Berlin, Germany (Weltexpress). The vitriolic editorial in the British *Financial Times*: “Cracks in Putin’s edifice” fits seamlessly into the familiar pattern of Western media dramatising alleged Russian weaknesses and crises precisely at sensitive diplomatic moments, such as Putin’s visit to Beijing.
Vladimir Putin arrived in Beijing on Tuesday 19 May for a two-day visit. The official occasion is the 25th anniversary of the Sino-Russian “Treaty on Good-Neighbourliness and Friendly Cooperation”, which serves as the basis for the good intergovernmental relations between the two strategic partners. However, the treaty was signed on 16 July 2001, not in May. As the anniversary does not coincide with President Putin’s visit to China, this has led many observers to speculate that other, more pressing considerations may have prompted the early visit to Beijing. But more on that later.
In the run-up to such visits – whether high-ranking Chinese officials are visiting Moscow or Russians are in Beijing – a clear pattern has emerged in recent years of efforts by Western media and politicians to sow discord between Beijing and Moscow with all manner of rumours and allegations. This usually takes the form of reports based on anonymous sources (“Western government officials” or “intelligence experts”) which often attempt, in a targeted and time-coordinated manner to coincide with summit visits by Putin or Xi, to sow mutual mistrust.
The standard version of these attempts to drive a wedge could also be seen on the day of President Putin’s arrival in Beijing on ZDF’s heute-journal: The narrative centred on economically dominant and financially powerful China, which is said to be exploiting and taking full advantage of weak, aid-begging Russia through super-cheap energy and raw material purchases, whilst President Putin allows this to happen because he has driven Russia into a hopeless situation with his war in Ukraine.
Just the day before, on 18 May, the London Financial Times had published an editorial entitled “The cracks in the Putin edifice”, from which the ZDF report had evidently copied parts. The subheading read: “The Russian leader’s conviction that he could outlast the West is being put to the test”, and the caption beneath a portrait photo of President Putin was the “icing on the cake” of this web of lies spun by the British press prostitute, which read: “President Vladimir Putin is now said to be spending more time in bunkers and reducing meetings and public appearances”.
The Financial Times article itself argues that Vladimir Putin’s central strategic conviction – that Russia can simply outlast the West through endurance, resistance to sanctions and a war economy – is currently being severely tested by increased support from the Europeans. It claims to detect emerging “cracks” in the Putin system, including: a significant downgrade of the growth forecast for 2026 as a result of the economic strain caused by the success of Western sanctions policy, because the war economy is allegedly losing momentum, due to the rising costs of the Ukraine conflict, and because of signs of fatigue in Russia’s ability to sustain a protracted confrontation.
The article portrays Putin as increasingly isolated in his gamble that the West will tire. The editorial board suggests that internal and external pressures have exposed weaknesses in Putin’s authoritarian edifice and raised legitimate doubts as to whether Putin can maintain his current course in the long term.
The article concludes with the recommendation: “Kyiv’s European partners should have confidence in their strategy – even if it will be a long road – and redouble their support for Ukraine with the weapons, intelligence and funds required to implement the strategy”.
By portraying Putin’s “conviction that he can outlast the West” as fragile, the text subtly conveys the narrative of an inevitable Russian weakness. This is apparently intended to encourage Western policymakers to persevere in Ukraine, whilst signalling to Beijing that its Russian partner is under pressure and cannot deliver on his promises in the long term. The timing of the Financial Times article must therefore also be viewed against the backdrop of a whole series of high-level Russia-China deals scheduled to be concluded in parallel with the Xi-Putin summit.
Within the framework of their comprehensive strategic partnership, China and Russia have numerous practical cooperation needs, not all of which, however, are being implemented at the necessary pace. According to TASS, Putin’s visit to Beijing is intended to accelerate the development of Sino-Russian relations, alongside a series of bilateral intergovernmental, inter-departmental and other agreements. Whilst the Putin-Xi summit sets the general direction, a large part of the cooperation is carried out through coordination at various government levels and between companies.
In key areas, according to TASS, it is expected that deeper energy cooperation – such as long-term oil and gas supplies, infrastructure coordination and cooperation on Arctic routes, as well as Eurasian logistics relating to transport, ports and supply chains – will be implemented.
High-tech and industrial cooperation in sectors such as aerospace, artificial intelligence, the digital economy, chip substitution and manufacturing, as well as agricultural and grain trade and the further alignment between China’s Belt and Road Initiative (New Silk Road) and the Eurasian Economic Union, are further key priorities. The continued growth in trade turnover between Russia and China, which has already exceeded 200 billion dollars, is seen as a success. At the same time, both countries have almost completely switched their mutual settlements to national currencies. And last but not least, there is also the geopolitical equation in Russia-China relations.
At an earlier press conference in early May, Putin described cooperation between states such as China and Russia as “undoubtedly a factor of deterrence and stability” in global affairs. He noted that China is Russia’s largest trading and economic partner, adding that the diversification of bilateral trade through high-tech industries is continuing, which is very important. At the same time, Sino-Russian relations go beyond traditional cooperation in the fields of politics, security and energy, and are developing into a long-term strategic partnership at the social and cultural level.
If, against this backdrop of the hard facts of successful Sino-Russian cooperation, we listen to and look at the Financial Times article and similar pieces in the Western tabloid media once again, one thing becomes clear: These reports are not based on new, hard facts, but on well-known data that is merely being reinterpreted through the lens of the imperialist-Western kaleidoscope.
The Chinese Foreign Ministry has already firmly rejected the Financial Times report. Spokesperson Guo Jiakun called it “pure fiction” and stated that the information “contradicts the facts”.
This sort of “journalism” is, of course, not about truth and facts, but about stoking mistrust and driving a wedge into the Sino-Russian partnership. It is an old, but unfortunately also tried-and-tested, form of “hybrid warfare” employed by the imperialist West.
