The war in Ukraine started two years ago and rages on today.
Seeking a way out of the current war, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's chief aim was to rally as many nations as possible to attend the peace conference in Switzerland. Set to be convened at the Burgenstock resort this weekend, the Summit will be the fifth international attempt to ensure "a comprehensive, just and lasting peace for Ukraine" based on the 10-point peace framework proposed by Kyiv in 2022, as stated by writer Cherry Hitkari in her story "Can Zelensky's Swiss Summit bring peace for Ukraine?"
The scheduled summit at the Burgenstock resort will be the fifth international attempt to ensure a comprehensive, just and lasting peace for Ukraine based on the 10-point peace framework proposed by Kyiv in 2022. Zelensky recently flew off the handle on what he alleged to be China's defense and support of Moscow, its repeated refusal to meet Ukrainian leadership, and attempts to "disrupt the peace summit" on Russia's behalf. China's Defense Minister Dong Jun denied all allegations. Beijing, which maintains a "no limits" comprehensive strategic partnership with Russia, stood by neutrality and reaffirmed respect for Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Although it emphasizes its "close communication" with Switzerland, China will not attend the Summit. It cites the absence of the three foundational criteria for a successful peace process. The most critical factor is the organizers' refusal to invite Russia, which Beijing believes prevents a fair discussion given the absence of all concerned stakeholders. Beijing, however, has offered to convene a separate meeting with both parties, which Zelensky rejected.
Russian President Vladimir Putin said the Summit was a way for Ukraine and its Western allies to "pressurize" Moscow, claiming Russia was never invited. Several peace plans have been put forth since the war started in February 2022. Zelensky's 10-point peace plan, which focuses on issues such as nuclear safety and food security, does not only demand the restoration of Ukrainian territory captured by Russia but also Moscow's trial as an aggressor of war. While Russia described the peace plan as "not feasible and unrealistic," many, including NATO, the US, and France, supported it. Russia instead supported the failed Istanbul Communique', which emphasized Ukraine's neutrality and demanded Kyiv limit its military size and China's peace proposals as the basis of negotiations.
Beijing, so far, has proposed two frameworks: One on its own and the other in collaboration with Brazil. Apart from similarly arguing for nuclear safety and food security, China's 12-point proposal, "China's Position on the Political Settlement of the Ukraine Crisis," called for the "abandonment of Cold War mentality," opposing "bloc confrontation," indirectly criticizing NATO's expansion in Eastern Europe which Beijing believes has flared the conflict. The adoption of the recent 6-point proposal framed with Brazil stands in line with the previous proposal in addition to supporting a peace process recognized by both parties to the conflict, acceptable to both Russia and Ukraine, as well as opposing the practice of "dividing the world into isolated political or economic groups," continuing the criticism of NATO and Western attempts to sanction Russia.
At last year's Shangri-La Dialogue, Indonesia proposed its version of the peace plan. It called for withdrawing Russian troops, establishing a demilitarized zone, and a UN referendum on the "disputed territory." While almost all the peace plans converge on calls for nuclear safety and food security, Russia's participation as a party to the conflict and NATO's and Western military support for Ukraine remain significant points of contention. Such limitations have so far rendered all peace talks inconclusive. In other words, little can be done in Russia's absence. Its absence has caused China, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, and Pakistan to drop out. Only four Southeast Asian nations are likely to attend. India, which has maintained neutrality in the conflict, might attend but not be represented at the highest level.
Hitkari pointed out how shocking it was that President Joe Biden dropped out. Biden said peace means Russia "never, never, never, never occupies Ukraine." The struggle for peace in Ukraine means a will to create peace, as Hitkari said: "Those flying to Switzerland too are highly unlikely to radically change their respective positions on the War at this point in time; casting doubts whether the Summit is even slightly worth the candle in resolving the crisis. A lasting peace would require active and positive participation from both parties, genuine efforts, and firm political will on the part of all stakeholders to end the conflict. Without that, summits and peace processes, no matter how sincerely conceptualized, would be an endless spiral of inconclusive discussions and a hollow contest of talking points."
Peace is a complex process that requires the will for peace. When do the main power centers in our world develop that will? I feel the extension of NATO into Eastern Europe in the 1990s was a mistake, as it gave Putin-style politics a chance to say the West was interested in surrounding Russia. If peace is ever found in Ukraine, will the world's power centers (US, EU, China, and Russia) be able to develop a rules-based international order to build a true and lasting peace worldwide? Let's hope we can find a path for the sake of our domestic economy and the future of our world.
Jason Sibert is the Lead Writer of the Peace Economy Project
