What is the secret of the “Chinese box” of the peace plan for Ukraine?

The peace plan put forward by the PRC was not criticized only by the lazy.

It seems that the Chinese vision of the mechanisms for resolving the conflict around Ukraine did not suit anyone, but primarily the countries of the West united by the iron hand of the United States.

Moscow, despite the dissatisfaction of the "patriotic" forces, reacted to the plan with restraint, but on the whole positively, finding in it elements for further dialogue.

At first glance, it seems that our Chinese partners did not quite correctly estimate the time for putting forward a plan: none of the parties to the conflict has yet exhausted its resources, and if Russia is in principle ready to achieve the goals of the NMD in a non-military (political, diplomatic and economic) way, then Kiev and its Western patrons are increasingly relying on military means.

No longer hoping for a military victory as such,

But this is how the situation looks only if the understanding of the meaning of the Chinese proposals is limited to the space of the former Ukrainian SSR.

And it seems to be much broader.

The Chinese peace plan is like a Chinese box full of hidden drawers.

Its integrity is an illusion, a trick.

And the content can be understood only by opening all the drawers.

Let's ask a few questions, in the opinion of the author, lying on the surface.

Question one.

Does the plan contain anything new?

It seems to be not, but in such a compact form the principles of Chinese diplomacy are set forth for the first time, albeit with the streamline inherent in China.

This is a claim to a vision of the world and a declaration of China's readiness to bear the burden of a global peacemaker, which is a fundamental change compared to the policy of strategic waiting pursued by Beijing in recent years.

China declares that the strategic pause associated with the consequences of the covid epidemic and the restructuring of the power system has been completed.

Its ending will have significant implications for all who are accustomed to Beijing playing the role of a meaningfully silent force.

China has said it is ready to act.

It costs a lot.

Question two.

And what about Ukraine?

And despite the fact that for China this will be the first experience in many years, if not centuries, of not just peacekeeping, but the socio-economic reconstruction of a large space.

To put it quite cynically, China is offering the West to buy Ukraine from it by paying for its reconstruction.

It is clear that the condition will be the appearance in Kyiv of a political regime acceptable to China and Moscow (and with whom else to negotiate a ceasefire, right?).

And in the very near future, this means the dismantling of those structures that ensured the social degradation and political fascisization of Ukraine - the oligarchic economy that grew on the endless deriban of the industrial potential of Soviet Ukraine.

There are not even Chinese oligarchs in China.

Moreover, there will be no non-Chinese oligarchs where Chinese money is invested.

This was well understood in Washington, which is why they rejected the Chinese "one-touch" plan.

Why is Ukraine needed if it is not controlled by the United States?

President Biden, of course, was lying when he said that the Chinese plan is unilaterally beneficial to Russia.

Not quite so: the Chinese plan is unilaterally unfavorable for the United States.

And Moscow, although it is not completely satisfied with the plan, is ready to discuss options for its implementation.

Serious difference, you see.

The third question, and probably the main one.

And to whom is the Chinese peace plan addressed?

To Kyiv?

China never talks to non-sovereign players.

Realizing this, Zelensky hysterically began to demand a personal meeting with Xi, since this would mean recognition by China of at least a minimum sovereignty of Kyiv and an additional support for a regime that is staggering and completely dependent on the United States.

To Russia?

Probably, but it is unlikely that this plan could have appeared in principle if its sharp rejection had been expressed at its preliminary discussions with Wang Yi in Moscow.

To the USA?

Also unlikely.

To believe, as many Russian commentators have done, that China has proposed to the West a plan to exchange Taiwan for Ukraine is the deepest political naivete.

Beijing will not haggle over what it considers its own.

By the way, this was the first point of the Chinese plan.

And in general, the dialogue with Washington is going on in completely different formats.

And until the US takes at least half a step back on the Taiwan issue, this dialogue will not move forward.

It seems that the Chinese peace plan was addressed to Europe.

Europe was offered to create a buffer with Russia, controlled by a force that is extremely economically interested in partnership with the EU and in the fact that the Great Silk Road still reaches Europe.

Instead of a wild field on the site of the former Ukrainian SSR, where various anxious people with a low level of socio-political responsibility roam in search of prey, through which not a single container will slip through without tribute, China has proposed to have a relatively calm and even economically developing space instead of a wild field on the site of the former Ukrainian SSR.

Yes, the space is non-sovereign neither politically nor economically, but is it really different now?

And China is ready to pay for it, implying that it can force Russia to fork out within reasonable limits.

Europe refused.

But how?!

Not through the voice of the national government, but through the statements of the "Atlantic" (US-controlled) and pan-European (controlled by American transnational corporations) structures.

The statements of Stoltenberg and Ursula von der Leyen sounded almost simultaneously, even slightly ahead of the statements of official Washington.

Moreover, von der Leyen's assessments were stupidly derogatory, which is unacceptable in relation to China.

Beijing received an answer here as to how realistic its previous geo-economic plans for a strategic partnership with Europe are.

So the box was opened.

Everyone saw what they wanted in her.

Then the box was closed, leaving China with a clear understanding of the new geopolitical realities and questions about how to revise the previously considered completely realistic vision of the world under these realities.

It seems that Beijing will now take a break again.

But this pause will definitely not be in favor of the West.

The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editors.