The Global Peace Summit was held on the initiative of Ukraine on June 15-16 in Switzerland. How successful was it?
What support did Ukraine receive?
One hundred delegations from countries and organizations took part in the peace summit in Switzerland, in Bürgenstock. “We will not be able to proclaim peace for Ukraine,” Swiss President Viola Amherd said at the opening. The goal of the conference is different: only to initiate the process of establishing peace.
The key problem is the disparity of interests.
Ukraine’s interests in the current situation are clear and there is common sense in them. Russia’s interests are vague and extend into the sphere of global politics. There, it sees its interlocutors not Ukraine, but the US and the EU. Russia constantly declares that it is “in fact” at war with NATO, with the US, with almost the whole world, but not with Ukraine. It has a spiritual battle and ideological confrontation with religious schismatics and with the global “extremist organization” of LGBT. “We will go to heaven as martyrs, and they will simply die“, Putin once clowned.
Although in the hybrid context of Russian propaganda (at the right opportunity), this country is still at war with Ukraine. It is either too early, or too late, or there is no point in negotiating with such an interlocutor. And there were no representatives from Russia at the summit.
Let us also note that the summit was a conference of state representatives. And not everywhere are the authorities and public opinion in complete harmony. Sometimes the ruling elites pursue their own policies without asking for advice from civil society or even harassing and destroying this society as much as they can.
Simply put, public opinion in this case was taken into account only indirectly.
The peace summit showed what its results could be without the formal participation of one of the two most interested parties, but with the important nuance that this second party, so to speak, was sitting under the table: different participants had it in mind in different ways.
For Switzerland, this is the largest summit in the entire history of conferences held by this diplomatic mecca.
Ukraine is supported
The main result of the summit is the global resonance and political and moral support. Ukraine is not leaving the global agenda. Interest in what is happening there has not weakened. And here the support of non-European countries, the global South, and not just traditional partners is important. This allows us to demonstrate both the global resonance and, what is even more important, the global solidarity around the vision of the situation that Kyiv is developing.
Both Russia and Ukraine are trying to attract the world’s attention to their side. And here the mass participation is important. It is impressive against the background of the international ghettoization that characterizes events of comparable scale held in Russia. For example, the recent economic forum in St. Petersburg, the important international status of which was confirmed by the participation of 2-3 leaders of rather marginal countries.
As trivial as it may sound, Spiegel notes, one of the goals of the summit was the largest possible “family photo”. And it worked.
Although without China, whose diplomacy may have stumbled on level ground. China often seems unable to assume the mission of a world leader. Its economic successes are not always accompanied by political initiative and readiness to assume global responsibility.
The summit participants, of course, do not question the state subjectivity or territorial integrity of Ukraine. Politico also points to an important consensus: the war in Ukraine must end with a “just and sustainable peace,” not peace at any cost.
In preparation for the summit, Ukraine made concessions. The most important issues – ending the war and withdrawing the Russian army from Ukrainian territory – were not discussed. The emphasis was placed on food and nuclear security for Ukraine, as well as humanitarian issues, including the exchange of prisoners of war and the return of Ukrainian children taken to Russia.
Return children and prisoners of war
And, of course, this humanitarian mission of the summit is very important. This is a forum for peace and against war, a forum with a strong humanitarian component, with an appeal for nuclear, food security and the return of all prisoners of war and abducted children.
Some states that traditionally have good relations with Russia have offered Kyiv their channels of communication with the Russian side for the first time, said Ukrainian ombudsman Dmitry Lubinets. The proposals were made at meetings dedicated to the return of Ukrainians from Russia. They were attended by 39 states. This became possible due to the closed format of the discussions, the ombudsman explained. “I… will say frankly that we did not expect such positions from such countries“.
Thus, Ukraine received support for its territorial integrity and partly for its vision of ending Russia’s invasion. For Kyiv, the summit became “a step toward creating a coalition of mediators to help develop a platform for confronting Moscow from a position of strength” (Politico).
Communique of the Peace Summit on Ukraine in Switzerland
The final communiqué was signed by 78 states and four organizations. Among the somewhat unexpected signatories were Hungary, Serbia, Georgia, Qatar and Turkey.
The demands of the document are directed against Russia and are a demonstration of solidarity with Ukraine. The participants’ commitment to the territorial integrity and political independence of any state within internationally recognized borders is confirmed. The signatories of the document agree that the nuclear power plants located in Ukraine, including Zaporizhia, should be under the control of Kyiv and the IAEA. Any threat of nuclear weapons or their use in the ongoing war is unacceptable. It is stated that Ukraine needs to be provided with access to ports on the Azov and Black Seas to strengthen food security.
The text of the communiqué calls for a full exchange of prisoners of war and the return to Ukraine of all deported and illegally displaced children, as well as other civilians illegally detained by the Russian Federation.
Finally, the communiqué states that achieving peace requires the participation and dialogue of all parties.
As a moral factor and as a collective “voice for peace,” the summit was certainly not without its benefits.
What it failed to do
Let us note once again the focus of the summit’s final document on a few issues: nuclear and food security, the return of abducted children and prisoners. Discussion of issues such as the withdrawal of Russian troops, reparations, and accountability for war criminals is relegated to the future.
There are those participants who did not even sign such a communiqué following the peace summit. Among them are Saudi Arabia, Thailand, India, Mexico, South Africa, Brazil, Armenia, Slovakia, and the UAE.
India, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, and the UAE have important trade relations with Russia as members of the BRICS economic group. The Financial Times concluded: “The decision by some key states not to support the communiqué – among them Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates – reflected Russia’s continuing international economic influence”.
Let’s ask: why did they come? It’s unclear. If there had been three times as many such countries, it would have been a signal. But as it is… Well, they demonstrated a desire to be involved, but an unwillingness to sing in the general choir. OK.
The summit should ideally be a starting point, a starting signal for the beginning of a real peace process. And it should include negotiations with Russia, Russia’s participation. But to what extent will the summit be able to influence the process and open up the prospect of such a development of events? It is unclear. So far, it seems, in no way.
As experts recalled, Moscow is ignoring Kyiv’s peace plan and on the eve of the summit itself proposed its own strange “plan”, which is obviously a capitulation for Ukraine. Politico even notes that after Putin’s ultimatum demands the day before the event in Switzerland, “the specter of Russia loomed over the summit“.
A new peace summit?
Western media experts suggest that the meeting in Switzerland will be followed by an autumn peace summit, in which Russia will participate. Chancellor Olaf Scholz gave a positive assessment to her possible presence at the peace negotiating table, specifying that this would not happen without approval from Kiev.
“It is no secret that work on the next summit with Russia’s participation has been underway for a long time”, writes Spiegel, recalling that Saudi Arabia, which offered to act as a mediator, was considered among the venues. However, the final communiqué of the summit “does not even hint” at such a meeting. At the same time, Saudi Arabia did send a representative, the head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to Switzerland. He did not sign the communiqué and stated that “serious negotiations” require “difficult compromises,” and any sustainable peace process presupposes Russia’s participation.
Neue Zürcher Zeitung is rather skeptical about the results of the conference on Ukraine: the final declaration vaguely mentions that Russia should be involved in the process. But Putin wants to negotiate only if Ukraine capitulates first and liberates significant territories without a fight. Politicians and diplomats are able to turn a blind eye to such contradictions. No new step was taken in Bürgenstock. It was the fifth meeting within the framework of the Ukrainian “peace formula”, but for the first time at the level of heads of state and government.
But does all this mean that the outcome of the war will be decided not at the negotiating table, but on the battlefield? That the war will continue until the resources (moral and material) of one of the parties are completely exhausted?
People are waiting for peace. But there are those who benefit from war and for whom war is almost a necessary condition for maintaining power in their hands. The peace summit in Bürgenstock is unlikely to bring them to their senses.
