,” “non-intervention” which is so widely used as a ready-made formulas on such situations and stands, Stalin’s explanation has been eye opening..
“Formally speaking, the policy of non-intervention might be defined as follows:
"Let each country defend itself against the aggressors as it likes and as best it can. That is not our affair. We shall trade both with the aggressors and with their victims."
But actually speaking, the policy of non-intervention means conniving at aggression, giving free rein to war, and, consequently, transforming the war into a world war. The policy of non-intervention reveals an eagerness, a desire, not to hinder the aggressors in their nefarious work."" Stalin, Report on the Work of the Central Committee to the Eighteenth Congress of the C.P.S.U.(B.)
Taking the two powerful countries that can make a decisive effect on the direction and duration of the current wars and most likely the wars that will follow them, the stands of Russia and China have been questioned. There are interesting and objective discussions on the question of "appeasement" and "neutrality" policy and practices of Russia and China.
In our technological era, considering the difference between "diplomacy" and "policy", it is not easy to analyse and clearly determine if they both having such policy and practice.
First of all, China and Russia have different political-economic systems. Meaning that Russian policy makers may have, evidently have, different faction(s) within to make decisive decision on its policy and practice related to the current and plausible future wars. The power in China, however, is concentrated in the hands of party with its military and civilian bureaucrats. Regardless, their existential question will depend on their decisions at any given time and will have to be coinciding. Looking at the developments, we can say that they both are aware of that fact and largely coordinating their policies in that direction.
We are all used to hearing government’s foreign policies and witnessing their practice in its concrete form. We forget that in our era wars will be carried out as proxy wars between the big powers. Each will participate in the wars in a way that has the "plausible deniability" feature, meaning that any "evidence" of direct involvement will not be there. The purpose of all belligerent big powers is to avoid a direct war among themselves.
It is clear that both, especially Russia is being very careful even against ongoing provocations from the Baltic state and still debating among the factions within their power structure. It seems that Russia is not even trying hard to take advantage of the situation very favorable for itself. But that does not mean it is not supporting Iran in its war against US-Israel. Iran, unlike Syria, has shown that it is resilient and have the power to inflict damage to the US. That fact alone gives Russia the reasons to assist Iran indirectly with "plausible deniability."
China, on the other hand, seemingly taken a behind-the-scenes role, clearly stated its policy on the side of Iran.
In factuality, they both have stated a stand against the aggressive war of US-Israel. The extent of their assistance to Iran will not be known for a long time to come. However, anyone with a critical mind can easily make informed deductions from the effectiveness and preciseness of Iran's missile attacks. In addition, contrary to the boasting lies of US-Israel, they do not have "control over Iranian air space". That claim is not only physically possible (a plane has limited flight distance, requires refueling in the air, which makes it venerable to any missile), the last events have shown that Iran is capable to shoot down planes, meaning, it still has anti-aircraft means. As the US military experts pointed out, US-Israel planes fly to a limited distance from Iran's air space in order to bomb- other than missiles. This fact alone indicates the existence of Russia-China assistance.
In summary, the question of Iran is an existential question of Russia and China. They could not stand idle in the face of the collapse of Iran, especially when Iran proves its resilience.
The fundamental question, however, is not their attitudes for Iran war, which is an immediate existential question for them, but their attitudes towards the plausible wars that do not present an existential question for them, such as a war against Cuba. In other words, if their stand in general is based on an "appeasement" and "neutral" policy or not. That is the core of the question; a selective policy or general policy. That-a crucial one especially for the evaluation of China- we will all wait and see.
Erdogan A
April 17, 2026
.jpg)
