It is difficult to underestimate the importance of a step on the part of Ukraine towards the establishment of peace. In contrast to the two-year Russian manipulation around the end of the war with Ukraine, instead of a thousand words, Kyiv is taking concrete steps. The conclusion of a preliminary series of agreements on mutual security should be the quintessence of the Global Peace Summit. Isn’t this a direct demonstration of who really wants peace and who wants to continue the war?
However, is everything so clear? How realistically will the Global Summit bring us closer to sustainable peace in Europe?
Since the announcement of preparations and Kyiv’s refusal of Moscow’s participation at this stage, the war has been transferred from the battlefield to diplomatic circles. Putin and his clique have done everything to disrupt Ukraine’s peace initiatives in the Global South. This has already forced us to compromise on the draft of the final communiqué, reducing President Zelenskyy’s Peace Formula to three points. What will happen next, during the summit itself and on the sidelines? A battle for Ukraine. Diplomatic, but no less important.
As a result, the summit can end in two main scenarios.
The first scenario: conditionally negative for Ukraine
If the agreements and final documents remain with only three points, including food and environmental safety, it will become a problem for Ukraine. This not only distances us from a just peace but also gives Russia and its allies the upper hand to shift the vector of negotiations from war as such to a three-point war. In this case, there will be neither the territorial integrity of Ukraine nor compensation for the damage caused nor real guarantees that this is the last war in this century.
The second scenario: conditionally positive
Suppose the summit ends either with the correction of previous conclusions or their postponement with persistent statements of support for Ukraine’s sovereignty. In that case, this will allow us to diplomatically regroup and deprive Russia of the initiative in the near future.
What happens if the negative scenario comes true?
Our partners need to understand this is not a step towards peace in Ukraine. This is a direct and unconditional leap towards further total war. It is difficult to think of a better signal for any aggressor. This will ensure the impunity of the aggressor if he or she is the stronger one. This equates the attacker and the victim levelling the global security apparatus. This tells Russia that it is possible to continue aggression against the Baltic states and Poland, say, through a proxy – Belarus. This opens the way for China to attack Taiwan with impunity. Iran, Turkey and Azerbaijan may very well go to the final military dominance in the East. And all this because someone trusted Russia or decided to protect their narrow national interests against global security.
Therefore, we will observe with a frozen heart the results of this, informally, one of the most important summits of the 21st century. We hope that the global security system will not collapse.
By Petro Andryushchenko
*These opinions are solely those of the author. The Ukrainian Review takes no position and is not responsible for the author’s words.
Petro Andryushchenko was an adviser to the mayor of Mariupol. After the Russian Federation started war in Ukraine in February 2022, he became the de facto “voice” of Mariupol.
On his Telegram channel, “Andryushchenko Time“, he tells the truth about the horrors of the occupation, the deportation of people by the Russian occupants and the “filtration” camps in Donbas.
Stanislav Kinka adapted this text for The Ukrainian Review.
