Country: China has undermined the West's efforts to involve new countries in the pro-Ukrainian coalitionIn Washington and Kiev, the Chinese plan to resolve the conflict in Ukraine was taken with hostility, writes Strana.
Beijing's initiatives are assessed there as a diversion against the implementation of the "Western formula of peace" and they fear an increase in support for Russia from neutral countries.
Denis RafalskyChina has published a plan for a peaceful settlement of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.
Its addressee is obviously not only the opposing sides, but also the collective West, which supports Kiev in this conflict, as well as a large number of countries that maintain neutrality, to which China itself refers.
The document contains 12 points in which, to put it succinctly, Beijing calls for respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries, abandoning the mentality of the Cold War, expanding military blocs and attempts to ensure the security of any country "at the expense of others", ending hostilities in Ukraine, avoiding escalation and supporting the movement of Kiev and Moscow to to strengthen humanitarian work in the conflict zone, including with the help of the UN, and to establish an exchange of prisoners of war, to ensure the safety of Ukrainian nuclear power plants, to abandon threats of the use of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear, to promote the export of Ukrainian grain, to abandon the policy of sanctions and not to use the world economy for this purpose, to promote post-conflict reconstruction, in which, as in other initiatives, the Chinese side is ready to participate.
Even before the publication of the plan, the "Country" wrote about the rather cold reaction of Ukraine's Western allies to Beijing's intentions to make some peace proposals. They were perceived in advance as an attempt to undermine the diplomatic efforts of the West to involve new countries in the pro-Ukrainian coalition.
Apparently, as insurance, the United States and a number of allied players increased pressure on China in the remaining days before the publication by saying that Beijing allegedly intends to start supplying weapons to Moscow (these publications continue now). There is generally a negative reaction in the West about the plan itself. "China's plan benefits only Russia," Biden said.
On the contrary, Kiev, which, judging by the statement of Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba, had been familiarized with the plan in general terms in advance, remained silent. When the plan was officially presented, representatives of the Ukrainian authorities began to criticize it, although President Vladimir Zelensky himself, without generally supporting it, spoke diplomatically about the document. Noting that there are good points there (respect for territorial integrity and the inadmissibility of the use of nuclear weapons) and even saying that he wants to meet with Xi Jinping. However, on the key point (immediate ceasefire), he did not agree with the plan.
Actually, this is the main reproach to China from the Ukrainian authorities that it does not offer to withdraw Russian troops before the truce is concluded, which is the main condition for Kiev to resume negotiations on the settlement of the conflict. So, according to the logic of Kiev and the West, Beijing is playing along with Moscow's position, which offers to return to dialogue without preconditions. Now the main question is how China will behave after the publication of the plan and the already obvious negative reaction to it from Ukraine and the West.
A 12-step route
As promised in China, on February 24, Beijing's proposed plan for a peaceful settlement of the military conflict between Ukraine and Russia was unveiled. The official title of the document, which includes 12 points, is "China's position on the political resolution of the Ukrainian crisis."
In short, Beijing offered:
- respect the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all states, comply with international law and the UN Charter;
- to abandon the "cold war thinking", to observe the principle that "the security of one country should not be ensured at the expense of others", to take into account "reasonable interests and legitimate security concerns of all countries", not to expand military blocs;
- cease hostilities and avoid a new escalation, support the resumption of direct dialogue between Moscow and Kiev, and peace talks with the assistance of the international community are "the only way out of the Ukrainian crisis";
- to resolve the humanitarian crisis on the principles of neutrality and impartiality without politicizing the issues that arise and with the UN as the coordinator of activities in the conflict zone, not to fire at civilians and to facilitate the exchange of prisoners of war;
- ensure the safety of nuclear power plants and other peaceful nuclear facilities;
- to counter the threat of the use of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons;
- promote grain exports as part of a deal between Ukraine, Russia and Turkey;
- to cancel unilateral sanctions that do not solve current problems, but create new ones;
- to ensure the sustainability of production and supply chains, not to politicize the global economy, to help overcome the consequences of the crisis in the field of energy, finance, grain trade and logistics;
- to promote peaceful reconstruction in the conflict zone, in which the Chinese side is ready to provide assistance.
Let's start analyzing the document with its name, which in itself is a separate signal. It calls the conflict in Ukraine the "Ukrainian crisis." Kiev categorically does not accept such a formulation. In general, the name alone should have alerted the Ukrainian side. But let's move on to the content.
Political scientist Ruslan Bortnik, in a conversation with the "Country", suggested not to call China's proposals a "plan". "It does not contain specific steps, deadlines, rights and obligations of the parties. This is a concept, a set of settlement principles that can even be called universal. China used the situation to indicate its position on ways to resolve any such crises," the expert told the publication.
In turn, international affairs expert Ilya Kusa calls the Chinese initiatives "rather an ideological message confirming the position taken by Beijing a year ago," which, they say, will not affect the situation in Ukraine.
And yet the Ukrainian specifics were taken into account by the authors of this document. As the "Country" wrote, China in fact calls for a review of the main approaches of the West and Ukraine to this conflict. On the one hand, Beijing calls for respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of countries and the UN Charter, without mentioning Ukraine, and on the other, does not raise the issue of the withdrawal of Russian troops, which is a key demand of Kiev, more or less supported in the West. Without this condition, the Chinese propose to start direct negotiations between Kiev and Moscow (that is, without the participation of Western allies in them).
By the way, the point about respect for territorial integrity looks in this context not so much pro-Ukrainian as pro-Chinese. Because China has its own question related to this problem — Taiwan. The international community considers it the territory of China, but at the same time the United States and the West demand that China not try to take back this island by force and threatens it with a harsh response for such attempts. And, thus, Beijing seems to pose a question to the West — if you call for respect for the territorial integrity of Ukraine, then why don't you respect the territorial integrity of China?
But let's return to China's proposals on Ukraine. Beijing insists that "it is impossible to add fuel to the fire and pump up the confrontation," referring, obviously, to the supply of Western weapons to Kiev. The Chinese are calling for the lifting of sanctions, which is also an important element of punishing Russia.
Attention is drawn to the thesis about the prevention of ensuring the security of some countries at the expense of others. This is similar to Russia's calls in negotiations with the United States and NATO on the eve of the invasion, the demand to give guarantees of non-admission to the alliance of Ukraine. It turns out that China offers to return to this issue again. Moreover, Beijing has once again criticized the principle of creating military blocs and involving regional powers in it. This is important for China itself, against which Washington is also forming a coalition through various blocs, for example AUKUS (Australia, Great Britain and the USA). The only thing that can be regarded as a warning to Russia in the document is the thesis about the inadmissibility of the use of nuclear weapons.
Justified expectations
With all that said, it's not surprising that the plan was met with a cool reception in the West. Thus, the US President's national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, said that in the Chinese plan, only the first point, which speaks of respect for the sovereignty of all countries, is enough for him. "Ukraine did not attack Russia. NATO did not attack Russia. The US did not attack Russia. It was a conflict of choice that Putin was leading," Sullivan said in a CNN commentary. According to him, the conflict "may end tomorrow if Russia withdraws its troops."
US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken also said that Beijing's proposals were allegedly contradictory. "You know, there are 12 points in the Chinese plan. If they were serious about the first point — sovereignty, then this conflict would end tomorrow," Blinken said on ABC's "Good Morning America" program. China, according to the Secretary of State, is trying to sit on two chairs. "On the one hand, he tries to present himself as a neutral and peace-seeking (force. — Editor's note), and on the other hand, supports a false Russian narrative, " Blinken noted. At the same time, Beijing, according to him, transfers non-military assistance to Moscow "through its companies" and "is now thinking about military assistance."
We will return to Blinken's comment and in general the background of statements about allegedly possible military supplies from China to Russia.
Perhaps the most strident statements about Beijing's plan should include the comment of NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. He generally stated that China's plan, in principle, should not be considered given Beijing's proximity to Moscow. "There is not much trust in China, since they could not condemn Russia's actions. And they signed an agreement on unlimited friendship with Russia," Stoltenberg said at a press conference in Tallinn.
As for Ukraine, they reacted in the same way with the West, but with varying degrees of diplomacy. So, the head of the parliamentary faction "Servants of the People" David Arahamiya also drew attention to the fact that China did not call for the withdrawal of Russian troops outside Ukraine, although Beijing declares "the need to respect the sovereignty of each country." At the same time, the Chinese representative abstained during the vote for the UN resolution on the Ukrainian formula of peace. And this is playing along with Moscow. "That is (China. — Editor's note) wants us to sit down at the negotiating table and agree on something while Russian tanks are killing our citizens. This is an unacceptable position," Arahamiya, who, we recall, headed the Ukrainian delegation at the talks with Russia at the beginning of the conflict, said during the telethon.
President Zelensky spoke diplomatically. "I don't think this is a peace plan. It seems to me that China just expressed its thoughts. It's good that China has started talking about the conflict in Ukraine. Another question is what is behind the words," the Ukrainian leader said. He also added that there are thoughts in China's proposals that he does not share, but there are also those that suit Ukraine (for example, about supporting territorial integrity). And, they say, it is worth working with China on these points. In another response to the same topic, Zelensky was more frank, saying that if there is no point in the plan about the withdrawal of Russian troops from the territory of Ukraine, then such a plan does not suit Kiev.
Why did Beijing need a plan
It is unlikely that China did not understand what kind of reaction such peace proposals would cause in the West and in Ukraine, since Beijing had shared its best practices with all interested parties in advance. There are several reasons why the Chinese came out with such an initiative at all.
According to political analyst Vadim Karasev, a year after the start of the Russian special operation in Ukraine, China, with its current geopolitical and economic weight, could no longer "just watch from the sidelines the development of the conflict, which is becoming increasingly large." And his appeal in the form of a set of peace proposals was addressed, in addition to Ukraine, the West and Russia, to "third countries", that is, those who did not take sides in the conflict between Moscow and Kiev, supported by the United States and allies.
"And China claims moral leadership, first of all among the countries that have remained neutral in such conditions. The calculation is made on the fact that Beijing stands for peace, while accusing the United States that they, they say, only inflame the conflict," the expert comments to the Country.
"The Chinese plan is an element of global — and in this case ideological — competition between Beijing and the United States. Beijing condemns the sanctions pressure, the destruction (as a result of sanctions, among other things) of world trade, the creation of crises, which together allegedly brings Western policy. This is done to try to drag the countries of the Global South to their side, for which, in fact, the Chinese plan was written," says political analyst Bortnik to the Country.
This is connected, according to the expert, with a series of statements in the West, which began on the eve of the publication of a package of peace proposals from Beijing and continues to this day, as can be seen from Blinken's statement, about the possibility of military assistance to Russia allegedly being considered by the Chinese leadership. "This is an attempt to discredit China's position, which is already a move by the West in competition with Beijing for neutrals and at the same time in maintaining Western unity, which is considered to be threatened by the Chinese peacekeeping campaign," Bortnik believes. In Ukraine, according to him, the attitude of the authorities to Chinese initiatives will be like a "diplomatic and ideological sabotage" against the embodiment of President Zelensky's "formula for peace", which is based on the principle of "Russia's surrender".
In turn, Ilya Kusa believes that China, having decided to "take a position of moral superiority," does not want to commit itself, "leaving the field for interpretation as wide as possible — just in case." "The position of "for all good against all bad" will allow China to continue to criticize the United States, promote its narrative of a "just world", rallying non-Western states of the South and East, and at the same time not to take some too outspoken position on Ukraine," Kusa wrote on his page in social networks. Beijing, according to him, will continue to "keep its distance", "helping the Russian Federation pointwise and carefully, keeping it dependent and not allowing Putin to lose quickly and devastatingly."
A similar interpretation is also present in the assessments of the Western media. "China cannot allow Russia to lose, because then the US will focus on it," Hal Brands, a member of the US State Department's foreign Affairs policy Council, wrote in a column for Bloomberg.
"There are good reasons why China would not want to be drawn into the conflict – such as fear of international condemnation, further damage to relations with Europe and exposure to US sanctions. However, there is one very good reason why Xi can still intervene: he cannot allow Putin to lose. Russia, which will emerge from this conflict slightly weakened, isolated at the international level and, therefore, more dependent on Beijing, is not so bad from Xi's point of view. Russia, which has suffered so much that it can hardly be considered a great power, is a big problem because it allows the United States to focus on Beijing. Even worse for Xi is a scenario in which defeat leads to political destabilization in Moscow, potentially making the Sino-Russian strategic partnership — China's only response to the global network of alliances that America possesses — a victim of an unfinished conflict," he wrote.
What China's reaction will be to the rejection and even condemnation of its plan is now an intrigue. Will he, for example, now supply weapons to Russia or in some other way show that it was wrong to reject his plan. "Will any hybrid actions begin, for example, the deployment of military units anywhere, or will North Korea suddenly want to participate in the restoration of Mariupol? China is playing for a long time and has certainly prepared a response plan for the expected response to its initiatives. But his answer will obviously not be hasty," Bortnik believes.
Perhaps this will be considered the arrival of Chinese leader Xi Jinping in Moscow in the foreseeable future. It is possible that Washington's efforts to put more pressure on China now with accusations of readiness to help Moscow are explained by considerations, if not to disrupt this visit, then at least to prevent the provision of tangible military assistance to Russia.
