OP-ED: China Talks About Peace at the UN While Training Russian Soldiers — A Documented Case of Duplicity

An unprecedented official European confirmation

Kaja Kallas (EU, June 15, 2026): “We have confirmed that the Chinese military is training Russian troops.”

And: “Beijing remains a key enabler of Russia’s war.” Rare—and weighty—words.

Beijing’s automatic denial

Lin Jian (Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs): “These claims have no factual basis. Pure slander.”

This pattern—repeated since 2022—is to deny, accuse others of “political maneuvering,” and never acknowledge the facts. China has not changed.

Kallas cites three intelligence agencies and a signed agreement that has been reviewed. Lin Jian denies the claims without evidence. This contrast speaks volumes about who is telling the truth in this matter.

Two Chinese Companies Sanctioned

The EU has sanctioned Shenzhen Minghuaxin (drone components for the Russian military) and Xinxiang Richful (Russian military chemical additives).

These sanctions reveal a fragment of the Sino-Russian supply chain—documented for months, yet ignored for far too long.

90% of sanctioned technologies pass through China

According to Bloomberg (April 2026): 90% of Russia’s imports of sanctioned technologies pass through China (up from 80% in 2025).

Beijing is the main gateway for military technologies to Russia. “Neutrality” is a sham.

90% of sanctioned technologies pass through China. This figure renders the word “neutrality” absurd. This is not neutrality—it is industrial complicity documented by Bloomberg.

Microchips, turbojet engines, and weapons systems

Chinese companies make up the largest group among 6,000 dual-use exporters (The Insider, March 2026).

According to The Telegraph: 10.3 billion in technology—including equipment for Oreshnik warheads (hypersonic, nuclear-capable).

These missiles struck Ukrainian cities

Oreshnik missiles struck Ukrainian cities. The warheads were manufactured using Chinese machinery. The connection is not abstract.

Every Shahed drone contains a chip traceable to a mailing address in China. This is a customs reality, not a metaphor.

Chinese machinery manufactured the warheads for the Oreshnik missiles. These missiles struck Ukrainian cities. Beijing claims “neutrality.” That word deserves to be removed from the diplomatic dictionary.

Beijing’s True Strategic Position Revealed

In July 2025, Wang Yi: Beijing cannot accept a Russian defeat. The reason: to keep the United States out of Asia.

No ideological solidarity. A cold strategic calculation: to keep the United States occupied in Europe to delay its pivot to Asia.

Beijing: A De Facto Belligerent

The West cannot treat China as a neutral mediator when Wang Yi admits that a Ukrainian victory is unacceptable to him.

Beijing is a de facto belligerent—through its material, logistical, and diplomatic support for Moscow.

Wang Yi spoke the truth: China cannot accept a Russian defeat. At least that’s honest. What the West must take from this is a policy—not hopes for mediation.

What China Has Made Possible

CEPA (June 2026): Chinese support enabled Moscow to hold out for four years despite the sanctions.

Without China, Russia’s war economy would have contracted. The missile and drone production lines would not have held up.

The USCC documents the facade of neutrality

The USCC (June 17, 2026) contrasts every Chinese statement at the UN with its actual actions. The contrast is consistent—and consistently ignored.

This facade of neutrality is costing Ukrainian lives. Every drone guided by Chinese chips—that is a choice made by Beijing, and it is well documented.

Every Shahed drone striking Ukraine contains a chip traceable back to China. This is not a metaphor. It is a supply chain that Western customs officials can track.

The AUKMIN Summit on June 10, 2026

At the AUKMIN Summit (June 10, 2026), Australia and the United Kingdom called on China to halt its dual-use deliveries to Russia.

This trans-Pacific message confirms that the concern is no longer limited to Europe—the Indo-Pacific powers view it as a direct threat.

Tammy Bruce at the UN: “Primary Enabler”

Tammy Bruce (United States): “China is the main enabler of the Russian war machine. It must stop.”

Fu Cong: “Excuses and lies.” This dialogue of the deaf illustrates an institution that Beijing is turning into a platform while its factories supply Moscow.

Bruce says “main driver.” Fu Cong says “lies.” This dialogue of the deaf at the Security Council illustrates an institution that Beijing is using as a platform while its factories supply Moscow.

The Beijing Summit and Its 40 Bilateral Agreements

In May 2026, Xi and Putin signed 40 bilateral agreements and a renewed friendship treaty at the Beijing summit.

The declaration removes the terms “invasion” and “aggression.” It reframes the war as the “Ukrainian crisis”—a diplomatic weapon.

Removing the term “aggression” amounts to absolving the perpetrator

Removing “aggression” amounts to absolving the perpetrator. This is the favor Beijing is doing for Moscow—for free, and in public.

A clear signal to Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan: Beijing condones territorial aggression when it serves its interests.

The Sino-Russian statement refers to a “Ukrainian crisis,” not an “invasion.” The omission of that word is an admission: Beijing endorses Moscow’s aggression, even in official diplomatic language.

A Call for Peace Alongside Military Support

On May 19, 2026, Fu Cong noted “positive signals” while condemning Western arms supplies to Ukraine.

The Global Times echoed this sentiment: China, a voice for de-escalation—without mentioning the 200 Russian soldiers being trained at the same time.

A Coordinated and Repeated Mechanism

Peace at the Security Council for the international audience. Military support for Moscow for the domestic audience. This mechanism is coordinated and repeated.

The USCC documents it. Capitals hoping to make Beijing a mediator must first read these reports.

Peace at the UN, military support for Moscow. The USCC documents this. It is time for Western capitals to stop ignoring this double game, which has been coordinated and repeated for four years.

The Diplomacy of Ambiguity and Its Human Costs

The West treats China as a plausible mediator. This stance allows Beijing to play both sides without ever having to choose.

The targeted sanctions of June 15, 2026, are necessary—but insufficient. Beijing’s calculations remain unchanged.

The Need for a Real Strategic Cost

Such a cost does not yet exist. The West must create it: sector-specific sanctions, technological decoupling, and transatlantic and trans-Pacific coordination.

Without this cost, China will talk about peace in Geneva and train soldiers in Nanjing—simultaneously, as long as the West tolerates it.

Without a real strategic cost, Beijing’s double game will continue. China will talk about peace in Geneva and train Russian soldiers in Nanjing. Both simultaneously—as long as the West tolerates it.

A deliberate choice, not a constraint

Beijing’s support is not inevitable. It is a deliberate strategic choice—one that violates international law.

Beijing trains Russian soldiers. Beijing exports military components. Beijing downplays “aggression.” These choices have consequences in Ukraine.

A message to the Indo-Pacific

This precedent tells Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea that Beijing supports aggression when it serves its interests.

The West cannot ignore this message and treat China as a bona fide actor.

This precedent tells Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea that Beijing will support territorial aggression when it suits its purposes. It is also a test case in Ukraine. The West must interpret it as such.

Ukrainian Strikes Against the War Economy

On June 16, 2026, Ukraine strikes the Moscow refinery—53% of capacity taken offline. Sixteen refineries struck: Russian capacity reduced by 30%.

Russian gasoline production: at its lowest level in 16 years. Without Chinese support, this threshold would have been reached much sooner.

What Beijing’s support has helped prolong

Beijing’s support has prevented the collapse of the Russian war machine. Without Chinese technology, the sanctions would have taken effect more quickly.

China is prolonging a war that costs tens of thousands of lives each month. Conclusion by CEPA, the USCC, and Reuters.

China is prolonging a war that costs tens of thousands of lives each month. This is not an editorial position—it is the logical conclusion drawn from data documented by CEPA and the USCC.

China is prolonging a war that costs tens of thousands of lives each month. This is not an editorial position—it is the logical conclusion drawn from data documented by CEPA and the USCC.

Sanctions That Are Necessary but Insufficient

The targeted sanctions of June 15, 2026, are necessary—but insufficient. They do not change Beijing’s calculations.

That cost does not yet exist. The West must create it: sector-specific sanctions, technological decoupling, and transatlantic and trans-Pacific coordination.

Without real costs, Beijing’s double game will continue

China will talk about peace in Geneva and train Russian soldiers in Nanjing—simultaneously—as long as the West tolerates it.

That choice belongs to the West. Not to Beijing, which has already made its own.

What History Will Remember About China in 2026

History will record: In 2026, China trained Russian soldiers at its bases and advocated for peace at the UN.

Beijing signed a statement omitting the word “aggression,” supplied components for the drones that struck civilians, all while maintaining a stance of benevolent neutrality.

The Choice the West Must Make Now

Beijing’s duplicity is well documented. So is the human cost. What is missing is a political response commensurate with the evidence.

Either the West imposes a real strategic cost on Beijing, or it indirectly finances the war that is destroying Ukraine.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist