How will the power struggle, which is called the Russia-Ukraine war in Western public opinion and the war between Russia and the West (US, EU, NATO) in Moscow, end? There are two different lines on this question. The Western world, representing the first line, recently organised the “Peace in Ukraine Summit” in the Swiss town of Bürgenstock on 15-16 June.
The fact that the conflicting party, Russia, was not invited to the summit shows that the West wants to achieve peace in Ukraine not through negotiations and concessions, but through the complete defeat of the rival country. It is therefore no coincidence that just before the peace summit in Ukraine, the proceeds of Russia’s frozen assets were transferred to Ukraine and Russia was allowed to be shot from Ukrainian territory with the West’s intelligence and ammunition support.
In view of the decision on long-term and institutionalised support for Ukraine to be taken at the NATO meeting in the coming days, it would be more accurate to call the event in Switzerland the “Initiative to Surrender Russia” rather than the “Peace Summit in Ukraine”.
Bring Russia to its knees: Theoretically flawed, practically impossible
The attempt to bring peace by bringing Russia to its knees is fraught with both theoretical and practical dilemmas. Former US National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger, considered a legendary political genius in the Western world, warned that in wars, bringing one side to the table under conditions of total surrender does not lead to real peace, but to a bigger war in the future. It is therefore appropriate to remember that the seeds of the destruction of the Second World War were sown in the First.
This theoretically dangerous approach of the West has no practical equivalent. The Russian economy, expected to be overwhelmed by sanctions, has proved its resilience to the surprise of international organisations, while the Russian army’s advance in Ukraine continues.
The peace summit that prolonged the war
To understand how the peace in Ukraine, or, to use the correct term, Russia’s attempt to surrender, which was organised with dreams between sleep and wakefulness, what Westerners call “daydreams”, ended, it is enough to look at Putin’s statements. In a statement on the sidelines of the G7 and the peace summit, Putin announced Moscow’s new conditions for ending the conflict. According to these, the Russian army will not leave the areas it controls, and as new gains are made, peace negotiations will be updated in the light of new realities.
According to documents published by the US newspaper The New York Times, Russia attracted attention at the negotiations in Istanbul in 2022 by being less demanding on land. The then Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, who said that peace had been reached to the brink in Istanbul but that it had been disrupted by external interventions, said: “There are those in the NATO countries who want the war to continue. So that the war continues and Russia becomes weaker.”
At this point, it will come as no surprise that every time the West organises a peace conference, the war drags on a little longer. There is no doubt that such an image serves the US, which wants an Afghanistan-like “endless war” for Russia in Ukraine. In this way, the Washington administration is comfortably keeping European states seeking strategic autonomy on its side, while at the same time creating the political atmosphere necessary to encircle China, which it sees as its main rival.
The objection and the plan of the Global South
The total number of countries that did not attend the summit in Switzerland, or did attend but did not sign, shows that a different alternative for peace in Ukraine is maturing. Russia and Iran were not invited to the summit, while China and Egypt did not send representatives. South Africa, Brazil, India, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, India, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates attended the summit but did not sign the final declaration. While the sum of these countries is called BRICS, it is noteworthy that the Global South also shows no interest in the West’s solution/non-solution plan. In fact, with the exception of Turkey and Qatar, most of the countries of the Middle East did not support the declaration, while all of Central Asia, Latin America and the overwhelming majority of Africa preferred to stay out of the game.
The 6-point plan announced by China and Brazil forms the framework of the alternative put forward by the BRIICS countries. The plan differs from the West in that it rejects sanctions and blocs and aims to bring Russia and Ukraine to the table at the same time. Although there is currently no official proposal as to where the negotiations will take place, China and Saudi Arabia are the favoured destinations. Russia is likely to cede the initiative to China, which drew up a 12-point roadmap on the anniversary of the Ukrainian crisis and negotiated it in Ukraine and European capitals. Although Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov announced earlier that Russia would participate in a Chinese-organised process, the West will not welcome negotiations under the auspices of Beijing, which it accuses of being a party to the crisis. The NATO secretary general, who blamed China for the failure of the conference in Switzerland, signalled sanctions, while Ukrainian leader Zelenski expressed his disappointment in a more subdued tone, saying: “We are waiting for China’s friendship.
Saudi Arabia may also host negotiations in the settlement process announced under the coordination of China and Brazil and supported by more than 20 countries, despite its recent date. In fact, Saudi Arabia hosted a summit on Ukraine in August 2023 and was represented by the head of the Ukrainian presidential administration, Andriy Yermak, at the summit, which Russia did not attend. While Saudi Arabia, which decided not to sign the summit declaration without Russia’s participation, has increased its credibility in Moscow with this latest move, the Riyadh government has a number of tools at its disposal to convince the West. These include its traditional relations with the Western world, its oil card, its Gulf leadership and its special position in the Palestinian crisis. Gabriel Lüchinger, head of the International Security Division at the Swiss Foreign Ministry, has also suggested that Saudi Arabia, which has diversified its foreign policy in recent years with the opening to China and the Iranian peace deal, could be the address for the next round of negotiations.
A ceasefire is possible, but lasting peace is still a long way off
Can the Sino-Brazilian roadmap succeed in freezing the crisis despite the US-NATO policy of perpetuating the war? Although it is possible to find out in the coming months, it seems difficult to establish a lasting peace. Firstly, the West must abandon its belief that “peace means fighting until you are brought to your knees” and focus on the causes of the war. In this regard, China stresses the indivisibility of security, while defining NATO’s expansion to Russia’s borders after the collapse of the Soviet Union as the wrong security architecture. Its approach, that the security of one country or alliance should not threaten the legitimate interests of another, is certainly not acceptable to NATO as it seeks to expand into Asia.
The other challenge to lasting peace is how to rebuild Russia-Ukraine relations, which China describes as having a “complex historical background”. Although countries seeking a solution to the crisis, including China, emphasise Ukraine’s territorial integrity, sovereignty and borders, agreements between Moscow and Kiev, especially in the area of maritime borders, are no longer relevant.
