Russian propaganda abounds in Chinese social media debate on Ukraine

A new analysis suggests that Beijing may be tolerating or even encouraging toxic discourse to undermine the moral and political authority of Kyiv and its Western supporters, says Yurii Poita, MERICS Senior Associate Fellow and Head of the Asia Section at Kyiv-based New Geopolitics Research Network (NGRN).

While the Chinese government likes to present itself as “objective and impartial” regarding the Russia-Ukraine war, the tone on Chinese social media is radically different. Influencers on Chinese online platform Weibo, many with millions of followers, regularly attack the Ukrainian government, attempt to drive a wedge between Kyiv and its European and US partners, portray Ukrainian armed forces and recruitment centers as “Nazi,” and justify documented Russian war crimes. Given the links between these opinion leaders and the Chinese state, and the characteristics of China’s media system, this may be driven by an information strategy tolerated or even encouraged by Beijing.  

Analysis by the New Geopolitics Research Network in cooperation with the Taiwanese nonprofit Doublethink Lab demonstrates a striking contrast in how Ukraine is portrayed in China’s traditional media and its social media. In keeping with Beijing’s self-proclaimed neutrality towards the war, established publications sympathize with Russia with controlled restraint – for example, by blaming NATO for creating a “security dilemma” for Russia. In comparison, social media rhetoric is markedly more aggressive and hostile towards Ukraine. An analysis of 1,800 posts on Weibo – from verified accounts with at least 100,000 followers over the past year – reveals consistently toxic discourse structured around four recurring narratives about the war between Russia and Ukraine.

Narrative 1 – Ukraine is a Western proxy run by a charlatan

The government of Ukraine is consistently portrayed as a puppet of the West that long ago lost its sovereignty, is no longer regarded as an independent subject of international law, and whose military affairs are controlled by NATO member states’ militaries and intelligence services. Chinese social-media influencers often depict the government’s purported failings as personified by President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. He is variously described as a clown, illegitimate, a drug addict and a political usurper. And he is portrayed as opposing peace, undermining Russia’s peace initiatives and sacrificing the Ukrainian people for personal gain. Zelenskyy’s visits to European capitals are described as attempts to ingratiate himself and beg for even more money to finance the war.

Another example is Zelenskyy’s recent initiative to send interceptor drones to Persian Gulf countries, which is framed as theatrical posturing, a desperate display of loyalty to US President Donald Trump, irrational, bluffing and outright begging – while Ukraine itself is portrayed as an “accomplice of evil” assisting Israel and a foolish country that “declared war on Iran.” One influencer writes that “by trading drones for missiles instead of negotiating peace, that actor Zelenskyy is effectively trying to conclude a business deal.” Citing Iran, another one claims that “Zelenskyy is trying to deceive Middle Eastern countries by signing military agreements with them in order to seize their money.”

Narrative 2 – Ukrainian soldiers are deceitful “Nazis”

Many posts about the Ukrainian military accuse it of Nazi sympathies, violating ceasefires, terrorist attacks against Russia, trafficking children from Donbas, and killing its own soldiers. For example, the person behind the account Looking Up to the Marquis of Tiao (“仰止条侯”), which has 575,000 followers, writes: “Ukrainian troops shot dead two comrades who were trying to raise their hands and surrender in front of a Russian drone. This is said to be common practice in the Ukrainian army. They reportedly kill those who try to escape, using them as ‘cannon fodder.’”

A big focus is placed on Ukrainian recruitment, which is portrayed as illegal and inhumane. Its staff are called “Zelenskyy’s bandits” and compared to the Gestapo. Police and soldiers are depicted as beating civilians, including women and children, seizing people in the street with “devilish claws” and throwing them into the horror of war. The user The Elephant Moves Bricks (“大象搬砖“), who has 357,000 followers, writes: “Zelenskyy’s military mobilization thugs are grabbing men and sending them into Zelenskyy’s meat grinder. Their families try but fail to rescue them and then can only stay at home to watch Zelenskyy’s propaganda on TV – an ignorant and obedient country.”

Narrative 3 – Ukraine and its partners are drifting apart

Many pronouncements aim to weaken the trust and partnership between Ukraine and its Western allies. Stories are spread both to discredit Ukraine in the eyes of Europe and the US, and to undermine its confidence and destroy its faith in its partnership with the West. Widespread claims about “Ukraine fatigue” in Europe, for example, portray Ukraine as a parasitic burden on European resources, while simultaneously accusing Europe of not providing enough help. Russian propaganda outlet Ukraina.ru uses its Chinese-language page on Weibo to claim: “The Kyiv regime has never stopped biting the hand that feeds it […] Zelenskyy did not forget to accuse Western sponsors of delaying air defense missile supplies, shifting responsibility for Ukraine’s energy crisis onto its allies.”

Domestic political sentiments in Europe, especially in France, are presented as being increasingly opposed to financial support for Ukraine, which is portrayed as an “irrecoverable loan” that is depriving Europeans of resources they need for themselves. Narratives also claim that Zelenskyy is deliberately provoking Russia. The person behind the account Lawyer Luo Explains the Law (“罗爷说法-law”), which has 1.6 million followers, writes that “Ukraine’s attacks on Russian ports are playing with fire and could lead to self-destruction; this is an attempt to drag NATO in.”

Ukraine’s Western allies are also negatively portrayed as pursuing only their own strategic objectives, for example by seeking to exhaust Russia “to the last Ukrainian.” They are depicted as being on the verge of abandoning Ukraine and even plotting to eliminate Zelenskyy, in one version through a military coup by former Commander-in-Chief Valerii Zaluzhnyi with British support.

The reallocation of US resources towards Iran is portrayed as a betrayal of Kyiv. For example, Lawyer Luo Explains the Law states: “In the grand geopolitical game, ‘pawns’ often become bargaining chips. The Ukrainian issue is essentially viewed as a field of confrontation between the United States and Russia. Now that Washington is reassessing its priorities in light of interests in the Middle East, the authorities in Kyiv have naturally become political ‘ballast’! So-called ‘democratic solidarity’ ultimately gives way to pragmatic interests, stripping away its aura of idealism.” Many influencers suggest that if Ukraine refuses to make concessions, Western aid will stop and defeat will be quick.

Narrative 4 – Russian strikes are a response to “terrorism”

One widespread narrative claims that Russia is carrying out military strikes in response to Kyiv’s “terrorist attacks,” liberating territory from “Ukrainian Nazis” and receiving a warm welcome from the local “liberated” population. For example, one post justifies strikes on Kyiv, NATO facilities and personnel as retaliation for a Ukrainian attack on civilians in the Russian city of Tuapse. Another post interprets the war as a forced confrontation with NATO and the West, not a war of aggression: “Russia’s goals were never territorial but rather aimed at destroying the military capabilities of the West and its proxy armies in order to prevent harm to the interests of the Russian people.”

Russian attacks on Ukrainian civilian targets are justified by claims that mercenaries, US weapons, and “Ukrainian terrorists” are present there. The current suffering of the Ukrainian people is portrayed as deserved, the consequence of their participation in the “color revolution” of 2014. The general tone suggests that Russia is inexorably winning the war, enjoying superiority in all facets of the conflict, while the Ukrainian military is retreating and surrendering en masse.

Connections with the Chinese government

These Chinese narratives largely echo Russian disinformation about Ukraine, reproducing its characteristic vocabulary, including phrases such as “Kyiv regime,” “Ukrainian fascists” or “Zelenskyy the clown.” This suggests that Chinese influencers are systematically adopting Russian information approaches. Several factors suggest this is happening with at least tacit approval from the Chinese state, potentially as part of a broader information policy. Russia and China have, for one, signed several agreements in the information sphere, creating an institutional foundation for coordinated media interaction. While these agreements do not provide direct evidence of joint disinformation campaigns, they do ensure an environment conducive to aligning information approaches.

Secondly, Chinese social media platforms, particularly Weibo, host the official or affiliated pages of Russian media outlets such as Sputnik and “Ukraina.ru,” which systematically spread anti-Ukrainian narratives. The fact that these accounts operate freely and face no restrictions in China’s tightly controlled information environment at the very least suggests state tolerance for their activities. Some Chinese content, thirdly, reproduces messages not only from official Russian representatives but also from Russian military Telegram channels and information resources associated with Russian intelligence services and a broader disinformation system. For example, materials from the Russian outlet NewsFront, thought to be linked to Russian intelligence service, are frequently circulated.

Fourthly, Chinese influencers frequently focus on highly specific and sensitive topics, particularly the mobilization of Ukrainian troops. Selectivity, repetition and detail suggest deliberate framing. For example, posts regularly describe conflicts between recruitment centers and civilians in detail and systematically present them in a negative light. Given the high degree of state control over China’s information space, their mass dissemination raises questions about why they are permitted. This, lastly, suggests that cultivating critical or negative attitudes towards Ukraine among Chinese audiences may align with Beijing’s foreign policy, which as a result does not appear to be “objective and impartial.”