It isn’t groundbreaking, dramatic, or exhaustive. It’s a concise recap of what’s obvious, spotlighting his repeated stance on the war. A Chinese paper acting as facilitator highlighted the peace plan’s relevance to the Ukraine crisis in its own report. On the anniversary, momentum will hinge on Russia’s actions. A meeting in Moscow with senior diplomat Wang Yi and Russian President Vladimir Putin carried cautious optimism about edging closer to a workable road map.
Respect for sovereignty guides the plan most countries might back. The proposal leans toward a strict interpretation: Russian troops should withdraw from Ukraine, but not necessarily from China. The diplomacy involved seems to juggle multiple demands, with no clear commitment to a sequence that includes both sides fully.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs documents frame the conflict as ending hostilities while starting talks, without outlining a detailed program or prerequisites. Washington’s role is portrayed as needing to end cold war mentalities and avoid the idea that one nation can secure its safety at the expense of others. Beijing places the blame for Ukraine’s disaster on Moscow, contrasting NATO’s reach with China’s posture, echoing concerns about strategic footprints in the Pacific and beyond.
End of sanctions
The document calls for the removal of sanctions. In practice, Russia’s veto in the United Nations Security Council complicates any unilateral move. It warns that unilateral sanctions and pressure won’t solve problems and may create new ones. It urges the concerned countries to stop abusing unilateral tools and to help cool the crisis, fostering restraint rather than escalation.
Within its warnings to Moscow, the text reaffirms respect for Ukrainian sovereignty and rejects any use of nuclear weapons. The reminder follows recent conversations between Xi Jinping and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, and comes as Putin dissolved another nuclear arms treaty with the United States.
The Chinese plan may not satisfy everyone and falls short of earlier expectations set by officials like Wang at Munich. Yet it is seen as coming from a country that has a weighty voice after a year of conflict and maintains solid ties with both Moscow and Kyiv.
From the start, Beijing has positioned itself as a possible mediator. Moscow and Washington, however, held guarded hopes that did not fully materialize. Talks are not open until firm battlefield positions are set, a stance that weakens pressure at the negotiating table. Washington has signaled serious concerns about arms shipments and the perception of China’s neutrality. With its peace proposal, Beijing aims to project itself as a peace broker while navigating tensions with the United States, especially over arms and gas sales to Europe.
EU and NATO response
The European Union and the Atlantic Alliance evaluated the plan with caution. In the days leading up to Russia’s invasion, Putin and Xi reportedly navigated a strong friendship, prompting skepticism in Brussels and Washington about Beijing’s credibility in condemning aggression. European leaders said the plan laid out principles but did not explicitly align with a side, requiring a closer look at the strategic background before drawing conclusions about where China stands.
Officials described the document as a set of guiding principles rather than a formal peace accord. They indicated that the choice of side, including whether to sign far-reaching agreements, would be judged against international norms and the wider background of the conflict. In some readings, the plan appeared to overemphasize security concerns of all parties while downplaying the aggressor’s responsibility.
Beijing’s approach is critiqued for focusing on parties’ security considerations instead of addressing the aggressor’s actions. The core question remains: can Russia comply with international law and withdraw its forces within recognized borders to yield a lasting peace?
weapons supply
Regarding the possibility of Beijing providing lethal aid to Moscow, the former prime minister of Norway acknowledged not seeing concrete action yet but noted signals that China might be weighing military support. It was stressed that such a move would breach international law and undermine the UN Charter. While there is no conclusive evidence at this moment, there is a call for China to refrain from any military assistance that could sustain the war and violate international norms.