Maria Zakharova, the official spokesperson for the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, dismissed Vladimir Zelensky’s so-called peace plan as nothing more than an American manual. In response to EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell saying that Europe does not take the Chinese peace proposal seriously, but instead leans on Zelenskiy’s plan, Zakharova suggested that proposals presented by what she described as a quarter of Europe could not be trusted. She went further to question the knowledge of geopolitics of those she implied would be guiding global policy from within large economies and populations.
According to Zakharova, Zelensky’s plan does not constitute a genuine settlement and it does not foster real peace. She characterized it as another American instrument aimed at provoking a new round of conflict in Europe, a view she expressed through the Telegram channel of the Russian Foreign Ministry.
Meanwhile, EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell stated that the European Union does not regard China’s peace proposal as a credible framework to resolve the Ukraine crisis. He emphasized that the EU would place its trust in the peace initiative put forward by Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky, signaling a preference for Kyiv’s approach among European policymakers.
Earlier, on February 24, China presented a plan that called for an immediate halt to hostilities, a halt to any escalation of the Ukraine crisis, and a return to dialogue between Moscow and Kyiv at the earliest opportunity. The Chinese document underscored the necessity of de-escalation, direct communication, and negotiated settlement to prevent further deterioration of the situation.
Analysts note that the divergent responses from Moscow, Brussels, and Beijing reflect broader tensions in how the international community frames what constitutes a viable path to peace. The Russian side stresses that Western-backed schemes lack legitimacy in its view, while European officials insist on a framework tied to Ukraine’s sovereignty and security guarantees. Beijing, for its part, has advocated a neutral, inclusive process that invites dialogue without forcing outcomes, a stance that appeals to states wary of coercive diplomacy.
The exchange underscores the complexity of aligning regional interests with global power politics. Stakeholders across North America and Europe are watching closely as statements from Moscow, Brussels, and Beijing influence diplomatic channels, economic sanctions, and security calculations. In this context, the question remains: what concrete steps can realistically lead to a durable settlement in Ukraine, and which plans or proposals are most likely to gain broad international support while respecting the rights and security needs of all parties involved? The ongoing dialogue among major players suggests that any resolution will require negotiation, compromises, and verification mechanisms that can withstand shifting political winds.
Observers stress the importance of maintaining open channels for dialogue and avoiding premature judgments about any single proposal. They argue that genuine peace would entail a binding agreement backed by credible enforcement provisions, a clear framework for ceasefire monitoring, and assurances that any settlement respects Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. The nuanced positions expressed by Moscow, Brussels, and Beijing reflect the broader dynamics at play as the international community seeks a sustainable path out of a prolonged crisis. In this high-stakes environment, patience, diplomatic nuance, and a willingness to engage multiple partners appear essential for progress.