[Breeze] Zelensky said at the UN General Assembly,"Without China, Russia is nothing." His voice fell, and the China representative did not even lift his eyelids. This is not talking about peace. It is clearly trying to drag China into the water.
This scene happened in New York on September 24, 2024, in the hall of the 79th United Nations General Assembly. It was supposed to be an occasion to discuss global cooperation and crisis resolution. However, due to the remarks of the President of Ukraine, it was instantly filled with the smell of gunpowder in the game between great powers.
Regarding the UN General Assembly, the background must be clearly stated. The ongoing conflict has pushed Ukraine to the limits of human and material resources, and Western countries 'aid enthusiasm seems to be facing the test of realpolitik.
Domestic political differences in the United States, Europe's own economic pressure and energy dilemma have all made Kiev feel a potential "aid fatigue." Against this background, the target audience of Zelensky's speech at the UN General Assembly is not only Western allies, but also an attempt to open up a new diplomatic front on the international stage and exert pressure on those countries that remain neutral or do not directly participate in sanctions.
He spoke, originally talking about the crisis in Ukraine, the result of the conversation turn, straight to China and Russia. He openly said that Russia relies entirely on China support, China must force Russia to stop, otherwise it is to tolerate aggression. and the phrase "without China, Russia is nothing", listening like throwing the pot, meaning that China does not speak, is equivalent to helping the murderer.
The intention of this expression is quite clear, that is, to try to redefine a regional conflict as a moral showdown related to the global order, and to force China to be the arbiter and force it to choose sides.
Its logical chain is that as long as China applies its influence to pressure Russia, the war can end quickly; if China chooses to stay unmoving, it must assume moral responsibility for the continuation of the war.
In sharp contrast to this is the attitude of the China delegation. When Zelensky's remarks echoed in the venue through simultaneous interpretation, there were no fierce whispers or immediate exit protests at the China delegation.
That kind of calmness and calmness is itself a silent response. This is not indifference, but a manifestation of strategic determination. China's position has long been repeatedly stated through official channels. Its core lies in adhering to the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries, and attaching importance to a country's legitimate security concerns.
China is not the maker of conflicts, and it has always played the role of persuading peace and promoting talks, rather than adding fuel to the fire. Putting the key to solving the crisis completely into China's hands is neither in line with the facts nor conducive to the fundamental solution of the problem.
Zelensky’s remarks have caused complicated reactions in the international community. Many “global southern” countries are upset about it. They generally refuse to see the Ukrainian issue evolve into a camp confrontation that forces all countries to stand on the sidelines.
These countries themselves are also faced with the arduous task of developing the economy and improving people's livelihood. They are more inclined to settle disputes through dialogue and negotiation, rather than intensify contradictions through endless accusations and sanctions. For them, publicly "naming" such an important global force as China is not conducive to building an inclusive peace framework.
The Western countries reacted more subtly, with some countries confidently agreeing with Zelensky’s judgment on China-Russia relations and happy to see China being placed under more direct public opinion pressure.
But in public, they are more cautious. After all, cooperation with China remains indispensable on many issues such as climate change, global supply chain stability, and economic recovery.
They do not want to completely undermine the basis of cooperation with China in other fields because of the Ukrainian issue, nor do they want to push China completely to the opposite side of Russia, forming a solid, confrontational geopolitical slice.
This incident profoundly reveals the complexity of current international relations. The Ukraine crisis has long surpassed the military conflict between the two countries and evolved into a proxy war and diplomatic tussle that has affected global nerves.
Zelensky's remarks were that the battlefield was stuck in a stall and led to the extension of the war to the field of diplomacy. It reflects a strategic anxiety, namely, an attempt to break the existing balance of power by changing the narrative.
However, this approach also presents huge risks, which could further solidify mistrust among the great powers and make the dawn of peace even more distant.
As the United’s applause and controversy gradually dissipated, the reality the world saw was that on the geopolitical chessboard, each player was making complex calculations based on their own national interests.
China's calm response shows that it will not be easily trapped by external remarks and will continue to handle international affairs according to its own pace and judgment.
And the assertion that “without China, Russia is nothing” may not eventually become a lever for pushing the situation, but will instead become a note to record this multi-polarized era of the game of great powers, reminding people that the road to peace can never be paved by simple blame and accusation.
This scene happened in New York on September 24, 2024, in the hall of the 79th United Nations General Assembly. It was supposed to be an occasion to discuss global cooperation and crisis resolution. However, due to the remarks of the President of Ukraine, it was instantly filled with the smell of gunpowder in the game between great powers.
Regarding the UN General Assembly, the background must be clearly stated. The ongoing conflict has pushed Ukraine to the limits of human and material resources, and Western countries 'aid enthusiasm seems to be facing the test of realpolitik.
Domestic political differences in the United States, Europe's own economic pressure and energy dilemma have all made Kiev feel a potential "aid fatigue." Against this background, the target audience of Zelensky's speech at the UN General Assembly is not only Western allies, but also an attempt to open up a new diplomatic front on the international stage and exert pressure on those countries that remain neutral or do not directly participate in sanctions.
He spoke, originally talking about the crisis in Ukraine, the result of the conversation turn, straight to China and Russia. He openly said that Russia relies entirely on China support, China must force Russia to stop, otherwise it is to tolerate aggression. and the phrase "without China, Russia is nothing", listening like throwing the pot, meaning that China does not speak, is equivalent to helping the murderer.
The intention of this expression is quite clear, that is, to try to redefine a regional conflict as a moral showdown related to the global order, and to force China to be the arbiter and force it to choose sides.
Its logical chain is that as long as China applies its influence to pressure Russia, the war can end quickly; if China chooses to stay unmoving, it must assume moral responsibility for the continuation of the war.
In sharp contrast to this is the attitude of the China delegation. When Zelensky's remarks echoed in the venue through simultaneous interpretation, there were no fierce whispers or immediate exit protests at the China delegation.
That kind of calmness and calmness is itself a silent response. This is not indifference, but a manifestation of strategic determination. China's position has long been repeatedly stated through official channels. Its core lies in adhering to the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries, and attaching importance to a country's legitimate security concerns.
China is not the maker of conflicts, and it has always played the role of persuading peace and promoting talks, rather than adding fuel to the fire. Putting the key to solving the crisis completely into China's hands is neither in line with the facts nor conducive to the fundamental solution of the problem.
Zelensky’s remarks have caused complicated reactions in the international community. Many “global southern” countries are upset about it. They generally refuse to see the Ukrainian issue evolve into a camp confrontation that forces all countries to stand on the sidelines.
These countries themselves are also faced with the arduous task of developing the economy and improving people's livelihood. They are more inclined to settle disputes through dialogue and negotiation, rather than intensify contradictions through endless accusations and sanctions. For them, publicly "naming" such an important global force as China is not conducive to building an inclusive peace framework.
The Western countries reacted more subtly, with some countries confidently agreeing with Zelensky’s judgment on China-Russia relations and happy to see China being placed under more direct public opinion pressure.
But in public, they are more cautious. After all, cooperation with China remains indispensable on many issues such as climate change, global supply chain stability, and economic recovery.
They do not want to completely undermine the basis of cooperation with China in other fields because of the Ukrainian issue, nor do they want to push China completely to the opposite side of Russia, forming a solid, confrontational geopolitical slice.
This incident profoundly reveals the complexity of current international relations. The Ukraine crisis has long surpassed the military conflict between the two countries and evolved into a proxy war and diplomatic tussle that has affected global nerves.
Zelensky's remarks were that the battlefield was stuck in a stall and led to the extension of the war to the field of diplomacy. It reflects a strategic anxiety, namely, an attempt to break the existing balance of power by changing the narrative.
However, this approach also presents huge risks, which could further solidify mistrust among the great powers and make the dawn of peace even more distant.
As the United’s applause and controversy gradually dissipated, the reality the world saw was that on the geopolitical chessboard, each player was making complex calculations based on their own national interests.
China's calm response shows that it will not be easily trapped by external remarks and will continue to handle international affairs according to its own pace and judgment.
And the assertion that “without China, Russia is nothing” may not eventually become a lever for pushing the situation, but will instead become a note to record this multi-polarized era of the game of great powers, reminding people that the road to peace can never be paved by simple blame and accusation.