From Izvestia, June 18, 2024, p. 3. Complete text:
The high-level conference held in Switzerland showed a rejection of Zelensky’s “peace formula” by the countries of the collective West and Ukraine, and a transition to tactical discussions on problems related to the special military operation [in Ukraine], which, however, were certainly not aimed at a comprehensive resolution of the conflict.
The final communiqué of the event contained only three clauses devoted to nuclear and food security, as well as the return of detainees. The clauses that were implausible from the beginning were not discussed at all, [including those] regarding the reintegration of regions that were part of Ukraine in 1991, the withdrawal of units of the Russian Armed Forces from the territories of the Crimea, the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics, and Zaporozhye and Kherson Provinces, and assigning all responsibility for the conflict to Russia. This situation was the logical next step of discussions about resolving the conflict in Ukraine without the participation of Moscow.
At the same time, it should be noted that the conference in Switzerland took place in the context of the parameters specified by Russian President Vladimir Putin for ending the crisis in Ukraine. The main positions are as follows: a) the repeal of the Ukrainian law banning negotiations with Russia; b) the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from all territories of the DPR, LPR, Zaporozhye and Kherson Provinces; c) the removal of the clause on the country’s integration into NATO from the Ukrainian Constitution; d) the determination of Ukraine’s nonnuclear status; e) the demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine in accordance with the clauses of the Treaty on Permanent Neutrality and Security Guarantees for Ukraine, initialed by Moscow and Kiev in 2022; f) the assurance of the rights, freedoms and interests of Russian-speaking citizens of Ukraine; g) the abolition of all Western sanctions against Russia.
After a comprehensive settlement of the conflict in Ukraine, the Russian president proposes focusing efforts on creating an indivisible system of Eurasian security. It is important to say that the notion that it is impossible to bring an end to hostilities without Russia’s full participation is a running thread in the Russian leader’s speech.
predictably, the Ukrainian side, as well as representatives of the collective West, categorically rejected the Russian president’s proposals.
Based on these circumstances, it is becoming increasingly clear that at this stage of the conflict in Ukraine, there are no comprehensive proposals to resolve it, which, in turn, creates opportunities for new initiatives. At the same time, it would be useful to recall the main proposals that have already been made by international mediators.
Until now, China’s peace plan, consisting of 12 points and covering all the main parameters of the conflict, remains the most comprehensive and deferent to each side. In particular, it contains positions regarding the primacy of international law without double standards; respect for the security interests of individual countries; rejection of expanding military blocs; a ceasefire; reduction of strategic risks; rejection of unilateral sanctions; the beginning of peace negotiations, etc. A later version of the plan included a general memorandum on “General agreements between China and Brazil on the political settlement of the Ukraine crisis.” This document proposes an international peace conference recognized by Russia and Ukraine, at which all peace proposals will be discussed fairly (a reference to the conference in Switzerland and previous events dedicated to the Ukrainian “peace formula,” which blocked discussions of any other initiatives).
It is also worth recalling Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva’s proposal to create an analogue of the Group of 20 to promote conflict resolution and discuss the parameters of global security. Another important initiative was the [South African President Cyril] Ramaphosa Plan – a proposal by a number of African countries aimed at a comprehensive resolution of the conflict.
In conclusion, it is important to note that the final communiqué of the conference in Switzerland states that various approaches and peace initiatives were discussed at the event. But here we can state that once again the collective West is outright lying. If, in addition to the Ukrainian “peace formula,” the Chinese, Brazilian and African initiatives were discussed on equal terms at the conference, then the final document would have turned out differently, and the Chinese delegation would have attended this event, while representatives of Brazil and South Africa would have signed the document. But the main takeaway is that if the organizers had really set themselves the task of achieving a settlement for the conflict in Ukraine, then nobody would have questioned Russia’s presence and participation.
You can be sure that several more systemic proposals to resolve the crisis will appear in the shortest possible time, and if there is political will on the part of all parties involved, a new opportunity will open up to end the clearly protracted conflict.