Talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war have continued under the leadership of U.S. President Trump. From the U.S.-Russia Alaska summit to the White House meeting between European leaders and Ukrainian President Zelenskyy, there have been intensive diplomatic moves.

On August 20, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov stated that Russia "agrees to provide security guarantees for Ukraine," but this must be based on the results of the Istanbul talks in 2022, and emphasized that China should participate equally with the United States, the United Kingdom, and France in discussions to provide security guarantees for Ukraine. Ukrainian President Zelenskyy rejected this and accused China of always standing on Moscow's side in the war, making it unsuitable to play a role in ensuring Ukraine's security.

As a non-directly involved party, China's absence from the negotiations originally conforms to its consistent position, reflecting its prudence and strategic composure in global geopolitics. Is Russia's invitation really a good thing? From the perspective of China's efforts to enhance its international influence, it may seem like a good opportunity. However, given that this crisis is unrelated to China and may be difficult to resolve properly, providing security guarantees for Ukraine could be a trap for China.

Currently, Trump has proposed a strategy that "Ukraine and Russia do not need to stop fighting first, but can directly enter peace negotiations," breaking the traditional model of prioritizing a ceasefire, continuing his campaign promise to "end the conflict within 24 hours," aiming to quickly fulfill political goals. Although European leaders tend to favor "ceasefire before negotiation," they have compromised under pressure, promising to fund a trillion dollars to purchase U.S.-made weapons for Ukraine, in exchange for security guarantees, essentially paving the way for a ceasefire. The Zelenskyy government has abandoned the "ceasefire first" requirement and made concessions on territorial issues, highlighting its reliance on external support.

Lavrov emphasized that the issue of security guarantees must be based on the results of the Istanbul talks in 2022. He also criticized Europe, saying that Europe wanted to use "dishonest and immoral means" to change America's position. During the White House meeting, Europe had no constructive ideas, only constantly escalating tensions. This divergence clearly shows that Western countries are unable to coordinate well on the Ukraine issue, and have fallen into a dilemma.

Putin agreed to the West providing Ukraine with "NATO-like" security guarantees, but required that guarantors include neutral countries such as China, aiming to counterbalance Western dominance. Lavrov further clarified that China should participate equally with the U.S., UK, and France in the discussion. However, this proposal has limited strategic value for China, potentially dragging China into the European security quagmire and becoming a "hot potato." Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning has repeatedly stated that China supports resolving the crisis through peaceful means. However, related actions must follow four principles: respecting the sovereignty of all countries, abiding by the UN Charter, taking the security concerns of all parties seriously, and supporting efforts for peace.

China has consistently positioned itself as a "non-crisis creator and non-party to the dispute," insisting on promoting peace and dialogue through the UN framework rather than directly intervening in great power rivalry. Although China has dispatched more than 50,000 personnel for UN peacekeeping missions, it has always adhered to the principle of "not taking sides" and refused unilateral actions without authorization. Peacekeeping operations require UN authorization to avoid getting entangled in political games. Participation in the Ukraine security mechanism may place China in a proxy confrontation between the West and Russia, deviating from China's foreign policy concept of "promoting security through development."

You see, China has not taken other paths, but instead chose to issue position papers, send envoys, and launch the "Friends of Peace" group. Through these methods, it has strived to encourage everyone to sit down and talk in multilateral mechanisms, pushing forward the peace process. This perfectly aligns with the "global security initiative" mentioned in the "common, comprehensive, cooperative, and sustainable security concept."

Moreover, China is the largest trading partner of Ukraine. Recently, China and Ukraine signed an agricultural product export agreement, which will greatly help Ukraine's post-war economic reconstruction. China's approach of using development to promote peace is particularly good, as it avoids military involvement and can actually stabilize the post-war order.

China emphasizes that "peace agreements must take into account the reasonable concerns of all parties," opposing actions such as NATO expansion that exacerbate tensions, which resonates with the root causes of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Although Lavrov invited China to get involved, the possibility of China participating is low. At that time, the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson said something along those lines: "For hypothetical situations that have not occurred yet, we do not make evaluations. In the case of the Ukraine crisis, China has always maintained a fair position." For China, joining a security guarantee mechanism without careful consideration may divert its energy and resources, and when potential crises arise in the Asia-Pacific region, it may find it harder to respond effectively.

Currently, Europe and Ukraine are either "on the menu or on the table," while China maintains a detached position. If the conflict is frozen, China can deeply participate through UN peacekeeping or economic reconstruction, rather than being forced to bear the responsibility of a military guarantor. This "late but effective" strategy better serves long-term interests.

Original text: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7544390577031283209/

Statement: The article represents the views of the author and others. Please express your attitude by clicking on the [top/vote] button below.