Ukraine’s acceptance of a U.S. peace deal instead of China’s would be a major win for U.S. national security, weakening Beijing’s influence and setting a precedent for future defense agreements.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has so far failed in its attempts to position itself as a peacemaker in Ukraine, as the China-backed deal was too favorable to Russia. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has yet to officially accept President Donald Trump’s offer of continued U.S. military aid in exchange for rare earth minerals. This proposal would also reduce U.S. vulnerability to China’s influence in the defense supply chain.
In May 2024, BRICS members China and Brazil proposed a refined six-point plan, reiterating previous proposals on non-escalation, humanitarian aid, nuclear safety, and global trade stability. A key difference was the emphasis on convening an international peace conference accepted by both Russia and Ukraine. However, like the earlier proposal, it was met with suspicion, especially by Ukraine and its Western allies, who were concerned about freezing the conflict without the restoration of ceased territory.
Several strategic goals drive Beijing’s push for a peace deal in Ukraine. Primarily, it seeks to enhance its global stature by positioning itself as a responsible mediator, counterbalancing U.S. and Western influence. Additionally, China’s economic stability is at stake, as the war disrupts global supply chains, particularly in energy markets where Russia is a key supplier. A peace deal would secure China’s energy interests and stabilize global markets, which is vital to its economic growth.
Furthermore, deepening ties with Russia is central to the Chinese regime’s geopolitical strategy, providing a counterbalance to U.S. dominance. By facilitating a peace agreement, Beijing strengthens its partnership with Moscow and solidifies its role as a global player. This involvement also boosts China’s international image, enhances its soft power, and supports its position in global institutions while stabilizing crucial trade routes and energy supplies.
While Russia welcomes China’s involvement, Ukraine and its Western allies, especially the United States, remain skeptical. Washington questions Beijing’s true motivations, suspecting that its peace efforts are a calculated move to increase influence at the West’s expense. Additionally, the United States is cautious about the CCP’s growing global influence and challenge to the American-led world order, viewing Beijing’s mediation push as part of a broader strategy to erode U.S. dominance in international diplomacy and security.
As the CCP’s involvement has failed to end the war and Americans grow weary of funding it, Trump initially proposed a peace plan focused on direct negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, mediated by the United States. His plan emphasizes a swift resolution, seeking a cease-fire and productive dialogue. It calls for the withdrawal of Russian troops in exchange for concessions, such as protecting Russian-speaking populations and ensuring Ukraine’s nonalignment with NATO.
Trump’s approach has raised concerns among liberal Democrats and the media, who argue that his favorable comments about Russian President Vladimir Putin undermine his objectivity. While Trump has discussed negotiations with Putin, Ukraine and Europe have grown skeptical and even antagonistic, especially as Trump considers cutting defense aid to Ukraine. This has created a more hostile environment for negotiations, reducing the likelihood of an amicable peace agreement.
However, the Trump administration has suspended the deal with Ukraine after a heated exchange in Washington between Zelenskyy and Trump on Feb. 28.
The plan has garnered mixed reactions. Trump has emphasized the importance of securing access to Ukraine’s rare earth resources, framing it as a crucial “security” issue given the U.S. investment of hundreds of billions in support. In an interview with Fox News, Trump stated that Ukraine had “essentially agreed” to grant the United States $500 billion worth of these minerals.
From a Trumpian perspective, the deal would be a win-win-win: Zelenskyy would receive the military aid he needs; the United States would secure rare earth minerals and reduce reliance on China for defense supply chains; and supply chains would be moved closer to home, to Europe rather than Asia. This arrangement would also allow U.S. troop deployments to protect the supply chains while reassuring Zelenskyy of his country’s security.
While the CCP would have liked to broker peace in Ukraine, any deal ending the fighting would be a mixed outcome for Beijing. The advantage would be the freeing up of energy resource supply chains. Still, Beijing would lose much of its leverage over Moscow, and the yuan would see a decline in international use as Russia would likely return to trading in dollars and euros.
Overall, a peace agreement would benefit the United States greatly, especially in its efforts to counter the Chinese regime, setting a precedent for future defense agreements where the United States receives tangible and quantifiable returns in exchange for military protection.
