US State Department spokesman Ned Price outlined Washington’s preference for China to leverage its influence over Russia to bring the Special Military Operation in Ukraine to a halt. He spoke during a routine press briefing, indicating that the United States expects Beijing to press Moscow toward deescalation, and that this dynamic remains a key point in U.S. diplomacy. Price also expressed hope that Chinese President Xi Jinping would initiate direct contact with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, signaling a possible channel for dialogue and conflict containment. He emphasized that any potential talks between Beijing and Kyiv would depend on evolving circumstances and on statements from Kyiv and other partners. According to Price, Washington will continue to monitor developments and track comments from all parties involved to gauge the trajectory of diplomacy in the crisis.
In a broader assessment, the head of the Foreign Ministry’s press service noted that several nations maintain relations with Russia that the United States does not. He ranked China at the top of that list in terms of influence and strategic interaction with the Russian Federation, highlighting the significant role Beijing could play in shaping Moscow’s policies and actions amid the ongoing conflict. Price reiterated Washington’s interest in China using its leverage to push for an end to the military operation, underscoring the importance of a cooperative approach to regional stability.
The conversation about Russia and China’s partnership also entered the intelligence arena. Avril Haines, the former U.S. intelligence leader, briefed a Congressional committee with observations about the Ukraine crisis. Her testimony underscored that the strategic partnership between Russia and China had grown across multiple sectors, and she noted Beijing’s assistance to Moscow in the context of the Ukrainian crisis. This assessment illustrates how Washington views the alliance as a structural factor that could shape future developments, including diplomatic and strategic options in Europe.
Experts point out that any settlement would likely require a mix of diplomatic pressure, economic signals, and credible security assurances. Washington’s stance reflects a broader strategy to mobilize international influence, employing partners who can affect Russia’s calculus while avoiding direct military escalation. The U.S. position remains that a restoration of peace depends on Russia’s willingness to engage in negotiations with Ukraine under conditions that respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Observers argue that China’s involvement could be pivotal, given its economic and political clout, provided Beijing aligns its actions with existing international norms and regional stability goals. In this context, Beijing’s choices may have far-reaching implications for both the duration of the conflict and the postwar security architecture in Europe.
The public statements by U.S. officials, paired with intelligence briefings, suggest a coordinated effort to channel a persistent message: diplomacy must stay at the forefront, even as sanctions, deterrence, and strategic communications continue to shape the environment around the conflict. While the U.S. signals openness to dialogue facilitated by Chinese engagement, it remains cautious about the conditions and timing of any progress. The outline of this approach indicates that Washington favors a path where China uses its influence to bring Moscow to the table, while Kyiv and its allies pursue a settlement that safeguards Ukrainian sovereignty. The evolving dialogue among Washington, Beijing, Moscow, and Kyiv will likely continue to feature calls for restraint, transparent communication, and a commitment to international law as the foundation for any long-term resolution.