China — Mongolia — Russia Economic Corridor Program: Problems and Prospects for Implementation

The 100-th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between Russia and Mongolia, which the two neighboring countries will celebrate on November 5, 2021, gives a serious reason to assess the current state of bilateral cooperation, existing problems and prospects for its development. In recent years, the issues of intensification of Russian-Mongolian relations have been considered in the context of the trilateral «Program for the creation of the China-Mongolia-Russia economic corridor». Despite the lack of concrete results within the framework of this program, the implementation of a number of infrastructure projects is being prepared, which will seriously strengthen the economic base of cooperation between Russia and Mongolia and China. The paper analyzes the problematic issues of the implementation of plans for the development of transport and energy infrastructure through Mongolia, which are considered as the basis for trilateral cooperation. Particular attention is paid to plans for the development of the railway network. The promising directions for the development of cross-border infrastructure in the framework of the program for the creation of the Mongolian corridor are identified.

A Review of Chinese Eastern Railway Study in China

The article reviews research on Chinese Eastern Railway in China. The research on Chinese Eastern Railway in China began in the early 20th century, has a history of more than 100 years. The existing research results mainly focus on the construction of Chinese Eastern Railway and Tsarist Russia's expansion policy, negotiation between China and Russia (Soviet Union) on the railway issue, the contradictions and struggles of Japan and the United States around the railway problem and so on. These documents cover a wide range of issues which almost involve the political, diplomacy, economy and trade, culture and other fields of international relations in the Far East from the end of the 19th century to the beginning of 20th century, provide a broad vision for the study of Chinese Eastern Railway. But there are problems in the research. Although there are many works on Chinese Eastern Railway, but most discussions are limited to a certain stage, there are few works on the whole history of Chinese Eastern Railway. Not only should we pay attention to the study of the early 20th century in other words the period of the Qing Empire, moreover, we should strengthen the research in the period of the Republic of China and the new China period, this is of great significance to the study of the whole history of Sino — Soviet relations. In addition due to specific historical conditions, part of the Russian data of Chinese Eastern Railway in China was lost, in addition, there is no detailed and authoritative reference book for Russian archives of Chinese Eastern Railway, this situation makes the cited materials in Chinese works appear too old the materials cited in the book seem too old. The authors thank for proofreading and examining the translation A.I. Kobzev, Ph.D. (Philosophy), professor, director of China Department, Institute of Oriental Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences, director of TSC of Humanities and Social Sciences and director of Philosophy Department of MIPT (SRI), director of TSC «Oriental Philosophy» of RSUH, Chief researcher of Russian language, literature and culture research center of Heilongjiang University.

Reliability of the Plot Related to the Conversation with Deng Xiaoping on the Sino-Soviet Territorial Issues in the Memoirs of E. Shevardnadze

In 2009, the former Minister of Foreign Affairs of the USSR and President of Georgia E.A. Shevardnadze published his memoirs in Russian, which contain an “explosive” plot: while visiting China in February 1989, during his meeting with Deng Xiaoping, a lengthy dispute over border and territorial issues occurred. At that time, Deng allegedly expressed his point of view that vast lands of the Soviet Union, from three to four million square kilometers, belonged to China. Chinese can wait patiently until someday the lands return to China. This content is cited in scientific works by many historians from different countries as an argument. However, there is no other evidence which can prove this recollection. Many details in it contradict the well known historical facts or are completely illogical. There is a good reason to believe that the plot in the memoirs of Shevardnadze is an incorrect recollection. It could even be considered as a made-up story. Moreover, it is possible that it was fabricated for some reasons. Hence, the plot is not worthy of being quoted as a reliable source. At the Sino-Soviet summit Deng Xiaoping did have expressed the point of view that in the past Russia and then the Soviet Union cut off millions of square kilometers of land from China, but at the same time he promised the leader of the Soviet Union that China would not make territorial claims. Since the mid-1980s Deng Xiaoping actively promoted the settlement of the Sino-Soviet border issues through negotiations, which led to the result that 99% of the border between Russia and China was delimited on a legal basis in the last years of his life. At present, the problems of the Sino-Russian border have been finally resolved long ago. There is no doubt that the scientific research and discussions on issues related to territory and borders in the history of Sino-Soviet relations can be made. However, such research and discussions should be based on reliable sources.

Thinking about Jointly Preventing the “Color Revolution” by China and Russia

The color revolution, which is a “low-cost and high-return” method in regime change, has become the main mean and priority option for America to subvert dissident regimes. In recent years, with the raising strength of containing and suppressing between China with Russia by the United States, America has tried its best to plan “color revolution” not only around China and Russia, but also within the borders of the two countries. China and Russia have become the key target of America in implementing the “color revolution”, however, the situation of the two countries to prevent the “color revolution” is particularly urgent. The “color revolution” not only disrupts the balance of the international system and regional security, but also seriously affects the stability of the country's political power and the healthy development of the economy. In view of this, it is now necessary for China and Russia to work together to prevent “color revolution”. Regarding the new changes, methods changed from non-violent to violent me, more advanced organizational methods, the younger generation of the participants, and changes in manifestations by the “color revolution”, as well as the underlying causes of the “color revolution”, China and Russia should have uindividualized strategies. China and Russia can strengthen cooperation in different areas, such as politics, economy, culture, ideological education, and regional coordination. China and Russia should take advantages of their respective experiences in dealing with “color revolution”, strengthen sharing and communicating experience with other countries in the region, and jointly build a barrier to prevent “color revolution” and protect the security and stability in China and Russia and the surrounding areas.

Reply to T.M. Simbirtseva and S.V. Volkov: Facts Against Fantasies

This article provides an analysis of scientific research on the life and activities of the first Russian charge d’ affaires and consul general in Korea Karl I. Waeber, shows the specific contribution of scholars to the study of the professional biography of this outstanding diplomat. Despite the fact that the activity of K.I. Weber in Korea is partially reflected in the works of Boris D. Pak and Bella B. Pak on the history of Russo-Korean relations, as well as in several separate articles, the first special monographic work on this topic belongs to the pen of the author of this article. The monographic research focuses on a detailed coverage of the tasks, goals facing Waeber in Korea, the specific forms and conditions for their implementation, the impact he exerts on the course of the Russian government towards Korea; analysis of the most complex international circumstances, against the background of which he made certain decisions. This article contains answers to T.M. Simbirtseva and S.V. Volkov’s critical remarks regarding some of the information and photographic documents given in the work concerning K.I. Waeber and the accusations against the author of the article in connection with the publication in Germany in the summer of 2021 of Dr. S. Braezel's photobook "Pictures of the life of a diplomat between Europe and East Asia: Karl von Waeber (1841-1910)". The author of the article drew attention to some erroneous judgments in the article by T.M. Simbirtseva and S.V. Volkov, formed due to ignorance and bias, analyzed and refuted the most unfounded accusations, clarified the position regarding new information about K.I. Waeber.