Russians covertly trained by China return to fight in Ukraine, sources say ⁠62%

By No Author⁠44%

5/20/2026, 1:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 8 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Unattributed Quote, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 71.9% saturation with 82 hits. Analysis detected 468 faulty-reasoning hits from 114 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 57.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠62% (8,396 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 61.60% of the article peer group.

China’s armed forces secretly trained about 200 Russian military personnel in China ⁠late last year and some have since returned to fight in Ukraine, according to three European intelligence agencies and documents. 
While China and Russia have held a number of joint military exercises since Moscow’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Beijing has repeatedly stated that it is neutral in the conflict and presents itself as a peace mediator. 
The covert training sessions, which predominantly focused on the use of drones, were outlined in a dual-language Russian-Chinese agreement signed by senior Russian and Chinese officers in Beijing on July 2, 2025. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%No Author: 3.2%The Japan Times: 3.5%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%No Author: 1.6%The Japan Times: 1.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%No Author: 3.9%The Japan Times: 4.7%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%No Author: 1.0%The Japan Times: 1.3%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%No Author: 0.2%The Japan Times: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 28.1%No Author: 1.6%The Japan Times: 2.0%Overconfidence Bias28.1%This article: 71.9%No Author: 11.2%The Japan Times: 14.4%Framing Effect71.9%This article: 0.0%No Author: 0.4%The Japan Times: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%No Author: 0.8%The Japan Times: 1.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%No Author: 0.1%The Japan Times: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%No Author: 4.7%The Japan Times: 4.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%No Author: 2.4%The Japan Times: 3.3%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 43.9%No Author: 9.6%The Japan Times: 11.6%Negativity Bias43.9%This article: 0.0%No Author: 1.0%The Japan Times: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%No Author: 0.7%The Japan Times: 0.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%No Author: 0.3%The Japan Times: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%No Author: 1.1%The Japan Times: 1.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%No Author: 0.4%The Japan Times: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%No Author: 1.8%The Japan Times: 1.5%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%No Author: 0.0%The Japan Times: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%No Author: 0.0%The Japan Times: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%No Author: 1.9%The Japan Times: 2.2%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%No Author: 0.7%The Japan Times: 0.9%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%No Author: 0.1%The Japan Times: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%No Author: 0.2%The Japan Times: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%No Author: 0.1%The Japan Times: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 66.7%No Author: 4.8%The Japan Times: 5.5%Appeal to Authority66.7%This article: 33.3%No Author: 1.0%The Japan Times: 1.7%False Dilemma33.3%This article: 0.0%No Author: 0.6%The Japan Times: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%No Author: 0.2%The Japan Times: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%No Author: 3.0%The Japan Times: 4.5%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%No Author: 0.3%The Japan Times: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%No Author: 0.7%The Japan Times: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%No Author: 3.6%The Japan Times: 3.6%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%No Author: 0.7%The Japan Times: 0.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%No Author: 3.4%The Japan Times: 4.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%No Author: 0.0%The Japan Times: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%No Author: 0.6%The Japan Times: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%No Author: 0.0%The Japan Times: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%No Author: 0.2%The Japan Times: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%No Author: 0.7%The Japan Times: 1.1%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%No Author: 0.0%The Japan Times: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 56.1%No Author: 2.3%The Japan Times: 3.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)56.1%This article: 0.0%No Author: 0.0%The Japan Times: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%No Author: 0.1%The Japan Times: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%No Author: 0.0%The Japan Times: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%No Author: 0.1%The Japan Times: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%No Author: 0.0%The Japan Times: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 66.7%No Author: 5.3%The Japan Times: 4.6%Unattributed Quote66.7%This article: 0.0%No Author: 2.1%The Japan Times: 1.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 43.9%No Author: 6.3%The Japan Times: 9.0%Biased Writer Voice43.9%This article: 0.0%No Author: 1.4%The Japan Times: 1.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%No Author: 0.3%The Japan Times: 0.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%No Author: 0.2%The Japan Times: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%No Author: 0.3%The Japan Times: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

114 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.