The much-anticipated phone call between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin on March 18 achieved a
limited outcome with only a 30-day pause on energy infrastructure attacks – far from the 30-day ceasefire envisioned by the US which Ukraine had
agreed to earlier.
Days before this, Putin made his first
visit to Kursk since Ukraine’s incursion, confirming Russia’s goal of defeating the enemy. Hours after the Trump-Putin talk, both Russia and Ukraine resumed air attacks, reflecting the trust deficit between both countries and with the United States. All these cast doubts on the prospects of a US-led
peace mediation.
One alternative appearing in the global discussions to fill that trust gap is to
deploy peacekeepers to safeguard a ceasefire. But Russia categorically rejects the idea of European/Nato peacekeepers, arguing their presence would escalate tensions instead.
Meanwhile, Washington has proposed that non-European nations – such as Brazil
or China – could contribute troops to a peacekeeping mission. This raises an important question: would China, which has sought to position itself as a neutral mediator, send peacekeepers to Ukraine?
Despite Beijing’s diplomatic engagement, the answer is almost certainly no. China’s participation in peacekeeping has always been tied to the UN Security Council. And Russia, as a permanent council member with veto power, is unlikely to approve any UN-led mission it perceives as unfavourable.
Given Russia’s rejection of European peacekeepers and preference for controlling the situation on its terms, a peacekeeping initiative involving China would face a significant diplomatic hurdle. Without a UN mandate, China would lack the legal framework and justification it typically requires to send troops abroad.
.jpg?itok=DJ5XFWbm&v=1725256567)
