China has the “necessary qualifications” to broker peace in Ukraine, argues Ip Kuai Peng, a former researcher at the China Institute of Foreign Affairs. International relations expert Priscilla Roberts says “the prospect of immediate peace looks dim” as a Ukrainian military counteroffensive tries to bolster its position at the negotiating table.
China has been singled out by several as the only country capable of acting as a neutral mediator in peace negotiations, given the good relationship it has with both Russia and Ukraine. Ip Kuai Peng, professor at the University of the City of Macau, explains that this context “gives Beijing the necessary diplomatic space and qualifications” to listen to both sides.
The relationship with Russia is “characterized by strategic trust and good neighborliness”. With Ukraine, there are 31 years of relational development, which culminated in the “strategic partnership level”. In addition, China is now the country’s largest trading partner.
The academic, who has also served as a researcher at the Institute of Foreign Affairs of China, points out that “unlike other countries that deal with the crisis in a partial and biased way, China has been pushing the two parties towards peace, maintaining a balanced and impartial position”.
China’s first official step to end the war in Ukraine took place on February 24, when it called for a ceasefire and presented a 12-point peace proposal. The proposal was applauded by the President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky.
“I think that, in general, the fact that China has started talking about peace in Ukraine is not bad,” he said at a joint press conference with Spain’s prime minister. And although the Ukrainian embassy in China recognized this “good sign”, it asked the Asian giant for more. “Right now, we can say that he is not talking to Ukraine.”
That request was accepted. On April 26, Chinese President Xi Jinping spoke by phone with his Ukrainian counterpart. Xi promised Zelensky that he would not “sit idly” or “seek to profit from the war”. On the other hand, he announced the appointment of a special representative for Eurasian affairs in Ukraine “to have in-depth communication with all parties on the political solution of the crisis”.
However, this call came 426 days after the war started, which makes the West suspicious of China’s real intentions.
Pressure on Moscow
Priscilla Roberts, an expert on international relations, still sees China closer to Russia, given “the various phone calls with Putin and the personal visit to Moscow”. But that closeness may actually be what makes China the perfect mediator. “There has been a lot of discussion about whether the Western alliance would ever pressure Ukraine to negotiate. Less discussed, but probably more important, is who could force Russia to make significant concessions,” writes Gideon Rachman, chief international relations columnist for the Financial Times.
Roberts recognizes this capability in China. It is a country “well placed to mediate peace negotiations”, because it enjoys “geographical proximity and political alignment with Russia”. On the other hand, she sees Russia as increasingly dependent on China in economic terms, “especially since the invasion”. The academic clarifies, referring that the economic sanctions of the West make the energy sold to China the great source of Russian income. “Without the funds resulting from these sales, the Russian war effort could collapse.”
International reaffirmation
Even so, in order to confirm this role of mediator attributed to China, the expert considers that there will have to be a distance from Moscow’s most extreme positions, even to heal the relationship with the West. “There seems to be scope for that. China has never formally recognized Russia’s annexation of Crimea and recently voted in favor of a UN resolution that included a paragraph that explicitly referred to Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. Chinese diplomats seem increasingly concerned that leaning too heavily towards the Russian position will make tense relations with the West even more acrimonious, while doing little to China’s own security.
Ip Kuai Peng acknowledges that the war ended up widening the gap between China and the West. “Some Western countries and media have maliciously criticized and even maligned relations between China and Russia.”
The Chinese proposal for peace, although a “good sign” for Ukrainians, was not well received by the European Union and NATO. The president of the European Commission and the secretary general of NATO considered that Beijing “has no credibility”, as it “took sides” and signed an “unlimited partnership” with Moscow.
“A protracted war is becoming a strategic burden for Beijing. Rather than weakening the Washington-led alliance system, the war brought democracies across the US, Europe, and Asia closer together,” writes Rachman. Being part of the solution is therefore “an opportunity for China to improve relations with other countries”, points out Roberts. At the same time, it is an opportunity to invite other countries to be part of the solution. The expert argues that peace will only be achieved if China “works in partnership with other nations and international organizations”.
The Financial Times columnist recalls that China “spent decades expanding its influence in Europe”, but its partnership with Russia “convinced many Europeans that Beijing is now a threat”. Something that deserves greater attention, since “the EU is China’s biggest export market”, he points out.
Geopolitical nuances
Ip points out that China leaves for these peace negotiations with a successful experience. “The reconciliation between Saudi Arabia and Iran, under the mediation of China, not only brought great benefits for the maintenance of peace and stability in the Middle East, but also constituted an example of resolving disagreements and differences between countries through dialogue and Query.”
According to Rachman, even the US attitude towards the Chinese peace initiative has changed. “Given the growing rivalry between Washington and Beijing, one might expect the US to take a negative view of China’s involvement in Ukraine (…). Biden’s government decided not to discard the Chinese peace initiative right away, but to try to shape it. Americans understand the dangers of appearing ‘anti-peace’. But not only that. The US is also increasingly interested in finding a way to end the war in Ukraine. Washington knows that the longer the conflict lasts, the harder it will be to maintain the Western consensus to pour millions into Ukraine in military and economic support.”
Before peace, a counter-offensive
Nevertheless, “the prospect of an immediate peace seems dim. It’s highly unlikely,” says Roberts. Ukrainian Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov confirmed on May 7 in Athens that the Ukrainian army is preparing for a counter-offensive against Russian forces, although he did not reveal details about the operation.
“Ukraine is about to launch a new offensive in the spring, hoping to drive Russia out of most of the occupied territories. Meanwhile, Russia intends to retain and formally annex as much Ukrainian territory as it can,” analyzes Roberts.
“The most likely outcome is that Ukraine will strengthen its position on the battlefield ahead of the peace talks,” understands Rachman. Roberts has another view, and one that reveals just how difficult the peace process could be. “For the war to end, either one side is so successful that the other concludes that victory was impossible; or both become convinced that the war is at an impasse and neither can win.”
