At first glance, this is just a conversation about commemorative dates, sacrifices, and friendship of peoples. In reality, it is yet another attempt by Moscow to embed itself into the Chinese historical myth and at the same time rewrite World War II in a logic convenient for both the Kremlin and Beijing:

• China is presented as the decisive force that stopped Japan;
• the USSR — as China’s only “true ally”;
• the US and Britain are reduced to cowards and bystanders.

Thus a new narrative is created: “The USSR and China together saved the world.”

1. The Central Fake: “China Prevented Japan from Attacking the USSR”

Denisov claims:

“Japan’s military and economic capacities did not allow it to attack the USSR and fight on several fronts. And here China played a great role, simply drawing Japanese forces onto itself.”

It sounds appealing, but it is historically false.

• Japan’s decision not to wage war against the USSR was due not to “China’s resilience,” but to its defeat at Khalkhin Gol (1939), the Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact (1941), and intelligence from Richard Sorge confirming Japan’s plans to move south.
• By the early 1940s, the Chinese army was torn apart by internal conflicts (Kuomintang vs. CCP), poorly equipped, and could not be a strategic deterrent for the Japanese General Staff.

The thesis “China saved the USSR” is a myth, useful for both Beijing (to boost its role) and Moscow (to justify the idea of an “eternal alliance”).

2. “China among the Victors”: Expanding into a “Big Four”

The article states:

“The victors in World War II are traditionally considered to be the USSR, the US, Britain, and France. But China among the four victors would look more logical.”

This is a clear rewriting of reality.

• Yes, Chiang Kai-shek participated in the Cairo Conference (1943), but China lacked the capacity to conduct broad offensive operations.
• Roosevelt included China among the permanent members of the UN Security Council not for military contribution but for balancing power in Asia.
• In fact, China was a political symbol, not a key military actor.

3. Manipulation of the Beginning of World War II

Denisov repeats the Chinese interpretation:

“The first shots of World War II sounded precisely in the East — September 18, 1931 (Manchuria) or July 7, 1937 (the Marco Polo Bridge incident).”

Historically:

• The Sino–Japanese war was a regional conflict.
• The world war began on September 1, 1939, when key European powers became involved.
• Moving the “start” to China serves Beijing’s purpose of placing itself at the center of world history, and Moscow’s purpose of diluting the Western narrative and pushing Europe out of focus.

4. “The Only Help Came from the USSR”

From the interview:

“The main thing is that we were the only ones who helped China at that stage of the war.”

A fake.

• The US, already from 1938, credited Chiang Kai-shek, sent military advisors and aircraft.
• In 1941 the mission of General Stilwell was created, and the “Flying Tigers” (American pilots) fought even before the US officially entered the war.
• The USSR did help China (planes, artillery, volunteer pilots), but this was part of a geopolitical game against Japan, not an act of unique “salvation.”

5. “Victims as Argument”: 31 Million = Main Contribution?

Quote:

“In China the officially accepted figure of losses is 31 million. This is incomparable with the losses of other allies.”

Yes, the human cost in China was catastrophic. But turning the number of victims into proof of the “main role” is substitution.

• Mass losses are a tragedy of weakness, not an indicator of strength.
• China was a battlefield and also a site of civil war, which magnified the catastrophe.

6. Striking at the US and Britain: Revisionism through Mockery

The interview follows a systemic line:

• Britain — “surrendered without a fight” in Singapore.
• The US — “feared ground war” and “fled the Philippines.”
• France — “the anecdote about Keitel.”

The purpose is obvious: to belittle the role of the Western allies, leaving in the center the “duet USSR–China.”

7. Modern Inserts: From “Operation Z” to the Letter Z

Particularly revealing:

“In General Staff documents, the military aid operation to China in 1937–1941 was called ‘Operation Z’. The very same letter Z that we know from today.”

This is a direct bridge: from “anti-fascist struggle” to justification of Russia’s aggression in Ukraine.
History becomes an instrument for legitimizing a wartime symbol of 2022+.

8. Who Benefits from This “History”

• Moscow:
  — To hide the real dependence of the USSR on intelligence and Japan’s caution.
  — To build an image of an “eternal brotherhood with China,” necessary for today’s geopolitical survival.
• Beijing:
  — To enshrine the thesis of the “central role of China” in the defeat of fascism.
  — To increase moral capital vis-à-vis the West: allegedly, China was always “on the right side of history.”
• Jointly:
  — To create a new narrative of World War II: “USSR + China saved the world from Germany + Japan.”
  — To marginalize the US and Britain as secondary players.

Conclusion: Revisionism under the Red Flag

Denisov’s interview is not a diplomat’s recollection but a manual of political manipulation.

• China is turned into the “main restraining factor for Japan.”
• The USSR and PRC are portrayed as two pillars of victory.
• The West is written off as cowards and extras.
• And the letter Z is woven into a “historic tradition.”

Reality is simpler:

• Japan was stopped by Khalkhin Gol, the Neutrality Pact, and Sorge’s intelligence.
• The US and Britain made the decisive contribution in the Pacific war.
• China was a battlefield and a victim, but not an architect of victory.

Moscow and Beijing in 2025 are doing what they always did: rewriting the past to justify their present.