- Chinese President Xi Jinping privately warned former U.S. President Donald Trump that Putin might regret the Ukraine invasion.
- A private phone call between Xi and Trump in mid-2023 offered a rare glimpse into Beijing’s assessments of the war.
- Xi’s comment suggested a more nuanced internal stance on the conflict than China’s public neutrality.
- Beijing’s private assessments of the war raise questions about China’s strategic calculus with Russia and the West.
- China maintains public neutrality in the Ukraine conflict but may have quietly distanced itself from Russia.
What did China’s leader really think about Russia’s war in Ukraine—and when did he say it? A startling revelation has emerged from a previously undisclosed conversation between Chinese President Xi Jinping and former U.S. President Donald Trump, suggesting that Beijing may have quietly distanced itself from Moscow even as it maintains public neutrality. According to sources familiar with the exchange, which reportedly took place in mid-2023 during a private phone call, Xi told Trump that Russian President Vladimir Putin might come to ‘regret’ launching the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The remark, if confirmed, offers a rare glimpse into Beijing’s private assessments of the war and raises questions about China’s strategic calculus as it navigates its alliance with Russia amid deepening tensions with the West.
What Did Xi Tell Trump About the Ukraine War?
During a confidential conversation in 2023, Xi Jinping reportedly told Donald Trump that Vladimir Putin could ultimately ‘regret’ his decision to invade Ukraine. While China has consistently presented itself as a neutral party in the conflict, abstaining from UN votes condemning Russia and rejecting direct criticism of Moscow, this private comment suggests a more nuanced internal stance. According to individuals briefed on the call, Xi did not express outright condemnation of Russia, but his remark implied a recognition of the war’s strategic miscalculation and its long-term consequences for Russian power. The conversation reportedly occurred amid growing Chinese concern over the economic and diplomatic costs of supporting Russia, including secondary sanctions and strained relations with Europe. This behind-the-scenes assessment contrasts sharply with China’s public rhetoric, which often echoes Kremlin narratives about NATO expansion and Western provocation.
What Evidence Supports This Account?
The details of the Xi-Trump conversation were first reported by Reuters in April 2024, citing multiple individuals with knowledge of the exchange. While neither the Chinese nor U.S. governments have officially confirmed the call, the reporting aligns with broader shifts in China’s foreign policy posture. Beijing has increased its diplomatic outreach to European capitals and expressed interest in peace initiatives, including hosting talks between Ukrainian and Russian officials—though Kyiv has remained skeptical of China’s neutrality. Additionally, Chinese state media has subtly shifted tone, with some outlets highlighting the economic toll of the war on Russia. As the BBC has noted, China’s trade with Russia has surged, but its leadership appears wary of being dragged into deeper geopolitical isolation by Moscow’s actions.
Are There Alternative Interpretations of Xi’s Remark?
Some analysts caution against reading too much into Xi’s reported comment, arguing that it may have been a tactical observation rather than a genuine rebuke of Putin. From this perspective, Xi’s suggestion that Putin might ‘regret’ the war could reflect a realist assessment of military outcomes, not a moral or strategic rejection of the invasion. China continues to supply Russia with dual-use technologies and has blocked efforts at the UN Security Council to hold Moscow accountable. Moreover, the reported suggestion by Trump that the U.S. and China should co-operate with Russia against the International Criminal Court (ICC)—which issued an arrest warrant for Putin over allegations of war crimes—further complicates the picture. Such a proposal, if made, would represent a dramatic departure from U.S. policy and underscores the unpredictable nature of informal diplomacy between global leaders operating outside official channels.
How Could This Affect Global Alliances and Diplomacy?
The revelation of this private exchange could have lasting implications for international relations. If China is privately signaling doubts about Russia’s war, it may open diplomatic space for Western efforts to fracture the Moscow-Beijing alignment. European leaders might view this as an opportunity to engage Beijing as a potential mediator, though skepticism remains high given China’s material support for Russia. Domestically, the report could influence U.S. political discourse, especially as Trump remains a leading candidate in the 2024 presidential race. His reported openness to collaborating with authoritarian leaders on anti-ICC initiatives may face scrutiny from both foreign policy hawks and human rights advocates. Meanwhile, Ukraine sees any backchannel discussions involving its sovereignty as potentially dangerous, particularly if they occur without Kyiv’s participation or consent.
What This Means For You
For global citizens, this episode underscores how much of international diplomacy happens beyond public view—and how private remarks can reveal strategic truths that official statements conceal. It suggests that even close authoritarian alliances have limits and that leaders may privately acknowledge miscalculations they won’t admit publicly. As the war in Ukraine enters its third year, understanding these hidden dynamics is crucial for assessing the future of global security, energy markets, and the rules-based international order. The idea that Xi Jinping might see Putin’s war as a strategic blunder could signal a quiet recalibration in Beijing’s foreign policy.
But how much weight should we give to unconfirmed reports of private conversations between world leaders? And if China is indeed reconsidering its support for Russia, what would it take for Beijing to translate private skepticism into public action? These questions remain open as the world watches for signs of a shifting geopolitical landscape.
Source: Financial Times