China’s Foreign Ministry has officially “rejected” Zelensky: Beijing is not whose “wish pool” and will not be replaced with “blackpot”! Faced with Zelensky’s public speech at the United Nations, Chinese spokesman Guo Jiangkun has made clear the bottom line. China’s stance is to “convince and promote talks” rather than “selection stands”. Any attempt to drag China into conflict through ethical abduction will be doomed to bankruptcy!
Zelensky did not wait for the support he wanted, but waited for China's unambiguous phrase "not whose pool of wishes."
His name at the United Nations General Assembly, in turn, was a public clarification of China’s position.
On September 24th, Chinese spokesman Guo Jiakun's response was equivalent to a "rejection order" from hit the floor, which not only killed decisively, but also drew a clear red line.
China will not be "emotionally blackmailed", nor will it cooperate with any political operation that tries to manipulate international discourse.
The cause of this incident is very simple to put it bluntly. Zelensky became anxious as the international community's attention to Ukraine continued to decline, Western aid was weak, and the war situation was protracted for a long time.
So he simply “moved out of China” at the United Nations General Assembly and wanted to give himself a new spotlight with a set of moral abductions.
He said that "Russia is completely dependent on China", that "Russia is nothing without China", and asked China to "come forward and put pressure on it".
It sounds like calling for peace, in fact, is a complete political calculation.
But he forgot that China is not a pawn playing with public opinion.
China's foreign policy focuses on principles, not emotions. Guo Jiakun was not led by the rhythm, but reiterated China's consistent position: to persuade peace and promote talks, be objective and neutral.
This is not an impromptu idea, but China's consistent attitude since the outbreak of the conflict.
China not only did not provide lethal weapons to any of the parties, but also proactively promoted negotiations, issued political solutions, and sent special envoys to traverse between the two sides of the battlefield.
China's role has always been a mediator, not a trader.
In front of the world, Zelensky tried to tie China to a chariot, but ended up shooting himself in the foot.
He wanted China to take responsibility for his “peaceful failure” and to put China’s “silence on aggression” on its back.
But he overlooked the fact that the international community was not the non-black-and-white stage of the Cold War, and that what countries see today is action, not slogans.
China's "silence" is precisely the strongest rejection of war, not saying no, but not acting together; not standing still, but not participating in the arch.
Behind this "roll call", there is actually another article. This is not the first time Zelensky has tried to sow discord between China and Russia, but this time he went harder.
His description of China as the "lifeblood" of Russia is nothing more than trying to make the international community misjudge Sino-Russian relations and force China to "prove its innocence".
But the problem is that the strategic cooperation between China and Russia is based on each other's interests and sense of boundaries, not unilateral kidnapping.
There is cooperation between China and Russia, and there is a bottom line. Zelensky's abacus not only did not disrupt the rhythm of China and Russia, but instead exposed his sense of powerlessness in the situation.
After all, this is a typical case of "anxiety diplomacy".
The situation on the front line in Ukraine is stalemate, Western military aid is becoming less and less, and the public opinion field is beginning to become cold. If Zelensky wants to continue to maintain international attention, he must find a new "epicenter."
At this time, China became his “target”. named China, it can make news, it can also create pressure.
But he forgot that China is not Ukraine’s withdrawal machine, nor is it a subsidiary of the United States.Beijing will neither be a “passive stand” nor a “peaceful substitute” for others.
China’s response was both a rejection and a declaration that we will not be defined and manipulated.
In the international community, who really wants peace depends not on who shouts loudly, but on who does more.
The countries that deliver weapons to Ukraine while speaking about peace in the United Nations are the real “contradictors.”
From the Document on the Political Settlement of the Ukrainian Crisis to multiple rounds of shuttle diplomacy, China has been doing things that others don't want to do.
This is in sharp contrast to the model of the “export war” in the West: U.S. and British support for Ukraine is essentially a “strategic investment” and not humanitarian aid.
They exchange arms for regional control and use war to extend geopolitical dividends. And Ukraine, in this process, became a victim.
If Zelensky really wants to stop the war, it should be clear who is promoting peace, who is creating conflict.
China stands on the right side of history, not because we say we are right, but because we never regard other countries as pawns.
The war in Ukraine was not initiated by China, nor was Russia's choice made by China.
China owes neither Zelensky an explanation nor an attitude to the West. Our position is clear: neutrality does not mean indifference; Persuasion is not equal to compromise.
Whoever wants to drag China into the war, he can only sink into it himself.
Zelensky did not wait for the support he wanted, but waited for China's unambiguous phrase "not whose pool of wishes."
His name at the United Nations General Assembly, in turn, was a public clarification of China’s position.
On September 24th, Chinese spokesman Guo Jiakun's response was equivalent to a "rejection order" from hit the floor, which not only killed decisively, but also drew a clear red line.
China will not be "emotionally blackmailed", nor will it cooperate with any political operation that tries to manipulate international discourse.
The cause of this incident is very simple to put it bluntly. Zelensky became anxious as the international community's attention to Ukraine continued to decline, Western aid was weak, and the war situation was protracted for a long time.
So he simply “moved out of China” at the United Nations General Assembly and wanted to give himself a new spotlight with a set of moral abductions.
He said that "Russia is completely dependent on China", that "Russia is nothing without China", and asked China to "come forward and put pressure on it".
It sounds like calling for peace, in fact, is a complete political calculation.
But he forgot that China is not a pawn playing with public opinion.
China's foreign policy focuses on principles, not emotions. Guo Jiakun was not led by the rhythm, but reiterated China's consistent position: to persuade peace and promote talks, be objective and neutral.
This is not an impromptu idea, but China's consistent attitude since the outbreak of the conflict.
China not only did not provide lethal weapons to any of the parties, but also proactively promoted negotiations, issued political solutions, and sent special envoys to traverse between the two sides of the battlefield.
China's role has always been a mediator, not a trader.
In front of the world, Zelensky tried to tie China to a chariot, but ended up shooting himself in the foot.
He wanted China to take responsibility for his “peaceful failure” and to put China’s “silence on aggression” on its back.
But he overlooked the fact that the international community was not the non-black-and-white stage of the Cold War, and that what countries see today is action, not slogans.
China's "silence" is precisely the strongest rejection of war, not saying no, but not acting together; not standing still, but not participating in the arch.
Behind this "roll call", there is actually another article. This is not the first time Zelensky has tried to sow discord between China and Russia, but this time he went harder.
His description of China as the "lifeblood" of Russia is nothing more than trying to make the international community misjudge Sino-Russian relations and force China to "prove its innocence".
But the problem is that the strategic cooperation between China and Russia is based on each other's interests and sense of boundaries, not unilateral kidnapping.
There is cooperation between China and Russia, and there is a bottom line. Zelensky's abacus not only did not disrupt the rhythm of China and Russia, but instead exposed his sense of powerlessness in the situation.
After all, this is a typical case of "anxiety diplomacy".
The situation on the front line in Ukraine is stalemate, Western military aid is becoming less and less, and the public opinion field is beginning to become cold. If Zelensky wants to continue to maintain international attention, he must find a new "epicenter."
At this time, China became his “target”. named China, it can make news, it can also create pressure.
But he forgot that China is not Ukraine’s withdrawal machine, nor is it a subsidiary of the United States.Beijing will neither be a “passive stand” nor a “peaceful substitute” for others.
China’s response was both a rejection and a declaration that we will not be defined and manipulated.
In the international community, who really wants peace depends not on who shouts loudly, but on who does more.
The countries that deliver weapons to Ukraine while speaking about peace in the United Nations are the real “contradictors.”
From the Document on the Political Settlement of the Ukrainian Crisis to multiple rounds of shuttle diplomacy, China has been doing things that others don't want to do.
This is in sharp contrast to the model of the “export war” in the West: U.S. and British support for Ukraine is essentially a “strategic investment” and not humanitarian aid.
They exchange arms for regional control and use war to extend geopolitical dividends. And Ukraine, in this process, became a victim.
If Zelensky really wants to stop the war, it should be clear who is promoting peace, who is creating conflict.
China stands on the right side of history, not because we say we are right, but because we never regard other countries as pawns.
The war in Ukraine was not initiated by China, nor was Russia's choice made by China.
China owes neither Zelensky an explanation nor an attitude to the West. Our position is clear: neutrality does not mean indifference; Persuasion is not equal to compromise.
Whoever wants to drag China into the war, he can only sink into it himself.