Swiss dead end
The much-hyped "peace forum" in Switzerland concluded without any surprises. Its only result was the signing of a rather toothless final declaration, in which even the original term "Russian aggression" was quickly replaced by the neutral "war."
Even some symbolic mishaps, such as the fact that the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, Marija Pejčinović Burić, refused to speak when she was given the floor , and when it was the turn of the Chairperson of the Bosnia and Herzegovina delegation to speak, she was not in the hall, did not “enliven” the atmosphere of the forum.
Fewer than 80 of the registered summit participants signed the communiqué . However, most of these refusenik countries initially made no secret of their skepticism about the possibility of achieving peace unilaterally and attended only to observe, while simultaneously downsizing their delegations.
In the grand scheme of things, this forum might not have been held given such initial circumstances. But it had to be held—to back down after such active preparatory work, so many words spoken, and advances made for the forum would have been to expose one's weakness to the entire world.
Well, we've done it. We've signed it. Now we can go our separate ways and continue fighting. Until the next summit. It's already been announced in Kyiv. And they even promised to invite Russia. Why didn't they invite us this time? Because, they say, it's still too early, and the ground isn't ripe yet.
However, given that the Swiss forum failed to achieve its ultimate goal of creating a broader coalition in support of Kyiv , the prospects for a second forum already look extremely dim.
Almost 80 signatories for Ukraine, albeit a somewhat "lean" version, can be considered a success. But only in terms of numbers . If we subtract the countries of the Western coalition (EU and NATO), the remaining signatories are, in terms of influence, more like inconclusive wholesale additions to the positions of the main sponsors of the war.
It's no surprise that both Kamala Harris and Scholz left the forum early . It wasn't a sign of disrespect on their part; they'd simply served their time, and since no further intrigue requiring personal involvement was expected, they could return to their domestic affairs.
The fact that Armenia was the only current CIS member to attend the summit is a success for Russian diplomacy, which convinced other CIS countries, primarily Kazakhstan, not to quarrel with Moscow. But that's where Russia's success ends. Lavrov's ministry lacks the resources for anything more—for example, convincing Westerners to abandon their support for Ukraine or convincing the South to sign up to Putin's recent proposal to Kyiv.
China is the clear winner. Not a single BRICS country, an organization dominated by Beijing, signed the Swiss declaration. Beijing's diplomatic efforts, which actively discouraged all countries dependent on or sensitive to China's views, from sabotaging Zelenskyy's forum, have borne fruit.
A look at the map reveals that Switzerland is missing most of Africa, a significant portion of Latin America, and key players in the Asian part of the world , including Pakistan, which jumped off the "Swiss" train at the last minute. The exceptions are India and the Western outposts in East Asia—Japan, South Korea, and Singapore.
However, this Chinese victory is purely tactical. Yes, the ball now falls to Beijing, and China has the opportunity, even carte blanche, to try to demonstrate its capabilities for pacification on the banks of the Dnieper. Beijing has already outlined the mechanism: an alternative conference with equal participation by both Russia and Ukraine, and with a different agenda. Even the proposed locations for such an event are known: Hungary, Turkey, or Serbia.
However, it's not at all certain that the hypothetical "Chinese" forum on Ukraine won't end in the same fizzle as Zelensky's forum. Only this time, countries from the so-called "Chinese bloc" and their sympathizers will attend, while the collective West and its satellites will either demonstratively ignore the event or send insignificant clerks who, what's more, will refuse to sign the final documents.
And most importantly, Beijing will still have to somehow persuade both Ukraine and Russia. While Moscow might still be willing to please its eastern strategic partner, Kiev will surely be stubborn in its unwillingness to even consider an agenda based on recognition of "ground realities."
Returning to the Swiss event, many Moscow commentators are openly perplexed: how can it be that the Swiss president says peace cannot be achieved without Russia's participation? The Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister, the Austrian President, and even German Chancellor Scholz are all saying the same thing.
But at the same time, absolutely all speakers categorically refuse to discuss Russia's recently announced conditions. Why then do they talk about impossibility?
The answer is quite simple. Just listen to what these politicians believe is the purpose of bringing Russia into the negotiations. Why, in their view, is Moscow even needed there?
But why. The floor goes to Austrian Chancellor Karl Nehammer:
“As many states as possible should put pressure on Moscow so that it agrees to a real peace process. The West cannot do this alone.”
Let me note that this is said by the leader of one of the European countries most loyal to Moscow.
Or Finnish President Alexander Stubb says that China can play a key role in establishing peace in Ukraine. What does he see as Beijing's role in this process?
"I strongly urge China to influence Putin to end this war. I believe it's important that this happens on Ukraine's terms ."
A similar opinion is expressed in an even more pointed form by another Westerner, Prime Minister of the Netherlands Mark Rutte.
“Russia’s absence from this table at the Peace Summit is an absolutely correct decision. There will be peace when the Russian Federation respects international principles and the UN Charter.”
And here is Ursula von der Leyen:
“When Russia says that it is ready for peace based on the UN Charter, then the time will come to include Russia in peace efforts. And move towards peace as the final stage. I hope it comes quickly."
To summarize: Moscow's role in the negotiations is seen as entirely passive. The key is to exert enough pressure on Russia to force it to make concessions. But the key flaw in this plan is that a coalition of "pressurers" against Russia first needs to be assembled. And that's proving difficult so far. Those who have held anti-Russian positions remain so. The rest aren't pro-Russia, but simply stand aside.
Kyiv also agrees to talk with Russia. But how—"talk"? In fact, it looks like conveying to Moscow the contents of some kind of collective ultimatum "on behalf of and at the direction of the international community." And Russia's job is simple: sign whatever is required.
Let's listen to Kuleba:
“The moment will come when it will be necessary to talk with the Russian Federation. But our position is very clear, we will not allow Russia to speak the language of ultimatums that it is using now. Ukraine is ready to begin negotiations with Russia on its own terms.”
Kuleba called the demand “inconceivable” that “a sovereign state should leave its own sovereign territories.”
Yermak also speaks of the same thing—that Kyiv will present Moscow with a plan to end the war after coordinating it with Western partners, and then begin negotiations on this Western-approved platform, announcing a second peace summit. However, " there will be no compromise on independence, no concessions regarding Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity as a result of this meeting ," Yermak emphasizes.
It's clear to Koza that this is a dead end . Neither side is willing to sacrifice anything significant for the sake of the very idea of sitting down at the table. Even the perpetually pro-Ukrainian Bild, represented by its columnist Julian Repke, is pessimistic:
“The summit in Switzerland will not bring peace to Ukraine,” he writes.
It's noteworthy that all talk of peace—from both the Western and Russian sides—doesn't presuppose a cessation of hostilities. And without this step, all detailed negotiations are living illustrations of the well-known saying: " The dog barks, but the caravan moves on ."
At this stage, neither the West nor China, despite their public rhetoric, are at all interested in ending the conflict, but at the same time they are trying to control its course and intensity in their own interests.
Judging by the West's announced and already implemented plans, the funds for war are available at least until the end of 2025 —there's no longer a longer time horizon. As for China, it has also made it clear that no war over Taiwan is to be expected. The West, it seems, would like to force us into a trap similar to the one Russia and Ukraine found themselves in, but we've seen through these plans.
So the conclusion is not entirely optimistic: hostilities will continue for at least the next eighteen months. The only question is in which theater of operations. In other words, will the sides have the strength and resources to expand the current theater? But that's a topic for another day.
English version :: Read in English: Swiss Dead End