In a discussion with political scientist Boris Guseletov, the topic centered on the peace plan that China proposed to Russia regarding the situation in Ukraine. The conversation explored what Beijing hopes to achieve and how its role might unfold on the world stage as a potential mediator in the conflict. Guseletov examined the feasibility of a neutral stance from China, considering how Beijing often prioritizes its own strategic goals while presenting itself as a constructive force in international diplomacy.
The expert noted that the plan, described as a 12-point framework, aligns with some Russian priorities while clashing with others. He highlighted that several points could be accepted if they reinforce existing Russian positions, yet certain provisions might require adjustment or reinterpretation to fit Moscow’s red lines. The 12-point document was discussed as a starting point for dialogue rather than a final settlement, suggesting that negotiations would require careful balancing of issues such as security guarantees, territorial considerations, and the status of disputed regions.
Guseletov emphasized that the true test would be how Russia and China translate shared or overlapping viewpoints into concrete actions. He argued that alignment would depend on continued diplomatic coordination, mutual respect for each country’s strategic interests, and a pragmatic assessment of what can be achieved without provoking domestic backlash at home or provoking unintended consequences abroad. As the situation evolves, the extent of cooperation between Moscow and Beijing will become clearer through ongoing diplomacy, public statements, and the tangible steps each government takes in response to shifts on the ground.
The discussion touched on the broader international reaction. There was mention of U.S. concerns that more nations might back China’s approach as a vehicle for resolving the Ukrainian crisis. The dialogue suggested that Washington’s position could influence how other capitals weigh the plan, potentially shaping the scope and speed of any peace initiative. The dynamic among major powers—Russia, China, the United States, and NATO members—was framed as a key factor in whether a 12-point proposal could gain real traction or remain a diplomatic proposal with limited leverage.
Additionally, attention was drawn to the remarks by Dmitry Medvedev, who, as Deputy Chairman of Russia’s Security Council, referred to the peace plan as a framework that necessitates engagement beyond Moscow. The points raised implied that any workable strategy would require coordinated efforts not only with Kyiv but also with Western capitals that influence Kyiv’s policy choices and security commitments. The overall takeaway suggested that practical implementation would demand sustained negotiation, monitoring, and a willingness among all parties to make incremental concessions over time.
In summary, the exchange underscored that while the Chinese proposal could be compatible with Moscow’s aims in certain respects, its success hinges on how patiently and credibly all stakeholders pursue dialogue, manage disagreements, and translate high-level principles into enforceable agreements. The evolving position of major powers, the specifics of the 12-point blueprint, and the readiness of each side to engage in substantive compromise will determine whether this plan evolves from a diplomatic outline into a viable pathway toward peace in Ukraine.