Vladimir Putin seems to have done some of his homework before attacking Ukraine.[1]  While the military plan of conquest failed badly, his diplomatic preparations have proved much more sound.  He played on the discontent among revisionist states with the American-led “rules based order.”  In particular, Putin formed an explicit partnership with China’s Xi Jinping before launching his attack.  Since then, China has remained formally “neutral on the side of Russia.”[2]  Western economic sanctions plastered on Russia have been blunted by China’s purchases of Russian oil and gas, and by China’s sales of consumer goods.  China has also provided Russia with “dual-use” (i.e civilian and military) technology. 

An authoritarian Russia is backed by other anti-Western dictatorships (China, Iran, North Korea); a democratic Ukraine is backed by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).   The objective balance of forces favors Russia.  The uncertainty introduced by the 2024 American presidential election compounds Ukraine’s sense of insecurity.  What would the election of Donald Trump mean for American support for Ukraine?  What would the election of Kamala Harris mean for American support for Ukraine?  Neither one is Joe Biden; each would be free to pursue their own priorities in foreign policy. 

Russia’s conditions for even a cease-fire amount to a surrender by Ukraine and NATO.  Ukraine would have to agree to permanently halt its current drive for NATO membership; agree to become permanently neutral, and pull its troops out of areas of the Ukraine where they have been fighting the Russian.  In addition, international economic sanctions on Russia would have to be lifted. 

Now, beleaguered Ukraine is willing to negotiate an end to its war with Russia on “just terms.”  Ukraine’s conditions for a cease-fire amount to a surrender by Russia.  Chief among them is the demand for Russia has to pull its troops out of all Ukrainian territory and leave them under Ukrainian control.  Ukraine’s President, Volodymyr Zelensky launched an effort to gather other countries to pressure Moscow to make peace on Ukraine’s terms.  That effort has failed, and Zelensky has publicly blamed China.  Zelensky has argued that China urged other countries to not attend. 

            China does not seem disturbed by the criticism.  China uses a different terminology from the West, calling the conflict a “crisis” rather than a “war.”  It has called for a cease-fire.  In May 2024, China and Brazil issued a proposal for peace.  Xi Jinping has said that a real peace conference has to include Russia as an equal.  Xi did not attend the conference organized by Ukraine, which excluded Russia.  “China believes that all conflicts must be resolved by returning to the negotiating table,” said China’s foreign minister Wang Yi. 

            Some people believe that any further developments will have to wait on the American election in November 2024.  This is not true.  There is a lot of time left in the fighting season for Russia to act.  Why not present whoever wins the election with a new military situation that forces either Trump or Harris to make the same decision on Ukraine? 

[1] Isabel Coles and Austin Ramzy, “China Casts Itself as Peacemaker,” WSJ, 25 July 2024. 

[2] Similarly, the Soviet Union was “neutral on the side of Germany” from August 1939 to June 1941; the United States was “neutral on the side of Britain” from May 1940 to December 1941.  The neutrals supplied their partners with arms, food stuffs, and raw materials, while making life as difficult as possible for the enemy of their partner.