At the UN General Assembly General Debate in New York in late September, Ukrainian President Zelensky was once again the focus figure. In his speech, he publicly accused Russian President Putin of leadership incompetence and rarely named China, saying "without China, Russia is nothing."

This is the first time in recent years that Zelensky at the United Nations has clearly included China in the sphere of discussion of the responsibility of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict.This move has caused widespread concern in the diplomatic circle: on the one hand, this claim shapes China as the ¡°key variable¡± of the left-wing warfare; on the other hand, it also pushes China to the forefront as a ¡°unresponsible¡± third party without providing new evidence.

According to the news outlet of the foreign media conference, the passage was not arbitrarily dismissed, but occupied a significant part of its speech. and, he subsequently added, ¡°Chinese representatives are also present,¡± clearly intending to put pressure on the Chinese side in this multilateral arena to try to influence China¡¯s policy position towards Russia.

The problem is that in the past three years of Russian-Ukrainian conflict, China has always emphasized "convincing and promoting negotiations" and has not supplied weapons to any party, nor has it participated in war-related operations.

The logical turn of Uzbekistan's speech to China

Zelensky's statement that "Russia is completely dependent on China" is ostensibly a description of Sino-Russian economic and trade exchanges, but in fact it is intended to pave the way for a "logic of political responsibility". The core of this logic is that since China is Russia's main economic partner, it has the ability and responsibility to put pressure on it.

In fact, this narrative strategy of ¡°support is complicity¡± has already appeared many times in European and American politics and media. Since 2023, some NATO lawmakers and US think tanks have frequently issued the remarks of ¡°Chinese-Russian alliance¡± ¡°China holds Russia behind¡±, trying to incorporate China into the system of collective responsibility to Russia. But this logic is highly controversial within non-Western countries, and many countries clearly point out that China is not a warring country, and should not be forced to stand on the sidelines.

It is difficult for the Ukrainian side to use China's "forced involvement" in the war narrative to not be seen as a diplomatic tool.In the absence of new evidence to prove that China provides military aid, shaping China as a "background role" in prolonged warfare is more like a public opinion war operation than a constructive peace promotion.

More crucially, Zelensky did not explicitly state how he wanted China to "force Russia to cease the war." Neither the possible negotiation mechanism is mentioned, nor the influence levers that China can use are given. This general and emotional expression weakens the diplomatic rationality it advocates.

China's response: Do not accept "moral blackmail"

Faced with Zelensky's high-profile "name" at the United Nations, China's permanent delegation to the United Nations responded at the subsequent regular meeting.The Chinese representative reiterated that China is not a party to the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, and since the first day of the war, China has always adhered to an objective and fair position, actively persuaded and promoted talks, and promoted a political solution to the crisis.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman also stressed at the press conference that China-Russia relations belong to the normal framework of bilateral relations, do not target third parties and should not be interfered with by third parties. China does not provide weapons equipment to Russia, nor does it tolerate acts of war.

More importantly, China remains the only country in the UN Security Council Pentagon to maintain open diplomatic channels with both sides of the Russian Federation and Ukraine, whether it comes to Ukraine¡¯s infrastructure reconstruction aid proposals or negotiations on Russian food agreements, Chinains open speech and multilateral coordination.

This neutral role is especially important in the context of the current stagnant war situation. Pushing China to the ¡°accused table¡± is not an issue for Ukraine. Once China chooses to narrow its public policy and economic trade exchanges with Ukraine, it will not only be unfavourable for peace negotiations, but may also affect Ukraine¡¯s support base in the ¡°global south.¡±

Trump's speech echoes Ukraine

It is noteworthy that shortly after Zelensky¡¯s speech, U.S. President Trump also stated in an interview outside the United Nations Congress: ¡°Ukraine should be able to recover all its territory as long as there is enough will and external resources to support it.¡± ¡±He also criticized Putin as the ¡°man who led Russia into a strategic dead end¡± and rarely pointed to both China and India, saying the two countries ¡°provided Russia with the necessary funds for war through trade.¡±

This statement is highly aligned with Zelensky¡¯s logic of speech¡ªboth attempts to raise political responsibilities through ¡°economic connections¡± and ultimately reach the goal of pressuring China. This synchronization has sparked speculation among some of the international public opinion: Are Trump and Zelensky going through such a topic in front of the meeting? Are they jointly interpreting a ¡°cooperative struggle¡±?

According to Reuters citing the background materials of the U.S.-U. talks, Trump and Zelensky did have a brief meeting before the United Nations General Assembly, but the concrete content was not disclosed publicly.

Zelensky, on the one hand, hopes to reactivate the Western consensus on aid with U.S. alertness to China; on the other hand, Trump may also hope to consolidate his hard-knit attitude toward voters by shaping the public opinion of ¡°China bound by war.¡±

Uzbekistan's "Latin America's entry into the game" may be coldly treated by multilateral consensus

The real price of Ukraine's attack on China is not direct diplomatic retaliation, but the "long-term loss" of its attitude towards neutral countries. Once this logic of "if you don't help me, you are helping the enemy" becomes the main axis of Uzbekistan's external speech, it will inevitably arouse doubts from a large number of non-Western countries.

According to the South China Morning Post on September 23, members of the Indonesian, Brazilian, South African and other delegations expressed concern after the meeting, believing that "interfering with non-party countries in the moral battlefield of war would undermine the nature of the UN General Assembly as a neutral multilateral platform."

While the "voice" of diplomatic actions is important, the "cost" needs to be more balanced.In the context of Israel - the war in Gaza, the civil unrest in Sudan, the crisis in Haiti, and so on, Ukraine will undoubtedly weaken its influence in the United Nations agenda if it morally loses the "compassion dividend" of most developing countries.

The outlet of war does not rely on volume

Zelensky's speech at this session of the United Nations General Assembly marked another tough attack on Ukraine's diplomatic front. He tried to reconstruct the dominance of public opinion after the war by amplifying Russia's "dependence", and at the same time put pressure on China to win a new round of support.

But the reality is that China has not participated in this war and is unwilling to accept the role of "pressure maker". At the beginning of the war, China put forward the "twelve-point peace plan", and always took promoting dialogue as its main direction. This position has not changed so far.

For Zelensky, the diplomatic stage could be a place for allies, but if misused, it could not only lose potential support, but also weaken the neutral perception of the legitimacy of Ukraine.

The war may not be stopped for a while, but the way of diplomatic expression can determine the width of the future peace path. Turning diplomacy into a "roll call war" may only lead to a silent response in the end.