Commentary
The failures of the Ukraine summit and the G7 – Peace is not a recital
One can expect no ceasefire in the summer that has just begun, nor in the fall, close to the U.S. elections, but only an increasingly brutal conflict with the arrival of new American weapons
The two summits over the weekend had one particular element in common: the choice of an exclusive setting. Not only because of the wealthy, fashionable locations in which they took place, but also because both of them “excluded” any real peace process from the start, both in Ukraine and even more so in Gaza and the West Bank, where the West is both promising aid and sending weapons to Netanyahu under the table, if they’re even bothering to hide it.
This is all that was achieved in Borgo Egnatia regarding the war in Ukraine: the approval to send the interest from Russian financial assets to Kyiv to fund the continuation of the war – a highly dangerous and counterproductive step, because serious retaliation is expected from the Russian side – and another €50 billion in weapons, already a significant factor in the U.S. presidential election.
Meanwhile, at the “peace summit” in the magnificent Swiss resort of Burgenstock, they put on a pantomime for a fanciful notion of peace, in the presence of Zelensky and Kamala Harris, who came instead of the indecisive Biden, whose presence would have been significant at least for the Ukrainians. But the only talks were about sending new weapons and their use, with the green light given by NATO and European countries to the possibility of using them against targets on Russian territory. It seems we are at war with Russia after all, but it’s better not to say so explicitly.
Thus, one can expect no ceasefire in the summer that has just begun, nor in the fall, close to the U.S. elections, but only an increasingly brutal conflict with the arrival of new American weapons – even though it’s clear that there is no “victory” on the horizon and no military solution to the crisis.
It is indisputable that the Lucerne conference failed: 12 countries, including Brazil, India, South Africa and Jordan (while Saudi Arabia deserves a separate discussion all by itself), considered decisive because they are part of the line-up of the Global South that sees the Ukrainian crisis through the eyes of those who have suffered as a result of the West’s own wars, violations of international law and territorial integrity, did not sign the final document, same as the Vatican.
And there is little to add about the completely marginal role of the UN, the only body that could restore legitimacy to a negotiation that involves the founding terms of its Constitutive Charter, starting with the role of international law – something that has been repeatedly subjected to double standards in the wars of aggression that the West has waged with impunity, an approach which, one must consider, would have certainly emboldened Putin, a hyper-nationalist leader of a nuclear power, to emulate it in the worst way. Most importantly, Xi Jinping and Lula did not attend (Brazil was only an observer).
Russia, the party responsible for the February 24, 2022 aggression on Ukraine, was not invited – even though it’s customary for peace talks to be conducted between the parties at war. At the same time, Putin did not fail to make his presence felt by putting out a provocative “peace proposal” of his own: he will end the war if he gets recognition for the territories he has annexed. Of course, it’s unacceptable as a solution, but tragically clear in its intent: it offers a snapshot of the bloody military advances he has made, nothing more. In addition, he also demanded Ukraine’s neutrality with respect to NATO.
What could be done? Let us consider the three points that are indispensable to Kyiv: control of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, access to the Black Sea and Azov Sea ports, and a comprehensive exchange of prisoners as well as the repatriation of children and civilians deported to Russia.
Apart from the fact that the IAEA has called for security negotiations with Russia over the Zaporizhzhia power plant, which is in Russian hands and part of a dangerous war zone, these all seem to be secondary issues to be dealt with after the more important points.
Instead, the issue of NATO membership, hardly being discussed, looms large. It’s a threat that can be read between the lines every day in Stoltenberg’s inscrutable statements, but Biden himself has been clear on the facts: Ukraine joining NATO would mean immediate military confrontation with Moscow, and at the same time it’s too early given the unresolved issues plaguing Ukraine’s democracy, which is grappling with corruption, including in the military.
Moreover, the 10-year military cooperation agreement signed a few days ago by Zelensky and Biden seems to be, for all intents and purposes, a substitute for NATO entry. Not that it changes much: as Stoltenberg himself reminded us, NATO, as part of its provocative expansion to the East, has been in Ukraine since before 2014, when the internal civil war began, and now has an ever-larger presence, with instructors, intelligence, observers, and now with a NATO commission in Ukraine that de facto controls and administers every weapon sent there.
Thus, NATO is the real central issue, more than Ukraine’s bid for EU membership – while Europe is already sliding down the slippery slope of rearmament, as well as dealing with the rising far-right in the latest elections. NATO keeps expanding: Stoltenberg announced on Sunday that the Atlantic Alliance is negotiating to deploy more nuclear weapons in Europe – all this while a key point of the condemnation against Russia was that it was unconscionable to threaten the use of nuclear warheads in Europe.
The magnitude of the summit’s failure was underlined by China’s absence. As the New York Times points out, China was attacked as many as 28 times in the final document of the Meloni-led G7 in Puglia, for “materially supporting” Putin and for its economy’s “harmful overcapacity”; and yet, everyone play-acted their disappointment that Beijing refused to take part in Lucerne.
The truth is that everyone, including Zelensky, knows that China and Brazil are preparing another peace conference, after Lucerne and not in continuity with it, that would bring the Russians and Ukrainians to the same table. This became clear when Zelensky’s wife and Ukrainian Foreign Minister Kuleba rushed to visit Belgrade the day after Xi Jinping’s visit, who on the occasion recalled NATO’s bombing of the Serbian capital and the Chinese embassy; and it is also evidenced by the fact that the Ukrainian government has set up a commission that is being dispatched to Beijing right away to establish a relationship with Xi after Lucerne. This reboot conference might take place in Saudi Arabia, hosted by the powerful oil monarchy with inextricable ties to both the U.S. and Russia.
We don’t know if Brazil, China, South Africa, Guterres as head of the U.N. and the Vatican will succeed in “rewinding” the course of the Ukrainian war. Such a “rewinding” would mean rolling back the Russian invasion in the first place, but also the actions of the Ukrainians and NATO, back to the terms of the Minsk II agreement and the Normandy format negotiations: with neutrality regarding NATO, the recognition that the majority Russian-speaking rebellious regions of the Donbass are part of Ukraine but allowing them to vote on an autonomous status, and the Crimea issue left in suspension but with a credible claim to be part of Russia, as its people have voted.
It’s true that Putin will say no to all of this. However, if another part of the world were to insist and call on him to do so – a part which claims and insists on universal values, starting with peace, and to which he himself believes he belongs, using that status as justification for using force in the same way the West has done and is still doing, one cannot rule out the possibility that he would face a crisis (and not for the first time).
He might have to reckon with his own contradictions, and with the perspective of the new generations in Russia, which are against war, like those in Ukraine. The only alternative is more and more deaths of civilians and bloody news from the front – and rising nuclear tensions in Europe.
Originally published at https://ilmanifesto.it/lucerna-un-fallimento-la-pace-non-e-una-recita on 2024-06-18