The summit on peace in Ukraine, held on June 15 and 16 at the invitation of Swiss President Viola Amherd, was a significant step towards a lasting solution. Over 100 delegations, including international organizations, and high-level representatives from 90 states participated. Unlike previous meetings, this summit’s focus on high-level representatives underscored its importance. The goal was to establish a platform for dialogue, initiating a process towards a comprehensive, just, and lasting peace for Ukraine, based on international law and the UN Charter. Discussions also addressed nuclear and food security, alongside the war’s humanitarian impact. By the summit’s conclusion, participants from 80 countries adopted a communiqué.
While Russia’s aggression continues for over two years, no comprehensive plan was expected at the summit. Instead, the talks were seen as the first step in a long process. Notably, countries with diverse viewpoints on the war and relations with Russia, such as Brazil, Turkey, and India, were represented. China and US President Joe Biden did not attend. Russia, of course, wasn’t invited at this stage. Leaders emphasized the need for a solution that respects Ukraine’s demands. French President Emmanuel Macron and US Vice President Kamala Harris were quoted as examples. Macron stressed that a permanent end to the war wouldn’t involve Kyiv’s capitulation. He advocated for expanding the circle of countries involved in finding a peace plan. Vice President Harris condemned Russia’s war as an attack on international norms, stating they weren’t seeking negotiations but capitulation.
A perspective from the Global South was offered by Kenyan President William Ruto. He argued that seizing Russian assets frozen in the West would be unacceptable, similar to Moscow’s attack on Ukraine. However, the author finds this view confusing cause and effect. The Saudi foreign minister believes Kyiv will need to make a “difficult compromise” to end the war. Saudi Arabia, committed to ending the conflict, is considered a potential candidate to host the next conference.
In conclusion, the summit’s success hinges on its continuation, with hopes of including the Russian Federation, though its participation remains uncertain. Readers can form their own judgment based on the current context. Notably, on the eve of the summit, Russian President Putin presented a new peace plan. Russia would cease fire and begin negotiations if Ukraine renounced NATO membership and withdrew troops from four eastern and southern areas claimed by Moscow. He warned that if Ukraine and Europe reject these proposals, the negotiation conditions would drastically change, and they would bear the “political and moral responsibility” for continued bloodshed.
