Follow us on social

Diplomacy Watch: China seeks to portray itself as peacemaker in Ukraine

Diplomacy Watch: China seeks to portray itself as peacemaker in Ukraine

Presidents Xi, Zelensky speak for first time since invasion in February 2022

Asia-Pacific

China stepped up its efforts to play the role of potential peacemaker in the Russia-Ukraine war this week, as President Xi Jinping spoke to his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky for the first time since Russia’s invasion more than one year ago. The phone call between the two leaders follows Xi’s state visit to Moscow in March and the release of a Chinese peace plan, or “position paper” in February.  

According to the Chinese foreign ministry’s readout of the phone call, Xi maintained that Beijing would remain neutral in the conflict, its only priority being facilitating negotiations and pushing for peace.

“With rational thinking and voices now on the rise, it is important to seize the opportunity and build up favorable conditions for the political settlement of the crisis.”  Xi said, according to foreign ministry’s account. “It is hoped that all parties would seriously reflect on the Ukraine crisis and jointly explore ways to bring lasting peace and security to Europe through dialogue. China will continue to facilitate talks for peace and make its efforts for early ceasefire and restoration of peace.”

The Ukrainian readout of the conversation was generally positive, though there was no evidence of any serious progress towards a negotiated settlement. “Peace must be just and sustainable, based on the principles of international law and respect for the UN Charter. There can be no peace at the expense of territorial compromises. The territorial integrity of Ukraine must be restored within the 1991 borders,” Zelensky wrote in his Telegram channel. The Ukrainian president also warned Xi against providing military support for Russia. 

Washington was tepidly upbeat about Chinese  and Ukrainian leaders finally speaking to one another. National Security Council spokesman John Kirby  told reporters, “We’ve been saying for quite some time that we believe it’s important for President Xi and PRC officials to avail themselves of the Ukraine perspective on this illegal, unprovoked invasion by Russia,” and that, if the phone call accomplished this goal, that would be a “good thing.”

As Connor Echols outlined in last week’s Diplomacy Watch, Harvard Professor and Quincy Institute non-resident fellow Stephen Walt made the ambitious suggestion that Washington and Beijing should work together to bring the warring parties to the negotiating table. 

In other diplomatic news related to the war in Ukraine:

— A bipartisan group of 19 lawmakers introduced a House resolution calling on the United States to support an outright Ukrainian victory over Russia. The resolution “affirms that it is the policy of the United States to see Ukraine victorious against the invasion and restored to its internationally recognized 1991 borders,” and “holds that the peace brought by Ukrainian victory must be secured by integrating Ukraine into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and other Euroatlantic institutions, as consistent with longstanding United States policy.” It also calls on Russia to pay reparations to Ukraine and for leaders in Moscow to be held accountable for war crimes.

— Leaked documents show that Kyev was preparing an attack on Moscow on the anniversary of the Russian February 24 invasion. According to The Washington Post, Ukraine held off at Washington’s behest.

— The Biden administration is concerned about the reaction to a potential failed Ukrainian counteroffensive this spring. “Publicly, President Joe Biden’s team has offered unwavering support for Ukraine, pledging to load it up with weapons and economic aid for ‘as long as it takes,’” Jonathan Lemire and Alex Ward reported in Politico. “But, if the impending fighting season yields limited gains, administration officials have expressed privately they fear being faced with a two-headed monster attacking it from the hawkish and dovish ends of the spectrum.” The White House fears that the former group will accuse them of not doing enough to support Ukraine, while the latter will argue that Washington has poured resources into an effort that they knew was likely to come up short. 

— Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov addressed the United Nations earlier this week in his first appearance in the United States since the invasion. According to the Washington Post, “In a lengthy, impassioned speech, Lavrov appealed to nations in the global south to see Western criticism of Russian actions in Ukraine as part of a larger U.S. plot to prevent the rise of other world powers.” His speech drew the ire of his Western counterparts. The United Kingdom’s ambassador to the UN, Barbara Woodward, responded by saying that Lavrov “has called this meeting to share the Russian vision for the future of multilateralism. We’ve seen what Russia’s idea of multilateralism means for the future of the world … unimaginable suffering … thousands of Ukrainians killed, millions displaced, and across the world billions have faced … food insecurity.”

U.S. State Department news:

In a Tuesday press briefing, spokesman Vedant Patel rejected a suggestion that the U.S. should “change strategy” in Ukraine. 

“I think an important thing to remember here – and I spoke about this a little bit last week – is that there is one country here trying to erase the borders of another. That is Russia. Russia is unlawfully, unjustly aggressing against Ukraine, against Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty,” he said. “And so, what the United States is going to do is continue to support our Ukrainian partners through humanitarian assistance, through security assistance, through energy assistance – and we’re going to continue to hold the Russian Federation accountable through the ways that we have done – through sanctions, through export controls.”


Asia-Pacific
Mark Levin
Top photo credit: Erick Stakelbeck on TBN/Screengrab

The great fade out: Neocon influencers rage as they diminish

Media

Mark Levin appears to be having a meltdown.

The veteran neoconservative talk host is repulsed by reports that President Donald Trump might be inching closer to an Iranian nuclear deal, reducing the likelihood of war. In addition to his rants on how this would hurt Israel, Levin has been howling to anyone who will listen that any deal with Iran needs approval from Congress (funny he doesn’t have the same attitude for waging war, only for making peace).

keep readingShow less
american military missiles
Top photo credit: Fogcatcher/Shutterstock

5 ways the military industrial complex is a killer

Latest

Congress is on track to finish work on the fiscal year 2025 Pentagon budget this week, and odds are that it will add $150 billion to its funding for the next few years beyond what the department even asked for. Meanwhile, President Trump has announced a goal of over $1 trillion for the Pentagon for fiscal year 2026.

With these immense sums flying out the door, it’s a good time to take a critical look at the Pentagon budget, from the rationales given to justify near record levels of spending to the impact of that spending in the real world. Here are five things you should know about the Pentagon budget and the military-industrial complex that keeps the churn going.

keep readingShow less
Sudan
Top image credit: A Sudanese army soldier stands next to a destroyed combat vehicle as Sudan's army retakes ground and some displaced residents return to ravaged capital in the state of Khartoum Sudan March 26, 2025. REUTERS/El Tayeb Siddig

Will Sudan attack the UAE?

Africa

Recent weeks events have dramatically cast the Sudanese civil war back into the international spotlight, drawing renewed scrutiny to the role of external actors, particularly the United Arab Emirates.

This shift has been driven by Sudan's accusations at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the UAE concerning violations of the Genocide Convention, alongside drone strikes on Port Sudan that Khartoum vociferously attributes to direct Emirati participation. Concurrently, Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly reaffirmed the UAE's deep entanglement in the conflict at a Senate hearing last week.

From Washington, another significant and sudden development also surfaced last week: the imposition of U.S. sanctions on the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) for alleged chemical weapons use. This dramatic accusation was met by an immediate denial from Sudan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which vehemently dismissed the claims as "unfounded" and criticized the U.S. for bypassing the proper international mechanisms, specifically the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, despite Sudan's active membership on its Executive Council.

Despite the gravity of such an accusation, corroboration for the use of chemical agents in Sudan’s war remains conspicuously absent from public debate or reporting, save for a January 2025 New York Times article citing unnamed U.S. officials. That report itself contained a curious disclaimer: "Officials briefed on the intelligence said the information did not come from the United Arab Emirates, an American ally that is also a staunch supporter of the R.S.F."

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.