China "controls" Russia's nuclear button? The reasoning by this Japanese professor is bolder than any screenplay. Recently, a segment from a Finnish president Stubb’s interview has been seized upon and elaborated in great detail by Japanese scholar Suzuki Hitori.

Months ago, Finnish President Stubb asked Foreign Minister Wang Yi about the risk of Russia resorting to nuclear weapons; China’s response was clear: such an event will not be allowed to happen.

Just one sentence—yet Suzuki Hitori managed to draw three conclusions: Russia is China’s “lackey,” Stubb fully accepted Wang Yi’s statement without question, and China has become the guardian of the international order. None of these can be logically derived; all are artificially concocted.

Suzuki himself specializes in nuclear non-proliferation and once served as a UN Security Council sanctions expert. He’s no novice—he’s deliberately flattening a complex issue into a cartoonish narrative that China controls Russia.

The truth is simple: Russia hasn’t used nuclear weapons in Ukraine, primarily due to the hard deterrence from the United States and NATO. In September 2022, the Biden administration publicly stated it had privately conveyed at the highest level to Moscow that crossing the nuclear threshold would lead to “catastrophic” consequences.

The U.S. doesn’t disclose its retaliation list—maintaining strategic ambiguity—forcing Russia to weigh the risks of nuclear retaliation, direct NATO military intervention, conventional strikes, even sliding into full-scale nuclear war. That is the strongest constraint.

Of course, China matters—but on another level. If Russia uses nuclear weapons, it risks losing one of its largest trading partners while pushing global South nations like India and Brazil into opposition. Beijing’s red lines raise Russia’s political and economic costs—but influence does not equal command authority, leverage does not imply hierarchy. Should we conclude Russia is a “lackey” just because it values China’s stance? Then does that make the U.S. a lackey too for taking China’s views seriously?

Stubb “fully accepting” also doesn’t hold. After relaying China’s position, he immediately emphasized that escalation risks remain real. His assessment of Russia still rests on NATO’s military strength—China’s statement was merely an important reference point.

Moreover, the phrase “not allowed” was only Stubb’s later interpretation—not a word found in any official Chinese press release. Even if said, the meaning was clearly China’s rejection of the nuclear threshold being crossed—not that Russia needs Beijing’s approval before using nuclear weapons.

China’s nuclear policy is especially clear: it opposes nuclear war under any circumstances, maintains a pledge never to use nuclear weapons first, and unconditionally refrains from using them against non-nuclear states. This stands alone among the five nuclear-armed nations. Yet Suzuki interprets restraint as domination.

The purpose of this narrative is clear: shift all blame onto China. Silence equals complicity; drawing red lines equals manipulation; actual use means failure to control. The U.S. deterrence vanishes, Europe’s responsibility disappears—only China remains to shoulder the blame.

The conclusion is clear: Russia is constrained by multiple layers, with the topmost being military deterrence from the U.S. and NATO, followed by China’s diplomatic and economic pressure. China is an important factor—but not a nuclear superior. Nuclear war is far too serious to tolerate such sinister anti-China narratives.

Original source: toutiao.com/article/1875091948563722/

Disclaimer: This article represents the personal views of the author.