On June 15-16, at the Swiss resort of Bürgenstock, the Summit on Peace in Ukraine was held at the initiative of Ukraine. It was, without exaggeration, an epoch-making and historic event in the history of diplomacy and the history of humanity in general, because no other summit on any other issue had seen such a number of participants and such a level of representation. The Summit on Peace in Ukraine significantly exceeded the number and level of participants of such historic summits (conferences) as the Paris Conference following the First World War (1919-1920), the Washington Conference (1921-1922), and the San Francisco Conference (1945). So, of course, this event will be included in the world textbooks of diplomacy, and the level of its organization and conduct deserves the maximum evaluation.
The status of this event and its representation was extremely high and shows the stable support of Ukraine, the extreme attention of the world community to the establishment of peace in Ukraine and the expansion of support for Ukraine. The most important world players - the EU, Great Britain and the USA were represented at the highest level - by the presidents, prime ministers, vice president (Kamala Harris), also the highest representation was in Japan, Canada, and many Latin American countries. By the way, Latin America was represented by the vast majority of the countries of this region, including Brazil, Mexico and Argentina, which can testify not only to the achievements of domestic diplomacy, but also of American diplomacy, since the United States traditionally maintains close comprehensive relations with most Latin American countries, in particular, and political. Among the minor shortcomings of the summit, the insufficient representation of African countries can be singled out, while at least the nominal representation of India - on the contrary, can be recorded among the achievements. It was also a positive signal that the delegations of Saudi Arabia (which canceled its participation in the event the day before), Indonesia, Armenia, and Serbia were present at the Summit on Peace in Ukraine.
However, the question arises: how realistically did this peace summit bring Ukraine closer to peace, and what is more, to a just peace, under which Ukraine would not have to give up its territories and accept unfavorable conditions?
High status, wide representation, unfortunately, do not guarantee the approach of peace in Ukraine. And the point is not even that there were no delegations of Russia's partners at this summit - the People's Republic of China, Kazakhstan, a higher status delegation of India, and even that Russia itself was not invited to the summit. The main and only reason why, despite all its status, the Summit on Peace in Ukraine is unable to ensure peace in Ukraine is the fundamental disagreements over the end of the war in Ukraine and Russia. Actually, that is why the Russian delegation was not represented at this summit. Her presence simply wouldn't make sense at this point.
On the eve of the summit, the so-called President of Russia V. Putin made a statement regarding his own vision of the end of the war and once again put forward utopian and absurd conditions: handing over to the Russians those territories that it annexed, moreover, even those that it did not control at the time of annexation and where the Russian occupation authorities did not even conduct a pseudo-referendum regarding "incorporation into Russia" (for example, the city of Zaporizhzhia and the territory of the Donetsk region currently controlled by Kyiv). In addition, the so-called Russian President Putin put forward "traditional" absurd and unclear demands regarding the so-called "denazification" and "demilitarization" of Ukraine, its non-alignment, etc. This statement by V. Putin testifies not only to his panic, as Prime Minister of the Netherlands M. Rutte rightly noted. The main conclusion that can be drawn from the demands announced by Putin is that the Russian leader is still repeating his main mistake - "burning bridges" without leaving room for maneuver, for compromises, for healthy diplomatic negotiations. Therefore, it can be concluded that Russia has driven itself into a dead end and is not going to end the war with any other compromises, but it is unlikely to be able to fully realize its territorial claims on the battlefield.
From all of the above, we can conclude: negotiations between Russia and Ukraine or the participation of the Russian side in any summits regarding peace in Ukraine are possible only under two basic conditions: the defeat of Russia in Ukraine (total defeat or partial, but significant defeat) and a change in the ruling regime in Russian Federation The need to change the ruling regime in Russia is also due to the fact that for most Western countries (namely, these countries have the greatest political weight), Putin is the illegitimate president of the Russian Federation. In this context, the statements of the President of Switzerland and some other politicians and officials regarding the possible visit of Putin specifically to the Summit on Peace in Ukraine are not clear.
A logical question arises: are direct negotiations between Russia and Ukraine possible and the end of the war immediately if Ukraine is defeated and/or if there is a change of power in Ukraine? This option is hardly possible.
Firstly, it is practically impossible to hold elections in Ukraine in conditions of war - this is stated in the Constitution of Ukraine and the Law of Ukraine " On legal regime of martial law";
Secondly, it is unlikely that even with a hypothetical change of power, the new president or the new composition of the Verkhovna Rada, the Cabinet of Ministers will agree to surrender territories and other unfavorable conditions, because this is "political suicide" for any politician in Ukraine and the surrender of national interests, the actual capitulation of Ukraine;
Thirdly, unlike Russia, Ukraine sets very real goals for itself. Ukraine does not claim the territory of the Russian Federation, does not intend to annex them and conduct large-scale operations on its territory. Ukraine seeks to return only its own territories within the recognized borders of 1991;
Fourthly, Ukraine does not make absurd and utopian demands to Russia such as "denazification".
The only option that can be discussed in this context is possible failures of Ukraine on the battlefield, which could lead to the loss of other territories. In this case, in hypothetical negotiations with the Russian Federation, its position will be weaker than the current one, and Ukraine will have to make greater concessions in this case.
Therefore, in order to risk Russia's participation in negotiations and at similar platforms, such as the Summit on Peace in Ukraine, it is necessary to emphasize once again that this is possible in the event of significant successes of Ukraine on the battlefield, strategic defeats of Russia and a change of the ruling regime in the Russian Federation. and therefore, Russia's revision of its conditions for the end of the war. By and large, we are talking about the capitulation of Russia, because, let's repeat, the current conditions put forward by the Russian leadership are absurd, utopian and completely unacceptable.
Given the above facts, further meetings within the framework of the Summit on Peace in Ukraine seem unlikely at the moment. Either they will take place without discussing topics that are directly related to the processes of ending the war (issues of borders, security guarantees, reparations, etc.) or the Summit on Peace in Ukraine will be limited to only the first and last meeting.
The main conclusion that can be drawn at the moment is that the terms and prospects of further negotiations will be written as before - on the battlefield. Only the success or failure of the parties to the conflict will lead to real changes in the possibilities and objectivity of negotiations. If this happens, negotiations between the parties to the conflict are also possible directly without any intermediaries and additional international platforms.
Valentyn Haidai - director of the Intermarium Institute