by Yi Fan
Following a much-anticipated phone call between Chinese President Xi Jinping and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, China made an important move. Li Hui, a veteran Chinese diplomat versed in Eurasian affairs, just wrapped up his visit to some of the key stakeholders in the geopolitical quagmire of Ukraine.
Based on what can be gathered from the readouts, the talking points of Li's meetings are as below:
What did Li say?
Li's message is consistent with China's long-held position:
- Early ceasefire and peace talks;
- All parties creating conditions for this purpose;
- An end to counterproductive actions such as arming the combatants;
- For the longer term, establishing a balanced, effective and durable security architecture in Europe;
- China will continue to engage with the parties and facilitate peace.
What was said to Li?
On the positive side, Li's hosts generally welcomed China's peace-oriented efforts. They commented that they view favorably the principles set forth in China's 12-point proposal, commend China's role in trying to calm the situation, and hope to see China do more on this issue. An end to the strife seems to be a shared goal in Europe and Moscow.
But the huge chasm that separates the conflicting sides was evident too. European officials insisted on a distinction between aggressor and victim, rejected "freezing the conflict," and vowed to continue sending weapons to Ukraine. Kiev called for Russian withdrawal from its territory and saw "restoration of the 1991 borders" as the precondition for peace talks. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov noted there were "serious obstacles to the resumption of peace talks created by the Ukrainian side and its Western mentors."
Apparently, Europe and Russia both have laid out their terms on what "peace" should look like.
How does Li's trip fit into the whole Russia-Ukraine saga?
For this question, we need to take a step back and allow ourselves a broader view.
On the battlefield in the past few days, escalation appears to be in the cards. One gets the impression that, compared with an immediate ceasefire, battlefield victories are seen as more thrilling and urgent in some quarters.
Russia and Europe, both convinced that they are dealing with an existential crisis, are essentially locked in a "who blinks first" game. Both are counting on the other side to budge first. Peace talks are on their minds, but the current focus remains on maximizing their own leverage.
Is the United States in any hurry to stop the saga? Since the eruption of the conflict, NATO has reversed its slide into irrelevance; transatlantic economic and security ties have received a huge boost; the Europeans are finally spending more on defense; Russia is being weakened and isolated. Not to mention the windfalls for American arms dealers.
Simply put, the United States and some of its NATO allies are right now fixing their eyes on a battlefield win, not on finding a negotiating formula. They keep saying "peace." Yet their proclaimed pre-conditions actually suggest it is a "win" masked as "peace."
China must have seen through this; so it does not define its role as a mediator. At best what it can do now is to encourage a shift in thinking: from military maneuvers for getting an upper hand on the battlefield to what an acceptable ceasefire may look like. So all we got from Li's shuttle diplomacy was commonsense principles, nothing juicy or concrete.
Is China partial to one party because it stopped short of setting or espousing any terms? The truth is, as soon as China begins to condemn either side, it loses all claim to impartiality. In any conflict, it is easy for people to confuse a third party's impartiality with sympathy toward one's own position. "He is so egregiously wrong, how can you not agree with me?" This is a common logic in a relationship fight, but I'm sure Europe knows better.
The Chinese special envoy's work should be applauded. His regional tour represented the first on-the-ground effort for peace by a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council who is welcomed in both Kiev and Moscow, and it may not be the last. China's 12-point proposal may not be perfect, but currently, no other plans can claim to garner as much recognition.
However, at the end of the day, this is not China's crisis. To argue that China can singlehandedly turn the tide is an evasion of responsibility and historical naivety.
How do wars end? According to Carl von Clausewitz, the aim of warfare is to disarm or overthrow the enemy. As both sides dig in and the onlookers cheer them on, this seems unlikely to happen anytime soon in Ukraine.
Perhaps some Oriental wisdom can be helpful. After all, it was Sun Tzu, a Chinese military strategist, who said more than 2,000 years ago, "There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare."
Editor's note: Yi Fan is a Beijing-based observer of international affairs.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Xinhua News Agency.
