COMMENTARY: Trump Thanks Xi and Putin — The Necessary Evil That Flatters the Wolves

Introduction: When the President of the West Applauds His Worst Enemies

The Scene in Évian That Leaves One Speechless

On June 17, 2026, at the closing of the G7 summit in Évian-les-Bains, France, the President of the United States, Donald Trump, did something that few Western leaders would have dared, or rather, that most would never have even thought of doing: he thanked Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin publicly, explicitly, and warmly before the world's cameras. Not for decisive aid. Not for a courageous gesture. But simply for having chosen not making things even more catastrophic. That is all. And that is precisely what makes this moment as revealing as it is disturbing.

His exact words, reported by Reuters from Évian, are now engraved in the diplomatic annals: "I want to thank China, President Xi. I was with him, and he stayed neutral, totally neutral, and I appreciate it. And I want to thank Vladimir Putin, he was very neutral. They could have made it much more difficult for us." The war with Iran, the American and Israeli strikes, the hard-won ceasefire agreement — and Trump walking off stage handing out laurels to Beijing and Moscow. The shock is legitimate. The analysis is urgent.

A Context That Goes Beyond Simple Diplomatic Anecdote

To understand the scope of this moment, we must place these thanks in context. The war with Iran shook the Middle East for weeks. The United States and Israel struck Iranian nuclear facilities, blocked the Strait of Hormuz, and decimated Tehran's missile launchers and drones. The ceasefire agreement, described as a "memorandum of understanding" and negotiated notably through the mediation of Pakistan, provided for the denuclearization of Iran, the reopening of the strait, and the lifting of sanctions. A deal that, according to Trump himself, "achieves everything we set out to accomplish — everything and much more."

In this picture of American victory, the space given to China and Russia could have remained discreet. Trump chose the opposite. He elevated their "neutrality" to the rank of a quasi-decisive contribution, going so far as to say that Xi Jinping had "probably helped resolve the conflict." This is not a communication error. It is a deliberate posture. And it is this posture that must be examined with the rigor it deserves — and the severity it imposes.

The "Neutrality" of China: A Convenient Myth Disproven by Facts

What Washington Knew, and What Trump Chose to Publicly Ignore

While Trump was praising Xi Jinping's "total neutrality", U.S. intelligence services were painting a radically different picture. According to reports published in May 2026 by Euromaidan Press, citing sources within American intelligence agencies, Chinese companies were actively negotiating in April and May 2026 the delivery to Iran of MANPADS systems — portable surface-to-air missiles capable of targeting low-altitude aircraft, including American ones. These transfers were to pass through African intermediaries to hide the Chinese origin of the weaponry.

That's not all. China provided Iran with dual-use technologies — components for drones and missiles — that are difficult to trace due to their apparent civilian applications. Advanced radar systems and spare parts for anti-aircraft missiles were also in the discussions, according to the same sources. As if that weren't enough, independent Chinese refiners continued to buy massive amounts of sanctioned Iranian oil, de facto violating the American economic pressure regime. Calling this neutrality is rewriting the dictionary.

The Secret Letter and the Unverifiable Promise

Trump revealed in Évian that he had "a long conversation" with Xi and asked him not to sell weapons to Iran. In his own words: "I said, I would really appreciate you not giving or selling any of that stuff to Iran. And you know what? For the most part, he didn't." "For the most part" — that is to say, in part. The nuance is there, admitted by Trump himself. But the media only remembered the thank-you. The Wall Street Journal had already reported in June 2026 the existence of an exchange of letters between Trump and Xi, in which Xi claimed that China "was not arming Iran." Trump then called Xi's response a "beautiful letter".

A beautiful letter. No verification mechanism. No signed monitoring agreement. No accompanying sanctions list. Xi's promise thus rests on the good faith of a regime that, according to America's own intelligence sources, was negotiating arms deliveries behind the scenes via African intermediaries. And Trump says: "thank you". Political realism, perhaps. But don't call it wisdom.

Putin the "Neutral": The Absurdity of a Title That Insults Ukraine

Thanking Ukraine's Aggressor for Restraint on Another Theater

The irony is cruel, but it must be stated clearly. While Trump was thanking Vladimir Putin for being "very neutral" toward Iran, Russia was continuing to bomb Ukrainian cities. Civilians were dying in Kharkiv, Zaporizhzhia, and Odesa. Volodymyr Zelensky, president of a country attacked in total illegality of international law, was still fighting for the survival of his nation. And the President of the United States, self-proclaimed leader of the free West, took the microphone to congratulate the aggressor for behaving politely in another conflict.

Russia, too, maintained close relations with Tehran throughout the conflict. According to Euromaidan Press, Moscow provided Iran with satellite targeting data to help the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps strike American warships and American military and diplomatic facilities in the Middle East. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi himself stated in March 2026 that Iran had received "military assistance" from China and Russia. Putin's neutrality thus resembles that of an arsonist who decides not to burn down your second house while he sets fire to the first.

The Signal Sent to Kyiv and All of Europe

For Ukrainians, this moment has a particularly painful resonance. For years, Kyiv has been calling for security guarantees, weapons, and a path to NATO. And now the American president rolls out a diplomatic red carpet for their executioner. Even if Trump's geopolitical angle is intended to be pragmatic — containing Iran, reopening the Strait of Hormuz, preserving oil flows — the symbol is devastating. NATO's European allies can only watch with concern: if Putin's passive neutrality in one conflict is worthy of official thanks, what does that say about the level of demands Washington will place on Moscow in other matters?

The answer, we already know. Trump was explicitly more critical of G7 allies — Japan, Germany, France — for their lack of contribution to maritime security in the Strait of Hormuz than of Putin for the ongoing invasion of Ukraine. The world turned upside down. The West in the dock, Russia on the podium. This isn't foreign policy; it is strategic dissociation.

The G7 in Évian: American Victory, Symbolic Capitulation Speech

A Real Iranian Accord, but Presented in a Questionable Framework

Let's be fair. The Évian G7 summit did indeed produce tangible results. The agreement with Iran — a memorandum of understanding signed shortly after the summit — was an ambitious 14-point document: end of hostilities, reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, Iranian commitment to never produce or acquire nuclear weapons. Trump was right to boast about it. Operations "Epic Fury" and "Midnight Hammer" had decimated Iranian military capabilities — a 90% reduction in missile launchers, 83% reduction in drone launchers, according to figures cited during the press conference.

The mediation of Pakistan played a central role in the conclusion of the agreement, with a reciprocity formula: simultaneous lifting of the Iranian blockade of the strait and the American naval blockade of Iranian ports, followed by 60 days of negotiations on nuclear power and sanctions. It is a significant diplomatic and military result. The question is not whether Trump accomplished something. The question is at what price of symbolic concessions — and at what cost to Western strategic coherence — he framed this victory.

The Geography of the G7 as a Backdrop for a Reshaping of the World Order

The G7 is supposed to be the forum for advanced democracies. It brings together the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and Canada. In Évian, it concluded with a speech that positioned China and Russia as tacit partners in American success. Xi Jinping and Putin were not around the G7 table — they are not part of it. But they were invited to the symbolic podium by Trump's speech. This is not insignificant. It is a reshuffling of the power hierarchy through language, without a single line of agreement being signed with Moscow or Beijing.

European diplomats present in Évian could only observe the growing gap between the G7's multilateral rhetoric and the bilateral practice of Trump, who prefers deals between heads of state over any collective institutional architecture. This diplomatic personalism has its short-term tactical advantages. But it leaves gaping holes where durable commitments, control mechanisms, and shared principles should be.

The Secret Request on MANPADS: When Trump Reveals His Own Flaws

An Admission That Reclassifies the Entire Notion of "Neutrality"

By publicly revealing that he had asked Xi not to supply MANPADS missiles to Iran, Trump did something unintentionally revealing: he confirmed that the threat was real. If China were truly neutral, Trump would not have needed to make such a request. The very fact that this request was necessary — and made public — testifies to a context where Beijing was actively considered a potential supplier of weaponry to America's enemy. That is not neutrality. That is conditional restraint under tariff pressure.

The news channel Mirror Now, in a broadcast on June 21, 2026, highlighted the details of this epistolary exchange: Trump had asked Xi not to send portable missile systems capable of targeting American aircraft. Xi had responded favorably. Trump deduces that China was "neutral". But between a positive response in a letter and effective verification on the ground, there is a gulf that no control mechanism fills. And Trump himself admits: "for the most part" — so not entirely.

The Threat of 50% Customs Duties as the Only Real Lever

What actually stayed China's hand — if it was stayed at all — was not Xi's goodwill. It was the economic threat. Trump had declared in April 2026 that he would impose 50% customs duties on imports from any country providing weapons to Iran. This brutal economic lever, characteristic of the Trump style, likely had more concrete effect than any epistolary exchange. China did not want to risk a devastating commercial escalation at a time when its economy was seeking to stabilize its trade with Washington.

What is disturbing is that Trump then presents this result — obtained through economic coercion — as proof of the good faith of Xi and Putin, deserving public recognition and gratitude. It's like thanking someone for not robbing you after telling them you'd be armed. The coercion worked. The gratitude, however, is misdirected: it should have gone to the strength of the American lever, not to the virtue of the actors constrained by that lever.

Iran, Russia, and China: The Axis That Observes, Learns, and Waits

The War Laboratory as a Strategic Advantage for Beijing

While Trump was thanking Xi, analysts from Politico — cited by Euromaidan Press — described the U.S.-Iranian war as a "free training ground" for China. Chinese military officers and strategists closely studied the use of American weaponry, the pace of missile strikes, intelligence operations, the consumption of expensive ammunition, logistics, and gaps in American defenses in the Middle East. All of this will be directly transposable to a potential future conflict — notably around Taiwan.

China's neutrality was therefore not a generous act. It was a rational strategic choice: let the United States exhaust itself in a costly conflict, learn precious operational lessons, maintain Iranian oil flows, and position itself as a potential mediator to collect future diplomatic benefits. Thanking Beijing for this is rewarding a war-profiteering strategy that calculated everything so that Washington would pay the high price while China collected the dividends.

Russia in the Shadows: Satellite Targeting and Indirect Profits

Russia, for its part, was not observing passively either. According to American intelligence sources cited by Euromaidan Press, Moscow was providing Iran with satellite targeting data to target American warships and military installations in the Middle East. This is not neutrality. This is active military cooperation, admittedly plausibly deniable, but real. The fact that Putin did not send warships to escort Iranian tankers doesn't make him neutral — it simply makes him prudent. Prudent under pressure. Not virtuous.

The Iran-Russia-China axis — with North Korea on the periphery — demonstrated in Évian that its long-term strategy was working: maintain a threatening presence without crossing the red lines that would provoke a direct American response, while systematically weakening the West's global position. Trump's thanks in Évian validated this strategy. They signaled: restraint will be rewarded. Message received. Message dangerous.

Trump's Posture Toward His Own Allies: The Unacceptable Paradox

Harsher on Paris and Tokyo Than on Moscow and Beijing

In Évian, Trump used harsh language toward his G7 allies for their lack of contribution to maritime security in the Strait of Hormuz. He criticized Japan, France, and Germany for not participating more in the American military effort or the securing of post-conflict maritime routes. According to Reuters, his comments on his allies were in striking "contrast" with the thanks addressed to Xi and Putin.

This reversal of perspective goes beyond strategy. It is a questioning of the foundations of the Western alliance. The G7 is a forum of democracies sharing common values — rule of law, freedom of the press, separation of powers, fundamental rights. Treating the allies in this forum with less regard than the adversaries who do not sit there is not only politically clumsy. It is a reversal of loyalties that affects the credibility of American commitments for years to come.

The Signal to Dictatorships: Brute Force Pays, Democracy Gets Rebuked

The message sent to the world's authoritarian regimes is crystal clear. You don't need to be an ally of the United States, you don't need to share their values, you don't even need to stop threatening their interests — you just need to not maximize your hostility in a given conflict, and you will be thanked publicly. Democratic allies who share American values, meanwhile, will be reprimanded for not contributing enough militarily. Loyalty is measured in tanks, not values.

This logic deserves to be firmly contested. The West is not just a military alliance. It is a community of values that includes individual liberty, government transparency, and official accountability. When Trump thanks Putin — the man who imprisons his opponents, rigs his elections, and invaded a sovereign neighbor — for his "neutrality," he isn't just doing geopolitics. He is eroding the fundamental distinction between democracies and autocracies that the West is supposed to embody and defend.

American Intelligence vs. the Trump Narrative: The Factual Gap

What the CIA Knows and What Trump Says Publicly

There is a notable fracture between Trump's public discourse on the neutrality of China and Russia and what U.S. intelligence agencies are documenting. The New York Times reported as early as May 2026 that Chinese companies were in active discussions to sell weaponry to Iran via African intermediary countries. The report specified that American officials estimated these discussions could not take place without some knowledge — or even approval — from authorities in Beijing.

North Korea, an ally of Moscow, had for its part provided ammunition to Russia for Ukraine — a flow of weaponry that continued throughout the Iranian conflict. Putin and Kim Jong-un kept their strategic partnership intact. Putin's neutrality toward Iran thus did not prevent a weaponry network hostile to the West from operating in parallel. Calling this neutrality in a global sense is a simplification that distorts reality.

The Impossible Verification and Its Geopolitical Consequences

The total absence of verification mechanisms in Trump's diplomatic approach toward China and Russia is a structural problem, not just a tactical one. No monitoring agreement was signed in Évian. No independent inspection was mandated. No list of joint sanctions was agreed upon. Trump received verbal promises and letters — and chose to believe them, or at least pretend to believe them, in public.

Yet, the recent history of these relations is unambiguous. China has repeatedly promised not to provide weapons to Russia for Ukraine — and dual-use components have continued to flow. Russia has promised to respect ceasefires that have been systematically violated. Trust, in these relations, must be built on verification, not on hope or public gratitude. The fact that Trump prefers gratitude over verification is an institutional weakness that Beijing and Moscow know perfectly well how to exploit.

The Agreement with Iran: Real Success, Structural Fragility

Fourteen Points and Sixty Days to Change Everything — or Nothing

The U.S.-Iranian memorandum of understanding includes 14 fundamental points. The end of hostilities. The reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. Iran's commitment to never produce or acquire nuclear weapons. The removal of all stockpiles of enriched materials within an agreed timeframe. A process of 60 days of negotiations on nuclear power and sanctions. On paper, it's ambitious. On the ground, the most difficult sequence is beginning, not the easiest one ending.

The Strait of Hormuz, a global oil artery through which millions of barrels pass daily, is open once again. Trump has promised an American naval escort for tankers if necessary, and political risk insurance for tankers operating in the Gulf. These concrete measures are welcome. But the central question — the verification of Iranian denuclearization — remains entirely open. Iran has a long tradition of dilatory nuclear negotiations. Sixty days may not be enough.

Pakistan, the Unexpected Mediator of a Historic Deal

The mediation of Pakistan in this agreement deserves to be highlighted. Islamabad played a central role as a facilitator, allowing indirect communication between Washington and Tehran in the most tense moments. The memorandum provides for a simultaneous lifting of restrictions from both parties, a reciprocity formula that reflects the delicate diplomatic balance necessary to bring Iran to the table. It is a Pakistani success as much as an American one.

This context serves as a reminder that ad hoc coalitions, built situation by situation, can sometimes produce results where formal alliances are paralyzed. But this flexibility also has its limits: it doesn't build a durable architecture, it doesn't create stable norms, it doesn't produce structural peace. The West needs both — agile coalitions and robust institutions. In Évian, we had the coalition. The institution, however, was set aside.

The West Facing Its Own Mirror: What Does This Moment Reveal About Ourselves?

Western Democracies and Their Difficulty in Holding a Strategic Course

We must also look at the weaknesses of the West that this moment reveals. If Trump was able to thank Xi and Putin without triggering a stronger shockwave within the G7, it's also because Europe and Japan failed to weigh sufficiently on the management of the Iranian conflict. The Europeans, divided on their role in the Iran war, did not speak with one voice. Japan, dependent on the Gulf energy routes, tried to please everyone. The absence of a unified Western strategy left Trump alone at the helm — and thus free to define the framework of success on his own terms.

This is a structural problem of the contemporary West. Democracies are slow, deliberative, and subject to internal divisions. Autocracies — China, Russia — decide quickly, in secret, without having to answer to public opinion or a parliament. This structural asymmetry produces situations where authoritarian regimes appear more effective in the short term, even when their actual behavior is hostile. Resolving this asymmetry is one of the major geopolitical challenges of the century.

Civil Society and the Media as Necessary Safeguards

In this context, the role of the free press, independent analysts, and human rights NGOs is more crucial than ever. It was they who documented the Chinese arms transfers via African intermediaries. It was they who highlighted the provision of Russian satellite data to Iran. It is they who remind us that Zelensky is still fighting, that Ukraine is not a closed case, that Putin's neutrality at Hormuz does not redeem Bakhmut.

The West stands not only because it has armies, but because it has institutions capable of criticizing themselves, correcting course, and maintaining a normative path even when governments slip. This self-critical capacity is precisely what differentiates our societies from the regimes we fight. Keeping it alive, in articles, in columns, in public debates, is a responsibility that columnists like me cannot abandon — even in the face of pressure not to "politicize" what is fundamentally political.

Trump, the Necessary Evil: The Formula That Explains Everything and Justifies Nothing

Understanding the Logic Without Endorsing It

The formula "necessary evil" often comes up when talking about Trump in Western chancelleries. He does things that no one else would dare to do — massive tariff pressures on China, decisive military strikes on Iran, hardline negotiations that produce results where classical diplomacy failed. In this sense, he is undeniably effective on certain concrete results. The Iranian agreement is the most recent example.

But the "necessary evil" also implies costs. The cost of a less coherent West, of weakened alliances, of rhetoric that normalizes authoritarian behaviors, of a personalist diplomacy that creates dependencies on individuals rather than institutions. Trump is not eternal. His personal relationship with Xi or with Putin isn't either. What he will leave as a legacy is an international system in which public thanks to autocrats have become acceptable — and it is a legacy that will cost us dearly.

The Difference Between Pragmatism and Normative Capitulation

One must distinguish between pragmatism — dealing with difficult actors to obtain concrete results — and normative capitulation — legitimizing the behavior of those actors through unearned public gratitude. Trump excels in the former. He regularly slips into the latter. In Évian, it is this slip that is at issue.

We can talk to Putin and Xi. We can negotiate with them. We can even thank them in private, in confidential diplomatic communications, for not crossing certain lines. What we cannot do without consequence is to publicly thank them, before the global press, at the G7, naming them and detailing their supposed virtue. This level of public validation was not necessary to obtain the Iranian agreement. Trump chose it. And that choice speaks about him as much as it does about the geopolitical situation.

China, the Long-Term Systemic Threat That the Évian Thanks Do Not Diminish

Taiwan, the South China Sea, and the True Nature of the Challenge

Regardless of the outcome of the Iranian conflict, China remains the primary systemic threat to the West in the long term. Beijing is building the largest military navy in the world. It is economically colonizing countries in Africa, Southeast Asia, and Latin America. It is waging a silent technological war — cybersecurity, artificial intelligence, 5G, semiconductors. It is pressing Taiwan from all sides, economically, diplomatically, and militarily. And it draws lessons from every conflict the United States is part of.

Trump's thanks to Xi Jinping erase none of this. But they create a rhetorical precedent: China can behave hostily through intermediaries and indirect channels, while maintaining a visible facade of neutrality, and receive in exchange the public gratitude of the American president. It's an involuntary instruction manual for future crises. China is taking notes. It plans over 50 years. We should plan at least for 10.

Iran Satellized by China: An Incomplete American Victory

Even with the ceasefire agreement, Iran remains in China's economic and strategic orbit. Beijing buys its oil, provides it with technology, and sold it a spy satellite. The U.S.-Iranian agreement does not redraw this relationship. At best, it temporarily suspends it in one specific sector — the nuclear one. China remains the economic patron of Tehran, the guarantor of its economic survival under sanctions. As long as this Iranian dependence on Beijing exists, any Chinese "neutrality" toward Iran remains a fiction that both parties maintain for different reasons.

Decorating this reality with a presidential thank-you at the G7 doesn't change it. It masks it. And masking systemic problems for the sake of short-term narrative victories is exactly the kind of foreign policy that produces painful surprises in ten years. The West has the right to demand better — from its leaders, from its institutions, and from its allies.

The Aftermath of Évian: What Course for the West in the Coming Weeks?

60 Days to Prove the Iranian Agreement Holds Up

The U.S.-Iranian memorandum of understanding opens a window of 60 days of negotiations to formalize agreements on nuclear power, sanctions, and the progressive normalization of relations. It's a short window, densely packed, and one in which every actor — Iran, the United States, China, Russia, Israel — will play for their own interests. The denuclearization of Iran remains the central issue. If it materializes with robust verification mechanisms, it will be historic. If it unravels into vague compromises, we will have simply bought time.

For this agreement to hold, the West must remain united in its pressure on Iran, maintain credible sanctions as a lever, and demand from China actual verification of its dual-use technology transfers — not letters of good intent. The institutional architecture — United Nations, IAEA, bilateral partnerships — must be mobilized, not bypassed in favor of personal deals between presidents.

Ukraine Waiting for a Clear Signal

In the coming weeks, Ukraine will be waiting for concrete signals from Washington and its European allies. The war with Russia continues. Zelensky needs weapons systems, economic support, and credible security guarantees. The Évian speech sent a bad signal. It is now up to Western allies to correct that signal through actions: accelerated arms deliveries, reinforced financial support, and diplomatic firmness toward Moscow on all files — including Ukraine, not just Iran.

The West does not have the luxury of managing its crises in silos. Iran, Ukraine, and Taiwan are interconnected files. The actors who exploit them — China, Russia, Iran, North Korea — think globally and in a coordinated manner. We must do the same. Strategic coherence is not an option. It is the condition of our collective survival as a bloc of democracies.

Conclusion: Évian 2026, the Moment When the West Smiled at the Wolves

A Real Victory Framed by a Politically Toxic Message

The Évian G7 summit will go down in history as the moment when America concluded a significant agreement with Iran — end of the war, promised denuclearization, strait reopened — and as the moment when its president chose to share the credit with his two greatest strategic adversaries. These two facts coexist. They do not cancel each other out. The Iranian victory is real. The rhetoric that accompanied it is politically toxic for the architecture of Western values.

Trump thanked wolves for not devouring his flock more than expected. The wolves registered the lesson: moderation in predation will be rewarded with the shepherd's gratitude. This is not a stable balance. It is not a lasting peace. It is a moment of relief bought at the price of a legitimization that Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin will use to their advantage in future crises — in Ukraine, around Taiwan, and in all the gray zones where the West will again be put to the test.

What the West Must Remember to Not Repeat This Error

The lesson of Évian is simple to formulate, difficult to implement: one can deal with adversaries without adulating them. One can obtain their cooperation without granting them a public validation they do not deserve. One can conduct realistic geopolitics without abandoning the normative framework that distinguishes the West from the regimes it fights. Trump succeeded with the deal. He failed with the speech. And in international relations, the speech itself is a policy. The West deserves a president who understands both. For now, we have a man who masters deals and struggles to hold the compass of values. It is the necessary evil. But we must continue to name the evil — even when the necessary is undeniable.

Signed Maxime Marquette, columnist

Sources

Primary sources

The Straits Times / Reuters — Trump thanks China's Xi, Russia's Putin for being 'neutral' in Iran war — June 18, 2026

WION News (YouTube) — Trump Hails Russia's Putin And Chinese President Xi Jinping For Being "Neutral" On Iran | G7 Summit — June 17, 2026

YouTube — Trump thanks Putin, Xi at G7 summit for "staying neutral" in US-Iran war — June 18, 2026

Secondary sources

Mirror Now (YouTube) — TRUMP IRAN BOMBSHELL LIVE | REVEALED: Trump's Secret Request to Xi Jinping on Iran Arms — June 21, 2026

Euromaidan Press — Xi pledged to stop arming Iran — US intelligence warns the weapons still flow — May 19, 2026

YouTube — Trump Thanks Putin and Xi Jinping After Making Peace with Iran — June 19, 2026

AP7am.com — Trump thanks Xi, Putin for staying neutral on Iran — June 18, 2026

Deccan Herald — Trump thanks China's Xi, Russia's Putin for being 'neutral' in Iran war — June 17, 2026