US–China Talks: Can Ukraine Hold Its Ground?

Source: Author’s Facebook page

The conventional quadrilateral of US–EU–Russia–Ukraine negotiations has largely run its course. Today, a new reality is emerging: the key discussions shaping the global order are shifting to Beijing and Washington.

What are these negotiations about?

Firstly, they are about avoiding a direct military clash between the two hegemonies. This is not Yalta, where Trump and Xi would redraw borders on maps. These negotiations focus on establishing the rules of the game in the new trade, technological, and logistical realities of the 21st century. Resetting the WTO will be only one of the first steps in this global contest.

How is this different from the Cold War?

The Cold War assumed a rigid division of the world between two hegemonies, each of which effectively exercised unlimited policing powers in its sphere of influence. The current situation is radically different: neither the USA nor China, at least for now, wants to fight on behalf of their allies. They delegate this prerogative to regional powers. Consequently, instead of a deterministic and rigidly divided world—where small countries either aligned with one side or remained non-aligned—we are facing a highly diffuse world with unusual alliances and dual loyalties: one to a hegemonic power and the other to a regional power.

Watershed Lines

De facto, the struggle for regional leadership has already begun. At this stage, the watershed between one world and another will not be defined by values or even economics (credits). Instead, the marker of alignment with one pole or another will be determined by which country you purchase weapons from.

Are we ready for the new realities?

We are entering the US–China negotiations with a negative balance in China and only a minimal positive balance with the US. I have always believed that driving relations with China to such a low point is a mistake. We need to do everything possible to bring our relations at least to a neutral level, because the resolution of the war will now inevitably depend on Beijing–Washington negotiations.

As for Washington, we face another serious problem. Our diplomacy is not systematic and often resembles a series of cavalry raids: a problem arises, our “landing force” intervenes, the problem temporarily diminishes, and then the force withdraws.

Let me give you a small example: three months have passed since we announced the replacement of our ambassador (I want to pay full tribute to the work of Oksana Markarova). We even named three candidates, and one of them—Olga Stefanyshina—was appointed as the President’s Special Representative for the United States. (She is reportedly preparing to work on the group for security guarantees and is expected to take an active role there.)

The delay underscores how crucial it is for us to begin complex, routine, and consistent work—work that is often invisible but ultimately produces the best results.

Washington is one of the most personalized cities in the world: personal relationships matter here far more than in Riyadh or Beijing. The current policy of “cavalry raids” has been effective in moments of crisis, but now we need to run the marathon. The US–China negotiations are unquestionably a marathon—if not a triathlon.

Also, follow “Pryamyi” on Facebook, Twitter, Telegram, and Instagram.

• Materials published in the “OPINIONS” section reflect the opinion of the author of the publication, who bears full responsibility for the accuracy of the information.
• The editorial staff of prm.ua may not share the opinions expressed in the author’s material.
• The owner of the webpage in the “OPINIONS” section is the author of the publication.