After Xi–Putin 2026: Institutionalization, Eastward Rewire, and Japan's Dilemma (Part 2)
Reader support is what makes Oracle Ayano possible. I am building a generative AI system for large-scale data gathering, analytical synthesis, and article verification. Please consider supporting the project.
What Orbán’s Visit to Beijing Revealed
On July 8, 2024, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán met President Xi Jinping in Beijing. In Chinese-language media, his back-to-back stops in Kyiv, Moscow, and Beijing were framed not as routine diplomacy by a small European state. They were a “peace mission.” According to the Chinese Foreign Ministry, Xi said that “ceasing fire and ending the war, and restoring peace at an early date” served the common interests of all countries. He added three principles: the battlefield must not expand outward, the fighting must not escalate, and all parties must avoid adding fuel to the fire (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China).
The scene showed that China sees the Ukraine war less as victory or defeat than as a problem of control. Xi did not foreground either Russian victory or Ukrainian victory. He did not speak about the legitimacy of territorial restoration. He spoke about preventing expansion, avoiding escalation, securing a ceasefire, and reopening negotiations. Orbán was also reported to have described China as “an important stabilizing force in promoting world peace,” and he said that “peace does not come by itself; it must be won through effort” (VOA Chinese).
The role China wanted to perform was not that of an arbiter of justice. It was that of a manager of order. Beijing was not promoting the model sought by the West: Russian withdrawal, international legal adjudication, and NATO-led security. It was promoting a ceasefire that preserves face, fixes the front line, prolongs negotiations, and stages a multipolar order. China’s repeated phrase “political settlement” refers less to a complete end to the war than to a shift of wartime conditions into a diplomatically manageable form.
China Wants a Freeze More Than Peace
China has long repeated the vocabulary of its 12-point peace proposal: respect for all countries’ security concerns, opposition to Cold War thinking, ceasefire, dialogue, and opposition to unilateral sanctions. On the surface, this is the language of neutrality. In substance, it points toward preventing the collapse of the Russian system, fixing the front line somewhere, and returning Western exhaustion to a manageable level.
This differs from peace in the Western sense. China prefers ceasefire, freezing, managed tension, phased negotiations, a face-saving landing, and the performance of multipolar order. If the war fully ends, China’s value as a mediator declines. If armistice monitoring, energy reconstruction, infrastructure finance, reconstruction logistics, payment networks, and resource development continue over the long term, China remains a node between the parties.
China displayed the same model in its mediation of the Saudi-Iran rapprochement. The contrast that the United States starts wars while China mediates ceasefires carried major propaganda value for Chinese diplomacy. If a Ukraine ceasefire takes shape, the stage becomes far larger than the Middle East. If China is recognized as an indispensable player in a ceasefire framework spanning Europe, Russia, the United States, the United Nations, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, that recognition itself restages the international order.
China’s ideal, therefore, is not total Russian victory. Russia does not collapse. Ukraine remains a state. Europe becomes exhausted. The United States keeps resources tied down. China assumes roles in mediation, logistics, finance, and resource connectivity. This condition represents China’s preferred geoeconomic interest. It is not a winner-takes-all design. It is a structure in which China stands between exhausted camps and controls corridors, capital, and diplomatic flows.
Russia Is Not Rejecting China’s Exit Route
Russian-language media still frame the war through “special military operation,” “security,” “protection of Russian-speaking residents,” and the claim that the West is prolonging the war (RIA Novosti). Even so, the Russian side has not openly denied China’s peace and mediation line. Instead, it elevates respect for China’s proposals, China’s international role, multipolar order, respect for sovereignty, and dialogue.
Reporting on May 19, 2026, also said that President Vladimir Putin stated that Russia and China were ready to support each other on issues such as protecting sovereignty (Reuters). This does not mean Russia is moving toward an immediate ceasefire. But if Russia accepted nothing except complete military victory, China’s “political settlement” line would obstruct it. In practice, Russia uses that ambiguity.
Russian coverage of Orbán’s visit to China showed the same room for maneuver. RIA Novosti reported on the July 8, 2024 visit and said Orbán had explained his visits to Moscow and Kyiv to Xi (RIA Novosti). For Russia, the ceasefire narrative created by China can serve as a transition not to defeat, but to “political management.” Here, Chinese and Russian interests partly overlap.
From China’s side, Russia’s complete collapse is also undesirable. Nuclear control, instability in Siberia, refugees, turmoil in Central Asia, and renewed Western intervention all pose major risks to Chinese security. At the same time, outright Russian victory is difficult for China to handle. Relations with Europe deteriorate further, and pressure for secondary sanctions intensifies. China’s signal therefore becomes: do not crush Russia, but manage the war.
Europe Does Not Fully Trust China
China’s mediation concept faces a major constraint. Ukraine and Europe do not see China as a fully neutral actor. In Europe, concern is strong over the flow of Chinese components into Russia, dual-use technologies, renminbi settlement, and assistance in sanctions evasion. China speaks as a mediator seeking a ceasefire, but it also appears to be a rear-area supporter of Russia.
This duality makes mediation by China alone difficult. China says it is encouraging reconciliation and negotiation “in its own way,” but that method does not align with Europe’s security instincts. From Ukraine’s perspective, invoking “security concerns” while leaving territorial recovery by the invaded side ambiguous appears to accept part of Russia’s argument. From Europe’s perspective, opposition to unilateral sanctions sounds like language that weakens pressure on Russia.
For that reason, an actual ceasefire framework is unlikely to be built by China alone. A multilayered framework involving China, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, the United Nations, and some European actors is more plausible. China will aim not to become the sole judge, but to occupy an indispensable position among multiple mediators. The goal is not complete peace. The goal is to become an indispensable player in managing a ceasefire.
On this point, improving relations with the EU matters to China. As confrontation with the United States intensifies, China does not want a total rupture with the EU. As long as China is fixed in Europe’s view as a state supporting Russia, the distance cannot narrow. But if China creates a narrative that it contributed to a ceasefire, it gains room to split hard-line European opinion toward China and partially restore economic relations.
