A peace conference over Ukraine is unlikely to silence the guns
IT WAS MEANT to be a big show, a historic conference on the 500th day of the war, and one that just might end it. But from the very start Volodymyr Zelensky’s Global Peace Summit has run into problems. Delayed five times, it was finally scheduled for June 15th and 16th, respectively days 843 and 844 of the conflict. Now, with flags ready to be hoisted in the Swiss resort of Bürgenstock, the worry is that the guest-list is not long or high-level enough. Russia was never meant to be there. But snubs from the Chinese and from President Joe Biden have been obvious blows, and have prompted public rebukes from Mr Zelensky. Vladimir Putin would be applauding Mr Biden’s absence, he snapped.
Mr Zelensky’s temper grated on some of his own officials, who privately criticise the president’s “diplomatic naivety”. A former member of his government suggests the outburst showed he was “too nervous” and looking for scapegoats to cover up mistakes. “Diplomacy isn’t meant to be fun,” he complains. “It’s meant to be serious.” A more charitable serving official says the summit’s teething problems stem from Mr Zelensky’s “maximalism”. The president’s ambitious ideas, he observes, don’t always fly. “But if he sets the goals lower, nothing comes of them at all.”
One of Mr Zelensky’s MPs says that Ukraine’s presidential office is working round the clock to make the summit count. “We’re throwing everything at it. Careers are on the line.” There is some good news. At least 90 of the 160 invited delegations will come, including India’s, defying Russian pressure not to attend. Some countries will send their leaders, though most will not. European heavyweights Olaf Scholz of Germany and Emmanuel Macron of France will be there, as will the British prime minister, Rishi Sunak, apparently keen not to repeat the faux pas he made in departing early from the D-Day commemorations in Normandy last week. America has said its vice-president, Kamala Harris, will attend in place of Mr Biden.
The initial idea of the summit was to forge a unified proposal based on Mr Zelensky’s ten-point “peace formula”, dating back to 2022; and then to present it to Russia. The formula was developed at a time of relative Ukrainian strength. Conditions are no longer as rosy, with Russia pressing all along the frontline. The sheer number of participants, moreover, necessitates compromise. The expected communiqué will cover only three of the most uncontroversial points of the formula: food security; nuclear security; and the return of prisoners and children. There will be no formal resolutions on thornier issues like reparations, war tribunals or the withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukraine.
The apparent dilution of Mr Zelensky’s peace formula has some supporters anxious. But the senior official maintains the summit will help reaffirm Ukrainian terms for ending the war. It is an opportunity to demonstrate a commitment to a just peace and “anti-imperialist struggle”, he argues, which will help Ukraine reach out to sceptical countries in the global south. “We are going to be heard, at last, and it will give us momentum. The Russians would not be as concerned as they are if it weren’t so.”
But eyes are already starting to turn towards alternative negotiation platforms, possibly beginning as soon as in the late autumn. The Saudis, the Turks and the Vatican are mentioned as potential mediators. Intriguingly, all have been invited to the G7 summit in southern Italy, which will take place on the eve of Ukraine’s Swiss one. A western European diplomat in Kyiv confesses he is still grappling with understanding China’s real position. Russia’s foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, has already nodded approvingly at the idea of a Chinese-led conference.
Mr Putin, too, has been sending out signals of his own. At the end of May, Reuters reported Kremlin sources as having claimed the Russian autocrat was ready to call a ceasefire based on current lines. That offer is rejected by Ukraine as disingenuous; for Ukraine, it amounts to capitulation. “It’s a non-starter,” says Anders Fogh-Rasmussen, a former secretary-general of NATO who is now advising Ukraine. “Russian troops need to leave Ukraine before negotiations can begin.”
Officially, America says it is up to Ukraine to determine what it wants. In reality, patience is waning, and a conversation is already happening about what America believes might be an acceptable end to the war. That does not mean negotiations are under way. For now at least, Russia does not appear to be talking to any major Western country. Relations between America and Russia have been largely reduced to technical contacts. Links between America and China are more intensive, with the Biden administration working hard to limit China’s support for Russia. Both Britain and Ukraine believe this support now includes lethal aid.
One Western diplomat says that several factors are at play that would determine the timing and conditions of any ceasefire. It would for a start depend on the battlefield: if Ukraine is able to hold its lines past Russia’s current summer offensive, it will find itself in a stronger negotiating position. It depends on Mr Putin’s health. And it also depends on the American elections in November. The end of this year is thus the earliest foreseeable date for talks to begin, and possibly much later. “The Russians are betting everything on Trump,” agrees the senior Ukrainian source. “Until then, it’s all gossip.” ■
To stay on top of the biggest European stories, sign up to Café Europa, our weekly subscriber-only newsletter.