# FACTCHECK: China is "Neutral" in the War — Dismantling a Calculated State Lie

> Since February 24, 2022, every time a Western journalist, diplomat, or chancellor asks the burning question, Beijing's response drops with mechanical regularity:

- Author: Maxime Marquette
- Publisher: MadMax (https://mad-max.co)
- Section: Analysis
- Published: 2026-06-22
- Canonical URL: https://mad-max.co/en/article/factcheck-la-chine-est-neutre-dans-la-guerre-demontage-d-un-mensonge-d-etat-calc-2

## Key takeaways

- Kaja Kallas said on June 15, 2026 that the EU had verified reports that the Chinese military trained Russian servicemen; Beijing called the claims "without factual basis."
- Sino-Russian trade reached about 234 billion dollars in 2025, and the article presents it as a financial lifeline for Russia's war economy.
- About 92% of bilateral trade is settled in rubles and yuan, which the author describes as infrastructure designed to blunt Western sanctions.
- The author says 65% of components in Shahed drones made at the Alabuga plant are Chinese in origin, a claim drawn from Ukrainian researchers.
- China has used the UN Security Council and joint statements with Russia to shield Moscow, and the author argues its "peace" rhetoric lacks real pressure on Putin.

## Introduction: Beijing’s Finest Fiction

### A word repeated a thousand times doesn't become the truth

Since February 24, 2022, every time a Western journalist, diplomat, or chancellor asks the burning question, Beijing's response drops with mechanical regularity: **China maintains an objective and impartial position** on the Ukrainian crisis. The Foreign Ministry spokesperson recites the formula, the Permanent Representative to the UN delivers it, the embassy in Brussels transcribes it. **Four years of war. Thousands more dead. And the same mantra.** Chinese neutrality is perhaps the greatest narrative construction of 21st-century diplomacy — and one of the most dangerously false.

This factcheck is not a polemic. It is a methodical examination, proof by proof, of five pillars on which the neutrality thesis Beijing stubbornly defends rests. **The military training of Russian soldiers**, explosive bilateral trade, **systemic de-dollarization**, the supply of drone components, and the **diplomatic shield** at the UN. Each piece of evidence is corroborated by European sources, intelligence agencies, and independent analyses between June 15 and June 22, 2026. The verdict is final.

### The method: five tests to unmask a posture

To dismantle the neutrality thesis, this factcheck uses five precise criteria. **First test:** Is there direct or indirect military involvement? **Second test:** Does bilateral trade favor the war economy of only one party? **Third test:** Do financial mechanisms aim to circumvent Western sanctions? **Fourth test:** Are military components transiting through China to Russia? **Fifth test:** Does Chinese multilateral diplomacy protect Russia from institutional consequences? On each of these five criteria, the evidence accumulated since June 2026 leads to a single conclusion: **Beijing has failed all neutrality tests.**

The sources used in this article are all verified and dated. They cover the period from June 2 to June 22, 2026, corresponding to the latest documented developments: the EU verification of Chinese military training (June 15), the new package of European sanctions against Chinese firms (June 15), Beijing's official statements denying any military role, and economic analyses confirming that **234 billion dollars** in Russian-Chinese bilateral trade constitute the financial bedrock of Putin's war machine. **Zero invention. One hundred percent corroborated.**

*I have to be honest: for a long time, I gave China the benefit of the doubt. I thought Beijing was playing an ambiguous but controlled game — cautious enough not to cross the red line. The accumulation of evidence in recent weeks has definitively buried that illusion. What I see is active, documented, verified complicity. And the West let it take root.*

## The Claim: Exactly What Beijing Says

### The lexicon of neutrality, Zhongnanhai version

China's official position on the Ukrainian conflict rests on three recurring formulas that Beijing repeats tirelessly in every diplomatic briefing. First: **"China maintains an objective and impartial position"**. Second: **"We have provided no lethal weapons to any party"**. Third: **"Dialogue and negotiations are the only way to resolve the crisis"**. These three verbal pillars constitute the complete architecture of Beijing’s neutralist rhetoric. On June 16, 2026, spokesperson **Lin Jian** reaffirmed to the international press that the EU’s claims about Chinese military training of Russian soldiers were **"without factual basis"** and constituted **"pure slander and defamation"**.

A few days earlier, on June 15, the **Mission of China to the EU** published a scathing statement condemning the new package of European sanctions against Chinese companies. The text asserted that **"economic and trade cooperation between China and Russia complies with WTO rules and market principles"** — a formulation championed for months by spokespeople such as **Guo Jiakun** and **Lin Jian**. This trade is described as legal, normal, and not targeted at third parties. **The propaganda is crystal clear, consistent, and documented.**

### The rhetoric of peace as diplomatic cover

Beyond direct denials, Beijing deploys a complementary register: that of the **peace promoter**. On June 9, 2026, during a UN Security Council briefing on Ukraine, China's Deputy Permanent Representative, **Sun Lei**, called for restraint and negotiations. In May 2026, spokesperson **Mao Ning** reaffirmed that **"dialogue and negotiations are the only real way to resolve the crisis"**. Each statement is expertly calibrated to occupy the ground of responsibility without ever imputing responsibility for the aggression to Moscow. **It’s rhetorical positioning, not neutrality.**

The subtlety of Chinese language is itself revealing. **Beijing never condemns the Russian invasion.** It does not name Russia as the aggressor. It speaks of a **"crisis"**, never a **"war of aggression"** — the term that would correspond to international legal reality under the United Nations Charter. This permanent semantic shift is a political stance in itself. Refusing to name Putin’s violence for what it is means implicitly validating it. And no diplomat in Beijing is unaware of what this carefully maintained silence means.

*What strikes me about Beijing's rhetoric is its sophistication. They don't lie crudely. They lie by omission, by semantic shifting. "No lethal weapons" — a phrase chosen with care, since drone components are technically not "weapons" in the commercial lexicon. It’s high-fashion propaganda. And it works, because too many Westerners still want to believe it.*

## Proof #1 — Military Training of Russian Soldiers on Chinese Soil

### Six secret bases, hundreds of soldiers, drone specialists

On June 15, 2026, **Kaja Kallas**, High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs, delivered a sentence that hit Western chancelleries like a bombshell. After the Foreign Ministers' meeting in Luxembourg, she stated: **"We have now verified reports that the Chinese military has trained Russian servicemen to fight in Ukraine."** This was not an allegation. It was an official verification, supported by **European intelligence services**. A senior EU official had already confirmed to **Ukrainska Pravda** on June 12 that **"the training took place at several training bases in China and involved hundreds of Russian military personnel"**.

According to the **Reuters** investigation, cited by several European intelligence agencies and classified documents, **China secretly trained about 200 Russian servicemen** on its territory at the end of 2025. This training was formalized in a **military agreement signed in Beijing on July 2, 2025**, by senior officers from both countries. The sessions covered **drone warfare, electronic warfare, army aviation, and armored infantry tactics** — precisely the fields that define the fighting in Ukraine. Among the participants were members of the Russian elite unit **Rubikon**, specialized in front-line drones.

### Soldiers trained in Beijing, fallen in Zaporizhzhia

The German newspaper **Die Welt** provided an additional and damning detail: after their training in Chinese bases, several dozen Russian soldiers participated in **combat operations in Ukraine at the start of 2026**, some occupying command positions. A European intelligence agency cited by Reuters had identified Russian military personnel who had been trained in China and who **had subsequently directly participated in combat operations with drones in occupied Crimea and the Zaporizhzhia region**. This is no longer theoretical training: these are lethal effects documented on the Ukrainian battlefield.

In response to these revelations, **China has adopted its usual posture of categorical denial**. On June 16, 2026, Lin Jian asserted that the EU's claims were **"without factual basis"**. Yet, Kallas had explicitly used the term **"verified"**. She wasn't relaying a rumor. She was recording a conclusion of collective European intelligence. **Beijing trained Russian soldiers who then killed Ukrainians.** This fact is now inscribed in European diplomatic archives. China can deny it. The evidence, however, does not disappear.

*A signed agreement. Named officers. Identified bases. Soldiers traced back to the front. I’m willing to hear that China is "neutral" — but how else can you describe forming soldiers who then go and kill Ukrainians other than as indirect military intervention? There is a line that Beijing has crossed, and the EU has formally noted it. The rest is denial.*

## Proof #2 — 234 Billion Dollars in Trade: The War's Economic Engine

### The financial fuel Putin couldn't have without Xi

Numbers are stubborn, even for the most skillful diplomats. In 2024, bilateral trade between Russia and China reached **nearly 250 billion dollars**, a historical record. In 2025, the volume slightly receded to **234 billion dollars** — compared to about 190 billion in 2022, at the start of the full-scale war. For the first five months of 2026, Sino-Russian trade jumped by **22.9% year-on-year**, reaching 109.5 billion dollars, according to data from the General Administration of Customs of China. China remains **Russia’s main trade partner for the sixteenth consecutive year**. This is not normal trade between two neighboring countries. It is a **structural economic lifeline** for a war economy under massive sanctions.

The structure of this trade says it all. Russia exports **hydrocarbons, raw materials, crude oil** — including 61.66 billion dollars worth of oil in 2024 for China alone. In return, **China exports vehicles, machinery, electronics, and textiles** to Russia — precisely the categories of goods that Moscow can no longer obtain from the West since the 2022 sanctions. According to data compiled by **European Relations**, Russia has maintained a **trade surplus of over 100 billion dollars**, which directly feeds its war budget. Without this trade flow, without these energy revenues, the Russian war economy would be suffocated much faster. **Neutrality isn't bought for 234 billion dollars.**

### Trade that only benefits the war machine

Chinese exports to Russia exploded by **26.4%** in the first five months of 2026 compared to the same period in 2025. Among these exports, a growing share concerns **dual-use military-civilian** goods: off-road vehicles, communication equipment, electronic components, precision machine tools. The mechanism is simple: China provides Russia with the manufactured goods that Western sanctions made inaccessible, allowing Moscow to maintain an industrial standard of living sufficient to continue financing and fueling its war effort.

In May 2026, during his state visit to Beijing, **Vladimir Putin** and **Xi Jinping** formally announced the goal of bringing bilateral trade to **300 billion dollars by 2030**. This goal makes no sense within the framework of neutrality: a neutral state does not program a massive expansion of its trade with one of the belligerents. **It is the economic planning of an alliance.** German Chancellor **Friedrich Merz** himself has called for tougher EU trade measures against China, publicly acknowledging that Beijing contributes to the Russian war effort through its exports.

*234 billion. I keep repeating the number to myself and it never stops seeming obscene. It’s not ordinary trade between neighbors. It’s de facto financing of the Russian war machine. The West sanctioned Moscow with hundreds of billions in restrictions. China compensated for every euro subtracted. Economic neutrality doesn't exist when you are the substitute for everything sanctions are trying to block.*

## Proof #3 — De-dollarization: A Systemic Weapon Against the Western Order

### 92% of Russian-Chinese trade settled outside the dollar — it's no coincidence

Neutrality implies independence from both camps. Yet, **92% of bilateral Russian-Chinese trade is now settled in rubles and yuan**, compared to about 25% before the 2022 invasion. Russian Finance Minister **Anton Siluanov** even cited a figure of 99.1% during the Russian-Chinese financial dialogue in Beijing. This didn't happen by chance. It required creating **alternative payment infrastructures**, expanding the Chinese CIPS network, establishing yuan swap lines from the People's Bank of China, and building banking corridors that deliberately bypass the Western-controlled SWIFT system. Both countries have formally **worked to make Western sanctions inoperable**.

This is not ordinary monetary policy. **It’s a coordinated geopolitical operation**. The Kremlin itself has acknowledged that this financial architecture **"protects trade from Western sanctions"**. Russia and China agreed to set a goal of bringing their bilateral trade to **300 billion dollars by 2030**. In this context, de-dollarization is not a neutral economic project — it is the financial complement to an undeclared military alliance. **China is building the infrastructure that allows Russia to wage war despite Western sanctions.**

### CIPS, yuan swaps, banking corridors: the engineering of impunity

The People's Bank of China has activated **yuan swap agreements for amounts up to 150 billion yuan** with Russia, approximately 20.86 billion dollars. These credit lines allow Russia to finance its Chinese imports without going through Western capital markets. The CIPS system — Cross-Border Interbank Payment System — saw its settlement volumes grow by **33%** in the first months of 2026. This system now connects more than **1,400 institutions** in over 100 countries, forming a functional alternative to SWIFT for transactions involving sanctioned entities.

Kremlin diplomatic advisor **Yuri Ushakov** stated publicly that practically all payments within the 240 billion dollars of trade between the two countries were now carried out in yuan and ruble, **"which protects them from Western sanctions"**. This is not a neutral position. It is the explicit recognition that the Sino-Russian financial architecture was **designed as a shield against Western pressure tools**. While the West builds sanctions, China builds the workaround. **Both activities are symmetrically opposed.**

*De-dollarization is the subject economists treat in a cold and technical way. But in the context of this war, it is anything but cold. It represents Beijing's deliberate decision to devote considerable resources to making Western sanctions less effective. It’s a hostile action against the Western order, taken in full consciousness. Not neutrality. Systemic sabotage.*

## Proof #4 — Drone Components: The Lifeblood of War

### 65% of Shahed drone components come from China

Ukrainian researchers from scientific intelligence (SRI) have established that **65% of the components used in Shahed drones produced at the Alabuga plant are of Chinese origin**. This is where Beijing's rhetoric on **"dual-use items"** reveals its total hypocrisy. When Lin Jian states that China **"strictly controls the export of dual-use products, including drones"**, he forgets to mention that the microprocessors, programmable integrated circuits, batteries, carbon fibers, antennas, and navigation systems — all supplied by Chinese companies such as **Mornsun, Wayon Electronics, GigaDevice, Shenzhen Codaca Electronic, and NCR Industrial** — constitute the technical backbone of every drone that hits a Ukrainian city. On June 2, 2026, **Euromaidon Press** was still documenting Chinese components found in Kh-101 and Zircon missiles and in Geran-2 drones.

The investigation by the **China Policy Monitor** of the American Foreign Policy Council (June 2026) is particularly damning. The **Alabuga** Special Economic Zone in Tatarstan produced 256 Shahed drones per month in 2023. In 2026, it produces about **5,500 per month** — a twenty-two-fold increase in three years. In April 2026, Russia launched **over 8,000 drones against Ukraine** in a single month, the highest monthly figure since the start of the invasion. **Spencer Faragasso** of the Institute for Science and International Security is unambiguous: **"China is effectively the primary supporter of Russia's military-industrial complex."**

### Trade data sanitization: hiding the evidence

To hide these flows, Beijing has orchestrated **"trade data sanitization"** — a deliberate manipulation of export statistics to blur the trails and make the work of sanction traceability more difficult. Spencer Faragasso specified: **"We have also observed a coordinated effort by China to sanitize trade data and by Russia to mask or conceal the movement of these materials."** The latest versions of Shahed drones, equipped with **Chinese electronics and programmable microprocessors**, feature better range, reduced radar sections, and more sophisticated anti-jamming systems — in other words, improvements directly linked to components supplied by China.

The drop in production costs also testifies to the scale of the Chinese contribution. In 2022, when Russia was buying Shahed drones from Iran, each unit cost about **20,000 dollars**. Since Alabuga integrated Chinese components into its production line, the cost has fallen to **between 7,000 and 10,000 dollars**. This price reduction is not trivial: it allows Russia to **multiply the volume of its attacks** without proportionally increasing its war budget. **China has industrialized Ukrainian death at discount prices.**

*Every morning I read that a Ukrainian city has been hit by a volley of Shaheds, I now think of those Chinese circuit boards that constitute their intelligence. Beijing's spokespeople talk about civilian use, legal trade. But an electronic component that everyone knows perfectly well will end up in a war drone is a political decision, not a commercial one. Chinese complicity is written in the Ukrainian rubble.*

## Proof #5 — EU Sanctions: Naming the Culprits

### Shenzhen Minghuaxin, Xinxiang Richful: Names on a list, rock-solid facts

On June 15, 2026, the European Union adopted a new set of restrictive measures as part of its twentieth package of sanctions against Russia. Among the entities targeted are **Shenzhen Minghuaxin**, accused of supplying **drone components** to the Russian defense industry, and **Xinxiang Richful Lubricant Additive Company**, one of the world's largest manufacturers of lubricant additives, for supplying these products to the Russian military. These two Chinese companies join a list that has grown considerably since 2022. In total, in the June 15 package alone, **14 companies from mainland China and Hong Kong** were added to the list of entities banned from purchasing European goods.

Beijing's reaction was immediate. The Mission of China to the EU denounced **"unlawful and unilateral"** sanctions, unauthorized by the UN Security Council and lacking a basis in international law. This framing is itself revealing: **by systematically invoking the UN**, Beijing seeks to legitimize sanctioned commercial activities, while knowing it holds a **veto power** at the Security Council to block any resolution condemning its behavior. It’s a legal architecture built for impunity. In March 2026, a report by **The Insider** had identified Chinese companies as the largest group among the **6,000 exporters** of dual-use goods to Russian companies and defense contractors.

### A 21st package targeting the Chinese drone sector

The EU's 21st sanctions package, whose adoption was underway in June 2026, was set to go even further. High Representative Kallas announced it would cover **more than 30 designations in the drone manufacturing sector** and introduce new export control measures targeting **50 additional companies**, including several based in China, Turkey, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, and the United Arab Emirates. This geography is telling: it maps out precisely the **sanction workaround routes** that Russia uses, with China as the point of origin and these countries as intermediate relays.

Ukrainian sanctions advisor **Vladyslav Vlasiuk** noted during a presentation to European ambassadors in May 2026 a significant phenomenon: the **progressive substitution of Western components by Chinese alternatives** in recovered Russian weapons. He said: **"The good news is that we are seeing a forced shift from some Western components toward Chinese alternatives, which means our sanctions work is functioning."** This shift confirms both the relative effectiveness of sanctions and the **growing centrality of China in the Russian military supply chain**.

*When the EU names Chinese companies in its sanctions lists, it does something many Western governments still avoid: it calls a spade a spade. I wish this clarity had arrived sooner. Every month of procrastination allowed Alabuga to produce thousands of additional drones. The neutrality of economic actors is not to be presumed. It is proven by acts.*

## Proof #6 — The Diplomatic Shield at the UN

### Every Russian veto, a Chinese veto in waiting

Diplomatic neutrality implies impartiality in multilateral institutions. Yet, since 2022, China has systematically abstained or voted against **UN Security Council** resolutions condemning Russian aggression in Ukraine. The pattern is constant: when Russia exercises its right of veto, China accompanies it, or abstains so as not to appear isolated. On April 7, 2026, in the context of the Strait of Hormuz crisis, **China and Russia exercised their veto jointly**. The joint Russian-Chinese statement of May 20, 2026, signed during Putin's state visit to Beijing, indicates that the two countries **oppose any unilateral sanctions not authorized by the Security Council** — a formulation that concretely means only China and Russia together can authorize coercive measures against themselves, which they will never do.

On June 9, 2026, during a Security Council briefing on Ukraine, **China's Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN, Sun Lei**, called for restraint and negotiations, without ever condemning Russian aggression. This posture of **"false equidistance"** allows Beijing to present itself as a mediator while diplomatically protecting Moscow from any institutional consequences. **The Chinese diplomatic shield is as real as the drone components** — it is simply less visible. At the European Council summit of June 18-19, 2026, President **von der Leyen** formally denounced the fact that China and Russia are working together **"to reshape the global economic and security order"**.

### Kaja Kallas and the Western diagnosis: Beijing, a decisive enabler

At the EU-Indo-Pacific Ministerial Forum meeting, Kallas was even more direct, stating that China, in addition to **financing Russia's war in Ukraine**, was working with Moscow to **"reshape the global economic and security order"**. This is no longer the language of diplomatic nuance. It is a formal indictment of Chinese foreign policy by the European Union's highest diplomatic representative. **The EU no longer sees China as an ambiguous actor.** It sees it as a co-architect of the systemic challenge to the Western liberal order.

NATO Secretary General **Mark Rutte** had also sounded the alarm on June 18, 2026, stating that the Atlantic Alliance was closely monitoring Chinese assistance to Russia, particularly the supply of dual-use goods and attempts to **circumvent international sanctions**. China responded via its spokesperson **Lin Jian**: **"NATO must correct its wrong perception of China and stop fanning confrontation."** But by accusing NATO of fanning confrontation, Beijing confirms it perceives support for Ukraine as a direct threat to its interests. **This is not the reaction of a neutral state.**

*I remember covering debates at the UN where Western ambassadors exhausted themselves building laborious consensuses, while the Chinese representative waited patiently to see if his abstention was enough to cover Moscow or if an explicit veto was necessary. This is not neutrality. It is institutionalized complacency. And it has a direct human cost.*

## Proof #7 — The Putin-Xi Joint Declaration: The Alliance Without the Name

### 40 agreements in one summit, and only one implicit enemy: the West

The state visit of **Vladimir Putin to Beijing on May 19 and 20, 2026**, produced a joint statement of more than 11,700 words and the signing of **40 bilateral agreements**. The text asserts that the two countries **oppose "hegemonism and unilateralism"**, support the **"multipolar world"**, and reject sanctions not authorized by the UN. Russia explicitly hails **"China's objective and impartial position on the Ukrainian situation"** — in other words, Russia certifies Chinese neutrality itself, in a document co-signed with China. It's Kafkaesque. Furthermore, the declaration records that **more than 95% of bilateral trade payments** are now made in yuan and ruble, and the two leaders displayed a goal of **300 billion dollars in trade by 2030**.

The May 20 declaration also means, between the lines, that China has formally **abandoned its previous position** of neutrality on the de-nuclearization of North Korea. The two countries aligned to consider US military exercises in Asia and security alliances as the source of regional tensions — and not Pyongyang’s actions. **The China-Russia-North Korea-Iran alliance**, dubbed the "adversary entente" by analysts from the Institute for the Study of War, is now officially codified in a state document. The term **"no-limits partnership"**, used since February 4, 2022, takes on its full meaning in this context.

### A 11,700-word text that says everything, except neutrality

Analyzed in depth, the joint declaration of May 20, 2026, constitutes an **anti-Western geopolitical manifesto**. The two countries affirm their opposition to any military alliance system they deem threatening to their security — which directly targets NATO. They commit to mutually supporting their positions on issues like **Taiwan**, **occupied Crimea**, human rights, and military expansions. The formulas are euphemized, but the direction is crystal clear: **Beijing and Moscow are actively coordinating their opposition to the Western liberal order.**

The declaration also includes a section on Ukraine in which the two countries support **"efforts conducive to a lasting peace"** and advocate for the **"elimination of the root causes of the crisis"** — a formulation that echoes the Russian narrative that the war was provoked by NATO expansion, and not by Putin's sovereign decision to invade a neighboring country. **By adopting the aggressor's narrative framework, China geopolitically validates the aggression.** This is not a position of neutrality. It is a side-taking hidden behind a lexicon of peace.

*The May 20 joint declaration is a text I recommend to all those who still believe in Chinese neutrality. You can find, between the lines, the complete map of a geopolitical alliance against the Western liberal order. This is not a commercial document. It is an ideological manifesto. And it was signed while Russian soldiers trained in China were fighting in Ukraine.*

## Proof #8 — The Network of Front Companies: Obscuring the Pipeline

### Dozens of Chinese companies hidden behind intermediaries

The technique is well-rehearsed: to avoid sanctions, Russia has multiplied the number of **front companies** that import components via third countries. According to **Militarnyi**, several Chinese companies appear directly in shipping documents: **Harbin Bin-Au Technology Development, Shucheng Wanli Trading, and Skyfom Import and Export Trading** export goods to Russian intermediaries. This system allows Chinese electronic components to reach the Russian defense industry via Kazakhstan, the United Arab Emirates, or Kyrgyzstan, while maintaining plausible deniability for Beijing. The EU’s 21st sanctions package, announced by Kallas in early June 2026, was set to target **more than 30 designations in the drone manufacturing sector** and introduce new export control measures targeting **50 additional companies**, several based in China.

This concealment network did not build itself spontaneously. It requires **active coordination between Chinese suppliers, intermediary traders, and Russian authorities**. The March 2026 **The Insider** report identified that Chinese companies form the largest group among exporters of restricted dual-use goods to Russian companies and defense contractors, notably including **small 800-newton turbojet engines** potentially intended for large military drones and **ammonium perchlorate**, a chemical precursor for rocket propellants. **China actively neutralizes the Western sanctions architecture** — and calls it neutrality.

### Trade data manipulated to hide arms flows

One of the most concerning elements revealed by the China Policy Monitor investigation is the systematic manipulation of **Chinese commercial statistical data**. To make the traceability of military components difficult, Chinese companies deliberately recategorize their exports under deceptive customs codes. A turbine engine becomes a piece of industrial equipment. A military integrated circuit becomes a consumer electronic component. This practice has been documented by several expert export controls, and it constitutes a form of **active obstruction of sanctions mechanisms**.

In May 2026, **Ukrainska Pravda** also reported that Chinese aviation engines were secretly shipped to Russia under the guise of industrial refrigeration units, according to Reuters. This type of commercial camouflage implies connivance between exporters, freight forwarders, and Chinese customs authorities. These are not isolated initiatives of a few marginal companies: it is **an organized system whose coherence implies tolerance, if not active support, from the Chinese state.** In the face of this evidence, the discourse on neutrality becomes literally unsustainable.

*This network of front companies reminds me of plumbing hidden in the walls. You can't see it, but without it, the building wouldn't function. This is how Chinese support for the Russian war economy works: behind the scenes, in the gaps of commercial registers, behind innocuous company names. Meanwhile, spokespeople talk about "legal trade." Formal legality and moral complicity are two very different things.*

## Proof #9 — The Response to Sanctions: Beijing Protects Its Accomplices

### When a state defends companies sanctioned for delivering war drones

A truly neutral state would not mobilize to protect companies found guilty of supplying war material to an aggressor. Yet, every time the EU or the US sanctions a Chinese company for aiding the Russian war machine, Beijing takes a stand. On June 10, 2026, the spokesperson for the Chinese embassy in the United States, **Liu Pengyu**, described US sanctions against 21 Chinese companies as **"unlawful and unilateral"**, asserting that **"economic cooperation between Beijing and Moscow complies with WTO rules and market principles"**. The Chinese mission to the EU was even more direct on June 17: Beijing **"will take all necessary measures to defend the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese companies"**.

This systematic defense posture is politically revealing. It means that **the Chinese state considers the commercial activities of these companies legitimate**, even when they contribute to the production of drones that kill Ukrainian civilians. **Germany** has explicitly warned that Beijing's support for Moscow is becoming **a growing security concern** for Europe. President von der Leyen noted during the June 18-19, 2026, EU summit that imports from China to the EU had increased by **45% over five years** and that the EU was recording its **largest trade deficit ever reached with China** — about 360 billion euros, or one billion euros per day. European economic dependence is the lever that Beijing uses to allow itself impunity.

### The economic lever on Europe: the secret weapon of denial

Beijing's strategy is formidably consistent. China maintains massive trade flows with Europe — 360 billion euros in annual trade deficit — to ensure that European capitals **hesitate to go too far with sanctions**. Every time Brussels prepares a new package, the implicit threat of Chinese economic retaliation looms over the negotiations. The German automotive sector depends on exports to China. The French agri-food sector does too. This **structural dependence is an economic shield** that Beijing deliberately maintains to preserve its geopolitical room for maneuver.

The European Council summit of June 18-19, 2026, took note of this problem by adopting a strategy of **"de-risking without decoupling"** — a formulation that implicitly recognizes that Europe is not yet ready to face an economic break with China, even in the face of evidence of complicity in the war. **This hesitation is precisely what Beijing counts on** to maintain its ambiguous game. As long as the economic costs of complacency toward Ukraine remain lower than the cost of a confrontation with China, the Western calculation will remain the same — and China knows it.

*I find this posture of institutional protection deeply shocking. By law, a state that protects its citizens abroad is within its role. But when these citizens are sanctioned for fueling a war of aggression against a sovereign state, and the state of origin defends them tooth and nail, we are no longer in ordinary diplomatic protection. We are in assumed state complicity. And the fact that this does not provoke a firmer reaction in the West is itself revealing.*

## Proof #10 — The Failure of Mediation: The Peace Beijing Doesn't Want

### Two years of peace rhetoric without an ounce of pressure on Moscow

China regularly presents itself as a potential mediator in the Ukrainian conflict. **Wang Yi** repeated at the 2024 Munich Security Conference that Beijing **"is not a party to the conflict"** and that **"all efforts conducive to a peaceful settlement deserve to be supported"**. In July 2025, before German Foreign Minister **Johann David Wadephul**, he reiterated the Chinese position including **"promoting peace talks, not providing lethal weapons to the parties to the conflict, and strictly controlling the export of dual-use items"**. Words. Nothing but words. While these peace speeches follow one after another, **no measurable Chinese pressure on Putin** has been exerted to make him stop hostilities or negotiate in good faith.

Authentic mediation implies exercising influence over both parties. Yet, **China has all the necessary influence over Russia**: it represents its main trade partner, its economic lifeline, its diplomatic cover at the UN. If Beijing really wanted peace, it would only have to suspend electronic components, freeze Sino-Russian bank credits, or vote for a UN resolution. **It does not do so.** Russia itself, in its May 20 joint statement, **thanked China for its position supporting Russian interests**. A mediator does not receive compliments from one of the parties. **It is an ally. Not a referee.**

### Shuttle diplomacy: movement without substance

Beijing has implemented what it calls **"shuttle diplomacy"** on the Ukrainian issue, sending its special envoy **Li Hui** to several European capitals to carry a six-point peace plan. This plan, published in 2023, does not condemn Russian aggression, does not call for the withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukrainian territory, and does not recognize the violation of international law by Moscow. It calls for an immediate ceasefire — which would amount to freezing the front lines and therefore **validating Russia's territorial conquests**. Ukraine and its allies rejected this plan for that very reason.

In June 2026, while evidence of Chinese military training of Russian soldiers was multiplying, no Chinese emissary was sent to Kyiv to reassure the Ukrainian government. **Zelensky** did not receive a call from Xi Jinping. China has not proposed a gesture of good faith, not offered to reduce its deliveries of components to Russia, not publicly called on Putin to negotiate seriously. **Mediation without concrete action is not mediation. It is communication.** And this communication serves exclusively to manage the perceptions of the Global South, not to stop the war.

*Chinese mediation reminds me of those football referees who only blow the whistle on fouls on one side of the pitch. We recognize the title, but not the impartiality. What Beijing calls "mediation" is actually a narrative cover to maintain active support for Moscow while presenting itself as a responsible actor in the eyes of the Global South. It's tactically brilliant. And morally unacceptable.*

## Proof #11 — Support for the Alliance of Adversaries: Iran, North Korea, Russia

### The autocrats' entente and its consequences for the world order

The **Alabuga** Special Economic Zone in Tatarstan is described by analysts from the **Institute for the Study of War** as **"the epicenter of cooperation between what we call the adversary entente"** — the informal grouping of Russia, Iran, North Korea, and China. Shahed drones are manufactured there under Iranian license, with Chinese components, by labor recruited across several continents. This is not a geographical coincidence: it is the result of a strategic convergence between four authoritarian regimes that share the goal of challenging the Western liberal order. Production went from 256 units per month in 2023 to **5,500 units per month in 2026** — a progression that would not have been possible without the continuous supply of Chinese components.

The May 20 Russian-Chinese joint statement formally signaled that Beijing now aligns with Moscow in considering sanctions against North Korea as an illegitimate political pressure tool. **The two countries oppose coercive measures against Pyongyang** — exactly the country that sent tens of thousands of soldiers to fight alongside Russia in Ukraine. Together, China and Russia form a diplomatic shield for Iran, which supplies the drones, and for North Korea, which supplies the soldiers. **Calling this neutrality is a diplomatic hallucination.**

### China as the industrial heart of the autocratic coalition

Analyst **Karolina Hird** of the Institute for the Study of War provided the most precise synthesis of this architecture: **"Alabuga is truly the epicenter of the cooperation between what we call the adversary entente — this informal grouping of like-minded states including Russia, Iran, North Korea, and China."** In this coalition, each actor plays a specific role. Russia provides the territory and resources. Iran provides the drone licenses and know-how. North Korea provides artillery shells and soldiers. **China provides the electronic components, microprocessors, financing, and diplomatic cover.** It is the centerpiece without which the whole thing collapses.

The West — **EU, United States, NATO** — faces a systemic threat that goes far beyond the bilateral framework of the Russian-Ukrainian war. What Alabuga represents is the **industrial proof of a functional counter-hegemonic alliance**. It has no formal treaty. It has no permanent headquarters. But it has factories, arms contracts, financial corridors, and trained soldiers. **Trump**, despite his ambiguities and isolationist stances, represents a necessary evil: the United States cannot afford to withdraw from the game in the face of this coalition without abandoning its allies — and its own world order — to a recomposition they would regret in ten years.

*What worries me most is not so much the war in Ukraine as the architecture being built around it. An entente between four authoritarian regimes, with Russian energy resources, Chinese industry, Iranian drones, and North Korean soldiers — it's a de facto coalition, even without a formal treaty. The West faces a systemic threat and must stop treating each element as isolated. China is not neutral. It is the industrial heart of this entente.*

## Conclusion: Chinese Neutrality Died on July 2, 2025

### A date, an agreement, a formalized complicity

On July 2, 2025, senior Russian and Chinese officers signed a **military agreement in Beijing formalizing the training of Russian soldiers in PLA facilities**. This date is now the one to remember. Not because Chinese complicity did not exist before — it existed through drone components, record trade, and the diplomatic shield at the UN. But because this agreement marks the **crossing of a qualitative threshold**: that of direct military involvement, indirect in its effects, but direct in its nature. Soldiers trained on Chinese soil who then fight in Ukraine — this is the definition of tacit co-belligerence. Kaja Kallas said it on June 15, 2026, after verification by European services: **"Beijing remains a decisive enabler of Russia's war against Ukraine."**

### What the West must now do

The factcheck is over. The verdict is delivered. **China is not neutral.** It is the main economic, technological, financial, diplomatic, and now indirect military supporter of Russian aggression against Ukraine. The West — and here **Trump** constitutes a necessary evil whose administration must assume consistency — must treat China as what it really is: the greatest systemic threat to the Western liberal order. This implies **robust secondary sanctions**, a reduction in strategic dependencies, G7 coordination on critical components, and unambiguous support for Ukraine — not as a distant cause, but as the front line of the defense of Western values. **Zelensky** is resisting. Ukraine is holding. What the West must decide now is whether its response to Chinese complicity will be equal to the threat.

**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

- [Ukrainska Pravda — EU finds evidence of China training Russian soldiers who took part in the war against Ukraine — June 12, 2026](https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2026/06/12/8039041/)

- [Bloomberg — EU Says China Trained Russian Troops to Fight in Ukraine War, Kallas — June 16, 2026](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-06-16/eu-says-china-trained-russian-troops-to-fight-in-ukraine-war)

- [European Relations — The EU's Latest Russia Sanctions: Targeting the Networks Behind the War — June 20, 2026](https://europeanrelations.com/briefing/the-eus-latest-russia-sanctions-targeting-the-networks-behind-the-war/)

### Secondary Sources

- [Euromaidon Press — Russian strike damages Chinese Zeekr dealership in Kyiv, while Chinese components documented in Russian weapons — June 2, 2026](https://euromaidanpress.com/2026/06/02/russian-strike-damages-chinese-zeekr-dealership-in-kyiv-while-chinese-components-have-been-documented-in-russian-weapons/)

- [AFPC China Policy Monitor No. 1680 — Chinese Components Supply Russia's Drone Factories — June 11, 2026](https://www.afpc.org/publications/bulletins/china-reform-monitor/china-policy-monitor-no-1680)

- [The Diplomat — The West Indulges China in Its Backing for Russia Against Ukraine — May 27, 2026](https://thediplomat.com/2026/05/the-west-indulges-china-in-its-backing-for-russia-against-ukraine/)

- [Mission of China to the EU — Official statement on the June 15 sanctions and Beijing's position — June 17, 2026](https://eu.china-mission.gov.cn/eng/mh/)

- [Militarnyi — Russia Increases Number of Front Companies to Import Components for Shahed — May 23, 2026](https://militarnyi.com/en/news/russia-front-companies-components-shahed/)

---

Source: Maxime Marquette, MadMax. When citing, name the author and link https://mad-max.co/en/article/factcheck-la-chine-est-neutre-dans-la-guerre-demontage-d-un-mensonge-d-etat-calc-2