When Ukraine's foreign minister Dmytro Kuleba visited China to speak about peace in Ukraine, Russian officials and media framed it as a sign of weakness. Ukrainian political scientist Lesia Bidochko writes that Ukraine is trying to involve China in peace discussions, even while China maintains its stance of pro-Russian neutrality.
Meeting between Ukrainian minister of Foreign Affairs Dmytro Kuleba and his Chinese counterpart Wang Yi in Guangzhou. Photo: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine
by Lesia Bidochko
From July 23rd to 25th, Ukraine's Minister of Foreign Affairs Dmytro Kuleba visited China at the invitation of China's Foreign Minister, Wang Yi. This marks Kuleba's first visit to China since the onset of Russia's full-scale invasion. The Ukrainian official met his Chinese counterpart in Guangzhou on July 24th. The talks extended for over three hours, surpassing their scheduled time. The primary focus of the discussions was exploring ways to halt Russian aggression and the potential role of China in establishing a stable and just peace, according to the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry.
‘Russian aggression has destroyed peace and hindered development; every additional day of war brings new violations of humanity and further erodes justice. Therefore, it is crucial to end the war against our nation, restore peace, and expedite Ukraine's recovery’, Kuleba stated during his meeting with his Chinese counterpart.
The Minister briefed the Chinese side on the outcomes of the Peace Summit in Switzerland and outlined the logic behind the next steps in implementing the Ukrainian Peace Formula, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine reported. Although Beijing did not participate in the Swiss peace conference—where almost one hundred states and international organizations agreed on a framework for lasting peace in Ukraine—the Ukrainian side hopes for China's involvement in the next peace summit, which will also extend an invitation to Russia.
A positive sign for Ukraine is that China is engaging in direct dialogue with Kyiv, and not only with the aggressor country or with Ukraine’s Western allies.
During the meeting, Minister Kuleba reiterated Ukraine's willingness to engage in negotiations with Russia in the future if Russia demonstrates genuine readiness, a sentiment which is currently absent.
China’s initial decision to maintain or even bolster its ‘pro-Russian neutrality’ after the start of the full-scale invasion is evident, and significant shifts in its foreign policy are not typical of Chinese politics. However, a positive sign for Ukraine is that China is engaging in direct dialogue with Kyiv, and not only with the aggressor country or with Ukraine’s Western allies. Furthermore, Ukraine’s top diplomat visited China with a clear message: Russian aggression impedes international stability, the development of good neighborly relations, and trade between China and Europe. Ukraine is signaling its expectation to be regarded as a European nation, not as part of Russia’s ‘near abroad’, both politically and economically.
‘Kuleba's trip signals surrender’
The Russian side attempted to downplay Kuleba's visit and statements, framing them favorably for Moscow. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov claimed that Russia has never refused negotiations and ‘has always been open to them’, asserting that Kyiv consistently rejected dialogue with Moscow, especially after Russia's annexation of the Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Luhansk, and Donetsk regions. ‘The very notion of negotiations between Ukraine and Russia aligns with our position’, Peskov remarked.
Two days prior to Dmytro Kuleba’s meeting with Wang Yi, Peskov adopted a somewhat ‘conciliatory’ tone. ‘Dialogue in any form is better than discussing fighting to the last Ukrainian’, he said. The Kremlin is attempting to frame the situation as if Kyiv has already made concessions with this trip, abandoning its previous firm stance. Ukraine, however, has consistently advocated for ending the war through diplomatic means. Recently, President Zelensky stated that ‘if you pressure Russia, a diplomatic settlement can be reached.’ The decision by the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine declaring negotiations with Putin impossible is a response to his ultimatum and aggressive demands for Ukraine's surrender.
Besides Peskov's statements, Russia’s effort to manipulate the information around Kuleba’s visit was evident in numerous propaganda sources and Telegram channels. One repeated narrative was that this trip is a sign of desperation due to the unfavorable situation at the front for the Ukrainian Armed Forces. ‘In light of the failures of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, Zelensky has changed his “peace formula”. Ukrainians are gradually coming to terms with defeat in the conflict with Russia’, a pro-Kremlin publication stated. ‘Kuleba's rhetoric in China is as peaceful as possible... The theme of “winning on the battlefield” with “shovels against the enemy” is closed’, wrote an anonymous Telegram channel with 416,000 subscribers. Another channel with over half a million followers proclaimed: ‘Despite all the bravado, things in “Saloreiсh” (a derogatory term for Ukraine) are not going well, and Kyiv is desperate to negotiate even a pause in military action.’
Propagandists also mocked Ukraine's simultaneous pursuit of military and diplomatic solutions. According to their narrative, aiming to restore the 1991 borders while seeking negotiations with Russia indicates dissonance or being ‘out of sync’: ‘During his visit to China, Kuleba said Kyiv is ready for negotiations with Moscow... meanwhile, Syrskyi (commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine) has a secret plan to reach the 1991 borders. Desynchronization’, stated a Telegram channel with 61,000 subscribers. This approach falsely pits Ukraine's hard and soft power strategies against each other.
While Ukraine remains open to diplomatic solutions, it simultaneously demonstrates its determination to defend its territorial integrity through the use of hard power.
Ukraine’s primary objective has consistently been to achieve peace and restore its territorial integrity through diplomatic and non-violent means, in line with international law. However, Russia has initiated a military invasion and is advancing its occupational goals through ultimatum tactics, disregarding fundamental principles of international law and norms. This situation has forced Ukraine to resort to military measures to protect its position. Consequently, while Ukraine remains open to diplomatic solutions, it simultaneously demonstrates its determination to defend its territorial integrity through the use of hard power.
One Russian pro-war influencer with 735,000 subscribers on Telegram questioned the sincerity of Ukraine's intentions regarding peace negotiations: ‘Kyiv is ready to negotiate with the Russian side, Kuleba said in a conversation with the head of the Foreign Ministry of the People's Republic of China. Only when the statements contain the words “beg”, “complete”, and “indisputable” does it make sense to pay attention.’ This rhetoric highlights Moscow's true intentions — not to create constructive dialogue, but to force Kyiv to ‘beg’ for clemency and agree to ‘indisputable’ capitulation.
A Russian state media outlet speculated that Ukraine's conciliatory rhetoric was financially motivated, aiming to secure financial support from Beijing: ‘Statements by the head of the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry, Dmytro Kuleba, in China about Kyiv's readiness for negotiations with Russia are an attempt to please Beijing in order to try to get additional funding.’
'The conditions and time are not yet ripe'
According to the official statement from Ukraine's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Kyiv is open to negotiations "at a certain stage," but there is no indication that Moscow is prepared for an "honest" dialogue. Heorhiy Tykhyi, the Ministry's spokesperson, told BBC Ukraine that the Russian media distorted Kuleba's words. The portrayal of Kuleba's trip as a prelude to an immediate peace treaty on Moscow's terms is an attempt to sway Ukrainian public opinion against the Minister's position, as most Ukrainians oppose negotiations on Russia's terms according to Kyiv International Institute of Sociology.
Official comments from Beijing also suggest that conditions are not yet suitable for constructive dialogue. The Chinese Foreign Ministry stated, ‘Recently, both Ukraine and Russia have sent signals to varying degrees that they are ready for negotiations. Although the conditions and time are not yet ripe, we support all efforts that promote peace and are ready to continue to play a constructive role in the cessation of fire, war, and the resumption of peace talks.’
Putin's latest demands, the so-called ‘Kherson-Zaporizhia ultimatum’ (territorial concessions, refusal of NATO membership, reduction of the army, and refusal of Western military support), are unrealistic and unacceptable to both Ukraine and its Western allies.
China's stance on Ukraine
China maintains a neutral stance on the Russian-Ukrainian war but, in the meantime, supplies Russia with components for cruise missiles and drones, as well as optics for tanks and armored vehicles, enabling Moscow to increase defense production. Additionally, China can provide Russia with satellite imagery, further aiding its war efforts. The invitation to Guangzhou for the Ukrainian minister seems to be an effort to prevent China from being perceived as exclusively loyal to Russia.
China's unique position as a mediator is bolstered by President Xi Jinping's good relationship with Putin and China's influence on many Global South countries. As a potential peacemaker, China could encourage Russia to engage in constructive negotiations with Ukraine and make Global South countries more receptive to Ukraine's perspective. Russian agitprop is preemptively framing Kuleba's visit as a 'diplomatic kowtow' trip rather than an effort to prompt China to influence Moscow to reduce its aggressive demands.
Dr. Lesia Bidochko is a senior lecturer at Kyiv-Mohyla Academy (Ukraine), a deputy director at Detector Media Research Center think tank (Ukraine), a GCE St. Gallen Research, Fellow at New Europe College (Bucharest), a member of the editorial board of the book series 'Ukrainian Voices'.