Moscow-Washington reconciliation crux for peace

The Ukraine crisis originates from the Crimean War fought from October 1853 to February 1856 between Russia and the alliance of the Ottoman Empire, France, the United Kingdom and Sardinia-Piedmont, rather than the 2014 Crimean crisis. The strife between Russia and the West over this region, open and secret, has never ceased since then.

This time, as long as Russia and the United States, the new leader of the West, do not reach a new strategic balance, there will be no substantial improvement in the situation in Ukraine.

True, it is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's eastward expansion since the 1990s that has spurred Moscow to launch its "special military action". However, it is worth asking why Russia now opposes it fiercely, since it once winked at the NATO's eastward expansion after the Cold War.

That was a honeymoon period when Russia tried to close the distance with the US. Russian President Vladimir Putin and then US president George W. Bush had 28 meetings. However, Moscow's low profile has not been reciprocated by Washington. The turning point of Russia-US ties came in 2008 when Russia's actions in Georgia made the US wary of its ambition that it will by no means accept the fate of becoming a second-rate country below the US on the world stage, especially after it weathered the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union.

But despite their lasting tensions, they do not have the ability or desire to eliminate the other. Russia is a major source of industrial raw materials and energy to the world, and the US controls the world market and dominates the pricing power in finance and technology. So many countries are reluctant to take sides between them over the Ukraine crisis.

That's why the West's sanctions on Russia and military support to Ukraine will not resolve the crisis, but only further escalate the tensions, as they do not promote a reconciliation between Moscow and Washington.

In contrast, the position paper that China unveiled on Friday, which has won the acclaim of both Moscow and Kyiv, as well as the United Nations, indicates the right direction for global efforts to end the crisis at an early date.

The paper not only draws the bottom line — that sovereignty must be respected and nuclear wars be avoided — but also highlights the priorities for ending the crisis, namely stopping sanctions and military support, a cease-fire and peace talks and the building of a lasting peace mechanism.

Those dismissing the document and China's proposals have not offered a more workable road map for peace and it is therefore natural to question their motivation for their criticism.