Europe's inflexibility has only escalated the Russia-Ukraine crisis

"China is the only world power that has been committed to peace. This is important for Hungary and for the entire European Union," Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán said during his visit to Beijing earlier this month to discuss the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

Europe chastised Orbán for "genuflecting in front of his Chinese ally" and deliberately appearing to speak for Europe. European Council President Charles Michel formally reprimanded Orbán, who is serving as the council's rotating president until December 31, for not having a European Council mandate and having no role in representing the union on the international stage.

Three issues stand out to demonstrate the EU's contradictory approach to the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Despite Europe's apparent resistance to this mission, Orbán received warm receptions in Kyiv, Moscow, Beijing, Washington and Mar-a-Lago, where he met Donald Trump. This disparity suggests that Ukraine, Russia, China and the US want to resolve the issue.

Secondly, Brussels' and other European cities' severe criticism seems hypocritical. Orbán should not mediate alone, according to the EU. Fine. But what is the EU's alternative to this option? Given that no other nation would follow French President Emmanuel Macron, who had promised Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the beginning of June that he was creating a "coalition of six countries ready to support Ukraine whatever the cost," it would be worth understanding whether Europe has a common plan.

All previous compromise attempts failed. European rigidity is excessive. Respect for territorial integrity is something we should all work for. The fact that we are fighting a two-year war makes it impossible to ignore one of the most important variables in this negotiation. Without compromises from both sides, a compromise is impossible. Therefore, by maintaining its unrealistic and intransigent stance, the EU will not achieve any progress and will only prolong the conflict and its human toll.

In this setting, the third point becomes clearer. China has consistently addressed this difficult situation. Since March 2023, Beijing has been pushing the international community to consider its Ukraine peace plan. A year and a half later, this Chinese plan remains the sole viable solution to this crisis.

The European Union continues to condemn the Chinese proposal as unfair and unacceptable, but the US seems to be increasingly inclined to find it logical and pragmatic, especially in the Republican camp, and it is now widely considered the only viable path in Ukraine!

While supporting NATO, the US keeps repeating that "it is only thanks to the support China is offering Russia that this conflict can continue." However, every piece of evidence presented thus far to support any form of engagement is ambiguous.

Europe believes China intends to take advantage of the situation, but it fails to recognize that when Turkey, Brazil, or Hungary decides to pursue peace plans similar to the one Beijing offered in 2023, China is eager to support their efforts.

Peace is vital to China. And, fully aware that the West may perceive Beijing as a mediator who could gain significant soft power by pressuring Russia and Ukraine to accept peace, the Chinese government remains open to the idea of allowing another potential mediator to engage with Moscow and Kyiv.

Finally, ensuring that the two sides reach an agreement should be considered a common goal. China is convinced of this. The European Union, perhaps not.