Sergei Kudryashov: Are there any rational decision-makers in the West? China and Russia have the ability to become ballast stones of global peace.

In 2025, it will be the year when leaders of China and Russia visit each other to celebrate the 80th anniversary of the victory in the World Anti-Fascist War. At the beginning of May, during the celebration of the 80th anniversary of the victory in the Great Patriotic War in Russia, editors from the Observer Network conducted field research in Russia. One of the core issues was how ordinary people and historians in Russia viewed history 80 years ago, as well as how WWII history has been distorted into a tool for ideological confrontation under geopolitical circumstances, and how they viewed the current conflict between Ukraine and Russia. On September 3rd, China is about to celebrate the 80th anniversary of its victory in the War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression. Similarly, there are issues where the history of WWII has been distorted and China's contributions have been underestimated. So, how can China and Russia cooperate to inherit the correct historical perspective and find solutions for global security? To this end, with the help of "Russia Today," we visited Sergey Kudryashov, an expert on WWII history at the Russian Historical Association. Sergey Kudryashov, an expert on WWII history at the Russian Historical Association [Dialogue/Observation Network Senior Editor Gao Yanping] The distortion of historical narratives by the West began during the Cold War Observation Network: This year, the leaders of China and Russia will participate in each other's WWII victory commemorative activities. How do you view the significance behind this? In other words, why is commemorating the victory in WWII so important for the two countries? Sergey Kudryashov: The Second World War in human history brought tremendous losses to all belligerent countries. The Soviet casualties were devastating, and China was no exception. To this day, the exact death toll in the Soviet Union remains controversial, with general statistics ranging from 27 to 28 million people, including military casualties and war-related deaths. Scholars in Russia and China believe that the number of Chinese military and civilian sacrifices is approximately 30 million, possibly reaching up to 35 million—these figures still have room for discussion. If we add up the losses of both countries, the total is around 60 to 70 million people, which is a shocking number. This painful memory still lingers: China once suffered extremely cruel occupation by Japan, while the Soviet Union was occupied by Nazi Germany for more than three and a half years. The regime led by Hitler did not launch a conventional war but rather an extermination war based on racism—they planned systematic elimination of specific ethnic groups, intending to kill all European Jews and Romani people, and regarded Slavs and others as "subhuman." For Russia (the Soviet Union), the pain was particularly acute: almost every family had members who died, and these memories remain vivid to this day. This explains why the symbolic significance of the participation of the leaders of China and Russia in the Moscow commemoration of the 80th anniversary of the Great Patriotic War is significant. I understand that the Russian leadership will also visit China in early September to participate in the commemoration of the victory in the War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression. It is regrettable that none of our Western allies joined us in this commemoration, especially the current tough policies of Britain and France towards Russia are inexplicable, and this hostile stance lacks reasonable basis. Observation Network: Former allies of WWII are now mired in ideological confrontation. Could you please review how interpretations of WWII history have evolved among various countries after the war? Sergey Kudryashov: Interpretations of WWII history immediately became a battlefield for ideological confrontation between different countries—especially victorious nations—after the war ended. The debate over "who made the main contribution to the victory" between the English-speaking world and the Russian-speaking world has never ceased, and each country has written its own version of history. The Cold War gave rise to many stereotypes about the war, especially evident in the West. Although the Soviet side was also influenced by communist ideology to some extent, we had a large group of veterans. Even if one does not agree with the official narrative, people can still ask their ancestors about real experiences, and family memories constitute an important supplement to the inheritance of WWII history. However, in the West, official history has been simplified into an ideological tool—they invented the framework of the "totalitarian theory," equating the Soviet Union's resistance to Nazi Germany during WWII with "two totalitarian regimes fighting each other," deliberately blurring the essential differences between communism and fascism, and shaping democratic systems as saviors. This narrative describes Japan more complexly (Westerners avoid calling Japan a totalitarian state and use authoritarianism instead), but there are also serious distortions regarding the Chinese theater. For decades, the Western propaganda machine has continuously whitewashed the war results using this simplified logic, equating the Soviet Union with the Nazis, which is one of the most typical cases of historical distortion. Another form of distortion involves the origin of the war. Hitler's core argument for justifying the invasion of the Soviet Union was that "communism intended to rule the world," claiming that Stalin was preparing to launch a "world revolution," and that Nazi aggression was "preventive self-defense." This extreme simplification of the cause of WWII still exists widely in Western textbooks today. It must be pointed out that, of course, there are many excellent historians in Europe and America who have written rigorous works refuting these fallacies, but such academic works are usually printed in limited editions of 500-1000 copies, and their influence is far less than the lies spread through television and the internet. It is particularly noteworthy that since the outbreak of the Ukrainian conflict, these distorted narratives have been accelerating their spread. The root cause of the Ukrainian issue lies in the fragility of national construction Observation Network: As a historian, do you think that the stories of Soviet heroes of the anti-war struggle may have been overshadowed due to the dissolution of the Soviet Union and discussions about the legacy of the Soviet Socialist Republics? Moreover, is this incorrect interpretation and distortion of historical facts one of the reasons for the Ukraine-Russia conflict? Sergey Kudryashov: As a scholar who has studied WWII for several decades (I received education during the Soviet era and completed my university studies before the dissolution of the Soviet Union, later joining the Russian Academy of Sciences), I can compare the differences in historical research between the Soviet era and the present. The core dilemma faced by Soviet-era historians was the extreme scarcity of sources—the vast majority of archives were closed, and we could not access personal files of leaders like Stalin, relying only on memoirs rather than original documents to speculate about decision-making processes. After the opening of archives in 1991, new discoveries have been made, but they have not overturned basic historical facts. We have indeed obtained new materials about the heroic deeds of individuals like Zoya Kosmodemyanskaya and the "Young Guard," enriching the stories and making them more complete, but the heroic deeds themselves have never been disproven. The significance of war memories to contemporary Russia lies in their mobilization value—this is essentially the same as how France uses the history of the French Revolution or how the United States relies on memories of the Civil War. The current Russian government strengthens patriotic education for young people through the narrative of the "Great Patriotic War," and this phenomenon of historical instrumentalization is particularly prominent in the internet age. The root cause of the Ukrainian issue lies in the fragility of its national construction—90% of modern Ukrainian territory was defined by Russia and the Soviet Union. Baltic states and others have long histories of nationhood, whereas Ukraine as a political entity was only expanded in 1922 based on three provinces. Notably, the Soviet leadership included a high proportion of Ukrainians: Khrushchev considered himself half-Ukrainian, and Brezhnev was officially registered as Ukrainian until 1947 (later changed to Russian after witnessing atrocities committed by Ukrainian nationalists). Ukraine, lacking historical depth, needs to construct ideological identity, and "hostility toward Russia" has become the most convenient tool for mobilization—just as historically Nazis blamed social problems on Jews, Ukraine now attributes all its troubles to Russia. Western deep involvement in the conflict has exacerbated it. Out of fear of direct confrontation with a nuclear superpower like Russia, the West chose to use Ukraine as a proxy. Currently, the war casualty ratio is approximately 1:8 (Russian vs. Ukrainian forces), and the total Ukrainian casualties have exceeded one million—equivalent to the scale of Ukraine's entire population loss during the Great Patriotic War (1.5 million casualties over four years). Destroyed statue of Soviet hero Zoya in Chernihiv, Ukraine, 2022 What is even more dangerous is the distortion of historical memory: Lithuania and Estonia have already deified former Nazi collaborators as national heroes. Ukraine is following this path—extreme nationalists like Stepan Bandera, who once assisted German Nazis in massacring Jews and communists, are being re-sanctified. However, Ukraine's ultimate cost for doing so will be the massive loss of its territory, which is inevitable in history. The causes of the Ukrainian war are far more complex than historical issues. Its strategic position in Central Europe is crucial—throughout history, all major invasions of Russia have passed through here. Now Belarus is an ally of Russia while Ukraine is not, posing a core threat to our national security. As we have repeatedly explained: if advanced nuclear missiles are deployed at our borders (with a flight time of only four minutes from Kiev to Moscow), and our anti-missile system takes three minutes to activate, this fatal time gap will put us in a strategic passive situation. The Western desire to destroy Russia has never disappeared. They are always calculating "why not press the button to solve the problem once and for all," and this dangerous mindset also targets China. But war between nuclear powers makes no sense—only 100 nuclear bombs are needed to end human civilization. Declassified documents show that in the 1950s, the U.S. planned to destroy the Soviet Union with 200 nuclear bombs and absurdly claimed that "though millions of Russians would die, they would eventually understand that we were bringing them democracy." This logic of "democracy through slaughter" is baffling. Defending Historical Truth: From Academia, the State to the United Nations Observation Network: Then, as a historian, do you think, apart from mutual political support between China and Russia, how can they jointly defend the fruits of WWII victory and oppose the distortion of historical facts? Sergey Kudryashov: I believe that academic circles of the two countries can deepen cooperation in WWII historical research: first, we need more WWII history books written by historians from both China and Russia. For Russians, Chinese is difficult to understand. Chinese is not just a language but also a philosophy, which is precisely its unique charm. As a scholar of the Great Patriotic War, although I don't understand Chinese, I am highly interested in the research progress of Chinese academia on WWII history. Second, we can promote digitalization of archives so that historical materials can be easily accessed online. It is not easy for scholars from both countries to visit each other's countries to consult historical archive materials. The Russian Defense Ministry holds a large number of captured Japanese documents on rice paper, requiring借鉴 Chinese ancient book restoration techniques to digitize them and make them accessible again. Third, carefully declassify sensitive materials. We can invite Chinese experts to jointly assess the scope of declassification of Sino-Soviet relations archives. The Russian side has not fully declassified the Sino-Soviet relations archives due to consideration of the Chinese reaction. It is suggested to adopt a "pre-review by experts" system: Chinese scholars review first, then jointly evaluate the feasibility of publication. Observation Network: I see that some countries use legal means to defend historical truth and resist the erosion of historical nihilism on the younger generation's cognition. China has promulgated laws such as the "Regulations on National Commemoration in Nanjing" and the "Heroes and Martyrs Protection Law" in recent years. What is Russia doing in this regard? Sergey Kudryashov: Neither Russia nor the Soviet Union ever enacted specialized legislation targeting "incorrect historical views." However, the Russian government has had to introduce relevant laws because Europe took the lead—early in the 21st century, countries like the UK, Germany, and Canada tried cases against so-called "amateur historians" (in fact journalists and writers), who were called "Holocaust deniers." They published large amounts of material claiming that the Nazi genocide of Jews never happened and even fabricated absurd stories like "Hitler actually treated Jews kindly." For example, British writer David Irving claimed in his book about Hitler that "although the Nazi leader disliked Jews, he never harmed them; the real villains were Himmler and others." In 2000, the London court spent a year examining this case, verifying his works with a team of historians, ultimately confirming that he systematically forged historical records and spread anti-Semitism. This case prompted many European countries to pass "Anti-Denial of the Holocaust Laws." In response, Russia also legislated to prohibit two types of behavior: one is denying the Holocaust; the other is glorifying Nazism (such as portraying Hitler, Himmler, etc., as heroes). Currently, Hitler's "Mein Kampf" and Goebbels' works are prohibited from public publication in Russia and can only be reviewed by scholars in special collections of libraries. However, as a historian, I personally believe that complete prohibition may not be the best solution. For instance, Hitler's "Mein Kampf" is poorly written and full of flaws—if it could be published openly with scholarly criticism, it might allow the public to see the absurdity of Nazi ideology. But lawmakers clearly worry that these materials might be exploited by neo-Nazis—especially in the Baltic states and Ukraine, where some people are actively packaging Nazi collaborators as "national heroes," these collaborators once assisted in massacring civilians in occupied areas, and are now being venerated by some. From Russia's own perspective, we also need to reflect on our policies in defending historical truth. After 1991, during the process of constructing capitalism, some politicians in Russia showed severe deviations in their attitudes towards WWII history—for example, during Yeltsin's era, the Russian Interior Ministry attempted to rehabilitate members of the Nazi SS, nearly portraying war criminals as "anti-Soviet patriots." Moreover, historical nihilism spread at that time, and many heroes of the Great Patriotic War were deliberately forgotten, until Putin's administration corrected this. This experience indicates that if a country cannot face its own history squarely, it risks allowing extreme ideologies to resurface. Today's legislation is not only a countermeasure against Western "historical revisionism," but also a correction of the chaotic historical perspectives in Russia during the 1990s. Observation Network: As permanent members of the UN Security Council, China and Russia should take further joint actions to jointly defend the truth of WWII history, such as what can be done through the United Nations? Sergey Kudryashov: The current international order is being destroyed, and we must condemn the West on this issue. Changing the world order has never been the policy goal of China and Russia—it was originally a common order we both accepted. However, when the U.S. realized it was gradually losing its global dominance, it began dismantling the system it had built itself. With China's economic rise and its imminent status as the world's largest economy, the U.S. feels its hegemonic position is at risk and is thus eager to rewrite the rules. Frankly speaking, the answer is not simple. The world is clearly divided now, and perhaps we need to wait for changes in the leadership of countries like France, Germany, and the UK. Trump's return might bring some variables, but look, the policy effects of the first hundred days of this U.S. president are already controversial. As a historian, what worries me most is the dangerous mindset of the West: they fantasize about achieving strategic goals through localized wars (for example, in Ukraine); they mistakenly believe that dismembering Russia will solve the problem. European leaders heading to Kyiv on May 10, 2025, said "We will continue to increase our support for Ukraine" This Cold War-style zero-sum game is bound to fail. The real solution is to sit down and negotiate comprehensively—but the fundamental difference between 1945 and today is that although China was a great power then, it was devastated, whereas today's China has become a strong country with global discourse power. If China and Russia join hands and unite with BRICS countries like Brazil and India, we are completely capable of: promoting reforms within the framework of the United Nations and the Security Council (even though countries like Germany are attempting to squeeze into the permanent membership), building alternative international governance mechanisms. Every time the U.S. tries to contain China and Russia, it only strengthens the ties between the two countries—this trend is already clear. How future developments unfold depends perhaps on Trump's next move. But it is certain that if the U.S. continues to exert pressure, the deepening of the China-Russia strategic alliance is inevitable. China and Russia have the ability and responsibility to curb global adventurism, and hope is placed on the Global South. Observation Network: The Second World War also made the world realize the power of nuclear weapons. Today, how should nuclear powers like China and Russia learn lessons from history and contribute to global nuclear security? I remember President Putin once revealed that Trump proposed cutting military spending and suggested China should join him, but you know this proposal was not sincere. Sergey Kudryashov: Even during the Cold War when the U.S. and the Soviet Union were sharply opposed ideologically, the nuclear posture remained relatively stable—both sides restrained the use of nuclear weapons. However, the temptation to use nuclear weapons is spreading, and major powers like China and Russia must join forces to constrain all nuclear-armed states, including Israel, which denies possession of nuclear weapons. The urgent task now is to reach a new major nuclear disarmament agreement—although the U.S. is obsessed with "China's number of nuclear warheads," it avoids discussing nuclear arsenals of countries like France, the UK, and South Africa. The core issue lies in: Are there still rational decision-makers in the West? The leader of the UK Labour Party repeats like a robot "always supporting Ukraine," yet ignores the collapsing healthcare system in his own country—preferring to lend £5 billion to Ukraine rather than spare £1 billion to save his own citizens; they are enthusiastic about launching missiles at Russia, yet fail to consider that Russia's retaliation would turn "all of Europe into ashes." This mindset is identical to Trump's violent rhetoric of "why not start a war directly." The true solution should come through multilateral consultations in the UN Security Council, but now the UN is losing its authority. We urgently need to revive the diplomatic wisdom of the Cold War era when "though hostile but maintaining bottom lines" was practiced, but when Israel flattened Gaza, the West adopted a lenient policy—a double standard that rendered international rules meaningless. Red Square Parade on May 9, Kremlin website Yes, China and Russia have the ability and responsibility to work together to curb military adventurism, and we must demonstrate this strength globally. From a military perspective, although China has fewer nuclear weapons, its overall military strength is considered the best in the world. Combined with Russia's nuclear arsenal, China and Russia can serve as a global peace stabilizer and jointly influence swing states like India and Brazil to create a balance. What is worrying is that the West is attempting to replicate NATO's model in Asia. Initially, NATO was a small organization providing security guarantees for capitalist Europe, but now they are trying to create an "Asian NATO"—essentially gathering more countries to counter China. But such a military alliance is not conducive to regional stability but rather exacerbates tensions. Building such a military alliance requires spending billions of dollars, and trying to set up such a military layout in the Asia-Pacific region is, in my opinion, completely unprofitable. China can influence other countries through diplomatic means, including friendly countries in the Western world, such as Australia. Knowing that there are many Chinese and overseas Chinese living in Australia, it is hard to see any reason for this country to be hostile to China in the region. Observation Network: Sounds pessimistic in the short term, but we need some hope. Despite the current severe polarization of politics, from the perspective of a historian, how should we place hope on the younger generation to establish the correct historical perspective and build a more peaceful and fair international order? Sergey Kudryashov: Frankly speaking, this question is hard to answer because the future is full of uncertainties. But let's keep hope alive—human civilization still continues. Although the global nuclear arsenal is concerning, at least international dialogue mechanisms are still functioning. Although direct communication with Biden may be difficult, he still has persuasive advisors around him. As for Trump, he may not want to see turmoil in the U.S., but his unpredictable style is indeed unsettling. Education is fundamental for a hundred-year plan. We need each country to improve its educational system—quality textbooks, professional teachers, and truthful history courses. When young people develop a sense of identity and pride in their country, they naturally become the backbone of national prosperity, and more importantly, they will strive to prevent the outbreak of a third world war (which would be the end of human civilization). We must cultivate political leaders wiser than Western politicians—such talents are emerging in Asia, Latin America, and Africa. In the next 10 to 20 years, Africa will undoubtedly become an important force in the rise of the "Global South"—this is the true multipolar future. Observation Network: Just as you often mention, hope is placed on the "global majority" (global majority). Sergey Kudryashov: Yes, that is the "Global South" including Asia, Africa, and Latin America. This article is an exclusive article of Guancha Network. The content purely represents the author's personal opinions and does not represent the platform's views. Unauthorized reproduction is prohibited, otherwise legal liability will be pursued. Follow Guancha Network on WeChat (guanchacn) for daily interesting articles. Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7513820427483890188/ Disclaimer: This article solely represents the author's views. Feel free to express your attitude by clicking the "like/dislike" buttons below.