WION on the Ukrainian Peace Summit: Conclusions
Earlier today I had the pleasure of discussing in a live broadcast on WION, India’s premier English language global broadcaster, the results of the Ukrainian Peace Summit which was held in a Swiss resort over this past weekend, 15-16 June. Was it a success or a failure? For whom? How are we to understand the decision not to invite Russia to the event when Russia is one of the two warring sides? These were among the issues in our chat.
A lot is being said even in our mainstream media about how the Summit fell short of expectations. Indeed, that is a virtually unavoidable conclusion given that only three of the ten points in Zelensky’s peace plan got approval of the gathering, and even the closing statement with this much reduced consensus was not signed by India, Mexico, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and other consequential participants. The populations represented by those who did sign, and did not later cancel their signatures, as several did, came to well less than half of the world’s total.
Little is being said about how Russia views the outcome of the Summit and that is what I tried to address in the several minutes that I was given the microphone.
See:
Transcript below by a reader
Shivan Chanana, WION: 0:00
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has said that he will hold peace talks with Russia if Moscow pulls out of all Ukrainian territory, speaking at the Ukraine Peace Summit in Switzerland. Zelensky asserted that Putin would not end the war and had to be stopped by military or diplomatic means. Now the two-day talks at the Swiss Alpine Resort were attended by over 90 countries. Dozens of countries committing to Ukraine's territorial integrity. The meet concluded with a final document being adopted which blamed the wars widespread suffering and destruction firmly on Russia. However, several countries including India, South Africa and Saudi Arabia did not sign it.
WION voice-over 0:46
The vast majority of more than 90 countries attending a Swiss summit on peace for Ukraine supported its final declaration, as it concluded on Sunday. Initiated by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, the two-day summit at the Swiss Alpine resort of Bürgenstock aimed to find a consensus on how to end the war in Ukraine.
Volodymyr Zelensky (speaking in English) 1:06
I am confident that together we will ensure the result, the first and the second. Peace summits should unite our joint work on the details of peace.
WION voice-over:
Many Western leaders voiced condemnation of Russia's invasion and rejected President Vladimir Putin's demands for part of Ukraine as a condition for peace. However, some countries attending the summit did not put their name to the communique, including Mexico, Saudi Arabia and India. There was no clarity on whether future talks would involve Russia. Swiss President Viola Amherd:
Viola Amherd:
A lasting solution must involve both parties. Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, the discussions over the past two days have shown that there are different points of view. All the more important is our understanding that the path towards peace in Ukraine must be pursued on the basis of international law and, in particular, the United Nations Charter.
WION voice-over: 2:08
Moscow, which was not invited, labelled the summit a waste of time. China was another notable absentee. The conference, nevertheless, underscored both the broad support Ukraine still enjoys from its allies, but also the challenges for any lasting ceasefire. A draft of the final declaration seen by Reuters refers to Russia's invasion as a war, a label Moscow rejects. It calls for Ukraine's control over the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant and its Azov seaports to be restored and for Ukraine's territorial integrity to be respected.
2:41
But, in line with the conference's more modest stated aims, it omitted tougher issues on what a post-war settlement for Ukraine might look like and whether Ukraine could join the NATO alliance. The Kremlin did not rule out future talks with Kiiv, but said guarantees will be needed to ensure the credibility of any negotiations. Whether there will be a follow-up to the summit and where it will be held remained unclear.
Shanana: 3:07
All right. For more of this, we are joined by Dr Gilbert Doctorow, international affairs analyst, author and historian, joining us from Brussels. Dr Doctorow, always a pleasure speaking with you. Zelensky said he'll hold peace talks with Russia if Moscow pulls out of all Ukrainian territory. In your understanding, what do you make of this statement? Is there any need of peace talks if Moscow is out?
Gilbert Doctorow, PhD: 3:30
It's a surreal proposal. I don't-- defies the laws of gravity. Normal conditions, the losing side in a war does not demand that the winning side of the war capitulate, and that is precisely what Mr. Zelensky has done in a very peculiar way, and I'd say in a hopeless way. How we appraise this two-day meeting really depends on which side you're standing on. From the Ukrainian side, I think there are unequivocal aspects of the conclusion which look like a failure. That is to say, what was signed by the 80 countries represented was approving only three of the 10 points in Mr. Zelensky's peace proposal that goes back many months.
4:21
So he only got a fraction of the support from those who signed. And those who signed represented well less than half of the world's population, far less. You have mentioned India's refusal to sign. There are other major powers like Saudi Arabia, Brazil, who were represented at the meeting didn't sign, China didn't come. The United Nations Secretary General Guterres didn't come. Now that is one way of looking at it -- as a failed initiative from Mr. Zelensky, and also from Jake Sullivan, because the Americans were behind this initiative and Mr. Sullivan in particular were organizers of the event.
5:03
From the other side, from the Russian side, the outcome of this meeting was a victory, and it wasn't a victory that came cheaply. The American diplomatic community was very busy in the weeks running up to this conference, traveling the world and trying to bring in all possible countries to their side. The Russians were doing the same thing. The Russian diplomatic service was extremely active in the weeks before this, to ensure that this would not deliver a verdict on Russia that would be unacceptable and make future negotiations more difficult. And the day before the meeting opened, Mr. Putin delivered what is called a diplomatic torpedo in his peace plan.
Chanana: 5:51
Dr. Doctorow, I also wanted to get your thoughts on this: what good is a peace summit, when both parties who need to arrive at that peace are not present? What's Ukraine trying to achieve with a summit like this when Russia is not even invited?
Doctorow: 6:07
Well, the conduct of the Zelensky government for a long time, both on the battlefield and in diplomatic events such as took place over the weekend, could be characterized as public relations, not actual management of issues. The way that the counter-offensive was waged in a hopeless way, serving only public relations objectives, not true military objectives, that is carried over into the event that we saw this weekend. The likelihood of anything resembling a peace agreement coming out of a meeting in which the other side is not present and was not invited-- it tells you this was not a pragmatic event. It was a public relations effort to gather support for a gentleman who is now the illegitimate tyrant of Ukraine. Mr. Zelensky's authority ended on the 20th of the last month.
Chanana:
All right, Dr Doctorow, thank you so much for joining us and sharing your insights. Always a pleasure getting your insights on matters pertaining to Russia and Ukraine. There will be much to discuss in times to come. Let's see how this one unfolds. hank you so much for your time.
Doctorow: 7:27
Well, thanks for the invitation.