Editor's note: Hannan Hussain is a foreign affairs commentator and author. He is a Fulbright recipient at the University of Maryland, the U.S., and a former assistant researcher at the Islamabad Policy Research Institute. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

Despite scores of countries uniting against the risks of a protracted Russia-Ukraine conflict, Washington continues to distort China's peacemaking role over Ukraine. In the latest illustration, U.S. National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan and CIA chief William Burns peddled fiction about potential Chinese arms supplies as the conflict drags on. "We're confident that the Chinese leadership is considering the provision of lethal equipment," said Burns in an interview on February 26.

Threatening "real costs" to China under the guise of U.S. intelligence ignores a destructive history of American arms support and lethal weapon supplies to fuel the conflict. Washington's aversion to workable peace efforts continues to shrink space for de-escalation, and U.S. President Joe Biden keeps the door open for more lethal arms supplies "down the road." Deflecting the blame on China demonstrates U.S. refusal to abandon its Cold War mentality and account for its own contributions to past and present escalation.

Burns' anti-China speculation on lethal arms supplies is riddled with contradictions, principally his admission that there is no "evidence of actual shipments of lethal equipment." This admission merits focus on America's larger anxiety towards China's peace-making role in Ukraine.

Beijing has consistently called out major irritants to resolving the conflict: unilateral sanctions that complicated common-ground, billions in counterproductive arms supplies at the expense of common security, and U.S. attempts to apply coercion on China's independent relationship with Moscow. The latter is important because time-tested China-Russia ties are a central feature in this groundless lethal arms supply narrative against China. It also runs counter to the recognition that it is the U.S. – not China – that has willingly poured weapons into the battlefield at the expense of stability. There is simply no case.

Interestingly, Washington and its NATO partners have spared no efforts in endorsing offensive capabilities that drove Ukraine-Russia hostilities to new highs in the past. Since the conflict broke out, Washington alone has supplied almost $47 billion in so-called military assistance, combat weaponry and heavy arms, effectively raising the stakes for ceasing hostilities. The resulting cycle of violence has heightened fear of humanitarian collateral, and compromised NATO's impression that the alliance is not a party to the conflict.

Sullivan is wrong to tout baseless speculation about China's alienation in the world, and potential responsibility for "war crimes and bombardment" on ground. Such dangerous allegations deserve to be condemned in full. For one, this line of attack is a complete departure from the reality on ground: Beijing stands resolutely committed to ceasing hostilities, reducing strategic risk, and bridging the peace talks gap that U.S. actions hold hostage.

In fact, it is American resistance to negotiated peace that compounded the path to preventing casualties and destruction on the battlefield. Keeping such a backdrop in view, Beijing was correct to call out earlier U.S. intelligence hubris, and warn that the U.S. is in no position to tell China what to do.

If the U.S. was serious about peace in Ukraine and sought to stop conflict spillovers, nothing would keep it from reckoning with its arms supply legacy this past year. But "intelligence" gathering continues to serve as a convenient lever to fixate on China, and evolve the Russia-Ukraine conflict into Washington's self-identified Cold War duel with Beijing. "We (the United States) have begun to collect intelligence suggesting that China is considering the provision of lethal equipment," alleged Burns over the weekend.

Make no mistake: The transfer of high-risk U.S. arms, lethal ammunition and substantially destructive new weapons technology to the conflict tells an entirely different story. One where Washington has been central to fueling strategic risk, and remains unqualified to judge which country is "rational" for promoting stability and negotiated peace in Ukraine.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on Twitter to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)