A deepening embrace since Russia's invasion of Ukraine signals a turnaround in the two countries' ties
China has supplied many of the drones and drone components used by Russia in the conflict.
China's staunch support for Russia's economy has helped Moscow survive: Dozens of countries have barred Russia from much of the global financial system, upending its economy at home.
China has had the opposite reaction to Russia's war on Ukraine.
'China-Russia relations represent the most stable, mature and strategically significant major-country relationship in the world today,' Wang Yi, China's Foreign Minister, said this month after meeting Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.
By backing Russia so enthusiastically, China's leaders have put new strain on their country's relationship with the European Union.
If Beijing had distanced itself from Moscow, Europe might have turned towards China as United States President Donald Trump threatened tariffs on European goods this year.
European Union leaders met Chinese officials last night NZT at a summit in Beijing.
They were expected to ask again that Xi Jinping, China's top leader, reduce China's economic and industrial support for Russia's war in Ukraine.
Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, said this month that China's stance on the war in Ukraine would be 'a determining factor' for the bloc's relations with Beijing.
'China's unyielding support for Russia is creating heightened instability and insecurity here in Europe,' she said.
'We can say that China is de facto enabling Russia's war economy — we cannot accept this.'
Shoppers take photos outside of a Russian-themed store in the border town of Manzhouli, in China's Inner Mongolia. China now makes 32% of the world's manufactured goods - more than the United States, Japan, Germany, South Korea, and Britain combined. Photo / Andrea Verdelli, the New York Times
Much of the trade between China and Russia has long run through Manzhouli.
Russia built a rail line through the city into northeastern China in 1900.
Today, trains and trucks from Russia cross into China, many of them carrying timber or freshly cut boards: pine for construction and furniture, white birch for chopsticks, aspen for framing concrete and sturdy elm for coal mine supports.
The flow underscores Russia's diminished economic position.
It is now functionally an economic satellite of China, dependent on Beijing for manufactured goods while selling raw materials that China could, if it wanted to, buy elsewhere.
Almost 6% of the entire Russian economy now consists of exports to China.
That is a proportion equalled by Iran, another country under international sanctions.
As part of pressure on Russia to accept a ceasefire, Trump threatened last week to impose high tariffs or other sanctions on countries trading with Russia, although he did not name China.
Manzhouli's official economic strategy — 'Russian supply, Chinese processing' — underlines Russia's evolution into a supplier of raw materials to China's vast manufacturing sector, which dwarfs Russia's own.
Russia depends on China for clothing, electronics, even cars. China's northbound exports have risen 71% since the start of the Ukraine war.
Visitors at Matryoshka Square, a theme park in the border town of Manzhouli. Much of the trade between China and Russia has long run through Manzhouli. Photo / Andrea Verdelli, the New York Times
The trade alliance shows up in other contexts, too.
State media in China has tilted strongly towards Russia in the Ukraine war.
Russian television channels have been gradually squeezing out American channels in Chinese hotels.
China's sympathies show up on store shelves in Manzhouli: Stalin-brand vodka and ground coffee are on sale, and one store even specialises in busts of past Soviet leaders and matryoshka dolls that resemble President Vladimir Putin.
The new embrace signals a turnaround in the two countries' relationship.
During the 1950s, Soviet advisers helped a mostly rural, underdeveloped China build many of its early steel mills, railroads and weapons factories.
Now, China produces 32% of the world's manufactured goods — more than the United States, Japan, Germany, South Korea, and Britain combined.
Russia's share of global manufacturing? It's just 1.33%, even including Russia's weapons production, according to the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation.
Trucks made in China parked at the border in Manzhouli. By late last summer, Chinese cars made up 60% of Russia's auto market, according to GlobalData Automotive. Photo / Andrea Verdelli, the New York Times
China is also benefitting from the imports.
By buying timber and other goods from Russia, through Manzhouli, Beijing has been able to avoid buying imports from the US and its allies.
China used to buy raw materials such as rapeseed from Canada, for example, but has shifted to purchasing more of these goods from Russia after Canada mostly sided with President Joe Biden last year and then with Trump in imposing higher tariffs on Chinese goods.
China retaliated against Canada by imposing tariffs of 100% on imports of canola oil and canola meal from Canada. China also began a trade case against Canadian rapeseed, targeting some of Canada's largest exports to China.
At the Manzhouli Xinfeng Grain and Oil Industry Limited Company, bright red forklift trucks move sacks of supplies. The highly automated factory, less than 1.5km from the border, removes the hulls from Russian rapeseed and presses them to make canola oil.
Huang Baoqiang, the managing director of a nearby lumber mill, said his company bought large quantities of timber from neighbouring Siberia and turned them into bed slats and other furniture components.
The US Treasury Department has tried to block the use of dollars for transactions with Russia, but Huang said he was able to pay with Chinese renminbi or Russian roubles through VTB Bank. The bank, one of Russia's largest financial institutions, faced sanctions by the US and the EU soon after Russia invaded Ukraine.
But while Russia and China increasingly trade with each other, there are a few signs of tension.
The rail yard in Manzhouli. Soviet advisers helped build steel mills, railways and arms factories in China in the 1950s, but now Russia supplies raw materials in exchange for manufactured goods. Photo / Andrea Verdelli, the New York Times
Russia has banned the shipment of freshly cut pines to China. So the bark is removed from pines, and the logs are cut into boards at sawmills in Siberia, to the annoyance of businesspeople such as Huang.
China, in turn, imposed tariffs on imports of Russian coal at the start of last year after state-owned Chinese coal mines expanded output and complained of Russian competition.
The biggest stress in the trade relationship involves cars. In 2021, Chinese cars weren't very popular in Russia. But after the invasion of Ukraine, Western automakers withdrew from the country, and Chinese automakers slashed prices.
Chinese cars captured 60% of the Russian market by late summer last year, according to GlobalData Automotive, a research firm.
Russia's own automakers had initially been expected to benefit from the retreat of their Western competitors and were disappointed by China's success.
They persuaded Moscow to start collecting a US$7500 fee on imported cars. The fee, which started on October 1, has an exemption: It does not apply to used cars purchased by Russian citizens for their personal use.
China's car exports to Russia in the first five months of this year plunged 58% from a year earlier.
'It's a big bucket of cold water on what Chinese automakers expected to be their top market for years to come,' said Stephen Dyer, head of the Asia automotive practice at AlixPartners, a consulting firm.
Chinese entrepreneurs in Manzhouli are already exploiting the used car loophole in Russia's rules.
A block from the Russian border, a year-old palace of a used car showroom in Manzhouli has towering bronze doors that open up to a 25m-high hall, all designed to lure Russian shoppers who want to beat the US$7500 fee.
On sale are barely used BMWs, Land Rovers, Volkswagens and other popular brands no longer sold in Russia, as well as Chinese brands such as Zeekr and Hongqi.
The staff explained that new cars were not available — but that used cars only a month old could be purchased and shipped.
This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
Written by: Keith Bradsher
Photographs by: Andrea Verdelli
©2025 THE NEW YORK TIMES
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
an hour ago
- NZ Herald
‘It's a massive tax' - can Trump's tariffs reduce inequality, or will they enhance it?
The President doesn't talk much about inequality. But his animating argument for tariffs — that they will pressure companies to bring well-paid manufacturing jobs back to America — is pitched to those workers who felt left behind and neglected. So, will the tariffs reduce inequality? Probably not, and here's why. Hyper globalisation certainly contributed to America's rising inequality. Consumers saved hundreds of dollars on the cost of televisions, shoes, and comforters. But many middle-class livelihoods and communities were destroyed when factories either relocated to countries where wages were lower or went bust because they couldn't compete with cheap imports. China's entry into the global marketplace at the beginning of this century delivered a major wallop. Between 1999 and 2011, Chinese imports were directly responsible for the loss of 2.4 million American jobs, according to researchers. It is true that more jobs were created, but many of them did not pay as well as those that were eliminated, nor were they taken by the workers who lost out. Still, cheaper imports were only one part of the story. Automation and the creation of a digital economy that introduced online selling and cloud-based services had a far greater effect on the American economy. Take manufacturing. Of the six million factory jobs erased during the 2000s, Chinese imports accounted for about one-sixth of the losses, or one million jobs. But the other five million were killed off by other forces. For years, labour unions had bargained for higher wages, overtime pay and other benefits. But their ranks significantly declined. A street in Elyria, Ohio, once home to many manufacturing plants, on September 18, 2017. Many middle-class livelihoods and communities were destroyed when factories relocated to other countries. Photo / Andrew Spear, The New York Times Automobile factories, for instance, not only moved from Michigan to Mexico, they also moved to southern states including Alabama and Tennessee, where anti-union laws were common and wages were lower. I visited a meat processing plant in Storm Lake, Iowa, during Trump's first term. One of the workers was hired in 1980, when it was a union shop. His starting salary was US$16 an hour plus benefits. When I met him, 37 years later, that plant was no longer unionised, and his pay was still US$16 an hour. The growth of mega firms like Google, Apple, Amazon and Walmart that ate up or weeded out the competition also gave companies power over pricing and wages. The result was that the slice of the total economic pie going to workers shrank. If inequality has multiple causes, why do trade and globalisation get blamed so much? The fallout from globalisation packed a particular punch. Trade can cause economic losses to pile up and overwhelm a locale, such as Hickory, North Carolina, once a powerhouse of furniture making. Another reason is that political leaders exploit economic setbacks and insecurities. Trade offered a simple and satisfying explanation — even if not wholly accurate — that outsiders were to blame. For many people, foreign competition also set off deep cultural and economic anxieties. Diana Mutz, a political scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, argues that many Americans, including Trump, view trade as a zero-sum game rather than a co-operative enterprise in which everyone can benefit. Foxconn workers on an assembly line at Quanta factory in Chongqing, China, on November 27, 2012. In the early 2000s, Chinese imports were directly responsible for the loss of 2.4 million American jobs, according to researchers. Photo / Gilles Sabrie, The New York Times Through that lens, trade is a pitiless dogfight that is desirable only if the US is the 'winner' and other countries are losers. Americans also tend to expect the government to respond more strongly to job losses that result from trade compared with other economic forces. Dani Rodrik, an economist at Harvard University, helped conduct a large online survey in which respondents read a made-up newspaper article about the closure of a garment factory that provided different reasons for the shutdown. One group was told it was because of new technology. A second was told management bungling was the culprit. A third group was told trade, such as relocating production abroad, was the cause. When trade was the cause, the number of people who demanded that the government respond doubled or tripled. 'Foreign trade is particularly prone to charges of unfairness,' Rodrik writes, because countries operate under differing rules and conditions. Government subsidies, weaker health and environmental regulations or sweatshop conditions, for instance, bestow an unfair competitive advantage. For decades, 'fair trade' has been the rallying cry of protectionists who complained of an uneven playing field. A former glass factory is set up as a battery factory in Bridgeport, West Virginia, on February 9, 2023. Oren Cass, the chief economist at American Compass, a conservative think-tank, says that factories can boost regions that need it. Photo / Andrew Spear, The New York Times That sounds like Trump's tariffs could make a difference, no? Tariffs can certainly affect how income is distributed — either increasing or decreasing inequality. Oren Cass, chief economist at American Compass, a conservative think-tank, says that with the Trump tariffs, the effect would be positive. He argues that factories, often located outside of the tech, finance and media capitals, can boost regions that need it. A factory creates jobs and serves as an economic hub. That in turn generates other jobs — for barbers, baristas, and manicurists. 'Reorienting the economy toward one that is going to better serve the average worker,' could reduce inequality, Cass said. But other economists disagreed, arguing that the President's tariffs and the haphazard way they were imposed will amplify inequality. While some select industries will benefit from added protection, the biggest burden, they agreed, will fall on low- and middle-income households. The cost of pretty much everything will go up because of tariffs. 'It's a massive tax,' said Kimberly Clausing, a professor of tax law and policy at the UCLA School of Law. She expects that four out of five Americans will be worse off. So far, the overall average effective tariff rate has jumped from 2.4% in early January to 18.3%, according to the Budget Lab at Yale University. On average, higher prices will end up costing each household an extra US$2400 this year. Shoes and clothing prices, for example, are expected to rise by as much as 40% in the short run, the Budget Lab estimated. Prices are expected to stay at 17% or 19% higher over the long run. US businesses, particularly small and medium-sized ones, will also feel the pinch of higher costs. Some 40% of imports are used to produce or build things in the US. Construction costs are likely to jump. The Budget Lab estimates that by the end of this year, US payrolls will shrink by nearly 500,000 jobs. As for manufacturing, the number of jobs might grow, but they won't be like the well-paid ones that high school graduates used to get. Most factories are highly automated and run with computer technology. Last year, the US steel industry employed 86,000 people and produced roughly 88 million tonnes of raw steel. In 1970, it took 354,000 steelworkers to produce that same amount, according to the American Iron and Steel Institute. I recently visited one of the largest steel plants in Europe. I saw titanic machinery and control stations with computer screens, but hardly any workers on the floor. Today, the best paying manufacturing jobs require significant training and skills. Those that don't, offer low wages. At the moment there are more than 400,000 unfilled manufacturing jobs in the US. Even if the US$1.2 trillion trade deficit were erased, and purchases of foreign goods were replaced by domestic ones, the US would still not turn into a manufacturing powerhouse, said Robert Lawrence, an economist at Harvard University. Nor would it reduce inequality. Under that scenario, Lawrence calculated that manufacturing jobs would rise from 7.9% to just 9.7% of total employment. And less than half of those would actually involve work in production. The rest are in sales, management and accounting. Lawrence, whose book Behind the Curve examines the role that manufacturing plays in the economy, explained that 'even if all these policies were actually successful in bringing back as much manufacturing as possible, it's too small to change the basic income distribution in the economy.' This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Written by: Patricia Cohen Photographs by: Mark Abramson, Andrew Spear, Gilles Sabrie ©2025 THE NEW YORK TIMES
NZ Herald
2 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Fact-checking under fire as tech giants cut support amid misinformation surge
In reviewing many of the some 3000 fact checks I have written or edited, there is a clear dividing line: June 2015, the month Donald Trump rode down the Trump Tower escalator and announced he was running for President. 'Businessman Donald Trump is a fact-checker's dream ... and nightmare,' I wrote in the fact-check of his announcement speech. How little did I realise that would be true. Trump decreed that mainstream news organisations were 'the enemy of the people', undermining faith in traditional reporting, and insisted to his followers that he was the best source of information. In ending its work with fact-checkers, Meta chief executive Mark Zuckerberg falsely claimed that fact-checkers censored free speech by being 'too politically biased', echoing Trump administration arguments. The Washington Post did not participate in the Meta programme, but any Facebook user had the option to opt out of having posts fact-checked. Many fact-checkers would liken their work to nutritional labels on snack foods – providing more information about online content. People are free to ignore the warnings, just as people can ignore nutritional labels. Meanwhile, although the European Union enacted a law, the Digital Services Act, to ensure online platforms combat misinformation (such as by relying on fact-checkers), European fact-checkers are concerned that enforcement of the law could be weakened as part of trade negotiations with the Trump administration – which opposes such regulation. Indeed, the Trump administration has also pressured Brazil to end its regulation of online platforms. The issue is sensitive in Brazil because the January 8, 2023 attack on the Brazilian Congress was inspired by clips spread across social media platforms of the January 6 attack on the US Capitol by Trump supporters one year earlier. Brazilian officials insisted they will not back down in the face of Trump's threats, saying regulating social media platforms is a consumer safety issue, like driving laws. 'Self-regulation has proven a failure,' Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes said. 'Your freedom does not mean to be free to go the wrong way and crash into another car and kill another driver,' Cármen Lúcia, the president of Brazil's Superior Electoral Court, told the fact-checking conference. Before Trump entered politics, I found that many politicians spun or dissembled but most tried to keep their claims tethered to the truth. Our fact checks covered a range of topics, such as the accuracy of government statistics on students dying from alcohol or exaggerated claims about sex trafficking, which led lawmakers to stop using them. President Barack Obama told the occasional whopper – 'If you like your healthcare plan, you'll be able to keep your healthcare plan' – but it was the rare politician, such as Minnesota Republican Representative Michelle Bachmann, who constantly spouted Pinocchio-laden nonsense. Obama's Vice-President, Joe Biden, also had a reputation for mangling the truth: in 2011, Biden touted an Obama-era jobs bill by claiming the number of rapes in Flint, Michigan, had – depending on the hour of the day – doubled, tripled or even quadrupled because the number of police had been reduced. There was no evidence to support any of his statistics. But Bachmann and Biden were outliers. In the 2012 presidential campaign between Obama and Mitt Romney, the former Republican Governor of Massachusetts, the two candidates were neck-and-neck in their average Pinocchio rating. Indeed, they had the lowest average number of Pinocchios of the major 2012 presidential candidates. They also took fact checks seriously. Both candidates dropped talking points after a negative fact-check rating. An Obama administration official explained to me how, when faced with a choice of figures, the administration took the more modest number in hopes of avoiding Pinocchios. I heard from a campaign source that during debate prep, Obama, to his great annoyance, was told he couldn't use a statistic because it had gotten Pinocchios. Obama's campaign manager even sent a lengthy letter to the Post editor complaining that my Pinocchio ratings were undermining his attacks on Romney's business record. The expectation that politicians would stick close to the truth began to erode with Trump's emergence. He claimed that thousands of Muslims in New Jersey had celebrated the 9/11 attacks – and doubled down even after my fact check proved this was a fantasy. He invented statistics – that the unemployment rate, then pegged at 4.9%, was really 42% – and kept repeating them, no matter how many times he was fact-checked. In 2016, Trump's opponents still cared about the facts. Florida Governor Jeb Bush's campaign had a wall where they posted positive fact checks. Ohio Governor John Kasich dropped a talking point simply in response to my question for a possible fact check. Hillary Clinton's staff worked hard to find policy experts to vouch for her statistics. (Her comments on her private email server were less defensible.) But Trump didn't care. He kept rising in the polls and eventually won the presidency. Other politicians took notice and followed his lead. Besides Trump, something else changed the nature of truth in the mid-2010s: the rise of social media. The Fact Checker was launched in 2007, one year after the creation of Twitter and when Facebook had only 50 million users. By 2012, Facebook had 1 billion followers; it reached nearly 1.6 billion in 2015. Trump adroitly used Twitter – where he had 2.76 million followers at the start of 2015 – and other social media to spread his message. Trump's call to ban Muslims from entering the United States was the most-talked-about moment on Facebook among the 2016 candidates in all of 2015, according to Facebook data. Social media helped fuel the rise of Trump – and made it easier for false claims to circulate. Russian operatives in 2016 used fake accounts on social media to spread disinformation and create divisive content – tactics that led companies such as Meta to begin to use fact-checkers to identify misleading content. But the political forces that benefited from false information – such as Trump and his allies – led a backlash against such efforts, saying it was a form of censorship. Now tech companies are scaling back their efforts to combat misinformation. In Trump's second term, even venerable institutions such as the State Department – which I covered for nine years – spout falsehoods to attack efforts to combat disinformation. 'In Europe, thousands are being convicted for the crime of criticising their own governments,' the department said in an X, formerly Twitter post on July 22. 'This Orwellian message won't fool the United States. Censorship is not freedom.' (The post was in response to a French Government post promoting the Digital Services Act.) When I asked the State Department for evidence of the claim that 'thousands' had been convicted, the department twice asked for more time to respond – and then declined to comment. Many on the left and right argue that fact-checking is merely another form of opinion journalism, disguised behind a veneer of objectivity. But research found that the three main American fact-checkers – The Fact Checker, PolitiFact and – reached the same conclusion on similar statements at least 95% of the time. Of course, some might say this only shows we are all biased in the same way. During Trump's first term, The Fact Checker team documented that he made more than 30,000 false or misleading claims. Week after week, I would write fact checks unpacking his latest misstatements, and Trump generally earned Four Pinocchios – the rating for a whopper. But I sense that the country has gotten so used to Trump exaggerating the truth that it no longer seems surprising. I chose not to repeat the exercise in his second term. Even as he racked up Pinocchios, Trump mentioned them almost 20 times during his first administration. He either complained about receiving Pinocchios or cited them when I awarded Pinocchios to one of his political foes, such as then California Representative Adam Schiff. During the 2024 campaign, Trump sometimes mentioned Pinocchios, such as in a campaign stop in Waunakee, Wisconsin, in October. 'I have to be very careful when I talk because the fake news, if I say something wrong, a little wrong, if I'm 3% off ... they'll give me Pinocchios,' he told a rally. 'You know the Pinocchio? The Washington Post, they give you Pinocchios. If you say something perfectly, they give you a Pinocchio.' But since Trump took office for a second time in January, he hasn't mentioned Pinocchios again. In an era where false claims are the norm, it's much easier to ignore the fact-checkers.
NZ Herald
3 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Doctor among several Kiwis injured on front line in Ukraine
Mark told the Herald he has 'nothing but respect' for her. 'After three years of operations, she has a very good understanding of the geopolitical situation and the tactical and strategic challenges Ukraine faces,' Mark said. For safety reasons, the Herald has not named the doctor. Mark told the Herald Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has given her Ukrainian citizenship 'in recognition of what she's done and what she's gone through'. Carterton mayor and former Defence Minister Ron Mark has recently returned from his third self-funded trip to Ukraine. Photo / Neil Reid Mark, a former captain in the New Zealand Army, first visited Ukraine in May 2022 and has visited twice more to meet New Zealand humanitarians, medics, and members of Ukraine's Foreign Legion. The Foreign Legion is an armed force made up of volunteers who have travelled to Ukraine from around the world, including New Zealanders. Mark doesn't travel in any official capacity, taking annual leave from his role as Mayor and funding his own travel. He told the Herald he has become an unofficial sounding board for many Kiwis considering travelling to fight in Ukraine, receiving calls and texts day and night. Southwest of Irpin, Ukraine, a highway is now lined with the burnt husks of Russian armoured vehicles, which have become a tourist attraction for Ukrainians. Photo / Olena Kalashnikova At least four New Zealanders are known to have died in the European nation since Russia invaded in February 2022: three soldiers and an aid worker. Mark said his travels have alerted him to 'considerably more' Kiwis also maimed on battlefields there. He wouldn't elaborate further, except to say dozens of Kiwis have signed up to fight in the Ukraine Foreign Legion. Most buildings in the city of Irpin, Ukraine, were damaged or destroyed by Russian forces. Photo / Olena Kalashnikova Kiwis who have died there include three members of the Ukraine Foreign Legion: Dominic Abelen, Kane Te Tai and Shan-Le Kearns. Abelen volunteered to fight in Ukraine after taking leave from the NZDF. Te Tai is another former NZDF soldier, who previously served in Afghanistan. Kearns did not have a military background but trained in Ukraine. He died while trying to rescue injured comrades. The confirmed Kiwi death toll also includes aid worker Andrew Bagshaw who lost his life alongside an English colleague when their car was reportedly hit by a Russian artillery shell. 'There's considerably more than that. Kiwis that have been wounded... some badly wounded,' Mark told the Herald. Former Defence Minister Ron Mark wants Kiwis who travel to Ukraine to fight Russian forces to be eligible for Veterans' Affairs support when they return home. Photo / Neil Reid 'Despite their wounds, [they] have gone back. [They have] been patched up, put together, either in hospitals in Germany, Britain or in Kyiv, and they've gone back into the fight again,' he said. Some – including ex-New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) soldiers – had decided to return to New Zealand, Mark said, only to later return to fight. Mark said he fears more Kiwis will be injured or killed - or suffer lasting psychological wounds from what they witness. Dominic Abelen (left to right) and Kane Te Tai both lost their lives fighting in Ukraine. Photo / Supplied For that reason, he wants those who serve in Ukraine to be eligible for support from Veterans' Affairs New Zealand - the Government department that offers health, rehabilitation and financial help to eligible NZDF veterans. Mark said while those fighting weren't serving New Zealand officially, an argument could be made they were delivering 'lethal aid' to Ukraine just as the New Zealand Government is via funding and training. 'Why would we not recognise that there are some New Zealanders who are paying their own air fares, putting their own lives on the line, and going and delivering lethal aid directly themselves,' he said. Shan-le Kearns, 26, is the fourth New Zealander known to have died in Ukraine. Photo / Supplied 'I'd argue, isn't there a moral obligation [to] these men and women?' Minister for Veterans Chris Penk told the Herald the entitlements would remain available only to those serving 'at the direction of the New Zealand Government'. There were no plans to extend Veterans' Affairs New Zealand support to people travelling to Ukraine on their own. 'The Government has not considered extending veterans' entitlements to New Zealanders who travel to Ukraine for combat or humanitarian reasons,' Penk said. 'Doing so could be seen as endorsing these actions, which is not the New Zealand Government's position. 'We strongly advise New Zealanders against travelling to conflict zones. In many cases, we may be unable to offer consular support if they are harmed or wish to return home.' Minister for Veterans Chris Penk says the Government has no plans to extend veterans help for individuals who travel to Ukraine on their own, to fight. Photo / Mark Mitchell Penk said New Zealand remained 'steadfast' in its support for Ukraine 'in the face of Russia's illegal and unprovoked invasion'. While New Zealand was not a combatant, its support was unwavering, he said. 'We have provided humanitarian and military assistance, including financial aid and the deployment of up to 100 New Zealand Defence Force personnel to help train Ukrainian troops in the UK and Europe.' Neil Reid is a Napier-based senior reporter who covers general news, features and sport. He joined the Herald in 2014 and has 33 years of newsroom experience. Sign up to The Daily H, a free newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
