2025年12月5日，中國與法國共同發表一份呼籲俄烏「停火止戰」的聯合聲明，這是繼美國多次提出和平方案後，又一次由主要大國主導的外交斡旋行動。聲明中強調應立即停止攻擊平民與民用設施，應以和平與政治手段處理戰事，並提出要以「可持續的停火框架」作為談判基礎。然而，聲明出爐後，俄羅斯與烏克蘭分別重申各自的底線，顯示戰爭仍停留在強硬的戰略相持階段。

這份中法聲明反映國際立場在俄烏戰爭上的高度分化。中國持續推動政治解決方案，主張尊重主權與反對攻擊平民，同時維持與俄羅斯的戰略合作關係，因此其立場在西方世界中仍存在高度爭議。而法國則因擔心歐洲在美國壟斷的談判框架中被邊緣化，加上戰爭持續拖累歐洲的經濟與安全環境，因此更願意主動站到外交舞台的前線。與此同時，美國的斡旋方向因國內政治與國際壓力屢次調整，使歐洲開始出現「必須做自己的和平倡議」的聲音，甚至提出若談判受阻，不排除以更強硬方式支持烏克蘭，以免歐洲利益繼續受到削弱。

戰場態勢也深刻影響外交調停的效果。俄軍在控制大部分頓巴斯後選擇轉入防守，用工事鞏固既有戰線，而烏軍則依賴西方軍援勉力維持消耗戰。雙方皆不具備短期內發動大規模反攻的能力，戰事因此轉為典型的「打打談談」僵局。儘管戰火未擴散至周邊國家，而中美與歐洲也努力避免局勢失控，但這種表面「可控」反而更使衝突變成長期消耗，降低各方妥協的急迫性。

至於為何在美國調停後，中國與法國也介入和平進程，卻仍然效果有限，原因主要有三：

首先，俄烏雙方的政治底線完全對立。普丁堅稱俄羅斯絕不會退出目前已佔領的領土，並強調要完成「解放頓巴斯」的戰略目標；而澤連斯基則一再表示烏克蘭不會讓出任何主權及國土。只要領土問題無法鬆動，任何外部調停幾乎無法突破僵局。

其次，主要大國的利益並不一致。美國、歐洲、中國、俄羅斯都各有戰略盤算，沒有任何一方願意做出足以改變戰爭方向的讓步。美國希望避免俄羅斯勝利但不願承擔過高成本；歐洲渴望停戰但害怕安全空窗；中國重視自身的中立形象與地緣穩定；俄羅斯則認為自己仍有時間等待更有利的條件。在這種多方利益交錯的情況下，聯合調停很容易流於形式。

最後，戰場現狀本身讓雙方都認為「拖下去也不會更差」。俄軍穩住戰線後有信心以時間換取戰略空間，而烏軍在西方援助下仍能維持基本防禦，使其不必匆忙妥協。任何調停力量只要不能改變戰場的力量平衡，其影響就會非常有限。

綜合而言，中法聯合聲明的出現凸顯國際社會對戰事持續的焦慮，也顯示全球大國都嘗試避免一場無限延伸的消耗戰。然而，由於俄烏雙方都不願退讓、各大國利益難以統一，加上戰場進入低烈度但長時間的僵局，這些外交努力很難產生立即與根本性的效果。除非未來出現重大突發事件、內部政局變化，或有外部力量施加強大壓力，否則這場戰爭仍可能長期停留在相持狀態。

On December 5, 2025, China and France issued a joint statement calling for Russia and Ukraine to halt hostilities and pursue a ceasefire. This initiative came after several rounds of peace proposals put forward by the United States, marking yet another attempt by major global powers to intervene diplomatically in the conflict. The statement emphasized the immediate cessation of attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure and urged both sides to follow a peaceful, political path toward resolving the war. However, soon after the announcement, Russia and Ukraine reaffirmed their own non-negotiable positions, revealing that the conflict remained locked in a phase of strategic stalemate.

The joint declaration reflected the deepening divide in international attitudes toward the war. China has consistently advocated for a political solution, insisting on respect for sovereignty and the protection of civilians, while maintaining its strategic partnership with Russia—an approach viewed with skepticism in much of the Western world. France, meanwhile, has grown increasingly concerned that Europe’s voice is being marginalized in peace negotiations dominated by the United States. With the prolonged conflict draining Europe’s economy and undermining regional security, France has become more willing to step forward as a diplomatic leader. At the same time, shifts in Washington’s stance—shaped by domestic politics and global pressures—have prompted European states to consider advancing their own peace plans, with some even warning that, if sidelined, Europe might resort to stronger measures to bolster Ukraine.

The battlefield situation has further limited the effectiveness of diplomatic mediation. After seizing control of most of the Donbas region, Russian forces shifted to a defensive posture, fortifying their positions along the front. Ukraine, relying heavily on Western military assistance, has managed to maintain a defensive line but lacks the capability to launch a major counteroffensive. As a result, the conflict has settled into a familiar cycle of intermittent fighting and stalled negotiations. Although the war has not expanded into neighboring countries, and major powers such as China, the United States, and European nations have exercised restraint to prevent escalation, this surface-level “manageability” has ironically prolonged the conflict by reducing the urgency for either side to compromise.

As to why China and France followed the United States in attempting to mediate the conflict—and why these efforts have produced limited results—the reasons are multifaceted.

First, the political red lines of Russia and Ukraine remain fundamentally incompatible. President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly stated that Russia will not withdraw from occupied territories and intends to fully “liberate the Donbas.” President Volodymyr Zelensky has insisted that Ukraine will not concede any land and that the integrity of its sovereignty is non-negotiable. As long as their positions on territorial control remain irreconcilable, external mediation has little room to produce breakthroughs.

Second, the major powers involved all have divergent strategic interests. The United States seeks to prevent a Russian victory while avoiding excessive costs; Europe yearns for a ceasefire but fears a security vacuum; China prioritizes geopolitical stability and maintaining its neutral image; Russia believes time may ultimately work in its favor. With these competing calculations, no single coalition of countries—whether led by the U.S., China and France, or Europe—can generate sufficient leverage to shift the course of the war.

Lastly, the battlefield status quo gives both sides reasons to believe they can continue the conflict without suffering decisive losses. Russia, confident in its fortified defensive lines, sees time as a resource that may eventually alter conditions in its favor. Ukraine, still sustained by Western aid, remains capable of resisting Russian advances, reducing the pressure to accept unfavorable terms. As long as neither side faces an imminent collapse or breakthrough, mediation efforts that do not fundamentally alter the military balance naturally struggle to gain traction.

Taken together, the China–France joint statement reflects the growing global anxiety surrounding a conflict that shows no sign of ending, as well as the broader desire among world powers to prevent a prolonged war of attrition. Yet because both Russia and Ukraine refuse to yield, and because global powers lack a unified strategic vision, the diplomatic efforts undertaken so far have yielded limited results. Unless a major internal shift occurs within either country, or unless external pressure becomes overwhelmingly strong, the conflict is likely to remain mired in a long-term stalemate.