Reflecting On Swiss Summit For Ukraine: Solidarity Or Peace-Making?

The Summit on Peace in Ukraine, which takes place on June 15-16, 2024, aims to bring together heads of state and develop a common understanding of a path towards a just and lasting peace in Ukraine.

However, the absence of key nations and the underlying objectives of the summit cast doubt on its potential for achieving meaningful outcomes. Rather than fostering a platform for genuine negotiations, the summit appears poised to consolidate support for Ukraine in the absence of critical countries that could facilitate a balanced and enduring peace.

One might argue that Ukraine, feeling sidelined as global attention shifts to the tragedy in Gaza, is organizing this summit to bolster its position on the international agenda, rather than reaching peace.

A revealing attendance list

The summit's attendance list is revealing. There is significant international engagement, with 90 countries participating. Key Western nations like the UK, as well as France and other EU members, are sending top representatives to show robust support for Ukraine. However, US President Joe Biden will not attend, with Washington sending a less senior delegation.

In contrast, Hungary's Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who has close ties to Russia, is sending his foreign minister to showcase the EU's internal divisions on the Ukraine conflict. Additionally, the absence of leaders from Brazil and India, two pivotal players in the Global South, underscores the fragmented global response to the conflict.

The summit will also proceed without China, a crucial player, and, more significantly, without Russia, one of the principal parties in the conflict. China's absence further underscores the summit's limitations, considering its significant economic, military, and political influence on the war and its recent peace proposals for Ukraine. Without these key participants, the event risks being seen as more of a gathering of familiar allies bolstering their ranks rather than a genuine comprehensive peace effort.

Solidarity over statecraft

The EU's role in the summit also prompts questions about its true objectives. As this summit excludes Russia, Brussels appears to prioritize demonstrating solidarity with Ukraine over finding solutions. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has used the summit to highlight global opposition to Russian aggression, but one wonders about the wisdom of this approach. While designed to promote solidarity and strengthen the anti-Russia coalition, this move may not translate into an effective off-ramp from the conflict. Zelenskyy's gamble that showcasing international unity might pressure Russia to withdraw from Ukrainian territory could backfire and make Moscow even more reluctant to reach a settlement.

Earlier this month, EU member states announced that weapons supplied to Ukraine could be used against targets on Russian soil, a move seemingly aimed at shifting the war in Ukraine's favor. However, the situation on the ground is increasingly not in Ukraine's favor. The rise of right-wing parties in the EU elections, many of which are funded by Moscow, as investigative journalists suggest, is a dark cloud looming over Ukraine. Moreover, the upcoming Joe Biden-Donald Trump election in the US and escalating nuclear threats do not bode well for peace. While the EU undoubtedly aims to project a strong message of togetherness at the summit, it remains uncertain whether this ephemeral unity will stand the test of time.

Why Russia's presence matters

The exclusion of Russia from the summit is a critical handicap. Any peace process that does not involve all warring parties is unlikely to succeed. Russia's participation is crucial to addressing the core issues at the heart of the conflict, such as territorial disputes and security concerns. By not inviting Russia, the summit forecloses the possibility of direct negotiations on these critical issues.

Türkiye's mediation efforts in 2022 underscored the importance of including all parties in the dialogue. Although the talks in Istanbul did not result in a breakthrough, they showed that progress is possible when all sides are engaged. Initiatives such as prisoner exchanges and the grain corridor were achieved through Turkish mediation involving both Ukraine and Russia. Without such an inclusive approach, the Swiss "Peace" Summit risks becoming an echo chamber for pro-Ukrainian sentiments rather than a platform for genuine peacebuilding.

Risks of an exclusive gathering

The summit carries the risk of escalating tensions, rather than easing them. By excluding Moscow, mobilizing anti-Russian sentiment, and consolidating international support for Ukraine, the summit is already perceived by some quarters as mere provocation.

This situation presents several problems. For one, it could harden Russia's stance, reducing the chances for future peace talks. Another risk is that it could hinder the prospects for a comprehensive peace agreement by alienating serious mediators advocating a pragmatic approach to conflict resolution.

Looking ahead, the international community must recognize that lasting peace in Ukraine can only be achieved through negotiations that involve all relevant parties. Future efforts should prioritize inclusive diplomacy, engaging Ukraine and Russia in direct talks to address their core concerns. Only through such comprehensive efforts can we end this devastating conflict and restore peace in Ukraine.

*Opinions expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Anadolu. -