# DECODING: Marine Interaction 2026, the naval drill that binds Beijing and Moscow > While the world was commenting on the Chinese ballistic missile launch of July 6, 2026, fired from a nuclear submarine toward the Pacific, another military event, almost simultaneous, was unfolding a few thousand… - Author: Maxime Marquette - Publisher: MadMax (https://mad-max.co) - Section: Analysis - Published: 2026-07-20 - Canonical URL: https://mad-max.co/en/article/decoding-marine-interaction-2026-the-naval-drill-that-binds-beijing-and-moscow ## Introduction: two navies, one same week, one same message ### An exercise that owes nothing to calendar coincidence While the world was commenting on the Chinese ballistic missile launch of July 6, **2026**, fired from a nuclear submarine toward the **Pacific**, another military event, almost simultaneous, was unfolding a few thousand kilometers away, in the **Yellow Sea**, off **Qingdao**: the start of the joint naval exercise between **China** and **Russia**, named **Marine Interaction 2026** on the Russian side and **Joint Sea** on the Chinese side. This decoding aims to explain what this exercise reveals about the real nature of the partnership between the two authoritarian powers. This calendar coincidence between the Chinese launch and the start of this naval exercise is probably not accidental, matching as it does a pattern already documented in the past, in which **Beijing** likes to multiply simultaneous shows of force to maximize strategic attention on its military capabilities, while minimizing, through media dispersion, the attention paid to each individually. ### What this decoding sets out to clarify This piece focuses on the concrete details of **Marine Interaction 2026**: the ships involved, the exercise program, the history of this bilateral cooperation since 2012, and the strategic significance of the joint patrol planned in the **Pacific** once the exercise ends. The goal is to understand what sets this exercise apart from previous ones, and what should not be over-interpreted about it. This decoding relies on the official military statements available, on specialized defense press reports, and on the documented history of this bilateral exercise since its creation, with a constant concern for separating what is confirmed from what remains, at this stage, analysts' speculation. *We must resist the temptation to turn every Sino-Russian naval exercise into a sign of a formal military alliance. It's not a mutual defense treaty, but it's not nothing either: it's a cooperation that deepens methodically, year after year, and that needs to be documented without exaggeration or minimization.* *This decoding accepts an honest limit: I cannot predict with certainty how far this Sino-Russian naval cooperation will go in the years ahead. I can only document, as rigorously as possible, what it concretely is today.* ## Qingdao, host port for a Russian fleet come from afar ### The Russian naval group's arrival, the day before the exercise A naval group from Russia's **Pacific** fleet arrived in **Qingdao** as early as Sunday, July 5, **2026**, the day before the exercise's official start. This group included the missile cruiser **Varyag**, the iconic flagship of Russia's **Pacific** fleet, the corvette **Rezkiy**, the attack submarine **Ufa**, and the rescue vessel **Igor Belousov**, according to information relayed by **Sputnik India**. The presence of a Russian attack submarine in this deployment deserves emphasis: it confirms a trend documented since the previous year, in which submarines began to be more systematically integrated into joint maneuvers between the two navies, a notable technical deepening compared with the earlier editions of this bilateral exercise, which were more limited in operational scope. ### A port call that fits a well-established routine This call by the Russian fleet at **Qingdao**, China's main military port on the **Yellow Sea**, fits into a now well-established routine between the two navies, which have for several years alternated the host locations of this annual exercise between Russian and Chinese waters, an alternation reflecting a declared intent for symmetry and reciprocity in this naval partnership. This routine, though it may seem unremarkable on the surface, actually reflects a growing level of mutual trust between the two navies, which now accept hosting foreign naval units on their own territory for joint exercises of growing technical complexity year after year. *A Russian attack submarine welcomed into a Chinese military port is not a protocol detail, it's an indicator of mutual trust that would have seemed hard to imagine just a decade ago. This level of trust deserves to be documented with the gravity it demands.* ## The Chinese naval deployment for the occasion ### A diversified Chinese fleet, from cruiser to submarine On the Chinese side, the deployment for **Marine Interaction 2026** includes the cruiser **Anshan**, the destroyer **Kaifeng**, the frigate **Wuhu**, a **Yuan-class** attack submarine, as well as the tanker **Kekexilihu** and the rescue ship **Yangchenghu**, according to details reported by **USNI News**. This diversity of naval platforms illustrates China's intent to demonstrate a full spectrum of capabilities, from surface combat to logistical support to anti-submarine warfare. The presence of the **Yuan-class** submarine, a conventional platform known for its relative acoustic stealth, rounds out the Russian deployment, which also includes an attack submarine, suggesting that the underwater dimension of this exercise occupies a larger place than in the previously documented editions. ### A tanker and a rescue ship, signs of an endurance ambition The inclusion of a tanker like the **Kekexilihu** and a rescue ship like the **Yangchenghu** in this deployment signals an operational-endurance ambition that goes beyond a mere one-off symbolic exercise. These logistical support vessels make it possible to extend the geographic reach and duration of joint operations, notably for the **Pacific** patrol planned after the exercise phase itself off **Qingdao**. This joint logistical endurance capacity, documented for the first time on such a scale, illustrates the growing maturity of this Sino-Russian naval cooperation, which is no longer limited to one-off maneuvers in nearby waters, but now extends to prolonged patrols in more distant ocean areas of the **Pacific**. *A tanker and a rescue ship don't make headlines the way a ballistic missile does, but they're what let a fleet stay at sea longer and farther. It's this kind of often-overlooked logistical detail that reveals the true ambition of a naval partnership.* ## The concrete program of a multi-part exercise ### Rescue, anti-submarine warfare, air defense Russia's Defense Ministry stated that the program for **Marine Interaction 2026** includes joint sea-rescue operations, anti-submarine missions, and joint air-defense exercises, backed by naval aviation assets from both countries. This multi-part program illustrates an interoperability ambition that goes beyond a mere protocol demonstration to ground itself in concrete, technically demanding operational scenarios. The anti-submarine dimension of this exercise deserves particular attention in the context of the Chinese ballistic missile launch that occurred the same week: jointly training the two navies to detect and neutralize enemy submarines complements, in a way, the offensive underwater show of force separately staged by **Beijing** in the **Pacific**. ### Joint artillery fire rounds out the picture The exercise program also includes joint artillery fire between the two navies, a component that, while less spectacular than an intercontinental ballistic missile launch, nonetheless helps strengthen tactical coordination between Russian and Chinese crews in classic naval combat scenarios. This combination of varied technical components, from humanitarian rescue to anti-submarine combat to naval artillery, paints the portrait of an exercise designed to cover a full spectrum of operational scenarios, rather than a mere one-off demonstration limited to a single type of maneuver. *Jointly training in anti-submarine warfare the same week you're demonstrating your own strategic underwater strike capability is a double-edged message that deserves to be decoded for what it is: methodical preparation for a full spectrum of naval scenarios, offensive and defensive alike.* ## A bilateral cooperation that goes back to 2012 ### Limited beginnings, growing ambition The joint naval exercise between **China** and **Russia**, whose 2026 edition is named **Marine Interaction** on the Russian side, was launched in **2012**, at a time when military cooperation between the two countries remained relatively limited compared with its current scale. Since that first edition, the exercise has been held annually, with growing technical complexity and geographic scope over the years. This gradual progression, documented over more than a decade, illustrates a long-term strategy rather than a one-off reaction to the geopolitical tensions of any given year, which sets this naval cooperation apart from other, more volatile forms of rapprochement between authoritarian powers. ### Submarine integration, the previous year's turning point The integration of submarines into joint maneuvers, documented significantly for the first time the previous year, marks a notable technical turning point in this trajectory spanning more than a decade. This evolution signals sufficient mutual trust between the two navies to share training scenarios involving their most strategically sensitive platforms. This progression toward joint underwater interoperability, documented over only two successive editions of the exercise, suggests a recent acceleration of this technical cooperation, consistent with the broader deepening observed in the strategic relationship between **Beijing** and **Moscow** since the start of the Russian war against **Ukraine**. *Fourteen years of joint exercises don't happen by improvisation. This Sino-Russian naval cooperation is a patient, methodical construction, and it would be naive to think it could quickly dissolve under Western diplomatic pressure alone.* ## The joint patrol that will follow in the Pacific ### A practice documented since 2021 After the exercise phase proper off **Qingdao**, elements of both navies are to conduct a joint maritime patrol in the **Pacific**, a practice documented since **2021**, which extends directly from the annual bilateral exercise. This joint patrol is, in itself, a distinct show of force, separate from the exercise but made possible by the operational preparation acquired during it. The most notable precedent for this practice dates back to **2023**, when the joint Sino-Russian patrol reached waters near **Alaska** and the **Aleutian Islands**, American territory, drawing particular attention at the time from the U.S. armed forces responsible for defending that strategic region. ### A geographic trajectory that expands year after year This progressive geographic expansion of the joint patrol, documented from its creation in 2021 to its extension toward **Alaska** in 2023, illustrates a growing ambition by both navies to project their combined presence ever farther into the **Pacific**, an ocean the **United States** and its regional allies traditionally consider their preferred sphere of strategic influence. If the 2026 joint patrol follows this same progressive expansion trajectory documented since 2021, it could mark a new milestone in this demonstration of combined Sino-Russian presence, a development that U.S. armed forces and their **Pacific** allies will most certainly watch closely in the coming weeks. *A joint patrol that already reached Alaska in 2023 is no longer a distant strategic curiosity, it's a fact that directly touches American territory. This expansion trajectory needs to be tracked with the same rigor we track Chinese ballistic missiles.* ## What the exercise's very name reveals, between the two languages ### Marine Interaction on the Russian side, Joint Sea on the Chinese side It is telling that this exercise carries two distinct names depending on the language of communication: **Marine Interaction 2026** on the Russian side, and **Joint Sea** on the Chinese side. This difference in naming, documented since the exercise's earliest editions, might seem trivial, but it illustrates a deeper reality: each side continues to present this cooperation within its own national narrative framework, without necessarily seeking to fully standardize communication around this bilateral exercise. This absence of narrative standardization, which has persisted for more than a decade, suggests that Sino-Russian cooperation, though technical and operational, remains framed by distinct national communication logics, each capital seeking to showcase this exercise differently to its own public opinion and its own regional partners. ### An official theme that stresses shared maritime security The official theme chosen for this 2026 edition, "joint response to maritime security threats," deserves to be questioned with the same rigor as the rest of this exercise: what precise threats does this theme aim to designate, and to what extent does this defensive vocabulary conceal a more offensive dimension of joint power projection in the **Pacific**? This question, which remains open for lack of sufficient official clarification from **Beijing** and **Moscow**, illustrates once again the persistent difficulty of distinguishing, in the communication of these two authoritarian powers, what is a genuinely defensive posture from what is a show of force with more offensive intent. *A vocabulary of "shared maritime security" accompanying attack submarines and a ballistic missile launch the same week deserves to be questioned rather than taken at face value. The words chosen by authoritarian regimes always deserve a critical reading.* ## The economic and industrial dimension behind this cooperation ### A Russia increasingly dependent on China This growing naval cooperation between **Beijing** and **Moscow** cannot be understood independently of **Russia's** growing economic dependence on **China**, a dependence considerably heightened since the start of Russia's war of aggression against **Ukraine** and the Western sanctions that followed. This economic dependence translates, on the military front, into a Russian desire to maintain a privileged relationship with **Beijing**, including through regular joint naval demonstrations like this week's. This growing economic asymmetry between the two partners, documented by numerous economic analysts since the start of the war in **Ukraine**, places **Russia** in a position of relative dependence on **China**, a dynamic that could, over time, tilt the very balance of this bilateral naval cooperation in **Beijing's** favor. ### A China that gains technological access and a diplomatic partner In return, **China** draws from this relationship access to certain Russian military technologies, notably in the field of underwater stealth where **Moscow** retains significant historical expertise, as well as a valuable diplomatic partner for jointly contesting the international order dominated by Western democracies since the end of the **Cold War**. This asymmetric but mutually beneficial relationship, documented through this naval cooperation as through broader Chinese support for Russia's war economy, illustrates the durable nature of this axis between the two authoritarian powers, an axis resting not solely on one-off tactical considerations but on long-term structural strategic interests. *Russia needs China to finance its war in Ukraine, China needs Russia for its underwater technologies and diplomatic backing. It's a marriage of strategic convenience, not a sentimental alliance, but that doesn't make it any less dangerous for the West.* ## How the United States and its allies watch this exercise ### Intelligence assets mobilized continuously The U.S. armed forces and their regional **Pacific** allies have sophisticated surveillance and intelligence assets allowing them to track, in near real time, the conduct of exercises like **Marine Interaction 2026**, potentially including satellite, aerial and underwater assets dedicated to gathering information on the capabilities and operational procedures of the two partner navies. This constant surveillance, though rarely detailed publicly for obvious operational-security reasons, allows Western military planners to continually refine their understanding of the real level of interoperability achieved by the Chinese and Russian navies, valuable strategic information for anticipating the future evolution of this bilateral cooperation. ### A Western transparency that contrasts with Sino-Russian opacity This contrast between the relative transparency of Western democracies about their own surveillance capabilities, documented through public reports and official statements, and the persistent opacity of **Beijing** and **Moscow** about the precise details of their naval cooperation, illustrates a structural informational asymmetry that paradoxically favors better Western understanding of the threat than the reverse understanding by the two authoritarian powers of Western capabilities. This asymmetry, though it partly benefits the **West** on the intelligence front, should not breed overconfidence either: the rapid modernization of Chinese capabilities, also documented in the matter of this same week's ballistic missile launch, is a reminder that this Western informational advantage should never be considered permanently secured. *Knowing how to watch an adversary is not the same as being able to contain it indefinitely. This nuance, often forgotten in reassuring narratives about Western intelligence superiority, deserves to be repeated with the same rigor as the rest of this decoding.* ## What this exercise does not yet allow us to claim ### Not yet a formal military alliance Despite the documented deepening of this naval cooperation since 2012, it would be excessive to claim that **Marine Interaction 2026** proves a formal military alliance between **China** and **Russia**, comparable for instance to the mutual defense commitments binding **NATO** members. No documented source, at this stage, establishes the existence of a binding mutual-defense commitment between the two countries. This terminological caution is essential to preserving the credibility of any analysis on this subject: conflating a growing operational naval cooperation, however significant, with a formal military alliance would amount to over-interpreting facts that, however concerning, do not yet go that far. ### A persistent uncertainty about the real limits of this cooperation It also remains difficult to establish with certainty how far this Sino-Russian naval cooperation could extend in the years ahead, notably in the event of a major crisis directly involving one of the two powers, for example an open conflict over **Taiwan** for **China**, or a further escalation of the conflict in **Ukraine** for **Russia**. No documented source currently allows a certain prediction of the other party's behavior in such a hypothetical scenario. This honestly acknowledged uncertainty should invite vigilance rather than panic: the cooperation documented this week is real and significant, but it does not, by itself, allow definitive conclusions about the mutual solidarity of the two authoritarian regimes in the event of an existential crisis for either one. *I refuse to turn a documented naval exercise into a scenario for imminent world war. Rigor demands saying what we know, what we don't, and resisting the temptation of sensationalism on a matter that doesn't need it to be serious.* ## A strategic precedent already documented in 2023 ### Alaska, the first real-scale test of expanded cooperation The Sino-Russian joint patrol of **2023** in the **Pacific**, which reached waters near **Alaska** and the **Aleutian Islands**, had already sent a strong signal to American defense planners, confirming that this naval cooperation was no longer limited to regional waters near Chinese or Russian coasts, but now extended to the immediate vicinity of U.S. sovereign territory. This 2023 precedent, documented by U.S. defense agencies and widely covered by specialized military press, led to a reinforced deployment of American surveillance assets in the region, a response that illustrates how each geographic advance in this Sino-Russian cooperation triggers a corresponding adaptation of Western surveillance capabilities. ### A gradual escalation that follows a cumulative logic This progression, documented between the bilateral exercise's limited first editions in 2012 and its geographic extension to **Alaska** in 2023, illustrates a cumulative logic rather than a series of abrupt, unpredictable jumps. Each successive edition of this exercise appears to build on the operational gains of the previous one, in a mutual-learning trajectory between the two navies spanning more than a decade. This cumulative logic makes close observation of the 2026 edition of this exercise all the more relevant, since it will help determine whether the geographic and technical expansion trajectory documented since 2012 continues at the same pace, or whether it is undergoing further acceleration in light of the broader context of strategic rapprochement between **Beijing** and **Moscow** since the start of the war in **Ukraine**. *2023 was Alaska. We must ask, without giving in to sensationalism but without naivety either, how far this expansion trajectory could lead in 2026 and the years after. The cumulative logic documented so far leaves little room for easy optimism.* ## What the Pacific allies take away from this exercise ### Japan, on the geographic front line of this cooperation **Japan**, situated geographically between the **Yellow Sea** where **Marine Interaction 2026** is taking place and the potential routes of the Sino-Russian joint patrol in the **Pacific**, holds a privileged but also vulnerable observation position with regard to this growing naval cooperation. Japan's self-defense forces have for years maintained constant surveillance of Chinese and Russian naval movements in the waters bordering the archipelago. This Japanese vigilance, already mobilized this same week by the separately documented Chinese ballistic missile launch, illustrates the cumulative burden that a country like **Japan** faces in having to simultaneously monitor several types of shows of force from its two most concerning neighbors on the security front. ### South Korea, an attentive but more discreet observer **South Korea**, also located near the **Yellow Sea** where this exercise is taking place, likewise maintains attentive surveillance of this Sino-Russian naval cooperation, although its public reactions on this specific matter generally remain more discreet than those of **Japan** or **Australia**, a caution partly explained by **Seoul's** immediate geographic proximity to the exercise zone. This South Korean discretion should not be read as underlying indifference: it instead reflects a cautious diplomatic calculation in the face of two powerful neighbors, in a regional context where **Seoul** must also contend with the persistent threat from **North Korea**, itself diplomatically aligned with **Beijing** and **Moscow**. *Seoul's relative silence doesn't mean an absence of concern, only a diplomatic caution dictated by geography. We need to know how to read what isn't said as attentively as what is said in this complex regional matter.* ## North Korea, a peripheral but not negligible actor ### A regime that watches and could draw inspiration from this cooperation Although it does not directly take part in **Marine Interaction 2026**, **North Korea** remains a relevant peripheral actor in analyzing this Sino-Russian naval cooperation, insofar as **Pyongyang** maintains its own bilateral military relations, with both **Beijing** and **Moscow**, in a context of strategic rapprochement documented for several years among the three authoritarian regimes. This convergence between **China**, **Russia** and **North Korea**, though each of these bilateral relationships retains its own documented specifics and limits, paints a regional landscape in which the **Pacific** democracies must now contend with a three-part authoritarian axis rather than strictly separate threats. ### A precedent that worries Seoul and Tokyo simultaneously The documented rapprochement between **Moscow** and **Pyongyang** since the start of the war in **Ukraine**, including transfers of North Korean weapons and military technology to **Russia** in exchange for economic and technological support in return, rounds out the regional picture within which **Marine Interaction 2026** takes place, reinforcing the grounds for simultaneous concern from **Seoul** and **Tokyo** in the face of this web of cross-cutting military cooperation among authoritarian powers. It is this broader view, integrating **North Korea** alongside **China** and **Russia**, that explains why this naval exercise, seemingly limited to two navies, must be read within a much wider regional context of convergence among authoritarian regimes hostile to the international order led by the **West**. *Marine Interaction 2026 can no longer be analyzed without mentioning North Korea in the background. This Beijing-Moscow-Pyongyang authoritarian triangle is advancing on several fronts at once, and the West must learn to see it as a system rather than three separate files.* ## What this exercise costs, concretely, each navy ### A considerable logistical investment for Russia Deploying a full naval group from Russia's **Pacific** waters to **Qingdao** represents, for a Russian navy already heavily mobilized by the war in **Ukraine**, a considerable logistical and operational investment, one that reflects the strategic importance **Moscow** places on maintaining this naval cooperation with **Beijing**, despite the obvious budgetary and material constraints tied to the Russian war effort on the Ukrainian theater. This Russian choice to maintain this naval commitment in the **Pacific**, despite the pressing needs of its own naval forces on other theaters, notably in the **Black Sea** against **Ukraine**, illustrates the strategic priority the **Kremlin** places on preserving its privileged relationship with **Beijing**, seen as an essential pillar of its strategy for resisting Western sanctions. ### A China that invests in showcasing its regional leadership For **China**, organizing and hosting this exercise also represents a significant investment, but one following a different logic: showcasing growing regional leadership, with **Beijing** positioning itself as the preferred naval partner capable of hosting and coordinating exercises of growing technical complexity with **Russia**, while simultaneously pursuing its own unilateral shows of force, such as the ballistic missile launch documented the same week. This dual Chinese capacity, both cooperative with **Russia** and unilateral in its own nuclear show of force, illustrates the growing sophistication of **Beijing's** regional strategy, which knows how to combine several registers of action simultaneously to maximize its strategic influence in the **Pacific** against Western democracies and their regional allies. *Russia is paying dearly, in the middle of a war, to keep its place beside Beijing in the Pacific. This logistical sacrifice speaks volumes about the strategic value Moscow places on this relationship, a value the West sometimes underestimates by focusing too exclusively on the Ukrainian theater alone.* ## Conclusion: a real cooperation, a necessary vigilance ### A partnership built patiently since 2012 At the end of this decoding, a measured conclusion emerges: **Marine Interaction 2026** confirms, with precise and documented operational details, the methodical deepening of a naval cooperation between **China** and **Russia** that goes back to **2012**, and that has crossed, over recent years, several significant milestones: submarine integration, geographic extension of joint patrols to **Alaska**, diversification of the operational scenarios covered by the annual exercise. This cooperation, however real, does not yet constitute a formal military alliance comparable to Western mutual defense commitments, but it fits into a trajectory of strategic convergence that deserves constant Western vigilance, particularly in light of this week's documented coincidence with the Chinese ballistic missile launch in the **Pacific**. ### A signal to integrate into an overall view, not in isolation What **Marine Interaction 2026** ultimately reveals, beyond its precise technical details, is the need for Western democracies to consider **China** and **Russia**, along with their more marginal but equally concerning partners **Iran** and **North Korea**, no longer as strictly separate files, but as components of a single system of converging challenges to the international order led by the **West**. It is this overall view, grounded in documented facts rather than speculative extrapolation, that must guide Western analysis of this naval exercise, as well as of the Chinese ballistic missile launch that occurred the same week in the **Pacific**, two events that together paint the portrait of a world in which authoritarian powers increasingly systematically coordinate their shows of force. **By Maxime Marquette, columnist** ## Columnist's transparency note ### Editorial stance I am not a journalist but a **columnist and analyst**. My expertise lies in observing and analysing the geopolitical, economic and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work is to take political strategies apart, to understand global economic movements, to put the decisions of international actors in context and to offer analytical perspectives on the changes that are redefining our societies. I do not claim the cold objectivity of traditional journalism, which stops at reporting facts. **I claim analytical clarity**, rigorous interpretation and a deep understanding of the complex issues that concern us all. My role is to give meaning to the facts, to place them in their historical and strategic context, and to offer a critical reading of events. ### Method and sources This text keeps the basic distinction between **verified facts and interpretive analysis**. The rule never changes: a factual claim is published only when a verifiable source supports it, and the sources this article actually used are listed under **Sources**, never here. **Primary source families** used by the publication, when the story has them: official statements from governments and international institutions, public statements by political leaders, reports from intergovernmental organisations, dispatches from recognised international news agencies. **Secondary source families**: specialised publications, internationally recognised news media, analyses from established research institutions, reports from industry organisations. When an article cites statistical, economic or geopolitical data, it comes from the institutions that produce it (intergovernmental organisations, central banks, national statistics offices), and the exact institution is named under **Sources**. ### Nature of the analysis The analyses, interpretations and perspectives in the analytical sections of this article are a **critical, contextual synthesis** based on the information available, the trends observed and the expert comments cited in the sources consulted. My role is to interpret these facts, to set them in the context of today's geopolitical and economic dynamics, and to give them a coherent meaning within the larger story of the changes shaping our time. These analyses reflect expertise built through continuous observation of international affairs and an understanding of the strategic mechanisms that drive global actors. This article describes a documented state of affairs on its publication date, not a prediction: later developments may shift its outlook. No update is promised in advance; when an article is corrected or completed, the change is dated in the text. ## Sources ### Primary sources - [China Tests Submarine-launched Ballistic Missile, Kicks Off Annual Exercise With Russia — USNI News, July 6, 2026](https://news.usni.org/2026/07/06/china-tests-submarine-launched-ballistic-missile-kicks-off-annual-exercise-with-russia) - [Russia and China hold joint naval drills near Qingdao — Sputnik India, July 5, 2026](https://sputniknews.in/20260705/russia-and-china-hold-joint-naval-drills-near-qingdao-11524504.html) - [China test fires missile into Pacific, alarming regional powers — Reuters, July 6, 2026](https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-test-fires-missile-into-pacific-alarming-regional-powers-2026-07-06/) ### Secondary sources - [China and Russia Prepare for Joint Pacific Patrols — Realist English, July 5, 2026](https://english.realtribune.ru/china-and-russia-prepare-for-joint-pacific-patrols) - [China's Pacific SLBM Test Signals a New Phase in Undersea Nuclear Competition — The Diplomat, July 7, 2026](https://thediplomat.com/2026/07/chinas-pacific-slbm-test-signals-a-new-phase-in-undersea-nuclear-competition/) - [Why Did China Launch a Long-Range Missile Into the Pacific? — The New York Times, July 7, 2026](https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/07/world/asia/china-missile-test-submarine-pacific.html) --- Source: Maxime Marquette, MadMax. When citing, name the author and link https://mad-max.co/en/article/decoding-marine-interaction-2026-the-naval-drill-that-binds-beijing-and-moscow