By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following Russia’s missile strike on Dnipro, which utilized an intercontinental ballistic missile and prompted threats from Vladimir Putin against Western nations, China urged all involved parties to maintain calm and restraint. China’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson emphasized the need for dialogue and consultation to de-escalate the situation and facilitate a political resolution to the Ukraine crisis. This call for restraint comes amidst reports of the attack’s damage to civilian infrastructure and Putin’s threats of retaliation. China’s stated position remains focused on achieving a ceasefire through peaceful means.
Read the original article here
China’s recent call for all parties to exercise restraint following Russia’s deployment of a new ballistic missile is a complex issue demanding careful consideration. The statement itself, while seemingly neutral, sits awkwardly within the broader context of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.
It’s easy to see why many view China’s plea for calm as inadequate, even disingenuous. The ongoing conflict is primarily fueled by Russia’s aggression, a reality that a simple call for “restraint” from all sides seems to conveniently overlook. Such a statement subtly equates the actions of the aggressor with those of the victim, implying a moral equivalence that simply doesn’t exist.
The timing of this call, coming after Russia’s demonstrable escalation, adds another layer of skepticism. If the goal is genuine de-escalation, wouldn’t the focus be on directly addressing the instigator of the violence? Instead, the call for “all parties” to exercise restraint feels like a thinly veiled attempt to shift responsibility and diffuse the international pressure mounting on Russia.
China’s economic ties with Russia are undeniable, and accusations of supplying Russia with military and technological assistance are persistent. These alleged actions directly fuel the conflict, undermining the credibility of any supposed commitment to de-escalation. If China truly wants peace, a demonstrable reduction in support for Russia’s war effort would be a far more impactful demonstration of commitment than a generalized plea for restraint.
Moreover, the international community’s response has been, quite understandably, mixed. Many view China’s statement as a cowardly attempt to avoid direct condemnation of Russia’s actions, preferring instead to maintain a façade of neutrality while continuing to benefit from its relationship with Russia. There’s a deep-seated frustration with this approach, particularly considering the devastating impact of the conflict in Ukraine.
The question arises: would China adopt the same measured tone if it were facing a similar situation? The implied hypocrisy is not lost on many, particularly given China’s own assertive territorial claims and military posturing. This inconsistency raises serious doubts about the sincerity of China’s call for restraint.
Perhaps China’s actions are motivated by self-preservation. A full-scale escalation of the conflict, especially one involving nuclear weapons, could have devastating consequences for global stability and China’s own economic and geopolitical interests. This pragmatic approach, however understandable, does not absolve China of its responsibility to engage more forcefully in preventing further escalation.
The underlying reality is that China’s interests are intricately woven into the situation. Balancing its relationship with Russia, its own economic ambitions, and its broader geopolitical strategy presents a significant challenge. The call for restraint might be seen as an attempt to navigate these complex interests while avoiding direct confrontation with Russia.
Ultimately, the call for restraint, while seemingly innocuous, falls short of addressing the root cause of the conflict. It’s a reactive statement, not a proactive solution. The international community is right to demand more concrete action from China, not only words of generalized appeasement. A true commitment to de-escalation requires a more decisive stance, one that confronts the aggression directly and actively discourages its continuation. Until then, China’s pronouncements will likely be met with deep-seated cynicism and justifiable skepticism.