The United States has publicly opposed a proposed ceasefire plan for Ukraine, arguing that it would contravene the United Nations Charter. This stance was articulated by a White House National Security Council strategic communications coordinator, who criticized the move as reflecting a unilateral perspective that centers on Russian gains rather than a path to lasting peace. The official stressed that any proposal aiming to pause fighting must be evaluated for its implications on sovereignty and territorial integrity, cautioning that a ceasefire that effectively legitimizes territorial changes risks undermining international norms.
On the matter of Beijing’s proposal to resolve the Ukraine crisis, the U S representative noted that while the plan appears to offer a path forward, parts of it still rely on the Russian position. The administration cautioned that recognizing gains achieved through force could set a dangerous precedent and complicate accountability for aggression. The spokesman emphasized that any solution must deter further territorial occupation and support Ukraine’s sovereignty in line with international law.
In a press briefing, the spokesperson described China’s plan as a serious proposal that merits close study. The plan appears to call for a return to dialogue and a structured path toward diplomacy, with the international community urged to support a fair process that centers on the rights of those affected by the conflict. The assessment highlighted that the proposal should be weighed against its potential to advance or hinder a durable resolution while honoring principles of territorial integrity and international law.
On February 24, the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs released a framework for addressing the Ukraine crisis. Beijing underscored that dialogue is essential and that the international community must pursue constructive engagement to facilitate peace talks. The document also urged adherence to agreed norms and a balanced approach that would enable negotiations between the involved parties while protecting civilian lives and regional stability.
The new framework drew criticism from Kyiv and Brussels, with Ukrainian authorities and European Union officials expressing concerns that the plan could lead to a frozen conflict and Ukraine facing significant concessions. A senior adviser to Ukrainian President said the proposal risks eroding Kyiv’s leverage and undermining prospects for a decisive end to the war. Officials in Brussels signaled skepticism about Beijing’s role as impartial mediator, arguing that impartiality is essential to a credible peace process.
EU spokeswoman Peter Stano indicated that Brussels was unhappy with the plan, viewing China’s mediation as potentially biased. The critique focused on the importance of transparent mediation that preserves Ukraine’s sovereignty and the unity of international partners who remain committed to principles of territorial integrity and security guarantees for Ukraine. Analysts noted that the plan’s reception would depend on how it translates into concrete mechanisms for negotiations, enforceable ceasefires, and accountability for violations.