As the war in Ukraine marks its one year anniversary, and with the recent announcement of China’s call for a ceasefire and peace talks between Russia and Ukraine, it’s imperative to analyze history and to consider further pathways to peace. Ultimately, China is best positioned to lead the way to the end of the war, and them doing so would be for the betterment of the world.

Beijing’s influence on the Ukraine crisis is limited. Neither Washington nor NATO should nurse unrealistic expectations. Relations between China and Russia should not be viewed through the lens of Ukraine. It’s in everyone’s interest to stop the crisis from escalating into a global confrontation.

The United States is the biggest winner in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. It’s using it to beef up and modernize its own military and economy. Everyone else has lost. No end is in sight, but one thing is certain: The longer the conflict lasts, the more the U.S. benefits.

The shift has been limited so far, so China need not overreact. It should closely monitor where NATO is heading, however. The best way to deal with it is to run its own affairs well and buttress its ability to rise above external shocks and challenges.

Jens Stoltenberg, NATO’s head, visited South Korea and Japan recently on a proselyting mission to spread the concept of military deterrence. But China and others have adopted more benign security concept. The region cannot afford to repeat the mistake of replacing dialogue with a show of force.

Russia’s irrational struggle has accelerated a process in which nearby countries are induced to turn against it. Making war is a costly way of fighting. Our country needs to learn how to win without fighting through the use of soft methods.

The most likely scenario for a degree of success is that Iran stops short of building a weapon. This would pressure the U.S. while keeping strategic risks under control. But prospects for trouble are looming this year. All parties will have to work for the best while preparing for the worst.

Consultations with island authorities on trade shows American double-dealing. The visit undermined core Chinese interests and had a negative effect. It will do harm but no good in China-U.S. relations and will only undermine U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s Beijing visit.

It is the mission of the think tank to stay on high alert against potential risks and explore possible solutions to challenges. The international system is currently undergoing the most dramatic changes since the end of the Cold War. The peaceful and open international environment, which has been taken for granted over the last four decades, is now overshadowed by formidable challenges. In this context, it is the think tank’s responsibility to explore and identify external security risks that might pose threats to China in the months and years ahead.

The United States, sees strategic parallels between the situations in Ukraine and Taiwan. It thinks lessons learned from Ukraine may serve as a model for dealing with China on Taiwan. But the differences are significant. To “Ukrainize” Taiwan is to provoke war rather than foster peace.