WWIII: Russia, China Fly Bombers Near Alaska During Joint Exercise for First Time

Beijing and Moscow have rejected the notion of a unipolar world

A Chinese H-6K bomber and a Russian Sukhoi Su-30CM jet fighter seen Wednesday near Alaska.

Russian and Chinese bombers operated in the Alaskan Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) late Wednesday and were intercepted by U.S. and Canadian fighters, as Western support for the Ukraine War pulls Moscow and Beijing closer together while increasing the risk of WWIII becoming official.

Alexander Korolev, an expert on Russian-Chinese military cooperation at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, told The Financial Times that, “It is not unusual for Russian bombers flying through the [Alaska] ADIZ to be intercepted, but I believe it is the first occurrence of a joint Russian and Chinese flight in that zone.”

North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) said it intercepted four bombers near Alaska. They were identified as two Russian TU-95 and two PRC H-6 military aircraft.

“The Russian and PRC aircraft remained in international airspace and did not enter American or Canadian sovereign airspace. This Russian and PRC activity in the Alaska ADIZ is not seen as a threat, and NORAD will continue to monitor competitor activity near North America and meet presence with presence,” the statement read.

The U.S. employed F-16 and F-35 fighter jets, and Canada deployed CF-18 fighter jets, a defense official told CNN.

Russia and China are not natural allies and it is the U.S. support of Ukraine’s lost war that has pulled the two superpowers together. Beijing and Moscow have rejected the notion of a unipolar world.

NEW ISSUE OUT

The Biden administration must keep flexible and may have to eventually relax the “extreme limitations” that the U.S. has placed on Ukraine’s use of Western weapons to strike Russian targets. 

The White House, along with NATO, recently announced that it would allow Ukraine to fire long-range munitions inside Russia along the border—where Russian forces were launching their own weapons. The approval was seen as a major escalation and, for critics, proved that the weapons being provided to Ukraine are not “defensive,” but rather offensive. 

Jake Sullivan, the Biden national security adviser, addressed the Aspen Security Forum in Colorado and was asked about the limitations, and said he cannot see into the future how the war will evolve. 

“As the war has evolved, our support has evolved. I can’t give a definitive answer to that question for the future,” he said, according to RT. 

He continued, “Circumstances changed. Russia actually launched a new offensive directly across the border towards Kharkov, and common sense dictated that Ukraine had to be able to fire back against that offensive.”

Earlier this summer, NATO’s top powers: the U.S., Germany, U.K., and France all agreed that Ukraine should be able to respond to attacks from within Russia with these weapons.

French President Emmanuel Macron summed up the argument: if Russia uses bases outside Ukraine to hit targets, Kyiv needs to have the ability to strike back.

“Ukrainian soil is being attacked from bases in Russia,” Macron said. “So how do we explain to the Ukrainians that we’re going to have to protect these towns … if we tell them you are not allowed to hit the point from which the missiles are fired?”

Pentagon Press Secretary Major General Pat Ryder told Voice of America in an interview this week that although Kyiv has been appealing for more flexibility to strike inside Russia the U.S. policy remains unchanged—for now.

“I think it is important to understand that we do not want to see unintended consequences of an escalation that could turn this conflict into a broader one that goes beyond Ukraine. I think this is something that we all need to consider and take very seriously,” he said. 

The RT report said U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken was asked the same question at the same conference in Colorado and said there are “ongoing conversations” about the issue.

The report noted that U.S. President Joe Biden, who announced he will end his campaign for president on Sunday, told reporters at the White House last week that the U.S. has allowed Zelensky to use weapons to help defend the country, but, “If he had the opportunity to strike Moscow, strike the Kremlin, would that make sense? No, it wouldn’t.”

TRENDPOST: It is worth noting that Zelensky posted on X Sunday—shortly after Biden’s surprise announcement—that he remains grateful for Biden’s steadfast support.

“The current situation in Ukraine and all of Europe is no less challenging, and we sincerely hope that America’s continued strong leadership will prevent Russian evil from succeeding or making its aggression pay off,” he posted on X.

If Donald Trump’s pick for running mate is any indication, Zelensky may want to speed up negotiations with Russia. 

Sen. J.D. Vance, R-Ohio, who is pro-Israel, is not so enamored with Ukraine. The former Marine penned a column in The New York Times last April that called the war lost.

Ukraine does not have the forces it needs to defeat Russia and, even if it did, the U.S. cannot possibly provide the weapons it would need to fight back, he wrote.

“Ukraine’s challenge is not the G.O.P.; it’s math. Ukraine needs more soldiers than it can field, even with draconian conscription policies. And it needs more matériel than the United States can provide,” he argued.

Vance also criticized those in Washington who favor the war because of its own economic benefits in the U.S., with factory production lines humming along. He called the notion that a brutal conflict is good for business “grotesque.”

“The Biden administration has no viable plan for the Ukrainians to win this war. The sooner Americans confront this truth, the sooner we can fix this mess and broker for peace,” he wrote.