TESTIMONY: China secretly trained Russian soldiers in biological warfare — generals implicated

Reuters breaks a clandestine Sino-Russian military training story

On July 1, 2026, the Reuters news agency published an exclusive that fundamentally changes what the world thought it knew about Sino-Russian cooperation in the war against Ukraine. Senior European sources and classified Russian documents confirm that China provided clandestine military training to approximately 200 Russian soldiers in November 2025, at People's Liberation Army facilities in Beijing. The content of that training: radiological protection, chemical reconnaissance, biological reconnaissance, and protection of ventilation systems against contamination.

This revelation is not geopolitical background noise. It is a rupture in the international order. A permanent nuclear member of the UN Security Council has secretly trained the armed forces of a country waging a war of aggression against Ukraine in the most dangerous unconventional warfare techniques that exist. This training was personally approved by Russian Defense Minister Andrei Belousov. It involves at least four Russian and Chinese generals. And some of the soldiers trained have since joined the Ukrainian battlefield.

What this means for Ukraine — and for the West

If this report is accurate — and Reuters bases it on two independent European officials as well as internal Russian documents — it means that China is no longer a passive observer of the war in Ukraine. It is an active facilitator, in the very words of EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas, who declared on June 15, 2026 that Brussels had confirmed through its own channels that the training had taken place and was assessing the implications. That word — "decisive facilitator" — is not throwaway diplomatic language. It implies direct responsibility — and opens the door to punitive measures.

I cannot verify these documents myself. Reuters does, with two independent European sources. What I can observe is how consistent this report is with what we already know: China has never condemned the Russian invasion, it has continued trading with Moscow, and it has supplied dual-use technological components that end up in Russian weapons systems. This clandestine military training is not an accident — it is a logical step in a deepening strategic relationship.

An internal decree signed by Belousov

At the heart of the Reuters revelation lies a classified Russian document — an internal decree issued by Russian Defense Minister Andrei Belousov in August 2025. This document explicitly authorizes the dispatch of a Russian armed forces delegation to China to participate in exercises at People's Liberation Army facilities. It represents a formal approval at the highest level of the Russian Defense Ministry — not a local initiative or an informal exchange.

Reuters has seen this document. It describes a three-week session at a military facility in Beijing in November 2025. Russian soldiers received training in radiological protection, chemical reconnaissance, biological reconnaissance, and protection of ventilation systems against contamination. A separate Reuters-cited report on the Nanjing training praised "the level of equipment, the use of simulators and the instructors' high theoretical knowledge" — while noting, with a certain candor, the "lack of combat experience" of the Chinese instructors.

The trained soldiers have joined the Ukrainian front

The most alarming element of the Reuters report is this: some of the approximately 200 Russian military personnel trained in China have since joined the war in Ukraine. That means soldiers who received specialist training in radiological, chemical, and biological warfare are potentially deployed on front-line positions in direct contact with Ukrainian forces. This information, if confirmed, should trigger an immediate diplomatic and security response from Ukraine's allies.

Soldiers trained in chemical and biological warfare on the Ukrainian battlefield. That is the sentence I want every reader to read slowly. Not in the abstract context of geopolitical analysis. In the real context of a war happening right now, a few hours away by plane. This training has concrete consequences for Ukrainian soldiers fighting to survive.

The Russian side: Muradov at the top

Reuters identifies with precision the Russian generals involved in this operation. The most senior on the Russian side is Colonel-General Rustam Muradov, deputy commander of Russian ground forces, who led the Russian delegation. His presence at that level signals the strategic importance Moscow attached to this cooperation. Also identified: Major-General Rustam Khusainov, who co-signed an agreement on July 2 with his Chinese counterpart, and Major-General Vitaly Gerasimov, who attended a course at Bengbu, a city hosting specialized PLA military facilities.

The participation of Muradov is particularly significant. Deputy commander of ground forces — that is a position at the very top of the Russian military hierarchy. His presence in Beijing to oversee this training program indicates it was not a peripheral operation. It was an institutional priority of the Russian military, validated at the highest level, integrated into the strategic planning of the war.

The Chinese side: Li Jinsun and the NBC Academy

On the Chinese side, the central figure is Major-General Li Jinsun, director of the PLA's Military Academy for Radiological, Chemical and Biological Defense — the PLA's specialist institution for precisely the type of training delivered to the Russians. His participation in the opening of one of the courses is documented in reports seen by Reuters. Senior Colonel Sun Dayun co-signed the July 2 agreement on the Chinese side. The presence of the director of the NBC Academy at the course inauguration is not ceremonial. It is an act of institutional engagement by China in this military cooperation.

These names are not details. They are evidence. When the deputy commander of Russian ground forces and the director of the PLA's NBC Academy meet in Beijing to open a chemical and biological warfare training program for soldiers at war, we are no longer in the realm of vague diplomatic cooperation. We are looking at a concrete military alliance.

An unprecedented European declaration

EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas took a public stance on June 15, 2026 — two weeks before the Reuters publication. She stated that Brussels had confirmed through its own channels that the training had taken place and was assessing its implications. More importantly, she described China as a "decisive facilitator" of Russia's war against Ukraine. That formulation is not incidental in European diplomatic vocabulary. It implies direct responsibility — and opens the way for punitive action.

Kallas's statement came two weeks before Reuters published the details. That means European governments already knew. They had confirmed the facts through their own intelligence channels. And they were already discussing internally what additional measures to take. The EU has already imposed sanctions on Chinese companies it holds responsible for supporting Russia's war effort. This clandestine military training could justify a significant escalation of those sanctions.

Beijing's official response: categorical denial

The Chinese Foreign Ministry responded to Reuters with a terse statement: "The relevant allegations are entirely unfounded." Beijing added that its position on the Ukraine crisis remains "unchanged." On the Russian side, General Andrei Kartapolov called the report "complete nonsense," insisting the Russian military had nothing to learn from China. These denials are formal on the record. They do not, however, address the internal Russian documents seen by Reuters, nor the independent confirmation from two European sources.

"Entirely unfounded." That is the standard formula of Chinese diplomatic denial. It does not address the documents. It does not address the European sources. It does not address the Kallas declaration. In the world of international relations, a denial without counter-evidence does not erase an accusation backed by evidence. And Reuters has the evidence.

The operational content of the courses

The Reuters report describes in detail the content of the training provided to Russian soldiers. In Beijing, Russian military personnel attended lectures from Chinese instructors, examined a nuclear reactor model, and were trained in "chemical reconnaissance,""radiological reconnaissance," and protection of ventilation systems against contamination. These courses are specifically designed to enable military units to operate in environments where chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear agents have been deployed.

In Nanjing and Bengbu, other aspects of the training were covered. An internal Russian report on the Nanjing training praised the quality of the equipment and the use of modern simulators. That same report noted, with a certain lucidity, the lack of combat experience among Chinese instructors — a detail that reveals the mutual exchange dimension of this cooperation: China brings the technology, Russia brings the battlefield experience.

A formal agreement signed on July 2

Reuters also reveals the existence of a formal agreement co-signed on July 2 by Russian Major-General Rustam Khusainov and Chinese Senior Colonel Sun Dayun. This agreement institutionalizes Sino-Russian military cooperation in the NBC domain. It is not an informal handshake between officers. It is a signed, dated, archived document — now in the hands of Reuters and multiple European governments. The question is no longer whether this cooperation happened. It happened. The question is what the West will do now.

This July 2 agreement concerns me beyond the training itself. It means China and Russia have formalized their NBC military cooperation in an institutional document. That it is not an isolated episode. That it is the beginning of a structure. A non-conventional military alliance that could deepen — with Ukraine as its first direct victim.

From economic cooperation to NBC military cooperation

The Sino-Russian relationship has followed a progressive escalation since 2022. Initially, China maintained commercial ties with Moscow despite Western sanctions, supplying dual-use technological components that the Russian military integrated into weapons systems. Then Chinese companies were sanctioned by the EU for directly supporting the war effort. Now Reuters reveals direct military training, at PLA facilities, in the most dangerous techniques of modern warfare.

This progression is not accidental. It reflects a deliberate Chinese strategy: to remain officially neutral while actively supporting Russia, calibrating the level of support to stay just below the threshold that would trigger crippling economic sanctions. But that line has been crossed. Training soldiers in biological and chemical warfare goes well beyond supplying electronic components. It enters the realm of direct military cooperation. And the West can no longer pretend it does not know.

The implications for Taiwan and Indo-Pacific security

This revelation must be read in a broader context. China is watching carefully how the international community responds to Russian aggression in Ukraine. If this clandestine training is followed by limited diplomatic consequences, Beijing will draw a simple conclusion: indirect military support for an aggressor carries no real cost. That calculation has direct implications for Taiwan, for the South China Sea, for the security of the entire Indo-Pacific region. The firmness or weakness of the Western response to this revelation will be read in Beijing as a signal of what the West is prepared to tolerate.

China is playing a multi-level chess game. It is supporting Russia in Ukraine. It is watching the Western response. It is assessing its own room for maneuver on Taiwan. These three realities are linked. And every time the West hesitates to confront China on the Russian file, it sends Beijing a signal about its resolve on Taiwan. Half-measures carry an immense strategic cost.

A structural relationship, not a circumstantial one

The International Centre for Defence and Security (ICDS) has analyzed the Sino-Russian relationship in depth. Its central conclusion: even if the Sino-Russian partnership may have peaked in terms of ideological affinities, it remains functionally robust at the strategic level. Both powers share a common objective: weakening the Western-led liberal world order. That convergence is stronger than their tactical differences or regional rivalries in Central Asia.

The military training revealed by Reuters fits squarely within this logic. It is not China "helping Russia as a friend." It is China reinforcing a strategic partner against a West it considers its primary long-term rival. By training Russian soldiers in NBC techniques, China is investing in Russia's capacity to inflict harm — and by extension, in the durable destabilization of Europe. Ukraine is the laboratory. The entire world is the audience.

North Korea and Iran: a triangle of threats

This Sino-Russian training fits into a broader picture. North Korea has supplied ammunition and ballistic missiles to Russia since 2023. Iran has supplied Shahed drones that strike Ukrainian cities daily. And now China is providing specialist military training in the most dangerous segment of the military spectrum. These three actors — China, North Korea, Iran — form a network of support for Russian aggression that the West should address collectively, not separately. They are the same powers threatening the liberal international order on multiple fronts simultaneously.

North Korea. Iran. China. Russia. These four names appear together more and more often in intelligence reports and strategic analyses. That is not a coincidence. It is the formation of a revisionist bloc sharing a common objective: ending Western hegemony. And they are no longer even hiding the fact that they are working together.

An immediate operational risk

The potential presence of Russian soldiers trained in NBC (nuclear, biological, chemical) techniques on the Ukrainian front poses a concrete operational problem for Ukrainian defense forces. Not because it makes an NBC attack imminent or certain — but because it improves Russian capabilities for protection and deployment in NBC environments. Soldiers who know how to shield their own units against chemical agents can operate more effectively in areas where such agents have been used — and are therefore harder to neutralize using certain types of munitions.

Ukraine faces a Russian military that is improving technically despite its massive losses. The drones. The missiles. The electronic warfare. And now, NBC competencies. Each improvement in Russian capability means additional challenges for Ukrainian soldiers fighting with more limited human and material resources. That is why continued Western support — in weapons, in training, in intelligence — remains indispensable.

Ukraine's allies must respond

In the face of this revelation, Ukraine's allies hold several levers. First: directly sanction the Chinese institutions and generals involved, in particular Major-General Li Jinsun and his NBC Academy. These sanctions would send a clear signal to Beijing: military cooperation with an aggressor state carries a cost. It cannot go without consequence. Kallas's June 15 statement established the diagnosis. The measures must now follow the diagnosis.

The international community has a tendency to fragment its responses. One company sanctioned here, one ambassador summoned there. Faced with military cooperation as systematic as what Reuters has revealed, a fragmented response is insufficient. A coordinated response doctrine is needed — and it needs to be applied now, not after the next revelation.

Europe between confirmation and hesitation

Kaja Kallas confirmed the facts on June 15. The EU is "assessing implications." Two weeks later, Reuters publishes the details. The EU is now in an uncomfortable position: it can no longer claim not to know, but it hesitates to go as far as sanctions directly targeting Chinese generals — a diplomatically unprecedented escalation with the world's second-largest economy. That cautious calculation is understandable. It is not necessarily right.

The economic consequences of a diplomatic confrontation with Beijing on this file would be substantial for European economies. China is a major trading partner for Germany, France, and Italy. But the costs of inaction are equally real: by allowing Beijing to reinforce Russia's war machine with impunity, Europe accepts that the war will continue, that Ukrainian cities will keep being struck, and that a dangerous precedent will take hold in international relations.

The United States and the Trump administration

The American response to this revelation is even more complex. The Trump administration, which maintains an ambivalent relationship with China on trade issues, will have to decide whether to treat this military training as a major strategic threat or as one file among many in its negotiations with Beijing. Trump's transactional logic could lead him to use this revelation as a bargaining chip in trade talks with China — which would be a grave strategic error. NBC military cooperation is not a subject for tariff negotiations. It is a matter of fundamental international security.

Trump will have to choose: is Chinese military training of Russian soldiers in biological warfare a subject for a deal, or a red line? I have no certain answer to that question. But I know what I hope. And I hope that this time, even Trump will understand that some things are not negotiable.

A war that becomes more global every week

The Reuters revelation of July 1, 2026 illustrates a reality that some in the West still refuse to accept: the war in Ukraine is no longer a regional war. It is a conflict in which systems are at war — democracy against autocracy, the liberal international order against revisionism — with actors from multiple continents. North Korea supplies ammunition. Iran supplies drones. China trains soldiers. And Ukraine, alongside its Western partners, faces this de facto coalition with a resilience that commands genuine admiration.

This war has been going on for more than four years. It has cost hundreds of thousands of lives. It has destroyed entire cities. It has produced millions of refugees. And Ukraine is still standing. Ukrainian drones strike Moscow. The Ukrainian military holds its lines. Ukraine's defense industry is producing its own weapons. Not in spite of imperfect Western support. Because of the determination of a people who chose not to kneel.

Zelensky: the target of a global coalition

Behind every soldier trained in China, every Iranian drone, every North Korean shell, there is a common intent: exhaust Ukraine. Break its will. Collapse its defenses. And behind every Ukrainian strike on a Russian refinery, every defensive line held, every drone shot down over Kyiv, stands Volodymyr Zelensky and the women and men fighting under his command. Facing a coalition of authoritarian powers backing Russia, Ukraine is on the front line of democracy. That reality should not be forgotten — not by Western capitals, not by the citizens who elect their leaders.

I think of Zelensky facing this accumulation. An empire attacking him. China training his enemies. Iran sending its drones. North Korea supplying its shells. And he holds. He refuses to yield. He strikes back. In the long history of this conflict, when it is written, this resistance will stand as one of the most remarkable chapters of the twenty-first century.

Targeted sanctions on the Chinese institutions and generals involved

The most direct response expected is the most obvious: the EU and the United States must sanction the Chinese institutions and individuals involved in this training. Major-General Li Jinsun and his PLA NBC Academy are obvious targets. These sanctions would send a clear signal to Beijing: military cooperation with an aggressor state carries a cost. It cannot remain without consequence. Kallas's June 15 response established the diagnosis. The measures must now follow the diagnosis.

The second response: deepen the sanctions already imposed on Chinese companies that support Russia's war effort. The EU has already begun this work. But the Reuters revelation shows that Chinese support now goes beyond technological components — it includes specialist military training. The sanctions must be calibrated accordingly. And American, European, British, Japanese, and Australian allies must coordinate their responses to maximize their impact.

Reinforce support for Ukraine without delay

Faced with a Russian military improving its capabilities with Chinese help, the most direct response to support Ukraine is to reinforce and accelerate weapons deliveries. Additional air defense systems to protect cities. Long-range munitions to continue striking Russian infrastructure. NBC protection equipment for Ukrainian soldiers who may face Russian units trained in China. And the confiscation of the $300 billion in frozen Russian reserves to directly fund Ukrainian defense and reconstruction. These are not wishful thinking. They are concrete political decisions, achievable right now.

The West has every tool needed to respond to what Reuters has revealed. What is lacking is not capability — it is will. And political will, in a democracy, is built in part by columnists who tell the truth even when it is uncomfortable. This Chinese training of Russian soldiers is a real threat. The response must be real too.

Two independent European sources

The Reuters report rests on two independent European officials and on classified Russian documents. That foundation is solid. But it also raises questions about what European intelligence services know and have not yet made public. If two European sources confirmed this training to Reuters, how many other elements of Sino-Russian cooperation are still sitting in intelligence files, waiting for a political decision to be released?

Kallas's June 15 statement — two weeks before Reuters — suggests that European governments had already had access to this information for some time. That timeline raises legitimate questions: when did they find out? Did they immediately inform their partners? And what measures were taken in the intervening period? Transparency on these questions is not only a democratic requirement. It is a strategic necessity for maintaining the credibility of European institutions with their own citizens.

What Reuters cannot yet confirm

Reuters is explicitly cautious in its report: it confirms the November 2025 training, the generals involved, the Belousov decree. It confirms that some trained soldiers have joined the front. But it does not confirm that chemical or biological agents have been used on the Ukrainian battlefield by these units. That distinction matters. NBC defense training does not necessarily imply offensive intent. But it does imply a readiness to operate in an NBC environment — which is itself a serious alarm signal.

Reuters did its job with rigor. What I appreciate about this report is precisely what it does not say: it does not claim to confirm imminent chemical attacks. It documents what is documentable. That is the difference between journalism and propaganda. And that is also why this report deserves to be taken seriously — and acted upon.

China has crossed a line — the consequences are still ahead

This revelation marks a turning point in Sino-Western relations on the Ukrainian file. Before Reuters, Beijing could maintain the ambiguity of its "official neutrality." After Reuters, that ambiguity is impossible to sustain. China has secretly trained Russian soldiers in NBC warfare, with the Defense Minister's approval and the participation of senior generals. This is not an accident. It is not an isolated episode. It is direct military cooperation with an aggressor state.

The diplomatic consequences of this revelation will depend entirely on the Western response. If the EU and the United States respond with targeted sanctions and sustained diplomatic pressure, they establish a precedent of accountability that may deter China from going further. If the response is timid, Beijing will conclude that it can deepen this cooperation without consequence. That decision belongs to governments. But the pressure on them to act belongs to citizens, journalists, analysts — and columnists.

Ukraine will keep fighting — whatever happens

Whatever the Western response, Ukraine will keep fighting. It has proved that for more than four years. It proved it when the United States cut its aid. It proved it when cities were bombed to rubble. It will prove it again facing a Russian army partially trained by China. But this war should not be a burden Ukraine carries alone. The Reuters revelation of July 1, 2026 should remind every Western government that this war is also their war — and that the cost of not winning it will be far higher than the cost of winning it now.

After more than four years, I can still be revolted by what this war reveals about the world. China training soldiers. North Korea sending shells. Iran sending drones. And Ukraine resisting, alone, in the name of values the West claims to uphold but sometimes struggles to actually defend. This choice — to stand when everything pushes you to kneel — may be Ukraine's greatest legacy to the history of the twenty-first century.

International humanitarian law and NBC training

The training China provided to Russian soldiers raises serious questions of international law. The Chemical Weapons Convention and the Biological Weapons Convention prohibit the development, production, stockpiling, and use of chemical and biological weapons. Training soldiers at war in NBC reconnaissance and protection techniques is not in itself a violation of these conventions — defensive preparation is permitted. But training soldiers to operate in NBC environments while knowing they will join an active battlefield raises serious questions about intent.

Furthermore, the agreement signed on July 2 between Khusainov and Sun Dayun institutionalizes direct military cooperation between an aggressor state and a power that claims to be neutral. Even if this agreement does not formally violate a specific convention, it constitutes a serious breach of the spirit of international law — and should be the subject of a formal inquiry before competent multilateral bodies. The International Criminal Court, the NBC convention oversight mechanisms, the structures of the United Nations: all have a role to play.

Historical precedents that illuminate the situation

History offers precedents for this situation. During the Cold War, both superpowers trained and equipped proxy forces across the world. These training programs often led to serious human rights violations and the prolongation of conflicts that could have ended sooner. The Sino-Russian training of November 2025 fits within this logic of reinforced proxy warfare. The difference is that today, international law is better defined, states' obligations are clearer, and the tools of accountability are more developed. What is missing is the political will to use them.

I am not a lawyer. But I am convinced that the international community has the legal instruments to respond to this clandestine military cooperation. What is lacking is not the law. It is the political courage to apply it against the world's second-largest economy. And that courage is built first in public opinion — in newsrooms, in parliaments, in citizens' conversations.

The revelation is not enough — action is needed

Reuters revealed what European governments already knew. The documents exist. The generals are named. The soldiers were trained. Some are on the front. The equation is straightforward: China helped Russia fight better in Ukraine. That help is documented, confirmed by independent sources, enshrined in formal agreements. The question is no longer "is this true." The question is: "What do we do now?"

The West has the tools. Sanctions. Asset confiscation. Weapons deliveries. Shared intelligence. It also has something rarer: published evidence, accessible to all, that makes inaction politically untenable. Ukraine, for its part, keeps fighting. It did not wait for the West to decide. It strikes. It holds. It advances. The minimum the West can do is stand beside it.

On July 1, 2026, Reuters published something that should change things. China trained Russian soldiers in NBC warfare. The evidence exists. The generals are named. The documents have been seen. Ukraine is fighting. Everything else — sanctioning, confiscating, arming, acting — is simply a matter of political decision. And political decisions, in a democracy, begin with citizens who understand what is happening.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist

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.