China: A Threat to Europe under the Mask of Peacemaker
The annual UN General Assembly session starts on Tuesday. For most, this will seem like a routine event with global leaders in formal or traditional attire delivering speeches on various global or local issues. It may appear to be just another ceremonial gathering at the UN, with no real effect on everyday life in cities like Brussels, Paris, or Prague.
However, this time is different. This year’s General Assembly could mark the beginning of significant shifts that directly impact the comfort zone Europeans have come to expect. The reason for this is China.
At first glance, China may not appear as a serious threat. After all, one of the key issues on the agenda will be finding a way to stop Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. Leaders will once again offer both genuine and insincere calls for peace and propose mediating the conflict.
But this time, Beijing seems determined to take the initiative. Uncertainty around the upcoming U.S. presidential elections has created a “window of opportunity” for China.
China may present a seemingly legitimate plan to “end the war,” backed by its Brazil-China Six-Point Consensus initiative and claims of support from the Global South. With specific steps and timelines, this plan could aim to broker peace in Ukraine, but under Chinese terms.
Of course, it won’t be branded as a “Chinese plan.” Instead, the focus will be on the backing from the Global South, BRICS, or the so-called “global majority.” China could organize meetings with several high-ranking officials from these countries during the General Assembly (excluding Ukraine) to form a core group that could later expand to include other nations from Africa, Latin America, and Asia.
This is not the plan Europe, where the biggest conflict since World War II is taking place, desires. It certainly isn’t the plan Ukraine wants, as President Volodymyr Zelenskyy continues to push for his own vision of a just peace.
China’s proposal will be framed with carefully crafted language, including references to the UN Charter. However, the principle of respect for sovereignty—a key concern for any nation under invasion—could be subtly weakened, shifting the focus to “considering the security interests of all countries,” a phrase popular with authoritarian regimes aiming to divide the world into spheres of influence. Behind the diplomatic language, the core idea will be a freeze in the conflict. This freeze will act as a concealed ultimatum to Ukraine (and its allies) from China, masked as the will of the “global majority,” but ultimately benefiting China.
What’s the real danger here?
Firstly, China’s plan serves Russia’s interests. It undermines Ukraine’s efforts to organize a large-scale peace summit, where the future of peace in Europe could be discussed by Kyiv, Moscow, and other stakeholders. While the Chinese plan doesn’t envision Russia’s triumph as painted by Russian propaganda—where the Russian flag flies over Kharkiv, Kyiv, or Odesa, or sanctions are lifted—it aims to ensure Russia doesn’t lose. China has long been the main beneficiary of the war, benefiting from Russia’s vast natural resources in exchange for critical goods.
Moscow, in turn, will repay Beijing with greater concessions, deepening its dependency on China—a reality that many Russians try to ignore.
Secondly, a successful Chinese plan would mark a huge foreign policy win for Beijing, with far-reaching consequences. China would cement its leadership over the Global South, weaken Western influence, and build a loyal coalition to back its involvement in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. China would also seek to reshape global security according to its vision, establishing itself as the key mediator in international conflicts rather than relying on international law.
So why should Europeans care about global politics, China-Brazil initiatives, or China-Russia trade? Why should Beijing’s actions at the General Assembly raise suspicion? Especially since this is only the first step, and the full picture may not emerge until the BRICS summit in Kazan or later at China’s proposed peace conference on Ukraine. Or perhaps the climax will come when China pushes both Ukraine and Russia into negotiations under its mediation, possibly involving some major European powers to make the process seem more balanced.
The answer is straightforward. In European capitals like Brussels, Paris, and Berlin, there must be a clear understanding that imposing China’s terms—no matter how disguised as the “will of the global majority”—is unacceptable, particularly when the victim of aggression is forced to comply.
In 1939, a peaceful September day raised critical questions about European security. We must ensure that the upcoming September days in New York don’t become the unnoticed beginning of the end for Europe’s influence.
