Heated Debate in Australia on the Ukraine Crisis

One “Mr Z” has sent me the news items below and added his thoughts at the end

A = Ruan Zongze: “China seeks peace in Ukraine crisis,” The Weekend Australian, 1 March 2023  

On February 24, as the full escalation of the Ukraine crisis reached its one-year mark, were leased China’s Position on the Political Settlement of the Ukraine Crisis. Overall, the response of the international community toward the document is positive.

Many countries welcome and support the document, acknowledging China’s constructive role. Stephane Dujarric, spokesman for the UN Secretary-General, says: “The plan put forward by the Chinese government is an important contribution.” However, some Western countries suspect China’s position and purpose, claiming China can’t be an “honest co-ordinator” due to its close relations with Russia.

Since the outbreak of the Ukraine crisis, on the one hand, the West has been accusing China of doing nothing, demanding China’s effective role in the crisis by the use of its good relations with Russia. On the other hand, they’ve been questioning China’s normal bilateral exchanges with Russia and positive efforts on facilitating talks. Isn’t that Doublethink?

What has China said? To sum up, China’s principled position lays out 12 points, including respecting the sovereignty of all countries, abandoning the Cold War mentality, ceasing hostilities and resuming peace talks. China is not a concerned party or bystander, but a peace plan promoter.

China has always independently assessed the situation on the basis of the historical context and the merits of the issue, actively promoting world peace and economic stability. The above position is in line with China’s consistent principles on the Ukraine crisis, and is based on our observation and conclusion one year after the outbreak.

The Ukraine crisis can only be resolved through political settlement. China’s position on that is consistent and stable. On February 25, 2022, one day after the outbreak of the Ukraine crisis, President Xi Jinping pointed out during his telephone conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin that China has long held the basic position of respecting all countries’ sovereignty and territorial integrity, and abiding by the purposes and principles of the UN Charter. As mentioned, it is important to reject the Cold War mentality; take seriously and respect the reasonable security concerns of all countries, and; reach a balanced, effective and sustainable European security mechanism through negotiation. China supports Russia in resolving the issue through negotiation with Ukraine.

Worryingly, the crisis has now turned into a confrontation between NATO and Russia, with risks of continuing escalation. While all parties are taking opposing positions and making calculations with great division, it’s the Ukrainian and Russian people who are bleeding.

The root cause is the unlimited eastward expansion of NATO, a pursuit of unilateral security. As the world’s largest military bloc, NATO can’t live without an enemy. The Ukrainian crisis provides the oxygen it needs for life extension. NATO won’t “waste this crisis-turned-opportunity” as it not only presses ahead with bringing in new members, but also expands to other regions. The US and NATO member countries are pouring out heavy weapons to the battlefield in Ukraine, much enjoyed by their military-industrial complex.

Though encircled by Western countries, led by the US, in fields including political, economic, trade and cultural sanctions, Russia hasn’t been brought down. In the recent State of the Nation address, President Putin said it’s impossible to defeat Russia on the battlefield.

Besides, here comes the resurgence of the so-called “China Responsibility theory”. Some countries groundlessly claim that China “may give weapons to Russia”, trying to escalate conflict by smearing and pressuring China. The international society should be vigilant about this.

The development of China cannot happen without a secure international environment. Likewise, world security would not be possible without the security of China. Days before, China released the Global Security Initiative Concept Paper, which expounds the vision of common, comprehensive, cooperative and sustainable security, pursues the objective of building a security community, and advocates a new path to security featuring dialogue over confrontation, partnership over alliance and win-win over zero-sum. This demonstrates China’s firm resolve to defend global security.

All in all, the ups and downs of the Ukraine crisis last year fully show that there is no simple solution to a complex issue. We should address both symptoms and root causes. In the face of full escalation of the Ukraine crisis, striving for peace is the world consensus and solving it through negotiation is the key. China’s position paper can stand the test of time.

  Dr Ruan Zongze is the consul-general of the People’s Republic of China in Brisbane. 

B:  Item in The Australian,  March 1, 2023  Beijing could easily end the bloodshed foisted on Ukraine”

I would like to inform Ruan Zongze that there are two sides to every story (“China seeks peace in Ukraine crisis”, 1/3). Contrary to what he says, there is a simple and straightforward solution to the Ukraine crisis. Instead of publishing a 12-point peace plan, all China must do is ask President Jinping to tell Vladimir Putin: “Get out of Ukraine.” It is well known that President Xi is the person who can end the war as he is the only person Putinwill listen to. I would also like to add that Dr Zongze’s comment that the root cause for the war is NATO’s unlimited eastwards expansion and that NATO can’t live without an enemy is very much misleading. It would be better by far if Dr Zongze informed us why China abstained last week when the UN General Assembly voted overwhelmingly in favour of a resolution calling for an end to the war, demanding that Russia leave Ukrainian territory.

C : Thoughts from “Mr Z,” 1 March 2023

  1. Jaworsky’s letter toThe Australianis a typical example of delusional thinking that collectively resides deep in the Western consciousness.
  2. Yes, there are two sides to every story, and I am sure Ruan Zongze agrees, but Jaworsky assumes his side is superior and so has a major blind spot.
  3. Where is the evidence to support the claim “President Xi is the person who can end the war as he is the only person Putin will listen to”. How does Jaworsky know who Putin listens to? Do they have insider knowledge of Kremlin?  Or are they just another delusional Westerner who thinks they can get inside Putin’s head?  China made an genuine effort to offer a peace plan, but the US and NATO rejected it before the ink was dry, so there is nothing more China can do in Ukraine other than to sit back and watch the combined stupidity of the West as they roll on to disaster with the West telling Zelensky to “Be a good chap and just pour another tens of thousands more Ukrainians into the meat grinder”. But now Zelensky is running out of Ukrainians for the meat grinder which is why he has called on the UK, US and NATO soldiers to come to the front line and enter the meat grinder, which of course, the West will never do.
  4. Xi wouldn’t be so stupid to make such an absurd demand of Putin just as an Australian Prime Minister would never tell the Americans to “Get out of Syria”, “Get out of Libya”, or “Get out Iraq”, or “Get out Vietnam”, “Get out of Yugoslavia”, or “Get out the countless other countries the US has invaded since the 1960s…”Every country the US has invaded in the name of democracy has been ruined or transformed into perpetual chaos, and then exploited by Western globalists like George Soros.
  5. Jaworsky says “Dr Zongze’s comment that the root cause for the war is NATO’s unlimited eastwards expansion and that NATO can’t live without an enemy is very much misleading,” but Jaworsky fails to provide any evidence to support this claim. Jaworsky is in fact misleading because what they fail to do is to contextualize the history of the conflict back to 2004 – which the collective West fails to do.
  6. It would be better if Jaworsky could look beyond their own nose to consider the perspectives of all the actors involved in Ukraine, and consider at the very least the context and history behind the events, before critiquing Zongze’s essay.



Dr Ruan Zongze is the consul-general of the People’s Republic of China in Brisbane. 

Mr Z is a specialist on the East Asian states with linguistic capacities in Chinese who has to keep clear of ASIO.

Leave a comment

Filed under accountability, american imperialism, australian media, authoritarian regimes, centre-periphery relations, China and Chinese influences, foreign policy, historical interpretation, Pacific Ocean politics, politIcal discourse, power politics, the imaginary and the real, truth as casualty of war, Ukraine & Its Ramifications, war reportage, world events & processes

Leave a Reply