As Russia's aggression against Ukraine drags on, both Ukraine and Russia are facing resource challenges. Securing external assistance has thus become a critical goal for both Ukrainian and Kremlin diplomacy. This context frames two key international events this week: U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken's visit to Kyiv and Russian dictator Putin's trip to Beijing. Read about the outcomes of these events in Apostrophe.
Statements in Kyiv
Secretary of State Antony Blinken's visit to Kyiv had mixed outcomes. On one hand, Ukrainians poorly received his rock band performance in a Kyiv bar amidst the dangerous situation in the Kharkiv region. On the other hand, he announced a new $2 billion aid package and a draft security agreement. Additionally, his highly controversial statement about the acceptability of strikes on Russian territory stirred reactions.
‘We have not encouraged or enabled strikes outside of Ukraine, but ultimately Ukraine has to make decisions for itself about how it’s going to conduct this war, a war it’s conducting in defense of its freedom, of its sovereignty, of its territorial integrit,’ Blinken noted.
However, later President Volodymyr Zelensky stated in a meeting with journalists that the prohibition remains. Nevertheless, he believes there should be no restrictions: ‘...because this is not about the Ukrainian army advancing with Western weapons on Russian territory. This is about defense. It's similar to the preventive sanctions we discussed with everyone before the full-scale invasion.’
At the same time, there are emerging shifts on this issue among both U.S. government experts and politicians. For example, Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal does not rule out that strikes on certain Russian targets may be justified.
‘I support Ukraine's use of American-provided weapons in line with our mutual interests. Some Russian targets may be justified, while others may not be; I would consider them selectively. But overall, this should involve the most aggressive use of the weapons we provide,’ he said in an interview with Voice of America.
‘At least in the coming months, there will be an intensification of the discussion regarding this prohibition. An alternative, intermediate option, which seems quite possible to me, is that Ukraine could agree to a certain statement: that American weapons cannot be used on Russian territory except in regions of the Russian Federation directly bordering Ukraine, from which strikes on Ukrainian territory are being launched,’ says Ivan Us, chief consultant at the Center for Foreign Policy Studies of the National Institute for Strategic Studies, to Apostrophe.
Talks in Beijing
Putin's trip to China shortly after his latest inauguration is a gesture that is both practical and symbolic. He brought nearly the entire new government with him to China. Notably, some of the officials had assumed their positions just three days before the visit.
‘To some extent, it reminds me of the 2022 visit. Putin needs to secure China's support for continuing military actions. As for the representatives from all relevant ministries, it's clear that Putin needs interaction with China at these levels. Even the Governor of the Central Bank of Russia, Elvira Nabiullina, was there,’ says Natalia Butyrska, a master of foreign policy and an expert on East Asia, to Apostrophe.
Publicly, Xi and Putin declared the deepening of strategic partnership, continuation of the policy of ‘good neighborliness and friendship between nations,’ and shared interests in the global agenda. However, there were few practical results.
‘Regarding economic achievements, there were agreements in the agricultural sector, which is understandable since, after energy resources, agricultural exports to China are also important. However, there were no global decisions on the Power of Siberia-2 gas pipeline. It was not discussed as it was in the previous visit. Apparently, China has not yet pressured Russia to come to an agreement,’ emphasizes Natalia Butyrska.
At the same time, this visit should be viewed within the context of other Chinese agreements. On April 24, Antony Blinken visited China. Last week, Chinese leader Xi Jinping was in Europe, where he met with the French president and the President of the European Commission.
‘During the visit to Paris, certain aspects regarding hypothetically possible sanctions from the European Union were likely discussed. When Blinken visited Beijing, the focus was on potential U.S. sanctions against China in case of detected supplies of certain products, directly military or dual-use, which China denies,’ says Ivan Us. ‘Xi Jinping likely told Putin that the requirements are changing. Therefore, we will either not publicize the trade or look for ways to conduct it without attracting sanctions.’
This does not mean that supplies from China to Russia will cease completely. However, due to complicated logistics, their volumes could significantly decrease.
‘The more time you spend on delivering certain goods, the fewer goods there will be. One thing is to deliver in a day, and another when it takes a month. There are already signs of such actions. For instance, when Biden signed the order on December 22 prohibiting all financial institutions worldwide from cooperating with the Russian military-industrial complex, by February, Chinese banks started taking more time to process transactions between Russia and China. Consequently, in March, there was a slowdown in trade between China and Russia,’ explains Ivan Us.
Notably, there was an official reaction from the U.S. just before Putin's visit to China.
‘You cannot want to have deepened relations with Europe while simultaneously continuing to fuel the biggest threat to European security in a long time, which is Russia's aggression against Ukraine,’ stated U.S. Deputy State Department Spokesperson Vedant Patel.
Against the peace summit
Another dimension of diplomatic activities involves efforts to engage China in the Peace Summit. China wields influence over many other countries. During Putin's visit, China sided with the Kremlin. In a joint statement, China and Russia asserted that ‘a sustainable resolution of the Ukrainian crisis requires addressing its root causes and considering the legitimate interests and security concerns of all countries.’
‘Russia is currently pushing the narrative that its interests were not considered as the root cause. For example, a broad picture shows that China supports the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states but with security caveats. This time, I saw active promotion of Russia's demands for guarantees. Last year, we did not hear about these guarantees in their dialogue,’ emphasizes Nataliya Butyrska.
On the other hand, China's own peace initiatives are effectively undermining the organization of the Peace Summit.
‘Russia agrees that China will represent its interests there. China tries to position itself above the process, aiming to unite a group of Global South countries that also accept its peace proposals. Both are attempting to dilute the summit's impact and legitimacy by reducing the number of participating countries. For example, the presidents of Brazil and South Africa will not attend the Peace Summit in person. This is all China's doing,’ noted Butyrska.
The U.S. and the European Union are trying to draw China into the summit by playing on its ambitions.
‘The U.S. and the EU are wielding a potential stick, telling Xi: ‘Look, if China doesn't participate, but India likely will, then India becomes the face of the Global South. Does China want to cede that leadership role to India? I doubt it. And there's no question that India aspires to be the leader of the Global South. They are already emphasizing that they have surpassed China in population. Therefore, they should be considered the leading nation of the Global South. Moreover, this could be complemented by Western investments that previously flowed to China,’’ says Ivan Us.
The final decision on China's participation in the Peace Summit has not yet been made, despite what Russian propagandists claim. Therefore, diplomatic battles will continue.
