The peace conference in Bürgenstock, Switzerland, had not even begun when the Russian president was already trying to undermine it. On Friday, Vladimir Putin formulated preconditions for a ceasefire: the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from the four eastern Ukrainian regions of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhia and their handover to Russia, as well as the renunciation of NATO membership.
In that case, “we will immediately, literally at the same minute, cease fire and begin talks,” Putin told senior Russian Foreign Ministry officials. But his proposal was of course not a “peace offer” as was often falsely titled.
“We have to tell the truth. He is not calling for negotiations, he is calling for surrender,” said US Vice President Kamala Harris, who led the US delegation at the peace conference at the weekend. The American Institute for the Study of War described Putin’s proposal as “information warfare.”
In fact, it would mean that Kiev would have to hand over further, previously unoccupied parts of Ukraine without a fight. Given the crimes that Russia has committed so far in the already occupied territories, this would mean exposing even more Ukrainians to Russian oppression, murder, torture, deportation and the destruction of their own culture. No responsible Ukrainian government could allow such a thing.
The reaction in Switzerland was accordingly. The proposal was “absolutely crazy,” said Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, who is being considered as a possible successor to Jens Stoltenberg as NATO Secretary General, on Saturday. Rutte found something positive in the fact that Putin had made a proposal at all. “That shows that Putin is panicking,” said Rutte.
Chancellor Olaf Scholz expressed it more diplomatically in an interview with the news channel WELT. Putin’s proposal is certainly linked to the peace conference, said Scholz. “But it is of course also important for us to make it clear that there can only be a peace that works for Ukraine and does not affect its integrity and sovereignty. There can be no Russian-dictated peace,” said the Chancellor.
Or as Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni put it in Bürgenstock: “Confusing peace with submission sets a precedent that is dangerous for all of us.”
This weekend, however, it also became clear that the label “peace summit” was a little overambitious. Even the Swiss organizers admitted this. “We will not be able to negotiate or even announce peace for Ukraine here on the Bürgenstock,” stressed Federal President Viola Amherd at the start. After all, the aggressor Russia boycotted the conference and apparently even attacked Switzerland with cyberattacks beforehand.
Amherd therefore saw the summit, which was attended by around 100 countries and international organizations, as a first step towards possible real peace talks in the future. “As an international community, we can help prepare the ground for direct talks between the warring parties,” said the Swiss President.
On the one hand, the summit should send a signal of solidarity with Ukraine, but also set out guidelines for possible peace talks in the future. One of these is that nothing will be decided over Ukraine’s head, as US Vice President Harris and many others have stressed.
“In the end, it will be up to Ukraine to decide on what terms it will accept a lasting and just peace,” said EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen at the final press conference. In diplomatic jargon, “just” means a solution based on the UN Charter.
“Respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty can and will serve as a basis for ensuring a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in Ukraine,” says the summit’s final declaration, which was signed by 80 states and four international institutions. Not all summit participants agreed.
However, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy stressed at the end of the conference that all participants supported Ukraine’s territorial integrity and invited other countries to support the final declaration in the coming weeks.
In addition to the principles of a future peace solution, the conference addressed three important issues in the context of the Ukraine war, some of which are of immediate global importance: nuclear security, food security and pressing humanitarian issues.
The final communiqué demanded that any use of nuclear energy and nuclear facilities must be safe, secure, monitored and environmentally friendly. Ukrainian nuclear power plants and facilities such as the Zaporizhia nuclear reactor must be operated safely and securely under the full control of Ukraine and in accordance with the principles of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and under its supervision. Any threat or use of nuclear weapons in the context of the war against Ukraine is inadmissible, it continued.
In addition, the 80 states are committed to unhindered exports from Ukraine, which are of great importance for poor countries in Africa, for example, and to the safety of civilian shipping in the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov. The summit declaration also advocates the exchange of prisoners of war and the return of children and other civilians abducted to Russia. Russia must end its imperial aggression and bring the Ukrainian children home, demanded von der Leyen.
The issue of food security was important in order to get developing countries on board, the so-called Global South. Chilean President Gabriel Boric and Ghanaian President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo therefore also spoke at the final conference. Boric stressed that the Ukraine conflict was not about NATO or North versus South. “This is about global principles,” said Boric.
His Ghanaian colleague pointed out that the failure of Ukrainian grain deliveries would have devastating consequences for his country’s economy and food supply. And he linked Ukraine’s defensive struggle against Russia to the African liberation struggles against the former colonial rulers. “We don’t like major powers that bully smaller countries,” said Akufo-Addo.
Ultimately, the conference was a diplomatic success for Ukraine because it showed once again how isolated Russia is – and that a solution to the conflict based on international law continues to enjoy broad international support. However, no one can say whether it makes peace more likely in the future.
