Why Ukraine peace summit in Switzerland was more of a photo op

Anil Trigunayat 

The Ukraine Peace Summit lacked a crucial voice: Russia’s. With one side absent and the other backed by Western promises of military aid, the outcome was a foregone conclusion

Swiss Federal Councillor Ignazio Cassis, Swiss Federal President Viola Amherd, and Ambassador Gabriel Luechinger, talk to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, during the Summit on Peace in Ukraine, in Stansstad, Switzerland, on 16 June, 2024. Reuters

The Russia-Ukraine War continues apace, and no one is likely to blink soon, as whoever does has a lot to lose. There has been no dearth of efforts—some sincere, others desperate, and some divorced from reality. Bilateral conversations early on between Russia and Ukraine in Turkey (April 2022) in the immediate aftermath of the war, or as the Russians would like to call it—special operations—could have yielded a quick end or at least a truce. However, this would have defeated the strategic objectives of Ukraine’s western benefactors, who instead urged Ukrainian President Zelenskyy to focus on defeating Russia, perhaps presuming that initial Russian operational setbacks signified weakness and provoked their desire for a quick resolution.

Advertisement

History teaches valuable lessons about preventing or mitigating reckless actions, yet Russia’s character was misread. This misjudgment has fueled global instability and worsened the plight of Ukrainians. Sadly, unilateralism remains the preferred currency of the superpowers.

After the G7 Summit in Apulia, Italy, hosted by Prime Minister Meloni, where President Zelenskyy was a special guest, he was assured of continued transatlantic support against Russia. This included various commitments of supplies and security deals between the UK, the US, and Ukraine, serving as a precursor to Kiev’s entry into NATO, which is the primary red line for Russia. The G7’s second agreement, to divert $50 billion from frozen Russian assets towards Ukraine’s reconstruction, is a deeper red line for the Kremlin, and they have warned of painful consequences. Accusing the West of destroying the system and trust they built, a furious President Putin warned, “Despite all the scheming, theft will remain theft, and it will not go unpunished.”

You May Like

Set The StandardCFA InstituteLearn More

by Taboola 

Sponsored Links 

In this vein, the Peace Summit outcome in Switzerland was a foregone conclusion. The participation of over 90 countries, less than half of the overall UN membership, clearly indicates that the fractured world system is even more divided on an issue that has had a direct impact on them, especially for the countries from the Global South, whose trust in the West appears to be diminishing. China was a major absentee, having proposed its own 12-point peace plan, which was discarded by Ukraine but accepted by Russia as a basis for discussions.

After the mild success of the summit and apparently no takers for the next, President Zelenskyy indicated that the Chinese proposal could be looked at, and Beijing could play a bigger role. From South Asia, only India attended, that too at a lower level. The main reason many countries skipped the summit was that it was perceived as unifocal and lacking serious intent, since Russia was not invited. Any outcome of the summit would only be one-sided, mostly coming from countries unwilling to introspect while condemning Russia for the invasion of Ukraine, which is in any case unjustifiable. Two wrongs may not make a right, but they must be placed on the same pedestal of morality and international law. Alas, that does not happen in the real world. The law of the jungle prevails.

Advertisement

President Putin, while the G7 talks were on, announced his initiative to stop the war. His terms: Ukraine must withdraw its forces from Donbass and the four partially occupied regions, recognise Crimea as part of Russia, and renounce NATO membership. This “might makes right” approach dictates that Ukraine and its Western partners should simply concede to Russia’s demands for a security buffer. Zelenskyy rejected it as a deceptive ploy by Putin, warning Western countries that the Russian dictator would not stop the offensive even if his demands were met. He said that Putin’s only objective was to prevent participation by leaders at the Switzerland Summit, which was essential for Zelenskyy, where his 10-point Peace Plan was the basis for discussion and deciding the way forward.

Advertisement

Even G7 Chair PM Meloni called the Russian proposal a mere propaganda, stating, “If President Putin’s proposal is: We are willing to have a peace negotiation if Ukraine recognises the invasion of Ukraine and gives up the occupied parts … doesn’t seem particularly effective to me as a proposal.” Likewise, US defence Secretary Lloyd Austin discounted stating that “he (Putin) is not in any position to dictate to Ukraine what they must do to bring about peace.” US NSA Jake Sullivan, while accompanying Vice President Kamala Harris to the summit, further expanded, “He (Putin) said, not only does Ukraine has to give up the territory Russia currently occupies, but Ukraine has to leave additional sovereign Ukrainian territory before Russia will negotiate. And Ukraine must disarm so that is vulnerable to future Russian aggression down the road. No responsible nation could say that is a reasonable basis for peace.”

Advertisement

Hence, the Peace Summit’s outcome was anticipated. A Joint Communique on a Peace Framework was issued, mainly focusing on three main topics: nuclear safety and security, freedom of navigation and food safety, and humanitarian aspects. The Communique urged strict adherence to the UN Charter and UN Resolutions and “reaffirmed the commitment to refraining from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, the principles of sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity of all states, including Ukraine, within their internationally recognised borders, including territorial waters, and the resolution of disputes through peaceful means as principles of international law.” It was signed by 82 countries out of 92 attendees. Iraq withdrew later, while India abstained from signing it. Several BRICS and ASEAN countries also refrained from endorsing the Communique.

Advertisement

India has maintained a principled position throughout the ongoing war, asserting that it is only through dialogue, diplomacy, respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity and UN Charter that the issues can be resolved and peace achieved.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi informed President Putin that “this is not an era of war.” However, the conflict persists amidst geopolitical competition among superpowers, leaving little room for peace. At the G7 Summit in Italy, Prime Minister Modi met with President Zelenskyy and reiterated India’s stance, assuring him that “India would continue to do everything within its means to support a peaceful solution to the Ukraine conflict, and that the way to peace is through dialogue and diplomacy”.

At the Swiss Peace Summit (June 15-16), India was represented by Ambassador Pawan Kapoor, Secretary in the Ministry of External Affairs. Dialogue and diplomacy require the participation of at least both warring sides and all other stakeholders. Hence, the credibility and potential for a reliable and workable outcome at this summit were doubted, as Russia was not invited. As with the previous four meetings for a Peace Formula at the NSA or Political Director levels, India maintained a consistent approach: facilitating a lasting and peaceful resolution through sincere and practical engagement between the parties in conflict. Therefore, while attending the opening and closing plenary sessions, India did not associate itself with any document or communiqué issued at the Peace Summit.

PM Modi will have an opportunity to meet President Putin at next month’s SCO Summit and, among other things, discuss the likely way forward. Meanwhile, with victory elusive for both sides and unlikely to be decisive—short of becoming a frozen conflict—reasonable diplomatic demarche could help, but only if the warring sides and their benefactors listen to reason and reality.

The author is the former Indian Ambassador to Jordan, Libya and Malta and is currently a Distinguished Fellow with Vivekananda International Foundation. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author.