So, What’s the “Golden Bridge”?

“Build your opponent a golden bridge to retreat across.”

Sun Tzu

In an op-ed at the New York Times Wang Huiyao explains how China can serve a role of the Russian-Ukraine conflict:

The longer the war goes on, though, China may find itself in a position of diminishing returns in its close relationship with Russia. This makes the argument for Beijing to take on an active mediation role even more compelling.

What form could mediation take? Any serious resolution would have to involve the United States and the European Union as key actors in European security arrangements. Beijing could help to broker an immediate cease-fire as a prelude to talks among Russia, Ukraine, the United States, the European Union and China.

Beijing’s goal would be to find a solution that gives Mr. Putin sufficient security assurances that can be presented as a win to his domestic audience while protecting Ukraine’s core sovereignty and NATO’s open-door policy. Finding a landing zone for such an agreement is challenging but not impossible. Some creative diplomacy could solve this, such as a formula for NATO expansion that rules out Ukrainian membership in practice while preserving its sovereignty and NATO principles in theory.

I wish that Dr. Wang had outlined the contours of such an agreement in greater detail. I don’t believe there is one and, indeed, the specific security assurances that President Putin demanded before the invasion have been rejected by both Ukraine and NATO. What’s missing from Sun Tzu’s formulation is that both sides need such a “golden bridge”. Having rejected security assurances can NATO provide them now? Wouldn’t that be rewarding Putin for this aggression? Furthermore, if those who claim that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is about economics rather than security or any other consideration are correct, wouldn’t any negotiated settlement need to contain economic concessions?