Beijing backs direct Moscow-Kiev contacts
China has advocated for a peaceful resolution to the conflict since it escalated in 2022.It has also been critical of the West's unilateral sanctions against Russia and blamed NATO expansion for provoking the crisis. In 2023, Beijing released a 12-point proposal, received favorably by Moscow, on how to resolve the conflict through a political settlement which respected the realities on the ground.
Commenting on the latest phone call between Russian President Vladimir Putin and his US counterpart Donald Trump, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning stated on Tuesday that Beijing supports all efforts conducive to peace.
Mao said China supports direct dialogue and negotiation between Russia and Ukraine and hopes that 'all parties can reach a fair, lasting, and binding peace agreement that is acceptable to all sides through dialogue and negotiation.'
Following the call, Trump announced that Moscow and Kiev would immediately begin negotiations on a ceasefire. Putin, meanwhile, said that Russia would work with the Ukrainian side to draft a memorandum on a potential future peace treaty that would outline a 'range of provisions,' including the timeline for a potential temporary ceasefire 'should the necessary agreements be reached.'
Asked to comment on China's future role in helping mediate a resolution of the Ukraine conflict, Mao said that Beijing is 'willing to work with the international community, in accordance with the wishes of the parties concerned, to continue playing a constructive role in resolving the crisis and achieving lasting peace.'
Last week, Russia and Ukraine held their first round of direct peace negotiations since Kiev unilaterally abandoned Istanbul peace talks in 2022. Putin had proposed restarting the negotiations several days prior, calling for a lasting resolution to the conflict that would address its root causes.
Earlier this month, Chinese President Xi Jinping also spoke out in support of reaching a fair and lasting settlement of the Ukraine crisis, advocating for a 'comprehensive, cooperative and sustainable global security concept.' He also emphasized that the 'reasonable security concerns of all countries should be taken seriously, and the root causes of the crisis should be eliminated.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
an hour ago
- Russia Today
Highway to peace – or to the next war?
When Armenia and Azerbaijan signed a US-brokered deal in Washington this August – with Donald Trump taking credit as peacemaker-in-chief – it was quickly branded the 'Trump Route' to stability in the South Caucasus. On paper, it promises 'peace and prosperity.' In practice, it's a lot more complicated. The new transport corridor cutting through Armenia's Syunik Province isn't just an infrastructure project – it's a geopolitical choke point tying together the ambitions of Baku, Ankara, Washington, and Brussels. For Yerevan, it could turn out to be less the dawn of a new chapter and more the next round in a long fight to hold onto its land – only this time, under a very different set of rules. On August 8 in Washington DC, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev signed a joint declaration pledging to reopen transport and communication links between their countries. The deal – mediated and personally unveiled by Donald Trump – also commits both sides to ending long-standing hostilities and working toward normalising diplomatic relations. Alongside the political agreement, Armenia and Azerbaijan signed separate accords with the United States on trade, economic cooperation, innovation, and energy partnerships. The deal's headline feature is a transport corridor running through Armenia's Syunik Province, connecting mainland Azerbaijan with the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic. Yerevan has even proposed an official name for it: the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity. Under the terms, the corridor will be operated by a private American company on a 99-year lease, with an option to extend. 'This isn't just a peace treaty; it marks the establishment of international relations and the opening of embassies between the neighboring countries,' Azerbaijani National Assembly (Milli Majlis) member Aydin Mirzazade has said. 'A process of normalization between Azerbaijan and Armenia will follow. This agreement will put an end to the strained relations that have existed between Azerbaijan and Armenia since 1988, when the Armenian political elite laid a claim to historical Azerbaijani lands, culminating in the occupation of 20% of Azerbaijani territory. I believe there is a strong desire in both nations to establish normal, neighborly relations.' After the signing in Washington Pashinyan also floated the idea of a mutual territorial swap, which raised eyebrows back home. 'There are territories that, logically, belong to Armenia but are under Azerbaijan's control, and there are territories that, logically, belong to Azerbaijan but are under Armenia's control,' he said . He argued that both sides should continue demarcating the border and return any land that does not 'rightfully' belong to them. On the surface, both Armenia and Azerbaijan walk away with something to celebrate. Supporters of the deal argue it's a win-win that could boost trade, create jobs, and calm one of the region's most volatile flashpoints. Mirzazade calls it 'a highly profitable economic project' that could generate hundreds of thousands of jobs, open new markets, and reassure neighboring states that war isn't around the corner. 'Tense relations and the volatile situation in the South Caucasus have severely hampered trade freedom, investments, and so on. This tension has affected the ability of other nations to pursue their legitimate interests in the region. The opening of the Zangezur Corridor will allow for the free movement of goods and people from Asia to Europe and back,' he said to RT. For Azerbaijan, the payoff is obvious: a direct land link to its Nakhchivan exclave – something Baku has long sought. The corridor gives it unhindered access across southern Armenia and a clear logistical advantage in trade and transport. Türkiye, Azerbaijan's closest ally, also stands to gain. As Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan openly put it, the corridor would knit the Turkic world together, linking Central Asia to Europe through Turkish territory. In Ankara's view, it's not just a bilateral arrangement; it's a strategic bridge for pan-Turkic integration. Europe, too, gets something out of it – access to Central Asian energy resources routed through NATO territory. For Brussels, it's a safer alternative to Russian-controlled or Iranian-linked routes. 'Of course, Europe would prefer the presence of, say, the French rather than the Americans. That would feel more secure for them, considering the current tensions with Washington. But still, for Europe, this is far better than having no such corridor at all,' Armenian political analyst Karen Igitian told RT. For the United States, the corridor serves multiple strategic goals. First, it opens a secure route for moving Central Asian energy westward without passing through Russia or Iran. 'The second crucial aspect is the potential to supply arms to Central Asia in the event of escalating tensions or conflicts, which, as Washington believes, could involve Russia. In such cases, Americans would have the ability to deliver weapons and ammunition without any obstacles. Unblocking communication routes without establishing this corridor would raise doubts in the US about the reliability of such supplies,' Karen Igitian explained. And perhaps most importantly, it puts Washington in a position to exert lasting influence in a region where Russia has traditionally called the shots. That influence is exactly what worries Iran and Russia. Tehran has warned that the corridor could destabilize the regional balance, redraw borders, and undermine Armenia's sovereignty. An advisor to Iran's supreme leader went so far as to threaten that it would become 'the graveyard of Trump's mercenaries.' Moscow, while less blunt in its public statements, has every reason to see the US-brokered deal as an encroachment on its traditional sphere of influence – especially given that it was Russia, not Washington, that mediated the 2020 ceasefire. Armenia's position is the most complicated. It gains the promise – and only the promise – of peace, along with potential economic openings from restored transport links. Azerbaijan's expectations are set high by its own leadership. In December 2020, President Ilham Aliyev described Zangezur, Gegharkunik, and Yerevan as 'historical Azerbaijani lands,' and, at a party congress two years earlier, framed Yerevan as a city Baku ultimately aims to 'take back.' In his telling, 'Armenia's aggressive policies' since the late 1980s have displaced hundreds of thousands of Azerbaijanis. Those statements continue to echo over the current talks. Baku also wants Yerevan to change its basic law: Azerbaijan insists that Armenia revise its constitution to remove any claims to Azerbaijani territory. That demand, raised alongside the Washington signing, turns domestic Armenian politics into a live wire for the process. Armenian analyst Karen Igityan cautions that a paper peace may not hold. 'This agreement could move the sides closer to a formal peace,' he says, 'but it doesn't guarantee actual peace.' In his view, 'Azerbaijan considers the entire territory of Armenia to be Western Azerbaijan,' and Aliyev 'explicitly' names Yerevan and Etchmiadzin as Azerbaijani. Azerbaijan's military spending has again hit a record $5 billion, which he reads as a signal that 'Azerbaijan has no intention of establishing peaceful relations with Armenia… we see Azerbaijan preparing for another escalation.' On guarantees, Igityan is blunt: beyond Donald Trump's line – 'If you don't get along, call me and I'll straighten it out' – 'there are no clearly defined international guarantees.' That vagueness, he argues, mirrors the post-November 10, 2020 pattern, when 'the mechanisms for oversight weren't sufficiently outlined,' allowing Baku to 'launch military actions several times.' Even the corridor itself can become a flashpoint. With a private American company overseeing operations on a 99-year term, Armenia, Igityan says, 'loses control over part of its territory,' because 'it's no longer up to Armenia to decide what happens in that area; the signatures of the United States and Azerbaijan are already on the document.' All of this keeps the margin for error thin. As Igityan puts it, 'This propaganda doesn't stop,' and with constitutional edits, border demarcation, and corridor rules all in play, any stumble risks becoming the next crisis. The Zangezur corridor may be framed as a peace project, but its real weight is geopolitical. For Ankara, it's a strategic hinge between the Turkic states of Central Asia and Europe – a physical link that advances a decades-old vision of cultural and political integration. For Washington, it's a rare chance to plant a long-term presence in a region historically under Russian sway, with the added benefit of securing energy routes and potential military supply lines that bypass Moscow and Tehran entirely. These ambitions are precisely what make Moscow and Tehran uneasy. For Russia, the deal shifts the optics – and potentially the reality – of mediation in the South Caucasus. Azerbaijani lawmaker Mirzazade recalled that various mediators have played roles at different stages in the Armenia–Azerbaijan conflict. 'On November 10, 2020, a ceasefire agreement was reached with Russian mediation, and Russia was also involved in the subsequent negotiations aimed at concluding a peace treaty,' he said. 'For Azerbaijan, it doesn't really matter who controls this road. What matters is that the 43-kilometer route from one part of Azerbaijan to another remains open so our citizens can move around freely. We referred to the example of Kaliningrad, where Russian citizens and vehicles pass through another country without customs checks. Azerbaijan demands the same arrangement, and this demand has been accepted.' For Iran, the corridor's alignment with NATO-linked infrastructure threatens to cut it off from the north and reinforce a chain of allied states stretching from Türkiye into Central Asia. In practice, the corridor is less about trucks and trains than about influence. Whoever controls its operation and security gains leverage over a swath of Eurasia's trade and transit – leverage that can be used to build alliances, pressure rivals, or recalibrate the balance of power in the region. This makes the Zangezur deal not just a test of Armenian–Azerbaijani reconciliation, but a live battleground for the strategic agendas of four competing capitals. The 'Trump Route' deal has been sold as a breakthrough – a handshake in Washington, a promise of open borders, and a road meant to carry prosperity from Asia to Europe. But in the South Caucasus, promises are fragile currency. The same corridor that is billed as a bridge could just as easily become a fault line, shaped less by the goodwill of its neighbors than by the strategic ambitions of powers far beyond Armenia and Azerbaijan. The agreement's survival will hinge on factors the signing ceremony couldn't fix: whether Baku reins in its maximalist rhetoric, whether Yerevan can navigate domestic backlash without derailing commitments, and whether outside actors treat the corridor as shared infrastructure rather than a geopolitical choke point. None of those conditions are guaranteed – and history suggests that when they fail, it's rarely on just one front. For now, the road through Syunik exists mostly on paper. Whether it becomes a path to peace or another route to confrontation will depend on the ability of its architects to enforce not only the letter of the deal, but the trust it was meant to create. In the South Caucasus, that may be the hardest route of all.
Russia Today
2 hours ago
- Russia Today
White House discloses Trump's approach to Putin summit
US President Donald Trump believes that diplomacy is the best way to end the Ukraine conflict, White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt has told Fox News ahead of the American leader's meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday. Washington has a wide range of 'tools' at its disposal that it can use if necessary but would still very much prefer to try out a diplomatic approach first, according to Leavitt. Washington and Moscow have both tempered expectations for the summit, signaling the meeting will likely end up being just the first in a string of top-level talks rather than yield an immediate breakthrough. Trump earlier described the summit with Putin as a 'feel-out meeting' that will help him determine whether the Ukraine conflict can be resolved. 'The president wants to exhaust all options to try to bring this war to a peaceful resolution,' Leavitt said Thursday. 'He has always said that diplomacy and negotiation is his primary way of hoping to end this war. That's what he will be looking to do tomorrow.' The American leader is reluctant to resort to more forceful measures in its dealings with Moscow, Leavitt said, adding that, although sanctions and 'many other measures' are on the table, that does not mean that Trump 'is willing' to use them. The spokeswoman also confirmed that the summit will feature a one-on-one meeting between Trump and Putin followed by a lunch with the respective delegations and a joint press conference of the two leaders. Such a schedule was earlier confirmed by the Kremlin. The Russian delegation will include Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov, Defense Minister Andrey Belousov, Finance Minister Anton Siluanov, and Special Presidential Representative for Investment and Economic Cooperation with Foreign Countries Kirill Dmitriev, according to Ushakov himself. Washington is yet to officially announce who will be accompanying Trump to Alaska. The Russian delegation is expected to return home immediately after the negotiations conclude.
Russia Today
3 hours ago
- Russia Today
The Putin-Trump Alaska summit: What you need to know
Russian President Vladimir Putin will meet with his US counterpart, Donald Trump, on Friday in Alaska. The summit is expected to focus on seeking a resolution to the Ukraine conflict, as well as broader Russia-US bilateral relations. Here is what you need to know. The meeting will take place in the state of Alaska, the edge of which lies just a few dozen miles across the Bering Strait from the Russian border. The meeting will begin on Friday morning at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage, presidential foreign policy aide Yury Ushakov told journalists on Thursday. A number of Soviet pilots, servicemen, and civilians who died during the Second World War while ferrying planes under the Lend-Lease agreement are buried near the US military base, he said. The area is a 'historically important place, a reminder of the military brotherhood of the peoples of our countries,' the Kremlin aide noted. The summit will open with a one-on-one conversation between Putin and Trump, accompanied by their translators, according to Ushakov. The talks will then continue between the Russian and US delegations in a five-on-five format, he said. The Kremlin and the White House initially confirmed that the two leaders are expected to speak at a joint press conference following the negotiations. Trump later told Fox News Radio that if the meeting goes badly, he would speak to journalists alone. Moscow's team will include Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Defense Minister Andrey Belousov, Finance Minister Anton Siluanov, and Special Presidential Representative for Investment and Economic Cooperation with Foreign Countries Kirill Dmitriev, as well as Ushakov himself, the Kremlin aide said. Experts will also be present at the summit. He noted that Russia has been informed of which officials will be in the US delegation, but declined to name them ahead of an official statement from Washington. Trump's team has yet to be announced. The central issue of the summit is expected to be the Ukraine conflict. Trade and economic issues, and other bilateral cooperation will also be discussed, according to the Kremlin. Putin said on Thursday during a meeting with members of the Russian delegation that Trump's administration was making 'quite energetic and sincere efforts' to end the crisis and 'create long-term conditions for peace between our countries.' The Kremlin indicated on Thursday that no documents are expected to be signed as a result of the meeting. Trump has described the summit as a 'feel-out meeting' intended to help him better understand Putin's position. He has also suggested that any potential settlement in Ukraine could involve territorial exchanges with Russia, and has dismissed Ukrainian reservations about such swaps. Neither Ukraine's Vladimir Zelensky nor leaders from Western European nations have been invited to the talks. The summit was organized in short order after a visit by Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff to Moscow last week. Trump had long promised to end the hostilities but has increasingly expressed discontent with the pace of Russian-Ukrainian talks. The Kremlin earlier indicated that Witkoff had brought to Moscow an 'acceptable' offer from Washington.
