ANALYSIS: Trump hands Ukraine's peace to Xi Jinping, Putin's ally — the century's riskiest gamble

Introduction: Diplomacy in reverse

When Washington reaches out to Beijing

On June 1, 2026, the South China Morning Post reveals explosive information: at their Beijing summit in May 2026, American President Donald Trump personally pleaded with Chinese leader Xi Jinping to use his influence over Vladimir Putin to bring Moscow back to the negotiating table with Ukraine. This is no longer diplomacy. It is an admission of weakness that history will remember for a long time.

According to several sources familiar with the discussions cited by the SCMP, Trump confided to Xi that negotiations between Russia and Ukraine had collapsed, and that only China now possessed the necessary leverage to convince Putin to return to the table. This scene — the American president imploring the head of an authoritarian regime to discipline another authoritarian regime — captures with cruel precision the state of the world in June 2026.

A context of war entering its fifth year

The war in Ukraine enters its fifth year. Since the Istanbul talks of July 2025, which failed without a ceasefire agreement, direct negotiations between Kyiv and Moscow have largely disappeared. In March 2026, Trump had ordered Volodymyr Zelensky to "get moving" — an illustration of the contempt with which Washington sometimes treated the man defending freedom against Russian barbarism. Yet it is this same Trump who today must beg for Beijing's help.

On the ground, notable changes are under way. According to sources cited by the SCMP, Ukraine has reconquered more territory in recent months than it had ceded in years. A senior Ukrainian military commander told Reuters that the Russian army was "exhausted and incapable of breaking through." Despite this, Moscow launched a massive attack with 600 drones and 90 missiles, including the nuclear-capable hypersonic Oreshnik missile.

The central paradox: asking the executioner's ally to save the victim

The China-Russia relationship: a declared partnership without limits

Context must be recalled. Three weeks after the Beijing summit between Trump and Xi in May 2026, Xi Jinping welcomed Vladimir Putin to Beijing to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the Sino-Russian friendship treaty — a symbolic anniversary of an alliance forged in contempt for the West. This is the same relationship described as "without limits" in February 2022 — just before Putin triggered the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The same Putin who had met Xi in Moscow a few weeks earlier.

This chronology is damning. Xi receives Trump. Xi receives Putin. All within a few weeks. The message is clear: Beijing is asserting itself as the unavoidable arbiter of the Ukrainian conflict, not out of concern for peace, but to extract maximum geostrategic benefit. China is not a firefighter. It is the owner of the burning building who is negotiating the price of extinguishing the fire.

A facade of neutrality, belied by the facts

In June 2026, the European Union officially confirmed reports that the Chinese military has trained Russian soldiers on its territory for subsequent deployment in Ukraine. According to Reuters, approximately 200 Russian soldiers were trained in late 2025 at military facilities in Beijing and Nanjing, with a focus on drone warfare, electronic warfare, and armored infantry tactics. EU High Representative Kaja Kallas stated it bluntly on June 15, 2026: "Beijing is a decisive actor enabling Russia's war against Ukraine."

China's response? Foreign Ministry spokesman Lin Jian dismissed these accusations as "without factual basis," describing them as "pure defamation and slander." This denial is not only cynical. It is documented. The Wall Street Journal reported that Chinese officials had even proposed hosting a Trump-Putin summit to facilitate a peace agreement — while positioning themselves as "guarantor" of that agreement.

The Beijing summit: what the White House does not say

A factsheet that forgets the essential

The Trump-Xi summit of May 12 and 13, 2026 was presented by Washington as a diplomatic success. Yet the official White House factsheet published on May 18 made no mention of Ukraine, nor of Xi's confidences about Putin. It was the Financial Times that revealed that Xi had told Trump that Putin "might regret" having invaded Ukraine — an unprecedented remark, the first time a Chinese leader had formulated such a personal assessment to an American president on this subject.

The White House and the Chinese Embassy in Washington both declined to comment. This silence says more than any official communiqué. If Trump had obtained a genuine commitment from Beijing, Washington would have claimed victory loudly. The fact that he did not means that Xi's promises were hollow, or that they simply did not exist.

Trump also proposed an alliance against the International Criminal Court

According to the Financial Times, Trump also proposed at this same summit that the United States, China, and Russia unite against the International Criminal Court, arguing that their interests were aligned. This spectacular gesture — an American president proposing a coalition with two authoritarian regimes against the international judicial institution — illustrates the depth of this administration's strategic deviance.

In this context, asking Xi to help with peace in Ukraine is not an isolated diplomatic act. It is part of an integral vision of the world that delegitimizes Western institutions and legitimizes revisionist powers as natural arbiters of world order.

Zelensky, solitary heroism in the midst of the grand bargaining

Ukraine advancing while diplomats dither

While Trump was seeking Xi's help and Beijing was training Ukraine's enemies, Volodymyr Zelensky continued leading a country at war with a determination that few leaders would have mustered. Ukrainian forces demonstrated in 2026 a territorial reconquest capability unprecedented since the Kharkiv operation in 2022. Ukraine struck Saint Petersburg by drone during the Russian Economic Forum — a striking symbol that Kyiv can now reach the symbolic heart of the Putinist regime.

This context of Ukrainian battlefield progress is essential for understanding the Trumpian paradox. Trump has been pressing Zelensky to negotiate for months, telling him in March 2026 to "get moving" as if the victim of an aggression were responsible for its own deliverance. Yet it is precisely at this moment that Ukraine is best demonstrating its capacity for resistance — and even for victory.

An increasingly strong Ukrainian position, ignored by Washington

The Évian-les-Bains G7 of June 2026 concluded with a unified declaration pledging "unwavering support" for Ukraine and committing four billion dollars in additional military aid, with emphasis on Patriot interceptors, long-range artillery, and drones. Trump himself signed this declaration — proof that, constrained by his allies, he knows how to acknowledge the Ukrainian reality.

But the truth is that Ukraine did not need Washington to yield to Beijing. It needed ammunition, air defense, long-range strike systems — the tools that allow it to create the conditions for a just peace. Zelensky is not an obstacle to peace. He is its only possible condition, if we understand by peace something other than a disguised capitulation.

China as world arbiter: the risk of legitimization

Beijing builds its image as global "stabilizer"

A Gallup survey published in 2025 covering more than 130 countries reveals that, for the first time in nearly two decades, China surpasses the United States in global leadership approval: 36% versus 31%. This figure, analyzed by The Week in June 2026, illustrates a narrative dynamic the West has failed to counter. While Washington appeared to be disrupting the world order — through trade wars, withdrawals from multilateral institutions, pressure on Kyiv — Beijing positioned itself as a peacebuilder.

This image is built on carefully cultivated lies. China played the same role with Iran: condemning American strikes on Iranian nuclear infrastructure, proposing mediation, pretending to contribute to resolution. Brookings Institute experts noted it: China presented the United States as "the warmongers" and itself as the stabilizing force. Yet, according to the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA), "China's indispensable support has allowed the Russian regime to sustain its war effort for more than four years despite unprecedented international sanctions."

When Beijing's words contradict Beijing's deeds

Chinese duplicity reaches new heights in 2026. On one side, Wang Yi asserts that China "has not supplied lethal weapons to either party" and "has applied strict controls on dual-use items." On the other, the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission (USCC) documents in a June 2026 report how Chinese companies remain among the main suppliers of dual-use components to Russian defense companies.

According to The Diplomat, "a March 2026 report by ASPI documented growing China-Russia defense cooperation, with a multiplication of joint military exercises since the 2022 invasion." And meanwhile, Beijing proposes to serve as guarantor of a Ukrainian peace agreement. Accepting this proposal would be equivalent to allowing the arsonist to supervise the reconstruction work.

The consequences for Western security architecture

Europe between support for Ukraine and dependence on Beijing

The Brussels European Council summit of June 18 and 19, 2026 reaffirmed that "any peace settlement must be just and lasting, founded on the UN Charter and international law, and that Ukraine's future cannot be decided without Ukraine." This position is right. It is even courageous in the current context. But Europe remains torn between its resolute support for Kyiv and its economic dependence on Beijing — notably for the rare earth metals that China controls and has recently restricted for export, which put Washington "very angry," according to SCMP.

This structural dependence is a weapon in Xi Jinping's hands. By controlling supply chains in rare earths essential to military and civilian technologies, China can weigh on Western decisions without firing a single shot. The trade war, the sanctions, the counter-sanctions — all of this creates an environment in which the West negotiates from a position of weakness even when its values are at stake.

NATO facing the coalition of autocrats

CEPA published a June 2026 report entitled "The China-Russia Authoritarian Meta-Threat" establishing clearly that we are not facing two separate crises — Ukraine on one side, China on the other — but a single architecture of authoritarian power grouping Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. The presence of North Korean soldiers on Ukrainian front lines, the training of Russian soldiers in China, Iranian drone supplies — all of this forms a coherent system.

In this context, the NATO summit in Ankara planned for July 2026 will be crucial. Germany has committed to 11 billion euros in aid to Ukraine and toward a 5% of GDP defense objective. France and the United Kingdom are carrying forward the Coalition of the Willing project — a European security presence in Ukraine post-ceasefire. But all of this can be undermined if Washington legitimizes Beijing as the principal arbiter of the conflict.

Trump, necessary evil: what he has that is good, what is dangerous about him

Trumpian logic and its internal coherence

Let us be honest. Trump's strategy has an internal logic that his progressive adversaries often refuse to admit. According to Politico of March 2026, the Trump administration genuinely believes that ending the war in Ukraine could weaken the Russia-China alliance by reintegrating Moscow into the Western-dominated world economy. Fred Fleitz, former Trump NSC Chief of Staff, summarizes: Trump "has put pressure on Putin to end the war in order to normalize Russia's relations with the United States and Europe" and "correctly sees the growing Russia-China alliance as a far greater threat to global security than the war in Ukraine."

This vision is not stupid. If Russia could be separated from China by a diplomatic agreement, it would effectively weaken the authoritarian bloc. The problem is that Putin has no interest in submitting to this agenda, and that Xi has every interest in maintaining uncertainty to maximize his negotiating power.

The limits of a transactional approach to international law

Where Trump becomes genuinely dangerous is in his treatment of international law as a negotiable variable. His proposal for a U.S.–China–Russia coalition against the International Criminal Court is not trivial. It signals to regimes around the world that war crimes can be erased by a sufficiently advantageous commercial agreement. This is the systematic destruction of the architecture of international accountability that the West spent decades building after 1945.

And this is the fundamental paradox: Trump can sometimes force outcomes that conventional diplomacies would never have achieved — his Middle East ceasefire agreement is a recent example. But the method erodes the very foundations on which the normative superiority of the West over autocrats rests.

The secret training: is China really arming Putin?

Reuters, the EU, and the documented evidence

In May 2026, Reuters cited three European intelligence agencies and a signed agreement between China and Russia to reveal that the People's Liberation Army had secretly trained approximately 200 Russian military personnel in late 2025, some of whom have since returned to fight in Ukraine. The training covered drone warfare, electronic warfare, and armored infantry tactics. Facilities in Beijing, Nanjing, and other sites were used for this training.

These facts were officially confirmed on June 15, 2026 by Kaja Kallas at a press conference in Luxembourg: "We have now verified reports that the Chinese military has trained Russian military personnel to fight in Ukraine. We are carefully assessing the implications." The EU simultaneously sanctioned two Chinese companies accused of supplying equipment linked to the Russian military-industrial complex.

Beijing's cynical denial

China's response was immediate and predictable. Lin Jian, Foreign Ministry spokesman, described these claims as "purely defamatory" and without "factual basis." But this posture of absolute denial — regardless of the solidity of the evidence presented — has become the hallmark of Chinese communications. It does not seek to convince. It seeks to exhaust. To create enough fog that every Western assertion eventually seems like one opinion among others.

The history of negotiations: why they all failed

From Istanbul to Abu Dhabi: permanent deadlock

Since Trump's return to the White House in January 2025, several negotiation cycles have been attempted. The Abu Dhabi trilateral discussions of January 2026 between the United States, Ukraine, and Russia resulted in an agreement on the exchange of 314 prisoners of war, but left the fundamental political and security questions unanswered. The Istanbul talks of July 2025 failed without a ceasefire agreement. Geneva in February 2026 produced few concrete results.

The fundamental reason for this failure is that Russia maintains maximum demands: recognizing occupied territories, renouncing NATO, "denazifying" Ukraine. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov published an essay in June 2026 reaffirming these positions, describing any European proposal as a "Western ultimatum." These demands are not negotiating positions. They are conditions of capitulation.

The May 2026 ceasefire attempt: a failed test

A three-day ceasefire attempted in May 2026, which envisaged an exchange of 1,000 prisoners on each side, collapsed within days. According to analysts cited in June 2026, this failure is a direct empirical test: under current conditions, even a minimal ceasefire is not enforceable. Any future proposal will need to take this reality into account, rather than treating it as an anomaly.

The rhetoric of Chinese "neutrality": anatomy of a state lie

The twelve points that do not say the essential

In February 2023, China published a twelve-point document on "China's position on the political settlement of the Ukrainian crisis." This text calls for a ceasefire and the "cessation of unilateral sanctions" against Russia. It invokes sovereignty — but without demanding the withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukrainian territory. It claims neutrality, but includes Russia's fundamental demands.

In March 2026, during a meeting with Kaja Kallas, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi stated openly that China would not accept Russia losing this war in Ukraine. This is not neutrality. It is barely veiled support for the aggressor, dressed in the language of multilateral diplomacy.

The International Organization for Mediation: Beijing invents its own UN

Perhaps the most alarming and least commented initiative is this: China has created an International Organization for Mediation — an alternative institutional framework to the UN's conflict resolution mechanisms, designed to give Beijing an institutional role in global conflicts. Myanmar joined this "Group of Friends of Global Governance" in June 2026. Others will follow.

The real test: what can Xi Jinping actually do for Putin?

Does Beijing genuinely have influence over Moscow?

The fundamental question that few analysts pose openly: can Xi Jinping actually compel Putin to change his behavior? The answer is complex. On one side, Russia is increasingly economically and technologically dependent on China since the 2022 Western sanctions. According to an article in Charter97 from June 2026, "China does not need to formally annex Russian territory to dominate it. Economic dependence, financial leverage, and regional integration can accomplish what military conquest once required."

On the other side, if Xi effectively told Trump that Putin "might regret" the invasion — as the Financial Times reports — this would be the first time such a judgment was issued by Beijing. But a private assessment is not diplomatic pressure. And Beijing clearly has an interest in the war continuing: it weakens Russia, makes it dependent, and absorbs Western resources and strategic attention.

Russia: China's vassal that will not admit it

What is striking in the analysis of the Sino-Russian relationship in 2026 is the growing asymmetry. Russia had launched its invasion under the banner of restoring imperial greatness. It risks ending this war as China's economic satellite, dependent on Beijing for imports of electronics, industrial equipment, vehicles, and dual-use technologies. Putin, who dreamed of restoring the Russian empire, could go down in history as the man who transformed Russia into an economic province of the Middle Kingdom.

The Western positions: surface unity, deep cracks

The Évian G7: firmness on paper, tensions in the wings

The Évian-les-Bains G7 of June 2026 displayed a façade of unity. The joint declaration acknowledged the improvement in Ukraine's position on the ground and committed to accelerating delivery of air defense systems, munitions, and drones. Trump signed — constrained by his European allies. Behind the scenes, tensions remained deep.

The SABER Act, carried by a bipartisan Senate coalition including Tim Kaine, John Cornyn, and Chris Coons, seeks to use frozen Russian sovereign assets — some 300 billion dollars — to directly fund the purchase of lethal military equipment for Ukraine. It is an audacious initiative that forces Moscow to finance its own defeat.

Europe organizing without America, if necessary

Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and the Baltic states are advancing on the Coalition of the Willing project — a European military presence in Ukraine to guarantee any future ceasefire agreement. The NATO summit in Ankara planned for July 2026 will be the moment of truth: either the Alliance reaffirms its strategic solidarity, or Trump uses this event to obtain new concessions in favor of Moscow and Beijing.

What peace genuinely requires: the non-negotiable conditions

A just peace, not an imposed peace

The June 2026 European Council was very clear: "Ukraine's future cannot be decided without Ukraine." This principle seems obvious. It is nevertheless constantly challenged by a Trumpian dynamic that treats Kyiv as an adjustment variable in a grand geopolitical bargain among great powers.

A just peace requires the withdrawal of Russian forces from internationally recognized Ukrainian territories. It requires credible security guarantees for Ukraine — not a Minsk 2.0 that would be violated within months. It requires accountability mechanisms for war crimes committed on Ukrainian territory. None of these conditions can be guaranteed by a mediator that trains the aggressor's soldiers.

The question of guarantees: the Gordian knot

The Gordian knot of any negotiation remains the security guarantees. Ukraine cannot accept a ceasefire without guarantees protecting it from a next invasion — knowing that the Budapest Accords of 1994 and the Minsk Agreements were violated. The Ukrainian government and Zelensky proposed a sequence: provisional agreement in March 2026, referendum coinciding with elections in May. All of this requires an American or European presence in Ukraine, not an American withdrawal toward diplomatic complicity with Beijing.

Conclusion: peace cannot come from those who fuel the war

The systemic risk of legitimizing Beijing

Entrusting China with the role of arbiter of Ukrainian peace is not only paradoxical. It is systemically dangerous. If Beijing obtains this role — with Washington's blessing — it becomes the unavoidable reference point for any future conflict. The next crisis in Taiwan, the next war in the South China Sea, the next clash between India and Pakistan: in all these cases, Beijing will be able to invoke its status as arbiter to impose its vision of world order, a vision that has nothing to do with Western democratic values.

The West must choose. It can let Trump manage Ukrainian peace like a transaction with actors who do not care about international law. Or it can collectively defend the principle that aggressors do not deserve rewards, and that peace arbiters cannot be war enablers.

Zelensky resists — and it is for all of us

In this bleak panorama, there is a light that does not go out: Volodymyr Zelensky and the Ukrainian people. They have been fighting for five years with a Ukraine that, by all analyses, should not have survived the first weeks. They have reconquered territories. They have struck at Russia's heart. They have confounded all predictions of rapid capitulation. What they deserve in return is unequivocal Western support, not a grand bargain with Beijing whose details would be imposed on them from outside.

The question we must collectively ask ourselves, in Europe and North America, is not "how to end this war as quickly as possible." It is "how to end this war in such a way that there will not be another one." The answer to this question cannot come from Beijing.

Signed Maxime Marquette, columnist

Sources

Primary sources

Trump personally asked Xi for help ending Russia's war on Ukraine — Euromaidan Press, June 2, 2026

Trump 'personally called for China's help' to end Ukraine war in summit with Xi — South China Morning Post, June 1, 2026

EU finds evidence of China training Russian soldiers who fought in Ukraine — Ukrainska Pravda, June 12, 2026

Secondary sources

Kallas: EU confirms China training Russian military personnel to fight in Ukraine — Interfax Ukraine, June 15, 2026

China's Position on Russia's Invasion of Ukraine — US-China Economic and Security Review Commission, June 17, 2026

The China-Russia Authoritarian Meta-Threat — Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA), June 4, 2026

One reason Trump won't give up on Putin peace deal — China — Politico, March 17, 2026

The West Indulges China in Its Backing for Russia Against Ukraine — The Diplomat, May 27, 2026