ANALYSIS: Trump Entrusts Peace in Ukraine to Xi Jinping, Putin’s Ally — The Riskiest Gamble of the Century

A Fact Sheet That Oms the Essentials

The Trump-Xi summit on May 12 and 13, 2026, was touted by Washington as a diplomatic success. Yet the official White House fact sheet released on May 18 made no mention of Ukraine or Xi’s remarks about Putin. It was the Financial Times that revealed that Xi had told Trump that Putin “might regret” invading Ukraine—an unprecedented remark, marking the first time a Chinese leader had offered such a personal assessment to a U.S. president on this subject.

Both the White House and the Chinese Embassy in Washington declined to comment. This silence speaks louder than any official statement. If Trump had secured a genuine commitment from Beijing, Washington would have claimed victory. The fact that he did not means that Xi’s promises were empty—or that they simply did not exist.

Trump also proposed an alliance against the International Criminal Court

According to the Financial Times, Trump also proposed at the same summit that the United States, China, and Russia unite against the International Criminal Court, arguing that their interests were aligned. This spectacular move—a U.S. president proposing a coalition with two authoritarian regimes against an international judicial institution—illustrates the depth of this administration’s strategic deviation.

In this context, asking Xi to help bring peace to Ukraine is not an isolated diplomatic act. It is an integral part of a worldview that delegitimizes Western institutions and legitimizes revisionist powers as the natural arbiters of the world order.

It is difficult for me to reconcile Trump the man with Trump the necessity. I understand the “necessary evil” argument—and it has its logic. But when that evil proposes that Beijing and Moscow join forces to destroy the International Criminal Court, we must call a spade a spade: it is a betrayal of Western values, even if it is unintentional.

Ukraine Presses On While Diplomats Dither

While Trump was begging Xi for help and Beijing was training Ukraine’s enemy soldiers, Volodymyr Zelensky continued to lead a country at war with a determination few leaders would have shown. In 2026, Ukrainian forces demonstrated a capacity to recapture territory not seen since the Kharkiv operation in 2022. Ukraine struck St. Petersburg with drones during the Russian Economic Forum—a striking symbol that Kyiv can now reach the symbolic heart of the Putin regime.

This context of Ukrainian progress on the ground is crucial to understanding the Trumpian paradox. Trump has been pressing Zelensky to negotiate for months, telling him in March 2026 to “get moving” as if the victim of an aggression were responsible for its own deliverance. Yet it is precisely at this moment that Ukraine best demonstrates its capacity for resistance—and even for victory.

An increasingly strong Ukrainian position, ignored by Washington

The June 2026 G7 summit in Évian-les-Bains concluded with a unified statement pledging “unwavering support” for Ukraine and committing an additional $4 billion in military aid, with an emphasis on Patriot interceptors, long-range artillery, and drones. Trump himself signed this declaration—proof that, under pressure from his allies, he recognizes the reality on the ground in Ukraine.

But the truth is that Ukraine did not need Washington to cave in to Beijing. It needed ammunition, air defense, and long-range strike systems—the tools that enable it to create the conditions for a just peace. Zelensky is not an obstacle to peace. He is the only possible condition for it, assuming that by “peace” we mean anything other than a disguised surrender.

I have been grappling with this reality since the start of this war: a single man, democratically elected, refuses to capitulate in the face of a nuclear power. Zelensky embodies something our democracies have lost—the conviction that values are worth dying for. It is breathtaking, and it is necessary.

Beijing Is Building Its Image as a Global “Stabilizer”

A Gallup poll published in 2025 covering more than 130 countries reveals that, for the first time in nearly two decades, China has surpassed the United States in global approval of its leadership: 36% versus 31%. This figure, analyzed by The Week in June 2026, illustrates a narrative dynamic that the West has been unable to counter. While Washington appeared to be disrupting the world order—through its trade wars, withdrawals from multilateral institutions, and pressure on Kyiv—Beijing positioned itself as a peacemaker.

This image is built on carefully cultivated lies. China played the same role with Iran: condemning U.S. strikes on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, offering to mediate, and pretending to contribute to a resolution. Experts at the Brookings Institution have noted this: China portrayed the United States as “the warmongers” and itself as the stabilizing force. Yet, according to the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA), “China’s indispensable support has enabled the Russian regime to sustain its war effort for more than four years despite unprecedented international sanctions.”

When Beijing’s Words Contradict Beijing’s Actions

Chinese duplicity reached new heights in 2026. On the one hand, Wang Yi asserted that China “has not supplied lethal weapons to either side” and “has enforced strict controls on dual-use items.” On the other hand, the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission (USCC) documents in a June 2026 report how Chinese companies remain among the leading suppliers of dual-use components to Russian defense firms.

According to The Diplomat, “a March 2026 ASPI report documented growing defense cooperation between China and Russia, with a surge in joint military exercises since the 2022 invasion.” And meanwhile, Beijing is offering to act as a guarantor of a peace agreement in Ukraine. Accepting this proposal would be tantamount to letting the arsonist oversee the reconstruction efforts.

There is something utterly chilling about China’s ability to say one thing and do the opposite, on a scale that even traditional dictatorships do not reach. This is realpolitik in its purest form, and we do not yet have the diplomatic antibodies to resist it.

Europe: Between Support for Ukraine and Dependence on Beijing

The European Council summit in Brussels on June 18 and 19, 2026, reaffirmed that “any peace settlement must be fair and lasting, based on the United Nations Charter and international law, and that Ukraine’s future cannot be decided without Ukraine.” This position is correct. It is even courageous in the current context. But Europe remains torn between its resolute support for Kyiv and its economic dependence on Beijing—particularly regarding rare earth metals, which China controls and has recently restricted for export, a move that has made Washington “very angry,” according to the SCMP.

This structural dependence is a weapon in the hands of Xi Jinping. By controlling the supply chains for rare earth metals—which are essential to both military and civilian technologies—China can influence Western decisions without firing a single shot. The trade war, sanctions, and counter-sanctions—all of this creates an environment in which the West negotiates from a position of weakness even when its values are at stake.

NATO Faces the Coalition of Autocrats

In June 2026, the CEPA published a report titled “The China-Russia Authoritarian Meta-Threat,” which clearly establishes that we are not facing two separate crises—Ukraine on one side, China on the other—but a single authoritarian power structure that includes Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. The presence of North Korean soldiers on the Ukrainian front lines, the training of Russian soldiers in China, and Iran’s supply of drones—all of this forms a coherent system.

In this context, the NATO summit in Ankara scheduled for July 2026 will be crucial. Germany has pledged 11 billion euros in aid to Ukraine and is working toward a defense spending target of 5% of GDP. France and the United Kingdom are spearheading the Coalition of the Willing initiative—a European security presence in Ukraine following a ceasefire. But all of this could be undermined if Washington legitimizes Beijing as the primary arbiter of the conflict.

I recall reading analyses from the late 1930s, when Western leaders thought they could “manage” Hitler by making concessions to him. I’m not drawing a simplistic comparison—but the pattern of legitimizing the aggressor through diplomatic appeasement is recognizable. And it should concern us.

Trumpian Logic and Its Internal Consistency

Let’s be honest. Trump’s strategy has an internal logic that his progressive opponents often refuse to acknowledge. According to a March 2026 Politico report, the Trump administration sincerely believes that ending the war in Ukraine could weaken the Russia-China alliance by reintegrating Moscow into the Western-dominated global economy. Fred Fleitz, former chief of staff at Trump’s National Security Council, sums it up: Trump “has pressured Putin to end the war in order to normalize Russia’s relations with the United States and Europe” and “correctly views the growing Russia-China alliance as a far greater threat to global security than the war in Ukraine.”

This view is not foolish. If Russia could be separated from China through a diplomatic agreement, it would indeed weaken the authoritarian bloc. The problem is that Putin has no interest in submitting to this agenda, and Xi has every interest in maintaining uncertainty to maximize his bargaining power.

The Limits of a Transactional Approach to International Law

Where Trump becomes downright dangerous is in his treatment of international law as a negotiable variable. His proposal for a U.S.–China–Russia coalition against the International Criminal Court is not trivial. It signals to regimes around the world that war crimes can be swept under the rug by a sufficiently advantageous trade deal. This amounts to the systematic destruction of the architecture of international accountability that the West spent decades building after 1945.

And therein lies the fundamental paradox: Trump can sometimes force through results that conventional diplomacy would never have achieved—his ceasefire agreement in the Middle East is a recent example. But the method erodes the very foundations upon which the West’s normative superiority over autocrats rests.

I am caught in this tension, and I accept it: Trump is a necessary evil who sometimes does useful things through toxic methods. The problem is that the toxic methods outlive the useful results. And it is the West that pays the price in the long run.

Reuters, the EU, and Documented Evidence

In May 2026, Reuters cited three European intelligence agencies and an agreement signed between China and Russia to reveal that the People’s Liberation Army had secretly trained approximately 200 Russian military personnel in late 2025, some of whom have since returned to fight in Ukraine. The training focused on drone warfare, electronic warfare, and armored infantry tactics. Facilities in Beijing, Nanjing, and other locations were used for this training.

These facts were officially confirmed on June 15, 2026, by Kaja Kallas during a press conference in Luxembourg: “We have now verified reports that the Chinese military trained Russian soldiers to fight in Ukraine. We are carefully assessing the implications.” At the same time, the EU imposed sanctions on two Chinese companies accused of supplying equipment linked to the Russian military-industrial complex.

Beijing’s Cynical Denial

Beijing’s response was immediate and predictable. Lin Jian, spokesperson for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, described these claims as “purely defamatory” and lacking “factual basis.” But this stance of absolute denial—regardless of how solid the evidence presented may be—has become the hallmark of Chinese communication. It does not seek to convince. It seeks to wear down. To create enough confusion so that every Western assertion eventually comes to seem like just one opinion among many.

This systematic denial deeply troubles me. Not because it’s surprising—it’s perfectly predictable—but because it works. A portion of global public opinion ends up believing that “the truth lies somewhere in the middle.” That is exactly what Beijing wants. And we haven’t yet figured out how to respond to it.

From Istanbul to Abu Dhabi: The Ongoing Impasse

Since Trump’s return to the White House in January 2025, several rounds of negotiations have been attempted. The trilateral talks in Abu Dhabi in January 2026 between the United States, Ukraine, and Russia resulted in an agreement to exchange 314 prisoners of war, but left fundamental political and security issues unresolved. The Istanbul talks in July 2025 ended without a ceasefire agreement. The Geneva talks in February 2026 yielded few concrete results.

The fundamental reason for this failure is that Russia maintains its maximum demands: recognition of the occupied territories, renunciation of NATO, and the “denazification” of Ukraine. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov published an essay in June 2026 reaffirming these positions, describing any European proposal as a “Western ultimatum.” These demands are not negotiating positions. They are conditions for surrender.

The May 2026 Ceasefire Attempt: A Failed Test

A three-day ceasefire attempted in May 2026, which called for an exchange of 1,000 prisoners on both sides, collapsed within a few days. According to analysts cited in June 2026, this failure is a direct empirical test: under current conditions, even a minimal ceasefire is not feasible. Any future proposal will have to take this reality into account, rather than treating it as an anomaly.

Every time I read the summary of these failed negotiations, I feel the same thing: Russia has never negotiated in good faith. Never. And yet, with each round, the West walks away hoping that “this time will be different.” I wish I were wrong. I am not wrong.

The Twelve Points That Fail to Address the Core Issues

In February 2023, China released a twelve-point document on “China’s Position on the Political Settlement of the Ukrainian Crisis.” This text calls for a ceasefire and the “cessation of unilateral sanctions” against Russia. It invokes sovereignty—but without demanding the withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukrainian territory. It claims neutrality, but includes Moscow’s fundamental demands.

In March 2026, during a meeting with Kaja Kallas, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi openly stated that China would not accept Russia losing this war in Ukraine. This is not neutrality. It is barely veiled support for the aggressor, cloaked in the language of multilateral diplomacy.

The International Mediation Organization: Beijing Creates Its Own UN

Perhaps the most alarming initiative is the one receiving the least attention. China has created an International Organization for Mediation—an alternative institutional framework to the UN’s conflict resolution mechanisms, designed to give Beijing an institutional role in global conflicts. Myanmar joined this “Group of Friends of Global Governance” in June 2026. Others will follow.

China is building an architecture parallel to the UN, with its own rules, its own arbiters, and its own definitions of peace and justice. If we allow this to happen without resistance, we cannot say we weren’t warned.

Does Beijing really have any influence over Moscow?

The fundamental question that few analysts ask openly is: Can Xi Jinping really force Putin to change his behavior? The answer is complex. On the one hand, Russia has become increasingly economically and technologically dependent on China since the Western sanctions of 2022. According to a June 2026 article in Charter97, “China does not need to formally annex Russian territory to dominate it. Economic dependence, financial leverage, and regional integration can achieve what military conquest once required.”

On the other hand, if Xi did indeed tell Trump that Putin “might regret” the invasion—as reported by the Financial Times—this marks the first time Beijing has issued such an assessment. But a private assessment is not diplomatic pressure. And Beijing clearly has an interest in the war continuing: it weakens Russia, makes it dependent, and absorbs the West’s resources and strategic attention.

Russia, a vassal of China that refuses to admit it

What is striking about the analysis of Sino-Russian relations in 2026 is the growing asymmetry. Russia had launched its invasion under the banner of restoring imperial greatness. It risks ending this war as China’s economic satellite, dependent on Beijing for its imports of electronics, industrial equipment, vehicles, and dual-use technologies. Putin, who dreamed of restoring the Russian empire, could go down in history as the man who turned Russia into an economic province of the Middle Kingdom.

There is something ironic and almost tragic about this trajectory: an autocrat who wanted to humiliate the West is now humiliating his own country by handing it over to Chinese domination. I do not pity Putin. I am simply observing that imperialisms devour one another.

The G7 Summit in Evian: Firm Stance on Paper, Tensions Behind the Scenes

The June 2026 G7 summit in Évian-les-Bains displayed a facade of unity. The joint statement acknowledged Ukraine’s improved position on the ground and pledged to accelerate the delivery of air defense systems, ammunition, and drones. Trump signed on—under pressure from his European allies. Behind the scenes, tensions remained deep.

The SABER Act, sponsored by a bipartisan coalition in the U.S. Senate including Tim Kaine, John Cornyn, and Chris Coons, seeks to use frozen Russian sovereign assets—some $300 billion—to directly fund the purchase of lethal military equipment for Ukraine. It is a bold initiative that forces Moscow to finance its own defeat.

Europe is organizing without the U.S., if necessary

Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and the Baltic states are moving forward with the “Coalition of the Willing” project—a European military presence in Ukraine to guarantee any future ceasefire agreement. The NATO summit in Ankara scheduled for July 2026 will be the moment of truth: either the Alliance reaffirms its strategic solidarity, or Trump uses this event to secure new concessions in favor of Moscow and Beijing.

I want to believe that Europe is learning. That the French, Germans, British, and Balts finally understand that their security cannot depend indefinitely on Washington’s goodwill. European strategic autonomy is no longer just a left-wing slogan. It is a matter of survival.

A just peace, not an imposed peace

The June 2026 European Council was very clear: “Ukraine’s future cannot be decided without Ukraine.” This principle seems obvious. Yet it is constantly being challenged by a Trump-style dynamic that treats Kyiv as a bargaining chip in a grand geopolitical bargain among the major powers.

A just peace requires the withdrawal of Russian forces from internationally recognized Ukrainian territories. It requires credible security guarantees for Ukraine—not a “Minsk II” agreement that would be violated within a few months. It requires mechanisms to hold those responsible for war crimes committed on Ukrainian territory accountable. None of these conditions can be guaranteed by a mediator who commands the aggressor’s soldiers.

The Question of Guarantees: The Gordian Knot

The Gordian knot of any negotiation remains security guarantees. Ukraine cannot accept a ceasefire without guarantees that protect it from a future invasion—given that the 1994 Budapest Agreements and the Minsk Agreements have been violated. The Ukrainian senator and the Zelenskyy government have proposed a timeline: a provisional agreement in March 2026, followed by a referendum coinciding with the elections in May. All of this requires a U.S. or European presence in Ukraine—not a U.S. withdrawal that amounts to diplomatic complicity with Beijing.

The issue of guarantees is the one that haunts me most in this analysis. Because peace without guarantees is not peace. It is a ceasefire that allows Russia to regroup for the next invasion. And no one can say that we did not learn that lesson in Minsk. No one.

The Systemic Risk of Legitimizing Beijing

Entrusting China with the role of arbiter in the Ukrainian peace process is not merely paradoxical. It is systemically dangerous. If Beijing secures this role—with Washington’s endorsement—it will become the indispensable point of reference for any future conflict. The next crisis in Taiwan, the next war in the South China Sea, the next clash between India and Pakistan: in all these cases, Beijing will be able to invoke its status as an arbiter to impose its vision of the world order—a vision that has nothing to do with Western democratic values.

The West must choose. It can let Trump handle peace in Ukraine as a deal with actors who couldn’t care less about international law. Or it can collectively defend the principle that aggressors do not deserve rewards, and that peacemakers cannot be the same as those who wage war.

Zelensky is holding out—and he’s doing it for all of us

Amid this bleak landscape, there is a light that refuses to go out: Volodymyr Zelensky and the Ukrainian people. They have been fighting for five years in a Ukraine that, by all accounts, should not have survived the first few weeks. They have recaptured territory. They have struck at the heart of Russia. They have put to shame all predictions of a swift capitulation. What they deserve in return is unequivocal support from the West, not a “grand bargain” with Beijing whose terms would be imposed on them from the outside.

The question we must ask ourselves collectively, in Europe and North America, is not “how to end this war as quickly as possible.” It is “how to end this war in such a way that there won’t be another one.” The answer to this question cannot come from Beijing.

Signed, Maxime Marquette, columnist