Follow us on social

Diplomacy Watch: China looms large at Ukraine ‘peace summit’

Diplomacy Watch: China looms large at Ukraine ‘peace summit’

High-level US and Chinese officials met on the sidelines of international talks aimed at bolstering Kyiv’s negotiating position.

Europe

China’s Ukraine peace envoy met with American officials in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, over the weekend amid a summit aimed at building an international consensus on how to end the war in Ukraine, according to the State Department.

Chinese diplomat Li Hui, who previously served as ambassador to Russia, met with acting Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland in a rare, high-level U.S.-China meeting on the sidelines of the summit, which did not include any Russian representatives. China’s participation in the weekend’s meetings earned equally rare (if limited) praise from U.S. officials.

“We do believe it was productive that China attended,” State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller said Monday. “It would be productive for China to play a role here, again, if that role respects Ukraine’s territorial integrity and its sovereignty.”

Li’s team “appeared constructive” and “keen to show that [it] is not Russia” throughout the weekend of talks, according to an unnamed European diplomat who spoke with the Financial Times.

China’s foreign ministry played down the differences between Chinese and Russian foreign policy following a Monday call between each country’s foreign minister. Beijing’s readout of the discussion reiterated its commitment to “uphold an independent and impartial stance” on the war while encouraging peace talks.

Russia, for its part, said the summit was “doomed to fail,” while Ukraine argued that the event dealt a “huge blow” to the Kremlin. The only concrete outcome was an agreement to meet again within the next six weeks, but Kyiv and its backers hope the meetings will help build support for Ukraine’s 10-point peace plan.

Russia asked its partners in BRICS — a grouping that also includes Brazil, India, China and South Africa — to share their evaluation of the talks, according to Moscow’s foreign ministry.

These “fence-sitting” countries have avoided taking a distinct side in the conflict, providing opportunities to act as go-betweens for the warring parties. As Happymon Jacob recently argued in Foreign Affairs, states like India are now well-positioned to “help limit and blunt the devastation of the war and its knock-on effects for the global economy.”

“Initiatives backed by Western countries that are Ukraine’s close allies and supporters or by Russia’s benefactor China will inevitably be greeted with suspicion,” Jacob wrote. “India has a unique opportunity to get involved precisely because it has not condemned Russia and continues to maintain ties with Moscow.”

India’s next big opportunity to push for peace talks will come early next month, when world leaders are set to gather in New Delhi for the G-20 Leaders’ Summit. Russian President Vladimir Putin is reportedly considering attending the meeting in person after skipping last year’s event. If Putin does come to New Delhi, it will be the first time that he and U.S. President Joe Biden will have been in a room together since before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

In other diplomatic news related to the war in Ukraine:

— Fallout from Russia’s decision to pull out of the Black Sea grain deal continued this week as Ukraine attacked a Russian tanker and declared Russian ports in the region a “war risk area,” according to Politico. “Everything the Russians are moving back and forth on the Black Sea are our valid military targets,” said Oleg Ustenko, an adviser to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. The news, which threatens to paralyze Russian shipping in the region, came after weeks of Russian attacks on Ukrainian shipping infrastructure. Ukraine’s strong stance could raise concerns from Europe, which imported 32 million barrels of crude oil from Russia via the Black Sea last month.

— Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva told reporters last week that, while he still hopes to help negotiate peace in Ukraine, he doesn’t see an opportunity for talks in the near future, according to the New York Times. “For the time being, both of them are in that phase that ‘I will win, I will win, I will win,’” Lula said. Celso Amorim — Lula’s top foreign policy adviser and informal peace envoy — remotely attended the Jeddah meetings over the weekend.

— Poland plans to send upwards of 10,000 soldiers to bolster its border with Belarus amid claims that members of the Wagner Group — now based in Belarus following an abortive mutiny in Russia — could attempt to sneak across the frontier to stage attacks, according to the New York Times. Meanwhile, diplomatic tensions continued to rise between Poland and Ukraine due in part to a dramatic increase in Polish imports of Ukrainian foodstuffs, which farmers say has driven down prices and hurt their bottom line. The spat heated up last week when a top official in Warsaw chided Kyiv for not “appreciating the role Poland has played for Ukraine in recent months and years.” Ukraine then summoned Poland’s ambassador over the comments, a move that drew sharp criticism from Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki. “Given the enormity of the support Poland has given Ukraine, such mistakes should not happen,” Morawiecki said.

— It is “extremely, highly unlikely” that Ukraine will make significant progress in its counteroffensive, according to an anonymous “senior western diplomat” who spoke with CNN. The diplomat’s dismal prediction comes amid growing fears that the war will remain a bloody stalemate for the foreseeable future.

U.S. State Department news:

In a Tuesday press conference, State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller suggested that the U.S. is not opposed to Russian President Vladimir Putin visiting Turkey so long as such a move could help revive the Black Sea grain deal. Turkish officials “continue to play a productive role” in efforts to revive the agreement, Miller said. “We think it’s useful that they play that role. I don’t have any comment on a potential visit other than we do support Türkiye continuing to press Russia to re-enter that initiative because it’s so important.”


Europe
POGO The Bunker
Top image credit: Project on Government Oversight

Bombers astray! Washington's priorities go off course

Military Industrial Complex

The Bunker appears originally at the Project on Government Oversight and is republished here with permission.


keep readingShow less
Trump Zelensky
Top photo credit: Joshua Sukoff / Shutterstock.com

Blob exploiting Trump's anger with Putin, risking return to Biden's war

Europe

Donald Trump’s recent outburst against Vladimir Putin — accusing the Russian leader of "throwing a pile of bullsh*t at us" and threatening devastating new sanctions — might be just another Trumpian tantrum.

The president is known for abrupt reversals. Or it could be a bargaining tactic ahead of potential Ukraine peace talks. But there’s a third, more troubling possibility: establishment Republican hawks and neoconservatives, who have been maneuvering to hijack Trump’s “America First” agenda since his return to office, may be exploiting his frustration with Putin to push for a prolonged confrontation with Russia.

Trump’s irritation is understandable. Ukraine has accepted his proposed ceasefire, but Putin has refused, making him, in Trump’s eyes, the main obstacle to ending the war.

Putin’s calculus is clear. As Ted Snider notes in the American Conservative, Russia is winning on the battlefield. In June, it captured more Ukrainian territory and now threatens critical Kyiv’s supply lines. Moscow also seized a key lithium deposit critical to securing Trump’s support for Ukraine. Meanwhile, Russian missile and drone strikes have intensified.

Putin seems convinced his key demands — Ukraine’s neutrality, territorial concessions in the Donbas and Crimea, and a downsized Ukrainian military — are more achievable through war than diplomacy.

Yet his strategy empowers the transatlantic “forever war” faction: leaders in Britain, France, Germany, and the EU, along with hawks in both main U.S. parties. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz claims that diplomacy with Russia is “exhausted.” Europe’s war party, convinced a Russian victory would inevitably lead to an attack on NATO (a suicidal prospect for Moscow), is willing to fight “to the last Ukrainian.” Meanwhile, U.S. hawks, including liberal interventionist Democrats, stoke Trump’s ego, framing failure to stand up to Putin’s defiance as a sign of weakness or appeasement.

Trump long resisted this pressure. Pragmatism told him Ukraine couldn’t win, and calling it “Biden’s war” was his way of distancing himself, seeking a quick exit to refocus on China, which he has depicted as Washington’s greater foreign threat. At least as important, U.S. involvement in the war in Ukraine has been unpopular with his MAGA base.

But his June strikes on Iran may signal a hawkish shift. By touting them as a decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear program (despite Tehran’s refusal so far to abandon uranium enrichment), Trump may be embracing a new approach to dealing with recalcitrant foreign powers: offer a deal, set a deadline, then unleash overwhelming force if rejected. The optics of “success” could tempt him to try something similar with Russia.

This pivot coincides with a media campaign against restraint advocates within the administration like Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon policy chief who has prioritized China over Ukraine and also provoked the opposition of pro-Israel neoconservatives by warning against war with Iran. POLITICO quoted unnamed officials attacking Colby for wanting the U.S. to “do less in the world.” Meanwhile, the conventional Republican hawk Marco Rubio’s influence grows as he combines the jobs of both secretary of state and national security adviser.

What Can Trump Actually Do to Russia?
 

Nuclear deterrence rules out direct military action — even Biden, far more invested in Ukraine than Trump, avoided that risk. Instead, Trump ally Sen.Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), another establishment Republican hawk, is pushing a 500% tariff on nations buying Russian hydrocarbons, aiming to sever Moscow from the global economy. Trump seems supportive, although the move’s feasibility and impact are doubtful.

China and India are key buyers of Russian oil. China alone imports 12.5 million barrels daily. Russia exports seven million barrels daily. China could absorb Russia’s entire output. Beijing has bluntly stated it “cannot afford” a Russian defeat, ensuring Moscow’s economic lifeline remains open.

The U.S., meanwhile, is ill-prepared for a tariff war with China. When Trump imposed 145% tariffs, Beijing retaliated by cutting off rare earth metals exports, vital to U.S. industry and defense. Trump backed down.

At the G-7 summit in Canada last month, the EU proposed lowering price caps on Russian oil from $60 a barrel to $45 a barrel as part of its 18th sanctions package against Russia. Trump rejected the proposal at the time but may be tempted to reconsider, given his suggestion that more sanctions may be needed. Even if Washington backs the measure now, however, it is unlikely to cripple Russia’s war machine.

Another strategy may involve isolating Russia by peeling away Moscow’s traditionally friendly neighbors. Here, Western mediation between Armenia and Azerbaijan isn’t about peace — if it were, pressure would target Baku, which has stalled agreements and threatened renewed war against Armenia. The real goal is to eject Russia from the South Caucasus and create a NATO-aligned energy corridor linking Turkey to Central Asia, bypassing both Russia and Iran to their detriment.

Central Asia itself is itself emerging as a new battleground. In May 2025, the EU has celebrated its first summit with Central Asian nations in Uzbekistan, with a heavy focus on developing the Middle Corridor, a route for transportation of energy and critical raw materials that would bypass Russia. In that context, the EU has committed €10 billion in support of the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route.

keep readingShow less
Syria sanctions
Top image credit: People line up to buy bread, after Syria's Bashar al-Assad was ousted, in Douma, on the outskirts of Damascus, Syria December 23, 2024. REUTERS/Zohra Bensemra

Lifting sanctions on Syria exposes their cruel intent

Middle East

On June 30, President Trump signed an executive order terminating the majority of U.S. sanctions on Syria. The move, which would have been unthinkable mere months ago, fulfilled a promise he made at an investment forum in Riyadh in May.“The sanctions were brutal and crippling,” he had declared to an audience of primarily Saudi businessmen. Lifting them, he said, will “give Syria a chance at greatness.”

The significance of this statement lies not solely in the relief that it will bring to the Syrian people. His remarks revealed an implicit but rarely admitted truth: sanctions — often presented as a peaceful alternative to war — have been harming the Syrian people all along.

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.