As the Russia-Ukraine war grinds into its fourth year, President Donald Trump is turning to an unlikely ally: China. On October 25, 2025, en route to Asia aboard Air Force One, Trump explicitly stated his desire for Beijing’s assistance in pressuring Russia toward peace talks, highlighting a pivotal meeting with President Xi Jinping in South Korea. This outreach comes amid fresh U.S. sanctions on Russia’s top oil firms—announced just days earlier—and a stalled August summit with Vladimir Putin that yielded no breakthroughs. With Ukraine reeling from intensified Russian strikes, including deadly attacks on Kyiv that killed several civilians on October 25, Trump’s pivot underscores the limits of unilateral U.S. pressure. But why seek China’s help now, and will it pay off?
Why the US Needs China’s Leverage
The U.S. request for Chinese intervention isn’t born of desperation but calculated realpolitik. Russia has weathered Western sanctions remarkably well, thanks in no small part to China’s role as its largest trading partner and top buyer of discounted oil. In the first nine months of 2025, China imported over 2.5 million barrels per day of Russian crude—up 12% from 2024—providing Moscow with an estimated $100 billion in revenue that funds its war machine. Dual-use exports from China, including machine tools and microelectronics, have surged 45% year-on-year, further bolstering Russia’s military-industrial complex despite denials from Beijing.
Trump’s frustration is palpable: “Every time I speak to Vladimir, I have good conversations and then they don’t go anywhere,” he remarked earlier this week. A proposed ceasefire freezing lines at current frontlines—offering Putin a de facto victory in occupied territories—collapsed in late October after Moscow rejected it outright. With U.S. aid to Ukraine totaling $175 billion since 2022 but facing domestic pushback, Trump sees China as the key to breaking the deadlock. Beijing’s “no limits” partnership with Russia, reaffirmed in a May 2025 summit yielding new energy and space deals, gives Xi unique sway over Putin. By invoking his “very good relationship” with Xi—last nurtured in a 2019 face-to-face—Trump aims to multilateralize the crisis, blending diplomacy with economic incentives during his Asia tour.
This move aligns with broader 2025 trends: U.S. FDI in China dipped 8% in Q3 amid trade frictions, but Trump’s tour signals a thaw, with talks in Malaysia focusing on rare earth exports and AI controls. For Ukraine, isolated after the EU withheld $50 billion in frozen Russian assets last week and the U.S. denied Tomahawk missiles, external pressure on Russia is urgent. Zelenskyy echoed this on October 25 via Telegram: “No country should be left alone in the face of such evil,” as emergency crews sifted through Kyiv rubble.
Will China Really Listen to the US Instead of Russia?
China’s response to Trump’s entreaty is likely to be polite but noncommittal—prioritizing its strategic depth with Russia over U.S. overtures. Beijing has positioned itself as a neutral mediator since 2022, issuing a 12-point peace plan in February that called for dialogue without condemning Moscow’s invasion. Yet actions speak louder: In August 2025, Xi reiterated support for “political settlements” during a call with Putin, while China-Russia trade hit $240 billion in the first half of 2025, a 15% jump. This economic lifeline has insulated Russia from sanctions, with Moscow redirecting 70% of its energy exports to Asia.
Geopolitically, China views the war as a proxy for U.S. containment. Accusations of aiding Russia’s war effort—via $10 billion in dual-use goods in 2025—have strained U.S.-China ties, but Beijing denies military intent, framing purchases as commercial. A September 2025 trilateral summit in Beijing with Putin and North Korea’s Kim Jong Un showcased “ironclad solidarity,” including joint military drills that rattled NATO. Analysts note China’s reluctance to alienate Putin, who relies on it for 40% of post-sanction revenue; any pressure on oil imports could backfire, spiking global prices and hurting China’s economy, already slowing to 4.6% GDP growth in Q3 2025.
That said, subtle incentives could sway Beijing. Trump’s hints at trade concessions—like easing AI export curbs—dangle carrots amid a U.S.-China trade war that cost both sides $500 billion since 2018. If Xi perceives U.S. flexibility as genuine, China might nudge Russia toward talks, perhaps by capping oil buys or endorsing a UN-mediated framework. However, history suggests caution: Beijing rebuffed similar U.S. pleas in 2024, and with Russia claiming a “close” peace deal on its terms as of October 25, 2025, Xi’s loyalty tilts eastward. Verdict: China will listen, but act only if it aligns with its “win-win” global vision—not at Russia’s expense.
| Factor | Pro-US Influence | Pro-Russia Tilt |
|---|---|---|
| Economic Ties | Potential tariff relief ($300B in U.S. exports to China) | $240B bilateral trade; 2.5M bpd oil imports |
| Geopolitical Stance | Shared interest in de-escalation for global stability | “No limits” partnership; joint drills with NK |
| Recent Actions | August 2025 Xi-Putin call on “peace talks” | May 2025 energy/space deals; denies war aid |
| Risks for China | U.S. secondary sanctions on firms | Energy price volatility if Russia isolated |
Trump’s playbook blends personal diplomacy, economic linkage, and targeted pressure—aiming to “help” China by offering mutual gains while isolating Russia. Unlike his first term’s tariff blitz, 2025’s approach is pragmatic: Use the Xi meeting to decouple Ukraine from trade, proposing a “grand bargain” where Beijing moderates Russian oil flows in exchange for U.S. leniency on tech transfers and rare earth access. On October 25, Trump floated concessions to “calm the trade war,” signaling flexibility after China’s October 10 rare earth export curbs hit U.S. defense firms.
- Personal Rapport as Leverage: Trump’s self-proclaimed “very good” Xi ties—evident in 2019’s Mar-a-Lago summit—position him to appeal directly: “Xi wants to see the war end,” he claimed. This could extend to private channels, echoing a July 2025 offer where Trump dangled “victory” terms to Putin, now rerouted via Beijing.
- Sanctions with a Twist: Fresh blacklists on Rosneft and Gazprom aim to choke $40 billion in annual Russian oil revenue, but Trump eyes China’s complicity—urging Xi to enforce a voluntary cap, potentially slashing Moscow’s war chest by 30%.
- Multilateral Hooks: Tie Ukraine to Asia-Pacific stability, warning of spillover (e.g., refugee crises affecting trade routes). Experts model a Trump plan freezing lines at 80% Ukrainian sovereignty, with EU integration incentives—offering China a stake in reconstruction via Belt and Road extensions.
- Backup Escalation: If rebuffed, secondary sanctions on Chinese banks handling Russian payments, though this risks broader decoupling.
This “help China” angle—framed as aiding Beijing’s global mediator image—could yield a ceasefire by Q1 2026, per CSIS simulations, but hinges on Xi’s calculus amid U.S. election-year politics.
Why Is Russia Not Ready to Negotiate on US Terms?
Russia’s rejection of U.S. proposals stems from battlefield gains, sanction resilience, and Putin’s maximalist red lines—demanding Ukrainian neutrality, demilitarization, and cession of four oblasts plus Crimea. On October 25, 2025, Moscow dismissed Trump’s frontline-freeze idea as “unacceptable,” insisting on “final status” talks only after territorial concessions. A planned Trump-Putin summit collapsed October 22 over ceasefire refusals, with Putin viewing sanctions as “immune” bluffs.
- Military Momentum: Russian advances captured 500 sq km in Donetsk last month, fueled by 1.2 million mobilized troops and Iranian drones. Putin senses victory, rejecting 2025’s U.S. plan—mirroring 2022 Istanbul talks’ collapse over Bucha atrocities.
- Economic Buoyancy: China-India buys offset 90% of lost EU gas markets; GDP grew 3.2% in Q3 2025 despite $300 billion in frozen assets.
- Ideological Stakes: Negotiating on U.S. terms equates to “defeat,” per Kremlin rhetoric; Putin expects Trump fatigue to force Kyiv’s capitulation.
- Tactical Calculus: Freezing lines now locks in 18% of Ukraine; Putin bets on winter attrition eroding Western resolve.
This stance prolongs suffering—over 1 million casualties since 2022—but risks overreach if U.S.-EU aid surges.
Beyond the US-China-Russia Triangle
If Trump’s China gambit falters, alternatives abound:
- European-Led Engagement: Brussels could “gamble” on direct China talks, offering BRI access to Ukraine’s $1 trillion reconstruction in exchange for mediation—bypassing U.S. volatility.
- UN-Multilateral Push: Revive Istanbul-style formats with Turkey’s guarantor role, incorporating Global South voices (e.g., India, Brazil) for balanced pressure.
- Economic Isolation 2.0: Coordinated G7 caps on Russian oil prices, targeting China’s imports to force negotiations without full embargo.
- Ukrainian Agency: Bolster Kyiv’s long-range strikes (e.g., ATACMS approvals) to shift dynamics, paired with Zelenskyy’s “victory plan” emphasizing EU/NATO paths.
- Backchannel Diplomacy: Quiet Saudi-hosted talks, leveraging Oman’s neutrality for confidence-building.
These paths demand unity, but 2025’s fractured alliances—EU divisions, U.S. isolationism—underscore the urgency of hybrid approaches.
A Fragile Path to Peace
Trump’s appeal to China on Ukraine reflects a world where superpowers intersect uneasily: U.S. innovation meets Beijing’s influence and Moscow’s resolve. While Russia digs in and China hedges, Trump’s strategy—blending carrots and sticks—offers a slim window for de-escalation. Yet success pivots on mutual trust, scarce amid 2025’s trade wars and strikes. For global stability, stakeholders must explore diverse avenues, ensuring Ukraine’s voice endures. As Trump’s Asia tour unfolds, the world watches: Will the dragon mediate the bear, or roar in solidarity?
