The China Academy: China’s Ukraine Peace Plan: A Solution from Day One. Amid the prolonged stalemate of the Russia-Ukraine war and the worsening European crisis, China has played a crucial role in preventing escalation and promoting peace talks through its “principled neutrality.” This article explores how China leverages its unique diplomatic wisdom and pragmatic strategies to offer a potential pathway out of this complex conflict. 中國研究院：中國的烏克蘭和平計畫：從第一天起就是解決方案。在俄烏戰爭長期僵局、歐洲危機不斷惡化的背景下，中國以「原則中立」在防止局勢升級、勸和促談方面發揮了至關重要的作用。本文探討中國如何運用其獨特的外交智慧和務實策略為擺脫這場複雜衝突提供一條潛在途徑 February 14, 2025

long as it takes” to Trump’s  “end-it-now-or-else” mode. It remains uncertain how quickly the Trumpian art of the deal could silence the guns across the 2,400-kilometer line of skirmishes.

Regardless, China’s “principled neutrality” has played a crucial role in preventing the conflict from spilling beyond Europe and even spiraling into a nuclear confrontation towards World War III.

Beyond China’s vast economic power and military potential, the key to this stabilizing influence lies in its “principled” and “impartial” neutrality. Unlike the “pure,” “permanent,” or passive neutrality seen in European history (e.g., Switzerland), China does have its opinion and preference regarding the nature of the Ukraine war, particularly its origin, which is NATO expansion.

The East: NATO’s Fatal Attraction
From the beginning, Russia’s “special military operation” in Ukraine has been framed in the Anglosphere as an “unprovoked attack.” From China’s perspective, however, Russia’s use of force was the inevitable consequence of NATO’s relentless eastward expansion. Since the end of the Cold War, there have been five waves of such expansions to the east despite strong warnings from Moscow.

China is not alone in this assessment. In 1997, George Kennan, the chief architect of America’s Cold War containment strategy, warned that NATO expansion “would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era.” Former U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union Jack Matlock echoed Kennan’s concerns, calling the expansion a “misguided” decision that “may well go down in history as the most profound strategic blunder….” Bill Clinton’s Secretary of Defense William Perry went as far as to resign because he disagreed with Clinton’s “rosier scenario” about NATO expansion. Henry Kissinger, too, cautioned that Ukraine’s survival and thriving must be based on its neutrality as a “bridge,” not a battlefield, between Russia and the West.

Despite these sober warnings from some of the West’s most seasoned strategists, their insights were largely dismissed by the liberal interventionists and neoconservatives who shaped post-Cold War foreign policy. The world now is living with the blowback of the West’s arrogance and ignorance.

China’s “Constructive” Neutrality: Pragmatism, Humanitarianism, and Political Realism

Maintaining a neutral and impartial stance on the Ukraine war in a deeply divided world is no easy task. Yet China chose the hard way. Its position rests on several core principles: upholding the UN’s commitment to sovereignty and territorial integrity, supporting all efforts toward a peaceful resolution of the crisis, and advocating for common, comprehensive, and sustainable security for all, not just a few. China has also consistently emphasized the need to protect civilian lives and property, reframed from providing weapons to the warring parties, and urged restraint to prevent further escalation.

China’s neutrality in the Ukraine conflict, therefore, is not passive or indifferent but rather a blend of pragmatism, humanitarianism, and political realism. Unlike the European tradition of neutrality as an end in itself or neutrality for neutrality’s sake, China’s approach is one of “constructive engagement,” as described by Zhao Huasheng, a prominent Russologist at Fudan University in Shanghai. Reflecting this commitment, China’s special envoy for Eurasian affairs, Li Hui, conducted four rounds of shuttle diplomacy between May 2023 and July 2024 (May 2023; March, May, and July 2004), seeking a political resolution to the ongoing conflict.

Normal Relationship in Abnormal Times
China’s principled neutrality in the Ukraine war is grounded in its “normal ties”—or balanced and stable relations—with both Ukraine and Russia. At a minimum, both Russia and Ukraine are China’s friends. It is immoral, or amoral, for China to support one at the expense of the other.

For years, Ukraine has been a vital economic partner for China. Until 2022, Ukraine served as the most significant hub for China’s expansive Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in Central and Eastern Europe. Beyond this, Ukraine also played a critical role in China’s military modernization in the post-Cold War era.

At the height of the 2013 Crimea crisis, China extended an unprecedented $8-billion economic package to Ukraine—the largest offer from outside Europe. An indicator of this normal, and strong partnership with China is Ukraine’s continuous hold on its one-China policy, despite increasing Western support for Taiwan’s independence. During his visit to China in May 2024, Ukraine’s then-FM Kuleba went as far as to say, “China is a great country, and Ukraine and China are not only strategic partners but also important economic and trade partners.”

In the case of China-Russia relations, the West often portrays China as Russia’s “chief enabler” in the Ukraine war. But such a characterization distorts the nature of the China-Russia relationship.