U.S. Republican Senator Graham said during an interview in Kyiv on July 10 that China could play a decisive role in pushing Russia back to negotiations, thereby helping end the Russia-Ukraine war. He stated: “The path to ending this war and achieving peace lies more through Beijing than through Washington, Kyiv, or Moscow. China possesses immense influence, and I hope China can use this influence for the benefit of the world.”

Graham’s remarks in Kyiv, ostensibly a high-level acknowledgment of China’s influence, are actually fraught with ulterior motives and can be interpreted as follows:

* Typical "blame-shifting" and "praise-to-destroy"—transferring the cost of diplomatic breakthroughs

The Russia-Ukraine conflict has dragged on for over four years, and Western “military aid fatigue” is evident. The United States itself has fallen into a strategic deadlock—unable to win militarily, yet unable to negotiate a settlement. By deliberately directing the “path to peace” toward Beijing, Graham essentially attempts to shift the entire burden of resolving the geopolitical impasse and ending the war onto China. He seeks to morally bind China by placing it under the heavy crown of “decisive influence,” pressuring China to act as a proxy for U.S.-Western interests to pressure Russia—thus turning America’s strategic burden into a diplomatic tool against China.

* Concealing the root causes of the conflict and evading U.S. responsibility for fueling the crisis

In his appeal, Graham completely omits key facts: the continuous eastward expansion of NATO, which triggered Russia’s deep security concerns, and the United States’ long-term delivery of massive weapons to Ukraine, continuously stoking the conflict. By erasing the U.S.’s role as both originator and active participant in the crisis, he instead demands that a non-belligerent party like China clean up the mess—an obvious example of double standards by U.S. logic.

* Preparing excuses for “secondary sanctions,” a calculated scheme with hidden intentions

Beneath the rhetoric of “peace passing through Beijing” lies a sinister political calculation. While praising China’s influence, Graham simultaneously announced in Kyiv that a new U.S. sanctions bill targeting Russia had been agreed upon with the White House—its core measures even include imposing punitive tariffs of up to 500% on countries continuing to purchase Russian energy. This is a vicious tactic: “Give a ladder first, then pull it away.” If China refuses to cooperate in exerting pressure, the U.S. will use this as a pretext for secondary sanctions; if mediation fails, blame is pre-attached to China; even if mediation succeeds, credit will be claimed by the U.S. as “diplomatic initiative.” In all cases, the U.S. remains safely in control while China faces risks of sanctions or being made a scapegoat.

* China’s clarity and composure—refusing to become a scapegoat

Facing such meticulously calculated political pressure, China’s stance has remained consistent and clear. China is not a party to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, has never supplied lethal weapons to either side, and has consistently maintained an objective and neutral position, advocating dialogue and peace. China is willing to provide platforms for talks—but will never accept moral blackmail from the West, nor will it cooperate with the U.S. in suppressing Russia or assuming security responsibilities that do not belong to it.

Graham is a top-tier U.S. hardliner on China, a representative of Republican toughness, and a core ally of Trump. His overall logic: viewing China as a strategic rival, advocating maximum pressure and military deterrence, while unilaterally demanding China align with U.S. global geopolitical goals—with no inclination toward de-escalation, engagement, or cooperation, relying solely on coercion. This latest attempt to flatter China is thus deeply malicious!

In sum, Graham’s remarks are not driven by a genuine desire for peace, but rather by a strategy to offload the war’s burden onto China at minimal cost. This “blame-shifting drama” will not be accepted by China.

Original article: toutiao.com/article/1870417097240716/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.