The recent leak of an internal Russian FSB document labelling China as “the enemy” by The New York Times and made public around June 9, 2025 raises not only questions about the nature of the Russia-China relationship but also highlights a deeper strategic undercurrent: The possibility that Western intelligence services are deliberately shaping a narrative to undermine and divide perceived adversaries.
The timing and dissemination of this leak, emerging through a major Western outlet and drawing attention to alleged distrust between Moscow and Beijing, suggest that it may serve more as an instrument of influence than as a neutral revelation of truth.
At the heart of this possibility lies the West’s long-standing concern over the consolidation of ties between China and other global powers, particularly Russia and elements within Europe.
As China expands its global reach through economic partnerships, infrastructure investments, and diplomatic engagement, the West faces the risk of losing strategic leverage. The deepening of Sino-Russian ties especially in the face of coordinated Western sanctions and geopolitical pressure, presents a credible alternative power axis.
Even more unsettling for Western planners is the potential for China to strengthen relations with European countries through trade, technology, and climate diplomacy. Such developments would undermine the cohesion of the Western alliance system and complicate efforts to contain Chinese influence.
By amplifying or leaking a document that suggests hidden fractures between Russia and China, Western actors may aim to sow mistrust not only between those two countries but also between China and prospective European partners. The leak projects the idea that even Moscow, China’s closest geopolitical partner in recent years, does not trust Beijing and is actively defending itself against Chinese infiltration and espionage. This portrayal not only serves to embarrass both nations publicly but also provides a cautionary narrative to countries that may be weighing closer ties with China. The message is subtle but clear: China cannot be trusted, even by its allies.
This tactic reflects a familiar pattern in modern intelligence and information warfare. Influence campaigns are not always blatant, they are often subtle, structured to create psychological dissonance and long-term doubt rather than immediate political fallout. By weaponizing selective truths or internal documents, intelligence services can construct alternative realities that serve strategic interests. In this case, the West benefits from any perceived fragmentation within the China-Russia bloc. It also benefits from discouraging neutral or non-aligned countries especially in Europe from embracing closer economic or technological cooperation with Beijing.
Importantly, this approach does not require the document to be fabricated. It could very well be a real FSB analysis, taken out of its original context and strategically surfaced. Intelligence agencies routinely plan for worst-case scenarios, and mutual surveillance between allies is far from uncommon. The United States and Israel, for instance, have engaged in espionage against one another despite their close alliance. Thus, the existence of Russian counterintelligence concerns about China does not, on its own, imply a breakdown of the bilateral relationship. However, the framing and publicity of such concerns when intentionally leaked can shift perception and influence international behavior.
The leak, therefore, operates less as a revelation and more as a signal. It tells Western audiences that the anti-Western alliance is weaker than it appears, and it tells countries on the fence about China that caution is warranted. Even if the operational relationship between Moscow and Beijing continues uninterrupted, the psychological and diplomatic effects of the leak could ripple outward, achieving strategic outcomes for those who benefit from division among their rivals.
In this light, the FSB document should be read not only as a security briefing but as a potential tool of narrative warfare. Its release plays into broader efforts to project fragmentation within the East while reinforcing the idea that the West, despite its internal challenges, still controls the informational high ground.
Whether the leak originated from inside Russia, was obtained and disseminated by Western services, or came from another actor entirely, its purpose aligns closely with the goals of those who fear deeper China-Europe collaboration and aim to prevent it.
By Dimitrios Pappas
Sociologist – Author
