- Special envoy Li Hui’s latest mission to Europe was met with scepticism, and could be seen as ‘signalling’ to the Global South
- Beijing has yet to confirm if it will attend the June peace summit in Switzerland but continues to lobby for Moscow to take part
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz appeared to have secured Chinese support for the Ukraine peace summit when he was in Beijing this week, though it is still not clear if Xi Jinping will attend.
China is among more than 100 nations invited to Switzerland for the conference in June to discuss how to end the war, which has dragged on for more than two years.
While China has yet to confirm its attendance, it has been pushing for Russia to take part, with special envoy Li Hui lobbying in European capitals last month.
Observers say Li’s trip achieved little, but that China – aiming to be a peace broker – has seen an opportunity to push for direct talks between Russia and Ukraine, with the Swiss summit the first step. ⠀
Düben said China’s efforts in Europe could also be seen as “signalling” to the Global South that it is a responsible power.
“The most cynical interpretation might be, China just wants to be seen as a peacemaker … when the US is perceived by more people around the world as not so much of a responsible actor in the context of what’s happening in Gaza,” he said.
China has sought to expand its influence in the Global South amid an intensifying rivalry with the United States.
It also wants to be a global peacemaker, brokering a rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Iran last year and calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. The US is meanwhile under pressure over the military funding and support it provides to Israel. ⠀
Back in Beijing, Li said the “large gap” between the involved parties had made mediation difficult, but they had agreed that the conflict would ultimately be resolved through peace talks.
Any peace deal that doesn’t involve Russia leaving behind all Ukrainian territory rewards Putin’s Russia for their invasion. IMO Russia should have to at least pull back to the borders that existed before the 2022 offensive. Of course I’m not in a position to make decisions if it’s a bitter pill that must be taken, but real gains for Russia will be proof that aggression worked.
Also, peace doesn’t need a specific broker. If an international effort including China, or even led by them, can broker a good deal then so be it. Maybe China’s relationship with Russia makes talks more likely to be productive. I can’t think of an explanation as to why a US-led deal with the same terms would be inherently better (that isn’t just nationalism/pride and much less important than halting war).
Do you think giving the aggressor what they wanted is a good way to promote future peace?
It should be the 2013 borders. Before the invasion of Crimea. Russia agreed not to invade Ukraine, in exchange for Ukraine giving Russia it’s nuclear weapons. If Russia doesn’t give everything back, then it can’t be trusted to make any deal with any nation. Including peace deals.
Any agreement needs Ukraine to get all it’s territory back, and allow them to join NATO. Russia can’t be trusted. But they won’t challenge NATO directly. Europe also needs to take defence more seriously. Only eastern Europe is really taking the Russian threat seriously. Western Europe was fooled into thinking they won the cold war. Russia and China never saw it as over.
Your argument conveniently ignores that the USA agreed to end NATO expansion, but NATO expansion has clearly continued over the last several decades. Russia and Ukraine also had signed 2 treaties, Minsk 1 and 2, which Ukraine broke and the USA admitted were signed simply to buy time to build up Ukraine militarily. It would be nice if all of these agreements had been followed, but that’s unfortunately not the reality that we live in.
Speaking about getting back 2013 Ukraine borders is not more reasonable than speaking about getting back 2013 Ukraine legitimate government. It’s impossible in real life to replay from save file - this means that Ukraine would stay with regime imposed by insurrectionists and without Crimea and Donbass.
Any peace deal that doesn’t involve Russia leaving behind all Ukrainian territory rewards Putin’s Russia for their invasion
Any peace deal that doesn’t involve Ukraine leaving behind all separatist regions rewards USA for overthrowing the government of Ukraine.
I can’t think of an explanation as to why a US-led deal with the same terms would be inherently better
On paper if it had the same terms then it wouldn’t be any better. The problem is that the USA doesn’t want peace, they want to do as much damage to Russia as possible and they don’t care how many Ukrainians have to suffer and die as a result. The USA can then extort Ukraine using the war loans as justification.
The best case scenario for USA is that Ukraine wins, but both Ukrainian and Russian economic and military strength are severely depleted in the process. This reduces Russia’s power to oppose USA on the global stage (like defending Syria and Iran), and turns Ukraine into a vassal state or neo-colony of the USA; massively increasing USA’s hegemony.
Best case for Ukraine and Russia is an immediate end to the war. But Zelensky is an american puppet and won’t (or can’t) negotiate peace.
