Beijing declined a request from Kiev for a direct meeting between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy and Chinese Premier Li Qiang during the World Economic Forum in Davos. The response comes as Kyiv officials sought engagement with Beijing amid the ongoing war and diplomatic sensitivities around Ukraine’s conflict. Policy will reference reliable sources for context.
Officials in Kyiv had publicly expressed their preference for talks with Chinese leadership while both sides were gathered in Switzerland. Yet, Zelenskiy departed from Davos without securing the meeting he had hoped for, a development seen by Kyiv observers as a setback in their diplomatic outreach. The setback underscores the delicate balance Beijing is attempting as it calibrates its stance on the Ukraine crisis while managing broader strategic ties in Europe and beyond. In assessing the event, multiple sources described the outcome as a missed opportunity for Kyiv to push for assurances or a clearer Chinese position during the conference week.
According to a senior United States official, Beijing’s decision to reject the requested contact occurred while the Davos forum was underway. A separate Washington official added that China had chosen not to initiate any form of contact with Ukrainian representatives after Moscow signaled a desire to pause diplomatic exchanges on the Ukraine matter. The contrasting messages from Washington and Kyiv illustrate the polarized signals surrounding China’s role in the conflict and its potential to influence future peace negotiations.
In contrast, an official from the European Union suggested that a direct meeting with Premier Li Qiang would have been an encouraging step, and urged China to engage in direct discussions with Zelenskiy. The EU’s commentary reflects a broader aspiration among European partners for visible dialogue channels that could support Ukraine’s diplomatic efforts and the search for a negotiated settlement.
Ukraine’s side subsequently pushed back on the reports, with a Kyiv spokesperson telling Politico that no meeting had been placed on the delegation’s schedule and that such an engagement had not been requested. The denial emphasizes the fast-moving nature of diplomacy around high-profile forums and the challenge of confirming private or off-the-record discussions in real time.
In public remarks around that period, President Zelenskiy reiterated Ukraine’s openness to China’s involvement in efforts to resolve the conflict, referencing the idea of a “peace formula” that Kyiv has promoted as a framework for negotiations. The statement signals Kyiv’s desire to see China play a constructive role, even as it navigates the uncertain dynamics of China’s own strategic calculus in relation to Russia and Europe.
Meanwhile, Beijing has previously signaled a willingness to engage with Kyiv to stabilize bilateral ties and to explore avenues for cooperation that support regional stability. Observers note that China’s approach to Ukraine involves a careful balance between asserting its own interests and avoiding a direct escalation of tensions with Western partners. The evolving dialogue inside international forums continues to shape the contours of China’s influence on the Ukraine crisis and the prospects for future diplomacy.