KEY TAKEAWAYS
KEY TAKEAWAYS
Last weekend saw the broadest, highest-level international endorsement yet for the principles of Ukraine’s peace proposal to end Russia’s invasion. Ukraine’s first peace summit, in Switzerland, drew 101 countries and international institutions, of which more than 80 signed a declaration endorsing “principles of sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all states, including Ukraine.” As Russia counters any such vision with disingenuous and unserious offers to negotiate, Ukraine and its allies could more energetically draw “middle powers,” such as India, Egypt or Saudi Arabia, into the coming round of efforts to shape a viable, just peace process.
The peace conference followed immediately upon a summit by the Group of Seven (G7) industrialized democracies that bolstered financial and security help for Ukraine’s defense, a critical step as Russian President Vladimir Putin has striven to win a battlefield breakthrough since last fall. These simultaneous boosts for Ukraine’s defense and peace diplomacy are central to countering Putin’s imperialistic visions — the single greatest post-Cold War threat to a world governed by law rather than brute force. Ukraine’s peace plan is a critical line of defense for democracy and peace, based as it is on reasserting international and humanitarian law.
Ukraine’s peace plan is a critical line of defense for democracy and peace, based as it is on reasserting international and humanitarian law.
The peace conference, outside Lucerne, drew 57 heads of state or government in a culmination of a year’s diplomatic work, including smaller conferences in Copenhagen, Jeddah, Malta, and after January’s World Economic Forum in Davos. Participants reaffirmed the need to base a peace process on the U.N. Charter and Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Discussions focused on three priorities — nuclear safety and security, food security and the return of prisoners of war and Ukrainian children abducted by Russian forces — that represent global moral and/or security imperatives threatened by Russia’s brutal assault. The conference’s final communique committed 77 countries and five international institution signatories to supporting these principles and solving these issues.
The summit created working groups to press for progress, on these three issues, with the Russian government ahead of a planned, but not yet confirmed, second summit. The communique in particular noted that the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, which Russia has occupied since 2022, must be operated by Ukrainians and under supervision by the International Atomic Energy Agency. It declared that maritime traffic in the Black and Azov Seas must remain free and safe, and that all Russian-abducted Ukrainian children — 20,000, by Ukraine’s estimate — must be returned to their country. While government and institutional leaders at the summit agreed to these overarching principles, experts on these problems will staff the working groups and will determine how to establish the mechanisms and make these goals a reality.
The Swiss government, which co-hosted the summit with Ukraine, did not invite Russia, saying it had repeatedly indicated “no interest in participating.” Several countries, including Brazil, criticized organizers for Russia’s absence.
But a Russian presence would have been premature. The purpose of the summit was not to launch negotiations, but rather to have countries advance essential preparations, broadly arranged around Ukraine’s 10-point peace formula, with its commitment to international law, which Putin’s Russia is working to corrode. This includes affirming basic principles and goals, defining issues to be addressed, developing a structure for future talks and determining whom to include in those talks. Ukraine and its allies in this diplomacy hope that a planned next summit will involve Russia and begin discussions on how the war might end.
Kyiv’s strategy to broaden the participation in these pre-negotiations makes sense. This conflict doesn’t affect only Ukraine and Russia, but the entire global community due to its effects on food security, shipping routes and nuclear security. In addition, a multilateral approach strengthens Ukraine’s hand at a future negotiating table, harnesses the expertise that many other countries have on these topics and helps to change the narrative that this is a NATO-Russia proxy war.
As the Swiss government noted, Moscow has made clear that it is not interested in a peaceful resolution to the war, which Putin believes he is winning. Instead, Russia tried to scuttle and disrupt the talks in disparate ways. It likely pressed China and Brazil to present their alternative peace plan to reflect Russia’s approach and divide international opinion. Some smaller countries received threats instructing them to denounce the peace summit, Ukraine reported. The Swiss government reported an increase in cyberattacks, a pattern it has ascribed previously to Russia-linked hackers. Finally, Putin announced just hours before the summit was to begin that he was ready to negotiate — if Ukraine pulled out of four provinces Russia has illegally claimed to annex and surrendered them to Russia. Surrender isn’t a true offer of peace talks.
As the battlefield continues to shift, diplomats will continue to work toward structuring future talks — an effort that would do well to listen to concerns of middle powers such as Egypt, India or Saudi Arabia, and involve them in the planning. The attendance of such countries at the Swiss-hosted summit was a good first step, but their active participation on working groups or as diplomatic emissaries would be even better. These countries bring expertise and influence that can help Ukraine end the war on its terms.
While a roadmap for a peace process was one stated goal of this summit, it did not emerge in the communique. The idea is a good one that should not be abandoned. On the seven points of Ukraine’s peace formula not discussed last weekend, working groups could strengthen the plan by seeking compromises or ideas that would be broadly supported internationally. To maintain momentum, organizers would do well to announce the location and date of a second summit as soon as possible. That would demonstrate a seriousness of effort not only to Moscow, but to the global community.
The Ukrainians remain determined in defending their home. People who hope to see their children live in a world governed by laws rather than armed might should continue support for Ukrainians’ right to self-protection — and their diplomacy. U.S. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan summarized the idea following the conference. “The vision of peace that was put forward here today” is “rooted in principles that all of us signed up to,” he said. “All of us would like to live in a world . . . ruled by those principles because they make us all safe. This is the right vision as we go forward.”