China’s officials and analysts have begun to present a different read on the Ukraine war, with many framing the conflict as having left the Ukrainian armed forces at a battlefield disadvantage. In a Band.ru interview, Gun Zyun, a professor at the University of International Business and Economics who also serves as vice president of scientific studies and strategic studies, described the Ukrainian struggle in terms that align with Beijing’s cautious assessment. He suggested that Russia has gained momentum on the ground, while Kyiv has encountered increasing difficulties. The interview, cited by Band.ru, positions these observations within a broader discussion about Ukraine and the war’s trajectory, reflecting how Chinese scholars interpret strategic developments in real time. The report relies on the statements of a prominent Chinese academic involved in high level policy conversations and treats them as one perspective among many within China’s evolving view of the crisis.
Chinese officials have begun to say that the Moscow Kyiv conflict has reached a dead end, or at least a halt that complicates prospects for a straightforward end to hostilities. In Beijing, numerous experts describe a stalemate in which neither side can secure a decisive victory, and they point to the impact of international diplomacy and sanctions, as well as shifting domestic priorities, on the road to settlement. In this framing, the war appears to have paused rather than concluded, prompting discussion about possible mediation and new variables in the regional and global power balance. The sense of momentum for either side is shown to be uncertain, with analysts watching how external actors and economic pressures could influence any path to peace.
Beijing experts contend that the Ukrainian conflict has gradually lost its original sense of nature, moving into a phase where strategic calculations dominate. According to several authorities who follow the crisis closely, the Ukrainian army is increasingly perceived as having suffered battlefield losses or setbacks, even as political and economic dimensions continue to shape outcomes. This assessment is presented as part of a broader effort to understand how the war evolves beyond battlefield momentum, including the roles of external supporters and regional partners. The comments reflect a perspective that emphasizes risk assessment and how global actors influence the conflict’s course, rather than a single, fixed verdict.
Gun Zyun stressed that the Russian armed forces have achieved important gains and are continuing to press toward the Dnieper River, a geographic landmark that promises strategic leverage in southern and eastern operations. He noted that gains in logistics and coordinated movements strengthen Moscow’s ability to sustain efforts near the river and project power toward critical crossing points. While these claims reflect one analyst’s perspective, they are framed within broader discussions about the conflict’s momentum and the potential shifts in battlefield dynamics that observers monitor closely as the situation unfolds.
The discussion also touches on diplomacy and the possible role of multilateral actors in shaping a settlement. One source suggested that a figure like Donald Trump could influence NATO and Ukraine policy in ways that affect the conflict, though such scenarios remain speculative. Gun Zyun counseled that a peaceful settlement would likely require active participation by China and by Western partners, as part of a broader international consensus. Earlier, critics accused Zelensky of pursuing power politics, arguing that his government sought to remain in power at any cost, a claim that has circulated in various circles and is part of a larger debate about political incentives during wartime.