8

Blinken reported the American position on Ukraine. Wang Yi pointed out that solving the Ukraine problem lies in the New Minsk Agreement [Minsk II] . Minsk II gained the approval of the UNSC, and all sides have recognized it as a foundational political document, and ought to effectuate it concretely. China will support any efforts that conform with Minsk II's direction and spirit. At the same time, we call on all sides to remain calm, and refrain from stoking tensions or sensationalizing crises. Wang Yi emphasized that the security of one country cannot be at the cost of another country's security. Regional security cannot be guaranteed by strengthening or expanding military groupings. In today's 21st Century, all sides should abandon Cold War thinking, reach a balanced, effective, and sustainable European security mechanism through dialogue, and Russia's legitimate security concerns should be respected and resolved.

I am wondering if China would take punitive action against Russia if Russia invades Ukraine as long as the U.S. abide my the Minsk II agreement. Is that what Wang Yi is saying or is the U.S. against the Minsk II agreement somehow? I am trying to understand his vague political language and I am wondering if China is currently siding with the U.S. on the Ukraine matter.

Sayaman
  • 40,192
  • 9
  • 139
  • 290

4 Answers4

12

The quote is phased in a politely ambiguous diplomatic language.

Superficially, China is staying above the fray. But the Chinese position is identical to the official Russian diplomatic position, in that the Minsk II agreement is the framework for the situation.

The Russian position is further predicated on the claim that Ukraine did not make a good faith effort to fulfill its obligations under the agreement. China does not specifically repeat this in the quote above.

References to Russia and US are left out entirely, which is not unusual for diplomacy surrounding proxy conflicts.

The line about fulfilling the direction and spirit of Minsk II can be interpreted to refer to:

  • maintaining the ceasefire, i.e. not attempting to re-fight the battles of 2014-2015
  • additional obligations that go beyond the ceasefire, including granting amnesty to the belligerents from 2014-2015, withdrawal of all foreign forces, restoring Ukraine's control of its old borders in the two breakaway republics, and granting some sort of devolved governmental powers as autonomous regions to the two breakaway republics

As of 2021-ish, essentially none of the terms were complied with. Including:

  • The ceasefire itself, in light of recurring light artillery attacks. Confidence was also undermined by Ukraine's government directly expressing a desire to re-conquer the breakaway republics, and building up military capability which could potentially be used for this purpose
  • Actions taken by Ukraine to punish the breakaway republics, contrary to the amnesty requirement, and preventing integration with the rest of the country
  • No progress was made granting autonomous powers. Effectively the opposite took place, as the major political parties in Ukraine representing the Russian population were banned
  • At the same time, Ukraine does not really control of its original borders in the breakaway republics. One issue that irked Ukraine's side, is that Russia granted passports to Russians living in the breakaway republics. Ukraine then claimed it would revoke citizenship of those who accepted Russian passports (while dual citizenship with other countries is to be allowed).
  • Finally, foreign forces do not hide their presence

So to answer the question more directly, if the fighting of 2014-2015 were to repeat in the same sequence -- i.e. with Ukraine attempting to assert control over the breakaway republic's territory, then it is most likely that China would interpret it as a gross violation, by Ukraine, of Minsk II and the accompanying UNSC resolution. I'd expect China to diplomatically support efforts to restore the status quo as of the agreements.

Pete W
  • 3,723
  • 8
  • 21
  • 6
    The list of terms not complied with is misleading.
    1. Ceasefire is not respected by republic's forces, not Ukrainian.
    2. Ukraine is not expressing any desire to re-conquer in a military fashion. In a recent briefing by Danilov, secretary of security council, he explicitly discarded such possibility (https://news.liga.net/ua/politics/news/davayte-podojdem-danilov-isklyuchil-deokkupatsiyu-donbassa-i-kryma-voennym-putem).
    3. "Foreign forces" means essentially "Russian".
     – vitvly Jan 28 '22 at 16:34
  • @siphiuel - 1. ask it as a question, see what evidence comes out. 2. legislation passed to that effect under Poroshenko, decree by Zelensky to 'de-occupy' Crimea. 3. Pentagon has confirmed US forces for 'training' (which has been going on for years) – Pete W Jan 28 '22 at 16:52
  • 3
  • I agree it's dubious! 2. Legislation is not about military plans, but "political and diplomatic steps". 3. "Training mission by US special forces" is not "foreign armed formations" as stipulated by item 10 in Minsk agreement.
    • – vitvly Jan 28 '22 at 17:06
  • 2
    Your response is largely misleading (to say the least). It also attempts to make it seem like the Minsk agreements not working out is a fault of solely one side of the conflict, while ignoring the actions of the "breakaway republics (™)". Not sure why it was picked as an answer. I would also like to see some evidence to your claims, especially "political parties representing the RU population being banned" and "dual citizenship to be allowed". – bertonne Jan 29 '22 at 04:01
  • 3
  • From your own link: "We will continue to pave the way for reintegration of the occupied Ukrainian lands through political and diplomatic steps," Poroshenko wrote on Twitter. The narrative claiming the war aspect of the document is spread by Russian officials, as the document rightfully proclaims Russia a part of the conflict due to Russia supplying the "belligerents" and directly participating in the affairs of "breakaway republics".
    • – bertonne Jan 29 '22 at 04:10
  • 2
    Regarding the second link of yours: "As noted, the strategy defines a set of diplomatic, military, economic, informational, humanitarian measures aimed at restoring the territorial integrity, state sovereignty of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders through the de-occupation and reintegration of Crimea.". Where exactly is the "desire to re-conquer the breakway republics is expressed", given that Crimea is not a part of the Minsk agreements? – bertonne Jan 29 '22 at 04:14
  • One thing one should consider is that China probably is aware that allowing Russia a further aggression could later lead to a lack of any support in the case that Russia and China's influence spheres overlap and Russia does something similar on other shared regions of influence. – Sascha Jan 29 '22 at 15:04