Everyone has their own world. Results of the summit in Switzerland

The Peace Summit in Bürgenstock, Switzerland, brought together representatives from over 90 countries, including 56 heads of state and government.

The peace summit, held at the initiative of Ukraine on June 15-16 in Switzerland, brought together representatives of more than 90 countries. The final communiqué calling for nuclear, food security and the return of all prisoners of war and abducted children was signed by 78 states. About half of the participants in the summit represent the Western world, which has stood in solidarity with Ukraine since the beginning of the Russian invasion. The rest is the so-called global South.

who came

Many representatives of Africa did not come to Switzerland – a territory where Russia has great influence, which was not invited to the summit, and China, which therefore decided not to come here.

Also, representatives of Azerbaijan and all the former Central Asian republics of the Soviet Union did not come to the summit – apparently for the same reason.

But one way or another, three members of the BRICS bloc were represented in Bürgenstock. Before the summit, Vladimir Zelensky, on the sidelines of the G7 meeting, spoke with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and he ordered former Ambassador to Russia Pawan Kapoor to represent India at the summit.

Brazil and South Africa participated in the summit as observers, with South Africa represented by Presidential National Security Adviser Sidney Mufamadi, who the South African press called the bearer of all South African state secrets in recent decades.

The presence of Saudi Arabia on the list also drew attention. This major geopolitical player in its region has good relations with both Russia and China. When information appeared a few days before the summit that the Saudis would ignore it, Vladimir Zelensky quickly visited this country and, apparently, his personal negotiations with the leadership gave the result that Ukraine needed.

Everyone has their own point of view

The BBC wrote that when representatives from all continents gathered around the table in the conference room, the differences in the perception of the war in Ukraine in different parts of the world became clear. The speeches of dozens of participants are not like a meeting of like-minded people. At the last press conference, the head of the Swiss Foreign Ministry, Ignazio Cassis, said which particular issue of the summit caused the most controversy during the closed sessions. He recalled that at a panel on food security, representatives of African countries complained loudly that the war in Ukraine had disrupted food supply chains in their continent and significantly worsened the situation in this not the richest region of the world. Therefore, they said, we went to Switzerland to restore peace in Ukraine as soon as possible.

But what kind of world does Africa stand for? – asked them. And here is the play of words that were formed by accident. “Fair world” in English – just peace. And “just peace” is just peace. According to Cassis, it was found that for many representatives of the global South, it is not so important how exactly in a distant European country they stop shooting and completely unblock the Black Sea – the main thing is grains are floating from Ukraine to Africa. .

On the one hand, the emotional words of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau that because of the Russian invasion, thousands of children on the day of the summit will not be able to celebrate Father’s Day with their fathers.

On the other hand, even the very down-to-earth President of Argentina, Javier Miley, who clearly supported Ukraine and its peace formula, but clearly indicated that Kyiv must, no matter what, develop of pragmatic relations with Russia. He quoted the American economist Milton Friedman: “I may be angry with my neighbor, but if he does not buy my product, I will go bankrupt.”

On the one hand, there is the President of Poland, Andrzej Duda, who recalled that Russia often deserved to be called a prison of nations, and called it “the largest colonial empire in the world, which has never been able to face the demon of its past .”

On the other hand, the Turkish Foreign Minister, Hakan Fidan, criticized the organizers, saying that the summit could be “more focused on the result” if the other party to the conflict, Russia, was present in the hall.

Ghost of Russia

Politico wrote that after Vladimir Putin’s ultimatum demanded a day before the event, “the specter of Russia hangs over the top.” Although Ukraine and other states quickly rejected these ultimatums, it “reinforced the fact that the Kremlin must finally be confronted,” the newspaper said. In addition, although approximately 80 of the 101 delegations supported the final communiqué with a position supporting the territorial integrity of Ukraine, this result was “spoilt by the main countries committed to Russia,” including Saudi Arabia, India and South Africa – they didn’t. support the final declaration of the summit. And China completely neglected the event.

The publication added that the atmosphere of the summit “is similar to another UN General Assembly, where different countries discuss the UN Charter and respect for international law.” But Politico also points to an important consensus: that the war in Ukraine must end with a “just and lasting peace,” not peace at any cost. Therefore, for Kyiv, the summit is “a step towards creating a coalition of mediators to help build a platform for confronting Moscow from a position of strength,” the publication summarizes.

Details about the timing and plans for subsequent similar meetings after the first peace summit “remain vague,” the article said. At the same time, it is important that a significant part of the countries of the global South, Latin America and Africa supported the final communication and agreed to help Ukraine in a series of meetings at the bilateral level planned on the eve of the next summit. , the date of which has yet to be determined.

Financial Times reporters came to similar conclusions: “Although the summit attendees seemed admirable for Ukraine, the decision of several key states not to support the communiqué—Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates along with these—reflect the continued international influence on the Russian economy.”

Commenting on the summit’s outcome document’s focus on three issues (nuclear and food security, the return of kidnapped children and prisoners), the FT said: “It remains unclear how Ukraine plans to secure support for on the remaining seven points of its peace plan. , covering issues such as the withdrawal of Russian troops, reparations and accountability for war criminals.” The publication also interprets Vladimir Zelensky’s statement about the next peace summit, the preparation of which should take “months, not years,” as Ukraine hopes that this summit will be “final ” and it was at this summit that the final peace plan may have been given to the representative of Russia.