The Lithuanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Friday declared three staff members of China’s representative office in the country, a type of diplomatic mission, as personae non gratae, citing alleged violations of the Vienna Convention outlining diplomatic law and Lithuanian legislation, and ordered them to leave the country within a week.

Calling the move “brutal and provocative behavior,” China’s foreign ministry said Vilnius had previously expressed a desire to improve ties with Beijing, and expressed “strong condemnation.”

The spat comes after questions were raised over the activities of a Chinese ship that was spotted near two undersea internet cables that were cut in the Baltic Sea on Nov. 17 and 18.

While European officials haven’t made details of their investigations public, one of the undersea cables that was cut runs between Sweden and Lithuania.

Social media users spotted the Chinese ship slightly slowing down and altering course as it crossed the 730-mile C-Lion 1 undersea cable connecting Finland and Germany and the 130-mile link between Sweden and Lithuania around the time that they were cut.

Several media reports said the authorities in Sweden and Finland are investigating the suspected sabotage of two undersea fiber-optic cables in the Baltic Sea, with attention focusing on a Chinese-registered cargo ship, the Yi Peng 3.

The ship was still anchored off Denmark on Monday, in close proximity to the German patrol vessel Bamberg, according to MarineTraffic.com.

Foreign ministry spokesperson Mao Ning had said on Friday that Beijing was “willing to cooperate ... to find out the truth” of the allegations.

RELATED STORIES

Questions raised over Chinese ship seen near undersea Baltic cables

China urges ‘fair’ investigation into Baltic pipeline damage

Palau says Chinese vessel slowed over undersea cable during incursion into waters

But China hit out at Lithuania’s move on Monday.

“China hopes that the new Lithuanian government will take concrete actions to abide by the political commitments made in the communiqué on the establishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries, adhere to the one-China principle, and push bilateral relations back on track,” foreign ministry spokesperson Lin Jian told a regular news briefing in Beijing on Monday.

The state-run Global Times newspaper said Lithuania has already angered Beijing by switching ties in 2021 to democratic Taiwan, which China claims as “an inalienable part” of its territory.

“Three years on since the downgrade of bilateral ties with China, Lithuania has again taken detrimental action that further exacerbates the relations,” the paper said in an editorial.

“China calls on Lithuania to immediately stop undermining China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and stop creating difficulty for bilateral relations,”

China reserves the right to take countermeasures against Lithuania, it quoted the country’s foreign ministry as saying.

Translated by Luisetta Mudie.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by He Ping for RFA Mandarin.

Russian lawmaker Andrei Kartapolov told deputies in Moscow on January 25 that Ukrainian military intelligence had been given a 15-minute warning before the Ilyushin Il-76 military transport plane entered the Belgorod region in Russia, near the border with Ukraine, and that Russia had received confirmation the message was received.

Kartapolov did not provide any evidence to back up his claim and Ukrainian military intelligence spokesman Andriy Yusov reiterated in comments to RFE/RL's Ukrainian Service that it had not received either a written or verbal request to secure the airspace where the plane went down.

Yusov said Ukraine had been using reconnaissance drones in the area and that Russia had launched attack drones. There was "no confirmed information" that Ukraine had hit any targets, he said.

"Unfortunately, we can assume various scenarios, including provocation, as well as the use of Ukrainian prisoners as a human shield for transporting ammunition and weapons for S-300 systems," he told RFE/RL.

Live Briefing: Russia's Invasion Of Ukraine

RFE/RL's Live Briefing gives you all of the latest developments on Russia's full-scale invasion, Kyiv's counteroffensive, Western military aid, global reaction, and the plight of civilians. For all of RFE/RL's coverage of the war in Ukraine, click here.

There has been no direct confirmation from Kyiv on Russian claims that the plane had Ukrainian POWs on board or that the aircraft was downed by a Ukrainian antiaircraft missile.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy has called for an international investigation of the incident, and Yusov reiterated that call, as "there are many circumstances that require investigation and maximum study."

The RIA Novosti news agency on January 25 reported that both black boxes had been recovered from the wreckage site in Russia's Belgorod region near the border with Ukraine.

The Investigative Committee said it had opened a criminal case into what it said was a "terrorist attack." The press service of the Investigative Committee said in a news release that preliminary data of the inspection of the scene of the incident, "allow us to conclude that the aircraft was attacked by an antiaircraft missile from the territory of Ukraine."

The Investigative Committee said that "fragmented human remains" were found at the crash site, repeating that six crew members, military police officers, and Ukrainian POWs were on board the plane.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov on January 25 called the downing of the Ilyushin Il-76 military transport plane a "monstrous act," though Moscow has yet to show any evidence that it was downed by a Ukrainian missile, or that there were Ukrainian prisoners on board.

While not saying who shot down the plane, Zelenskiy said that "all clear facts must be established...our state will insist on an international investigation."

Ukrainian officials have said that a prisoner exchange was to have taken place on January 24 and that Russia had not informed Ukraine that Ukrainian POWs would be flown on cargo planes.

Ukrainian military intelligence said it did not have "reliable and comprehensive information" on who was on board the flight but said the Russian POWs it was responsible for "were delivered in time to the conditional exchange point where they were safe."

Dmytro Lubinets, Ukraine's commissioner for human rights, said in a post on X, formerly Twitter, that "currently, there are no signs of the fact that there were so many people on the Il-76 plane, be they citizens of Ukraine or not."

Aviation experts told RFE/RL that it was possible a Ukrainian antiaircraft missile downed the plane but added that a Russian antiaircraft could have been responsible.

"During the investigation, you can easily determine which system shot down the plane based on the missiles' damaging elements," said Roman Svitan, a Ukrainian reserve colonel and an aviation-instructor pilot.

When asked about Russian claims of dozens of POWs on board, Svitan said that from the footage released so far, he'd seen no evidence to back up the statements.

"From the footage that was there, I looked through it all, it’s not clear where there are dozens of bodies.... There's not a single body visible at all. At one time I was a military investigator, including investigating disasters; believe me, if there were seven or eight dozen people there, the field would be strewn with corpses and remains of bodies," Svitan added.

Russian officials said the plane was carrying 65 Ukrainian prisoners of war, six crew members, and three escorts.

A list of the six crew members who were supposed to be on the flight was obtained by RFE/RL. The deaths of three of the crew members were confirmed to RFE/RL by their relatives.

Video on social media showed a plane spiraling to the ground, followed by a loud bang and explosion that sent a ball of smoke and flames skyward.

This content originally appeared on News - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty and was authored by News - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty.

The Group of Seven (G7) Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors’ meeting that ended on Saturday did not name China in the joint statement, nor did it mention the so-called economic coercion that has been hyped for a long time. Nonetheless, it is hard to say the G7 is returning to rationality on the issue of China. It is more likely “retreating for the sake of advancing.” The G7 has hinted that at the Hiroshima summit held from May 19 to May 21, the main statement is set to include “a section specific to China” with a list of concerns that include “economic coercion.”

If this is the case, it means that after blatantly interfering in China’s Taiwan question, the G7 is attempting to expand the front to contain China to a new area where politics and economy are integrated. This mainly reflects the intention of Washington, but Japan, who holds the rotating presidency of the G7 this year, has been more active and radical than the US in promoting joint actions and mobilization to contain China. The G7 is undergoing a functional transformation, and the Chinese people must keep a high degree of vigilance against it. This time, the G7 meeting was held at the door of China, and the Chinese could feel the new Cold War atmosphere emanating from there at close range.

Japan in particular should be warned. China has expressed its strong dissatisfaction with Japan on the negative trends against China at relevant G7 meetings and Japan’s negative role in them, and lodged stern representations. How the G7 summit will be held depends on the attitude of the host country. If China is provoked, a considerable part of the account will be charged to Japan. If the G7 meeting is used to spread and magnify the maliciousness toward China, it will definitely have a negative impact on Japan itself. Today’s Japan acts as a “leading party” to bring in foreign forces into East Asia, and it is bound to suffer the consequences.

It is absurd to choose the so-called “economic coercion” as an attack point against China, especially when such accusations come from Washington and Tokyo. Speaking of economic coercion, there is a well-known case in which the US and Japan were the protagonists – the Plaza Accord signed in the 1980s. In order to reduce the fiscal deficit and trade deficit, the US forced the yen to appreciate sharply, leading the Japanese economy to enter “the lost 30 years.” This pair of perpetrator and victim of economic coercion are now filing accusations against another victim. This not only exposes the arbitrariness of the perpetrators, but also reflects the complicated role played by Japan in Japan-US relations and the geopolitical pattern of East Asia. Japan is not simply a victim, but also an instigator and an accomplice.

China is qualified to oppose economic coercion, while the US is the least qualified. For many years, the US has engaged in countless practices of economic coercion, contributing to many textbook-level cases. The latest example is the “CHIPS and Science Act” that its Western allies feel indignant but dare not speak out against. By forcibly creating a “small circle” of chips to exclude the Chinese mainland, not only is the global chip industry affected, but the global supply chain may also be “split into two.” In this context, some European countries still follow Washington in hyping about China’s so-called “economic coercion,” this appears somewhat ridiculous. Isn’t this aiding and abetting the oppressor and supporting the bandit leader to run for police chief?

China’s so-called “economic coercion” hyped up by the US and its allies is nothing new. The most frequently cited examples are Lithuania and Australia. It must be emphasized that the two cases have nothing to do with “economic coercion.” For example, Lithuania allowed the Taiwan authorities to establish a so-called “Taiwanese Representative Office in Lithuania” despite strong opposition from Beijing, which seriously violated the one-China principle and the political commitments made by Lithuania when establishing diplomatic relations with China. The Chinese government’s resolute response to this is completely legitimate and inevitable.

Speaking of Australia, its previous government inexplicably provoked China on multiple issues related to China, dragging the China-Australia relationship to a freezing point. This inevitably had a negative impact on economic and trade cooperation. It is worth mentioning that when the Australian Labor government adjusted its policy toward China, it quickly brought about a turnaround in the China-Australia relationship. Australian Trade Minister Don Farrell has just completed his visit to China and “expressed satisfaction” with his talks with the Chinese side. We believe that through such mutual efforts to meet each other halfway, the differences and disputes that arise in the interaction between the two sides will be resolved. There is no such thing as “economic coercion” in this process.

The hype of the so-called “economic coercion” is actually “political framing.” Some Western countries, including the US, have put the label of “economic coercion” on China, and there is another sinister intention, which is to morally blackmail China so that they can provoke and harm China’s interests without any worries. They do not want to restrain their impulse to interfere in China’s internal affairs, nor do they want to bear the price and consequences of their wrong actions. They don’t respect China but want to gain unilateral benefits from China. How is this possible?

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Global Times.