China to Putin: No Nuclear Weapons, Zelenskyy Claims

Chinese leaders privately warned Russia not to even consider using nuclear weapons in Ukraine, according to a striking claim made by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. If accurate, it would represent the clearest known example of Beijing directly intervening with Moscow over the conduct of the war.

The claim, reportedly supported by Western officials speaking to Bloomberg, suggests that despite their much-publicised "no limits" partnership, China may have drawn a firm red line when it comes to nuclear escalation.

Zelenskyy Reveals Alleged Chinese Warning

Speaking during an online press briefing, Zelenskyy said China had delivered what he described as an ultimatum-like message after discussions emerged in Russia about the possible use of tactical nuclear weapons.

He said Russian media had openly speculated about responding to Ukrainian attacks with nuclear strikes before Beijing stepped in.

According to Zelenskyy, China's message was unequivocal: there should be "no thought whatsoever" of using nuclear weapons.

The Ukrainian leader said he learned of the intervention during meetings with European leaders at the recent NATO summit in Ankara, where China's role in the conflict was discussed alongside President Donald Trump and other Western leaders. He declined to provide further details about the private discussions.

Bloomberg Says Western Officials Confirmed the Message

Bloomberg later reported that senior Chinese officials confirmed to at least one Western government that such a warning had indeed been passed to Moscow.

According to European officials familiar with the discussions, Russia's potential use of tactical nuclear weapons was also raised during meetings between NATO leaders and Zelenskyy.

If confirmed, the revelation would mark a rare instance of China directly attempting to influence Russian military decision-making during the war.

Growing Strains Between Beijing and Moscow

The report also adds to growing evidence that the Russia-China relationship is becoming more complicated than public statements suggest.

While Presidents Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping continue to present a united front internationally, recent intelligence leaks indicate that Russian security agencies increasingly view China as both a strategic partner and an intelligence threat.

An internal planning document reportedly originating from Russia's Federal Security Service (FSB), published earlier this year, claimed Chinese intelligence agencies have intensified efforts to recruit Russian officials, scientists, military experts and business leaders.

The document also alleged Beijing was seeking classified information on Russian military operations in Ukraine, advanced defence technologies and Moscow's long-term ambitions in the Arctic.

Perhaps most revealing, the leaked guidance reportedly instructed Russian counterintelligence officers to increase surveillance of Chinese espionage activities while avoiding any actions that might damage political relations with Beijing.

That suggests the Kremlin recognises China's intelligence activities but considers maintaining the broader strategic partnership more important than confronting them publicly.

Why Beijing May Be Concerned

China has repeatedly stated since the start of the war that nuclear weapons must never be used in Ukraine.

Beijing's position is driven not only by humanitarian concerns but also by the enormous economic consequences that any nuclear escalation would create.

A Russian tactical nuclear strike would almost certainly trigger an unprecedented international response, dramatically escalate the conflict and severely disrupt global trade, financial markets and energy supplies.

For China, whose economy depends heavily on international commerce and stability, such an outcome would carry enormous strategic and economic costs.

Ukraine's Expanding Strike Campaign

The reported warning comes as Ukraine continues expanding long-range attacks deep inside Russian-controlled territory.

Ukrainian drones and missiles have increasingly targeted oil refineries, rail networks, ports, energy infrastructure and military logistics, placing growing economic and military pressure on Moscow.

Russian officials, including Putin himself, have repeatedly suggested since 2022 that nuclear weapons remain an option if Russia's territorial integrity is deemed to be under threat.

As Ukrainian strikes become more effective, some pro-Kremlin commentators have argued those attacks could meet that threshold.

Whether Moscow has seriously considered crossing the nuclear line remains unknown. However, if Zelenskyy's account is accurate, it appears Beijing wanted to make one point unmistakably clear: China would not support such a move.

A Claim That Awaits Full Verification

Zelenskyy's account is significant because it is partially echoed by reporting that Western officials were told China delivered such a message. However, neither Beijing nor Moscow has publicly confirmed that a private warning was issued, and the precise content, timing and diplomatic context of the alleged communication remain unverified.

If further evidence emerges, it could reveal one of the most important behind-the-scenes diplomatic interventions since Russia's full-scale invasion began.

SOURCE

A current "tactical" nuke can yield from five to just under 200 kilotons. Hiroshima (Uranium "Little Boy") was ~12-15kt yield while Nagasaki (Plutonium "Fat Man") was ~20 kt and a third, un-dropped (and unnamed as far as I can recall) was basically a clone of Fat Man so expected to yield the same, ~20-25kt.

We don't want Russia who, conservatively has 1500-2000 of these things, to start dropping gravity weapons or launching missiles with nuclear warheads around.

"That would be bad."

- Dr Egon Spengler

Edited July 15Jul 15 by The Oracle

Used to be it was the US who made major international policy mandates like this. Can you imagine 47 making such a similar statement? The world would merely laugh, and they're not even doing it behind closed doors any more.

The US was very competitive on the world stage until this fat turd 47 took over. China is slowly, steadily taking over. Two aggressive steps forward, one feigned step back. People take Xi seriously. Not so the US guy.

Edited July 15Jul 15 by HappyExpat57

43 minutes ago, The Oracle said:

A current "tactical" nuke can yield from five to just under 200 kilotons. Hiroshima (Uranium "Little Boy") was ~12-15kt yield while Nagasaki (Plutonium "Fat Man") was ~20 kt and a third, un-dropped (and unnamed as far as I can recall) was basically a clone of Fat Man so expected to yield the same, ~20-25kt.

We don't want Russia who, conservatively has 1500-2000 of these things, to start dropping gravity weapons or launching missiles with nuclear warheads around.

"That would be bad."

- Dr Egon Spengler

Gravity weapon?? What's that?

19 minutes ago, emptypockets said:

Gravity weapon?? What's that?

Unpropelled ordnance: bombs or non-explosive delivery systems; either dumb or guided (smart).

"Dumb" is exactly how it sounds. Think of a WWII 250 or 500lb bomb hanging under a the wing of a P51 Mustang or a Hurricane.

"Smart" are those you may have seen footage of, especially those commentaried by General "Stormin'" Norman Schwarzkopf, dropping laser-guided bombs into the ventilation system shafts of the bunker of his opposing general in Iraq. They have fins which change mid-descent to change aspect/glide to ensure they land where targetted. There are also GPS guided bombs that use the same in-flight aiming system.

There was talk of dumb or smart spent-uranium "spears" being dropped from a supersonic or possibly even hypersonic missile or bomber. They would literally just fall out of the sky, using gravity to accelerate them to about 800-1100 km/h (500 to 725 mph) just under the speed of sound. At that speed, with no explosive payload apart from 200kg of kinetic energy at fk-knows how many feet per second, not much will survive that: tanks, buildings, ships, infrastructure.
If a hypersonic (mach 5+) missile is used, it could hit the target at anywhere from ~1400-5000 km/h to basically penetrate, well, anything. And keep going.

Edited July 15Jul 15 by The Oracle

2 minutes ago, The Oracle said:

Unpropelled ordnance: bombs or non-explosive delivery systems; either dumb or guided (smart).

"Dumb" is exactly how it sounds. Think of a WWII 250 or 500lb bomb hanging under a the wing of a P51 Mustang or a Hurricane.

"Smart" are those you may have seen footage of, especially those commentaried by General "Stormin'" Norman Schwarzkopf, dropping laser-guided bombs into the ventilation system shafts of the bunker of his opposing general in Iraq. They have fins which change mid-descent to change aspect/glide to ensure they land where targetted. There are also GPS guided bombs that use the same guidanc system.

There was talk of dumb or smart spent-uranium "spears" being dropped from a supersonic or possibly even hypersonic missile or bomber. They would literally just fall out of the sky, using gravity to accelerate them to about 800-1100 km/h (500 to 725 mph) just under the speed of sound. At that speed, with no explosive payload apart from 200kg of kinetic energy at fk-knows how many feet per second, not much will survive that: tanks, buildings, ships, infrastructure.
If a hypersonic (mach 5+) missile is used, it could hit the target at anywhere from ~1400-5000 km/h to basically penetrate, well, anything. And keep going.

Thanks for that

I did Google gravity bomb and it said it was a science fiction device that increases the gravity of the target to the extent it collapses under its own gravity.

Just now, emptypockets said:

Thanks for that

I did Google gravity bomb and it said it was a science fiction device that increases the gravity of the target to the extent it collapses under its own gravity.

Fair call.
Now, that's a far more interesting weapon. But the physics would require that you discharge the weapon (if a beam) or deployed (if a device) to the target from some considerable dstance, depending on the gravity and when the increase stops. If aimed at a person on earth, they'd "squish" at about 50g. But and a more substantial structure like a car or tank, I'd hate tot think. And the energy requirement would be astronomical (pun intended).

Of course, going waaay out into science fiction, if a beam was aimed at, say, a moon and the gravity increase didn't stop, it'd turn into a black hole and suck in everything from light years around it.
And that would be cool.

There's also the projectile that the Chinese, allegedly, are or have developed. It's based on magnetic linear acceleration similar to what the latest aircraft carriers use to accelerate aircraft off the flight deck.

Imagine a fridge coming at you at 2000 km/h with no heat signature to aid tracking it.

11 minutes ago, The Oracle said:

Fair call.
Now, that's a far more interesting weapon. But the physics would require that you discharge the weapon (if a beam) or deployed (if a device) to the target from some considerable dstance, depending on the gravity and when the increase stops. If aimed at a person on earth, they'd "squish" at about 50g. But and a more substantial structure like a car or tank, I'd hate tot think. And the energy requirement would be astronomical (pun intended).

Of course, going waaay out into science fiction, if a beam was aimed at, say, a moon and the gravity increase didn't stop, it'd turn into a black hole and suck in everything from light years around it.
And that would be cool.

I'm not sure that "cool" is the term I would favour!

11 minutes ago, The Oracle said:

Fair call.
Now, that's a far more interesting weapon. But the physics would require that you discharge the weapon (if a beam) or deployed (if a device) to the target from some considerable dstance, depending on the gravity and when the increase stops. If aimed at a person on earth, they'd "squish" at about 50g. But and a more substantial structure like a car or tank, I'd hate tot think. And the energy requirement would be astronomical (pun intended).

Of course, going waaay out into science fiction, if a beam was aimed at, say, a moon and the gravity increase didn't stop, it'd turn into a black hole and suck in everything from light years around it.
And that would be cool.

The sun could turn into a black hole tomorrow and the only thing we would notice is a lack of light after 8.5 minutes. The sun's mass wouldn't change so the gravitational effect on space-time remains the same. The Earth and all the other planets would continue in their present orbits.

Mind you it would get pretty cold fairly fast for us. Then we die along with everything else on the planet.

Edited July 15Jul 15 by emptypockets

10 minutes ago, emptypockets said:

The sun could turn into a black hole tomorrow and the only thing we would notice is a lack of light after 8.5 minutes. The sun's mass wouldn't change so the gravitational effect on space-time remains the same. The Earth and all the other planets would continue in their present orbits.

Mind you it would get pretty cold fairly fast for us. Then we die along with everything else on the planet.

Hahah!
Okay, astrophysics (obviously) isn't my strong point BUT if the sun didn't turn into a black hole but the gravity it had increased, say, 10,000-fold would that not then change the orbit of planets out of their current areas and bring them closer to it?

EDIT: okay but maybe just until they explode themselves and I assume the mass of the planets combined wouldn't be enough to increase the sun's noticeably in comparison to its current mass.
Mass vs Garvity. Ugh!

(Waits for someone to say "Off Topic) LOL

Edited July 15Jul 15 by The Oracle
EDIT

If Russia uses nuclear weapons in Ukraine, it will be a repeat of World War II, when, amid a major war in Europe, one English-speaking country sat back and won.

Therefore, if Russia strikes Ukraine or Europe with nuclear weapons, there will be a huge drinking bout in Washington. After all, even a fool can see who will emerge victorious from such a war.

19 minutes ago, zmisha said:

Therefore, if Russia strikes Ukraine or Europe with nuclear weapons, there will be a huge drinking bout in Washington. After all, even a fool can see who will emerge victorious from such a war.

Please, enlighten me. Who will emerge as the winner?

Russia, Europe, China?

USA? "there will be a huge drinking bout in Washington."

Sorry for my stupid questioning about using nuclear weapons to become the "winner".

39 minutes ago, zmisha said:

After all, even a fool can see who will emerge victorious from such a war.

Who will be left alive to emerge victorious from such a war?

Edited July 15Jul 15 by scottiejohn

25 minutes ago, Schoggibueb said:

Sorry for my stupid questioning about using nuclear weapons to become the "winner".

It's clear that the winner will be the one who stays on the sidelines and doesn't participate. Therefore, the day before this war begins, one overseas country will inevitably leave NATO.

Edited July 15Jul 15 by zmisha

20 minutes ago, zmisha said:

It's clear that the winner will be the one who stays on the sidelines and doesn't participate. Therefore, the day before this war begins, one overseas country will inevitably leave NATO.

Ok, I just wanted to be sure about this. It matches with an other post of yours.

"...prevent our overseas partners from siccing their European puppets on Russia, our shining leader Vlad will more actively help Iran become a global oil superpower."

So Vlad - your shining leader - will help Iran to become a global oil superpower. 🤭

The "shining leader" of the USA might leave NATO. That's his decision. But he will never "emerge victorious from such a war."

He is a looser. Same as your "shining leader Vlad".

2 hours ago, emptypockets said:

There's also the projectile that the Chinese, allegedly, are or have developed. It's based on magnetic linear acceleration similar to what the latest aircraft carriers use to accelerate aircraft off the flight deck.

Imagine a fridge coming at you at 2000 km/h with no heat signature to aid tracking it.

It'd have to have a way to hide the heat produced by air resistance, but I get your point.

"Stealth" projectiles from a railgun would be a bit difficult ( nah, effin impossible) to evade or intercept over short distances like line-of-sight - the horizon.

The ballistic version, however, could be a handful over distance of what, around 60-120 nm? There's just no time. After that our friends Gravity and Air Resistance comes into play for railgun-launched projectiles.
Unlike the hypersonic (fuelled) weapon systems using long-arc (laser targeted by satellite or drone - GPS is too slow) target systems which maintain velocity, the longer distances lead to longer time for trajectory mapping for the defendermas they slow.
One of the major problems for defense system is that these things travel faster than an explosion put in front of it, so even currently-known proximity defenses are useless. Fuelled hypersonic weapon systems are more dangerous for over-the-horizon targeting than electromagnetically launched projectiles, but I wouldn't want to be in/on/under/around a target of a railgun in a line-of-sight situation.

2 hours ago, The Oracle said:

Hahah!
Okay, astrophysics (obviously) isn't my strong point BUT if the sun didn't turn into a black hole but the gravity it had increased, say, 10,000-fold would that not then change the orbit of planets out of their current areas and bring them closer to it?

EDIT: okay but maybe just until they explode themselves and I assume the mass of the planets combined wouldn't be enough to increase the sun's noticeably in comparison to its current mass.
Mass vs Garvity. Ugh!

(Waits for someone to say "Off Topic) LOL

If the sun's gravity increased by any amount the earth's orbit would change. If it increased by 10,000 good night solar system.

What about all the corruption in Ukraine ? Where soldiers are required to pay for their gear before getting killed on the front lines, despite all the multi billion dollar aid from the guilable Europeans ?

Maybe Putin could Donnie to nuke Ukraine before the election to distract from his failing war in Iran.

Two birds, one nuke

8 minutes ago, The Oracle said:

It'd have to have a way to hide the heat produced by air resistance, but I get your point.

"Stealth" projectiles from a railgun would be a bit difficult ( nah, effin impossible) to evade or intercept over short distances like line-of-sight - the horizon.

The ballistic version, however, could be a handful over distance of what, around 60-120 nm? There's just no time. After that our friends Gravity and Air Resistance comes into play for railgun-launched projectiles.
Unlike the hypersonic (fuelled) weapon systems using long-arc (laser targeted by satellite or drone - GPS is too slow) target systems which maintain velocity, the longer distances lead to longer time for trajectory mapping for the defendermas they slow.
One of the major problems for defense system is that these things travel faster than an explosion put in front of it, so even currently-known proximity defenses are useless. Fuelled hypersonic weapon systems are more dangerous for over-the-horizon targeting than electromagnetically launched projectiles, but I wouldn't want to be in/on/under/around a target of a railgun in a line-of-sight situation.

There is always the option of the B52 sized transporter releasing 100,000 AI intelligent drones 500 miles or so from the target and using overwhelming numbers to evade any defence system. If only 10% get through could still do a lot of damage. Probably the future if warfare.

Saw a video years ago, a hypothetical situation, where a lecturer showed a hundred AI powered drones with visual recognition flew into the lecture hall, and targetted/ <deleted> specific students. That was 20 years ago.

11 minutes ago, Sigmund said:

What about all the corruption in Ukraine ? Where soldiers are required to pay for their gear before getting killed on the front lines, despite all the multi billion dollar aid from the guilable Europeans ?

Pleàe do expand on this.

7 minutes ago, Sigmund said:

What about all the corruption in Ukraine ? Where soldiers are required to pay for their gear before getting killed on the front lines, despite all the multi billion dollar aid from the guilable Europeans ?

You wrote that wrong.

Soldiers paying privatly for their gears came from the Z-Army. Because corruption is a stable constant in the russian confederation.

Corruption Index:

https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2025

17 minutes ago, Sigmund said:

What about all the corruption in Ukraine ? Where soldiers are required to pay for their gear before getting killed on the front lines, despite all the multi billion dollar aid from the guilable Europeans ?

Could you please provide credible evidence to support this claim?

2 hours ago, zmisha said:

If Russia uses nuclear weapons in Ukraine, it will be a repeat of World War II, when, amid a major war in Europe, one English-speaking country sat back and won.

Therefore, if Russia strikes Ukraine or Europe with nuclear weapons, there will be a huge drinking bout in Washington. After all, even a fool can see who will emerge victorious from such a war.

Clever of the Americans to set Europe against Russia (by couping Ukraine in 2014) while selling expensive US gas to the Europeans.
Us also uses Israel to cause problems for China's oil supply.

NPCs on here raised on cold war propoganda are completely clueless.

3 hours ago, emptypockets said:

The sun could turn into a black hole tomorrow and the only thing we would notice is a lack of light after 8.5 minutes. The sun's mass wouldn't change so the gravitational effect on space-time remains the same. The Earth and all the other planets would continue in their present orbits.

Mind you it would get pretty cold fairly fast for us. Then we die along with everything else on the planet.

The sun is far too small to turn into a black hole.

7 minutes ago, Sophon said:

The sun is far too small to turn into a black hole

9 minutes ago, Sophon said:

The sun is far too small to turn into a black hole.

Correct, but it was hypothetical.

10 minutes ago, Sigmund said:

What about all the corruption in Ukraine ? Where soldiers are required to pay for their gear before getting killed on the front lines, despite all the multi billion dollar aid from the guilable Europeans ?

Wow!
How to say to the public you have no idea how Military Aid works.

Of course they don't pay for their equipment.
American armed forces personnel (I assume you're American) as are many Western countries' personnel, are financially responsible for loss and damage due to damage or loss though incompetence, theft and so on, but not for loss and damage in combat. And they don't pay upfront. either.

And, using your Ukraine example, er, as an example: the "military aid" sent to Ukraine is actual, physical ordnance and other physical materiel made in the United Sates of America or European countries, employing hundreds of thousands of people. The US military aid actually employs Americans!

What did you think happened, they fly pallets of cash to Kyiv and Zelenskyy goes to the Donetsk branch of "Patriot Missiles 'r' Us" and hands over $4m per unit?

Sure, there was money sent as well, but not in pallets of cash to be thrown about by Ukrainian NAzis or Communists (depending upon which theory you subscribe to) it allows transfers of moneys from the USA to Ukraine's European allies to purchase military equipment, food, and to assist in maintaining its armed forces, communication, and essential infrastructure.

Is there waste, fraud, and abuse? No doubt.
But you think the Europeans are "gullible"?

Read your own post.

A bit off topic , at this moment on France LCI political TV chain are talking about all the Bolivian , Peruvian and Vénézuélien men being recruited by the US for jobs. As it turns out they end up on the front. There have been interviews and reports of families currently looking for their sons and husbands. The men were promised 16 000 $.

Russia must be in a very bad way and Putin can’t fix it.

Teheran main square has a mega publicity board depicting Trump dead in a coffin surrounded by a lot of graffiti.