The draft included limits on the size of the Ukrainian armed forces and the number of tanks, artillery batteries, warships and combat aircraft the country could have in its arsenal. The Ukrainians were prepared to accept such caps, but sought much higher limits.
A former senior U.S. official who was briefed on the negotiations, noting how Russian forces were being repelled across northern Ukraine, said Mr. Putin seemed to be “salivating” at the deal.
American officials were alarmed at the terms. In meetings with their Ukrainian counterparts, the senior official recalled, “We quietly said, ‘You understand this is unilateral disarmament, right?’”
Leaders in Poland — early and strong supporters of Ukraine — feared that Germany or France might try to persuade the Ukrainians to accept Russia’s terms, according to a European diplomat, and wanted to prevent that from happening.
To that end, when Poland’s president, Andrzej Duda, met with NATO leaders in Brussels on March 24, he held up the March 17 text, said the diplomat, who was present.
“Which of you would sign it?” Mr. Duda asked his counterparts, the diplomat said.
None of the NATO leaders spoke up.
A Breakthrough in Istanbul?
A few days later, on March 29, Russia and Ukraine’s representatives met at an Istanbul palace on the Bosporus. To some, the talks felt like a breakthrough driven by Russia’s battlefield struggles.
After each military setback, a member of Ukraine’s negotiating team said, Mr. Putin “reduced his demands.”
In Istanbul, the Russians seemed to endorse Ukraine’s model of neutrality and security guarantees and put less emphasis on their territorial demands. Afterward, Mr. Medinsky, Russia’s lead negotiator, said Ukraine’s offer of neutrality meant it was “ready to fulfill those principal demands that Russia insisted on for all the past years.”
Ukraine summarized the proposed deal in a two-page document it called the Istanbul Communiqué, which it never published. The status of Crimea was to be decided over a 10- or 15-year period, with Ukraine promising not to try to retake the peninsula by force; Mr. Zelensky and Mr. Putin would meet in person to finalize a peace treaty and strike a deal on how much Ukrainian territory Russia would continue to occupy.
The communiqué, provided to The Times by a Ukrainian negotiator, described a mechanism in which other countries would intervene militarily if Ukraine were attacked again — a concept that the Ukrainians pointedly designated as Article 5, a reference to the mutual defense agreement in Article 5 of the NATO treaty.
In early April, after Russia withdrew from the outskirts of Kyiv, images of massacred civilians in the suburb of Bucha, some with their hands tied with white cloth, shocked the world. For Ukrainians, the idea that their country could strike a compromise with Russia seemed more remote than ever.
But Mr. Zelensky, visiting Bucha on April 4, said the talks would go on, even as Russia dismissed the Bucha atrocities as a staged “provocation.”
“Colleagues, I spoke to RA,” Ukraine’s lead negotiator, Davyd Arakhamia, wrote on April 10 in a WhatsApp message to the Ukrainian team. “He spoke yesterday for an hour and a half with his boss.”
“RA” was Roman Abramovich, the Russian billionaire who played a behind-the-scenes role in the talks. His “boss,” Mr. Putin, was urging the negotiators to concentrate on the key issues and work through them quickly, Mr. Arakhamia wrote. (A member of the WhatsApp group showed that message and others to reporters for The Times.)
BUTTHENOHNO!
Mr. Putin’s involvement and intentions during the 2022 talks were subjects of debate in Kyiv and Washington, Ukrainian and American officials said. Was he truly interested in a deal? Or was he merely trying to bog Ukraine down while his troops regrouped?
“We didn’t know if Putin was serious,” said the former senior U.S. official. “We couldn’t tell, on either side of the fence, whether these people who were talking were empowered.”
One Ukrainian negotiator said he believed the negotiations were a bluff on Mr. Putin’s part, but two others described them as serious.
Much of the treaty would “not apply” to Crimea and another to-be-determined swath of Ukraine — meaning that Kyiv would accept Russian occupation of part of its territory without recognizing Russian sovereignty over it.
But crucial sticking points remained. Russia wanted the firing range of Ukraine’s missiles to be limited to 25 miles, while Ukraine wanted 174 miles — enough to hit targets across Crimea. Russia still wanted Ukraine to repeal laws related to language and national identity, and to pull back Ukrainian troops as part of a cease-fire.
The biggest problem, however, came in Article 5. It stated that, in the event of another armed attack on Ukraine, the “guarantor states” that would sign the treaty — Great Britain, China, Russia, the United States and France — would come to Ukraine’s defense.
To the Ukrainians’ dismay, there was a crucial departure from what Ukrainian negotiators said was discussed in Istanbul. Russia inserted a clause saying that all guarantor states, including Russia, had to approve the response if Ukraine were attacked. In effect, Moscow could invade Ukraine again and then veto any military intervention on Ukraine’s behalf — a seemingly absurd condition that Kyiv quickly identified as a dealbreaker.
Russia tried to secure a veto on Ukraine’s security guarantees by inserting a clause requiring unanimous consent.
With that change, a member of the Ukrainian negotiating team said, “we had no interest in continuing the talks.”
- Russia was going into Ukraine to conquer it entirely and then more
Additional information: 190.000 to 220.000 troops arent enough to conquer OR hold any major city in the Ukraine - much less the entirety of Ukraine. See Mearsheimer/Kathie Halper video below. In which the first references the following paragraph from a Wall Street Journal article, published on the 2nd of June 2024:
“Of course, Putin still wants Kharkiv,” Oleh Synehubov, the head of the military administration for the region—which is also called Kharkiv—said of Russian President Vladimir Putin. Synehubov noted that Russia has deployed only a fraction of the troops needed to storm the city, which he estimated could require up to half a million soldiers.
(Kharkiv, back before the russian invasion had about half the population of Kiev.)
So then the argument extends:
- This isnt about “territory” (“conquering all of it and more”) this is about keeping Ukraine a sovereign state - see Paula Dobriansky, Former Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs; Senior Fellow at Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs; Vice Chair, Atlantic Council Scowcroft Center for Strategy & Security -- in the following Open to Debate (former Intelligence Squared) debate:
starting at 30:28 in
- The in depth argument here goes as follows. When Putin invaded Ukraine - we saw leaflets being dropped in regions east of Kiev that were telling Ukrainian troops to stand down, because the government in Kiew (military) would not exist anymore - so any resistance to the invasion “would be entirely futile, because it already “was over””, furthermore, the intent of the russian “attack on Kiev” would have been the same as with the takeover of Crimea 2014, namely to disrupt public life, make the standing ukrainian government flee, or be killed (allegedly the US did take out several russian assassination units in Kiev within the first three days) - and then let the government be taken over, or revolted against by essentially Ukrainian Kremlin puppets.
Which leads to
- Russia wasnt about to “conquer Ukraine” it was about to attempt a military coup and takeover - using a shock and awe strategy, much like the one they used in Crimea before. That either would have cemented a russia friendly leadership in Kiev, or wider advances in the east amongst the resulting chaos. (220.000 troops (and only half of those in the Kiev area) still being not nearly enough to occupy a Kiev (population of 3 million) that was resisting its occupiers.)
Which then conflicts with “thats imperial russia wanting to conquer several countries, so Putin gets his russian empire back -- because there positively was no conquering attempt (in the classical sense) going on -- because russia had far to few troops for that in its army at the time, and in the field -- see:
- The “additional countries russia wanted to take over” were Georgia and Moldowa (land bridge to transnistria). Poland, Estonia, and Lithuania, were loosing their sh*t because of Kaliningrad, but they all were Nato countries you wouldnt invade with an army of 190.000 people, which had about half of its troops busy in the east of Ukraine at that point.
That then let to the “things werent going remotely to plan” scenario --
where two tracks of peace conferences were put into place - where russia could be “pressed back down” to the following demands:
- Neutral Ukraine
- Crimea thats not talked about for many years
- security guaranties by the west/troop size limits that would allow Ukraine to defend itself in the future
Where the point of contention where all of that broke were the security guaranties. Or as western Propaganda likes to put it “Putin demanded such a low troop count on the ukrainian military, that on a subsequent attack he would have been able to conquer it anyhow” - so “because of that Ukraine had to ghost russia, and then drop the negotiations”. In actuallity by then Ukraine was in the middle of their own offensive so.…..
Those two points he brought up in the interview with the ukrainian broadcaster were never refuted by Davyd Arakhamiia. He only tried to put “Let’s fight” - so his recalling of a Boris Johnson statement into a slightly different context afterwards (Johnson would have said this to him in a meeting about “how to best get the russians out of Ukraine”).
So, so far - we have two quintesential lies on part of western propaganda --
1. That Putin was out there to conquer back his very own great russia. (Which is a lie, because the attack was designed as a Shock and awe quick toppling of the Ukrainian government - so was the takeover in Georgia (influence operation) leaving only Moldova for a military takeover - IF Putin dindt want to challenge Nato with an army of 190.000 people which then also would have had to hold Ukraine against its will - a job that would require roughly 400.000+ men, if you were an occupying force.
2. The Ukraine needs its “national sovereignty” to survive. So this is the Ukraine cant become a neutral country argument - because the Ukraine has to be able to decide the strength of its military on its own - to be able to survive a second russian attack in the Future. That is a lie, because this could also be solved with security guaranties -- which the Ukraine has very bad experiences with. (The Ukraine essentially gave up its nuclear weapons, as a prerequisite for becoming an independent state, and got “security guaranties” by the US, the UK and a few other countries, in return - that were designed not be worth all that much, because of how they were phrased.) A neutral Ukraine would be possible - if we solved the security guaranties issue.
With the second remaining issue in that case being russian political influence that in a neutral Ukraine would still remain active.
Around those two lies, all of the western framing is build around. The “ukraine has to decide on its own” framing, the “nato has an open door policy, and every country must be able to decide on its own, if it wants to enter nato” framing, the Putin wants to get back a greater russia framing, because he thinks like a tsar (thats also framing), the Putin is crazy framing (the Ukrainians are Nazis Narrative was active in Crimea, shortly before the takeover, because it shocked populations into complacency - that was the main aim of the russia Propaganda push through its media outlets in Crimea -- so as it was active back in 2014 - of course that narrative was used for the fullscale attack on Ukraine as well -- again, as about half of russias initial forces were active in the east. (So populations would have asked why - and the “Nazis” narrative was already in place since 2014 (and proved very useful back then).))
While internally in the deciding bodies the argument is actually as follows:
At 35min in:
Alina Polyakova (President and CEO of the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA): I think that signals to me that there is growing agreement that the only way that we can manage Russia is by going back to the Cold War era strategy of containment, that begins first, defeating Russia in Ukraine and second, reestablishing deterance by denial in Europe that means hardening the Eastern flank first and foremost. Third hardening the soft targets of Russian influence across the globe - uh influence operations in the information space, cyber operations that the Russians have become very sophisticated at, pushing back against Russia’s use of PMC’s [private military contractors] to prop up authoritarian governments across the globe and undermine democratic leadership - and fourth, undermining Russian dominance in its former empire, because as long as we have so-called grey zone States a horrible term but, non-allied states that are not part of NATO that are not part of the EU in the European continentthis is what provides fodder for Russian aggression so Moldova is very much under threat as we speak, certainly Bellarus has already become a vassel state of Russia and then we have of course Georgia and the other countries of the Caucasus as well.
[…]
And Russia will come back for NATO.
Hanno Pevkur, Minister of Defence of the Republic of Estonia (30.05.2023):
“What Russia wants to achieve, the political goals, let’s be honest - and they, these political goals of Russia have never changed, they want to have a grey-zone between Russia and NATO, they want to have a control over this grey-zone and this is what they want to achieve. And they want to have some “security guarantees” for themselves, sorry this is not the Free World and this is what Ukraine is fighting for at the moment, that they are fighting for - the Free World and rule-based world and this is why we support Ukraine so this is obvious and then this is why we can never accept this approach of Russia, looking at international law.”
src:
(at 43:50 in)
or:
Paula Dobriansky, Former Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs; Senior Fellow at Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs; Vice Chair, Atlantic Council Scowcroft Center for Strategy & Security
But by the way that’s not - forgive me - that’s not the point. The point here is also not about seizing of territory too, I’d like to say that here it’s about a sovereign country’s political future, its own right to make its choices. Putin has outright said that Ukraine doesn’t exist as a country - he has said that over and over and over so it’s not just about territory, it is also about sovereign country political choices and an invasion that actually started back in 2014 and right up to the present.
So that Ukraine has to remain a sovereign country (to decide on its own military strenght, to never be politically influenced by russia ever again (only by creditors.. 😉 ) then also extents to whats happening right now -
here are the changes from the draft of the Bürgenstock conference that Switzerland provided to all invited states on the 28th of May compared to the final draft --
Here is what Sitzerland had put in there initially and what the Ukraine has lobbied to replace it with:
2. Territorial Integrity and the UN Charter
– Old wording: the previous summit decision version created a legal window to include Ukraine abandoning part of its territory in the conditions of “sustainable peace with Russia”, if necessary.
– New wording: the new draft decision clearly states that the basis for sustainable peace will be only “a solution based on the principle of respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of all states”.
– Old wording: the previous draft blurred the meaning of the Peace Formula and opened up space for international discussion of all alternative visions of peace, such as the Chinese-Brazilian one, which envisages a halt to the strengthening of Ukraine’s Armed Forces and a cessation of hostilities.
– New wording: the new wording states that only peace proposals that comply with international law (i.e. an unconditional return of the 1991 borders, unless revised by Ukraine itself) and the UN Charter (in particular, Ukraine’s unconditional right to continue repelling Russian aggression and liberating the occupied territories) will be taken into account.
Those are now points that are active in the final communique that 78 countries signed at Bürgenstock - and according to Sergiy Sydorenko (Ukrainian Journalist, sponsored by USAID), same source article, also the main reason, that 15 countries refused to sign, and more than two dozen of countries downgraded their participation from Presidential/Ministerial level to ministers or even their deputies.
With he final gag being the following:
Viktoria Kirner vor 14 Stunden
Ukraine: Ein Land des globalen Südens könnte zweiten Friedensgipfel ausrichten
Die Ukraine ist der Ansicht, dass ein zweites Gipfeltreffen, bei dem Kiews Vorschläge für einen Frieden mit Russland erörtert werden sollen, von einem Land des globalen Südens ausgerichtet werden könnte, wie ein hochrangiger Beamter der Nachrichtenagentur Interfax-Ukraine am Freitag sagte. Das berichtet die Nachrichtenagentur Reuters.
Mehr als 90 Länder nahmen letzte Woche am ersten Gipfel in der Schweiz teil, da die Ukraine eine breite Unterstützung für ihren Plan zur Beendigung des Krieges sucht.
Moskau, das nicht eingeladen war, bezeichnete das Ergebnis des Gipfels - ein Kommuniqué, das von den meisten Teilnehmern unterzeichnet, aber insbesondere von Indien, Brasilien und Saudi-Arabien abgelehnt wurde - als “nahezu null”.
“Wir haben mehrere Länder [die sich als Gastgeber anbieten], und ich kann mit hoher Wahrscheinlichkeit sagen, dass ein solcher Gipfel in einem der Länder des globalen Südens stattfinden könnte”, wurde der Präsidentenberater Ihor Zhovkva von Interfax-Ukraine zitiert.
Die Ukraine wolle, dass der nächste Gipfel vor Ende des Jahres einberufen werde, sagte er und fügte hinzu, dass Russland eingeladen werden könne, wenn es bereit sei, den von der Ukraine vorgelegten Fahrplan zu berücksichtigen und keine Ultimaten zu stellen.
There are now ongoing “Peace conferences” - twice a year - with changing host states. Where the Ukraine will always invite their “guardian states”, based on the Bürgenstock Communiquee (and Selenskyjs 10 point peace formula), where the Ukraine - currently states, at this very minute, it will only ever invite Russia, if russia agrees to the “Peace formula framework” established at Bürgenstock -- which in itself already includes that it has to be based on “the principle of respect for the territorial integrity” and “sovereignty of all states”.
With the first one being the stand in for “the Ukraine needs Crimea and the Donbas back, before we can invite Russia to our peace formula conference”, and the second part “sovereignty of all states” being the stand in for:
3. Alternative Peace Formulas
– Old wording: the previous draft blurred the meaning of the Peace Formula and opened up space for international discussion of all alternative visions of peace, such as the Chinese-Brazilian one, which envisages a halt to the strengthening of Ukraine’s Armed Forces and a cessation of hostilities.
– New wording: the new wording states that only peace proposals that comply with international law (i.e. an unconditional return of the 1991 borders, unless revised by Ukraine itself) and the UN Charter (in particular, Ukraine’s unconditional right to continue repelling Russian aggression and liberating the occupied territories) will be taken into account.
“We need to be allowed to decide how large our army is, and what its aim/goal is in the future.”
And only if russia agrees to that framework, it can be invited to the next “peace conference”.
Die Ukraine wolle, dass der nächste Gipfel vor Ende des Jahres einberufen werde, sagte er und fügte hinzu, dass Russland eingeladen werden könne, wenn es bereit sei, den von der Ukraine vorgelegten Fahrplan zu berücksichtigen und keine Ultimaten zu stellen.
To ensure this, the Ukraine insisted on removing the following passage from the original draft of the final communiquee Switzerland sent out to all attending states on the 28th of May - entirely:
4. Involvement of Russia
– Old wording: the earlier version turned Russia from an aggressor into a participant in peace talks, requiring only vague “confidence-building measures” on nuclear and food security.
– New wording: this section has been rewritten from scratch. The Swiss agreed not to mention Russia at all in the provision on peace talks, instead referring to “all parties”. There is no longer a weakened requirement for “confidence-building measures”, but instead “specific actions” are required. And most importantly, the references to a “second peace summit” that hinted at a commitment to invite Russia to participate have been removed.
(If only 78 countries out of 193 UN countries signed and the talked about points at those conferences still remain points from Selenskyjs 10 Point peace formula, which now only become more controversial (internatinal tribunals requested, reperation payments requested, crimea and donbas back already part of the “global peace summit framework” (territorial integrity), we decide how big our military is already part of the “global peace summit” framework, the last russian soldier has to leave Ukraine -- all having to be agreed on by Russia -- BEFORE Russia can be invited.…)
see also:
Ukrainian ambassador to estonia in the following Podcast on the 12th of June, nine hours after Andrij Jermak stated “we want to invite russia to the second peace formula conference” for the first time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_782Vs76ask at 16:20 min. in -
„So Russia may be invited for the next - for the second peace summit, but — before we should agree on the framework of this negotiation process and on joint international plan for peace in Ukraine. ONLY at this stage, russia can be invited, and can be part of this process.“
-- if you need a second source…
Well thats easy…
As the western two quintessential propaganda lies
2. Ukraine NEEDS to stay politically sovereign - which in the final Bürgenstock communiquee - as a phrase - was a stand in for “Ukraine needs to be able to decide what size of military it has, and for what purpose”
Become more and more obvious over time (because Russia will not able to conquer other european states anymore) ---
more and more of the public will demand peace talks.
And for that we already have the “global peace formula framework” in which russia has to agree to “territorial integrity and Ukraine’s unconditional right to continue repelling Russian aggression and liberating the occupied territories (sovereignty) has been written in, which russia HASTOAGREETO, to even be invited.
And so the two quintessential western propaganda lies can continue for another two years.
“Peace conferences” being held with changed out host countries, twice a year. Until russia succumbs to the western - sorry “Global Peace Formula Framework” demands.
Wertegesellschaft. Kennen sie sich aus.
But the public will be strung along by the single out thats left - and that is, that if you dont do it exactly that way --
RUSSIAWILLCOMEFORNATOCOUNTRIES.
Which is and always was threat inflation, and therefore western propaganda. Why is it less likely that “russia will do it again” - well, this is a war of attrition which loses russia people at the rate of 800 per day on a good day (thats over the entire border). And second -- have you checked the demographic charts for russia recently? In five years time only 8% of their male population is capable of being drafted anymore.
8% only counting males is 11 million people, 2/3 (thats the germany in WW2 rate, which had 13 million soldiers with a standing population of 40 million males) of which you need to keep the economy going - that leaves you with 3.7 million potential soldiers.
Against Poland with a population of 37 million (2.4 mio males in the same drafting bracket) with Nato allies? Straight into WW3?
Oh yeah - I forgot - this is because of the western rule of law that has to be uphold, for about 3-4 more years, then the current rate of attrition will make sure russia will be unable to mount an additional attack over the next 10 years… (Not because of people, but because of the current attrition rate on military equipment (current production rates already accounted for).)
And on top of this - China looks at all this and then tells russia, yes - sure, go ahead and attack our second largest export market, so our first largest export market gets drawn into a war as well.
“This is not about geography. It’s about common sense,” said spokesman Army Maj. Charlie Dietz. “If Russia is attacking or about to attack from its territory into Ukraine, it only makes sense to allow Ukraine to hit back [on the attacking party that was only “about to attack them” so - I think we call that first strikeable, right?] against the forces that are hitting it from across the border.”
“Additionally, they can use air defense systems supplied by the United States to take Russian planes out of the sky, even if those Russian planes are in Russian airspace, if they’re about to fire into Ukrainian airspace,” Dietz said in a statement.
I’m telling you, that russian was about to fire! Good thing I saw him, before he did!
So - ukrainian attacks on russia are now limited by “wait a minute, do you think we might need those rockets to attack supply routes in Crimea”?
edit: Wait -- lets not forget the “This is not about geography. It’s about common sense,…” part! So -- what was the provocation that lead to the US escalating in that fashion? You know, from only allowing missiles to attack russian forces in russia, near Charkiev? Oh, right… There was none. The escalation really was just “about common sense” and did not need any “geographic restrictions” because they were soooo two weeks ago.
edit: Es gibt aber auch wieder gute Nachrichten. Der Standard widerspricht gerade Forbes…
Auch deswegen hat Kiew neben einer verstärkten Flugabwehr auch immer wieder gefordert, mit westlichen Waffen auch militärische Ziele über russischem Gebiet angreifen zu können.
Aso - wegen der Bombe die eh keinen Unterschied macht.
Klar, warum bin ich nicht drauf gekommen…
But as a glide-bomb, the FAB-3000 also would be unwieldy and likely lacking in range [30km]. Don’t worry about the 3.3-ton FAB-3000. Instead, worry about the Russian glide-bombs that aren’t impractical for everyday use: the FAB-500, FAB-1000 and FAB-1500.
Great news from good friends at European Pravda! They actually managed to influence Switzerland to rephrase their final Bürgenstock communiquee in 5 vital points:
Ukraine Peace Summit turns hard on Russia. How leaders amended the final decision under criticism
THURSDAY, 13 JUNE 2024 — SERGIYSYDORENKO, EUROPEANPRAVDA
Harsh criticism of the agreed draft resolution of the Peace Summit, voiced both in Ukraine and by Ukraine’s allies, forced the organisers to make concessions. Switzerland, which is organising the Global Peace Summit, sent a radically revised document to all capitals of the participating countries, correcting key issues highlighted by European Pravda.
The updated draft is entirely acceptable for Ukraine. It explicitly calls the war “Russian aggression.” Loopholes that could have paved the way for territorial concessions from Ukraine were removed from the text. Several states that had planned to attend the Peace Summit in Switzerland have decided not to go there after the draft decision was changed in favour of Ukraine.
European Pravda has learned the details of the negotiations and the decision that will be adopted this weekend.
Behind the scenes of the Peace Summit
The timeline of these events is crucial: it shows how urgent the changes that occurred over the past week were.
The idea to hold the Peace Summit in Switzerland was agreed upon at the beginning of the year. On 10 April, Switzerland announced the agreed date and location for the summit. Leaders of about 160 countries, four international organisations (UN, EU, Council of Europe, OSCE), the Pope and the Ecumenical Patriarch were invited to the Bürgenstock Alpine Spa. It was predetermined that Russia would not be present at the first Peace Summit, which Ukraine demanded in the first place.
Both Kyiv and Bern aimed to adopt a decision following the summit. However, the wording needed to be agreed upon by all participants.
Preparation for this document started more than two months ago. European Pravda has the April draft of the joint communiqué, where the summit dates were still tentative. That document was prepared in Kyiv and was entirely acceptable for Ukraine, adhering to the important red lines for Ukrainian society.
However, Switzerland persuaded Ukraine to soften it as much as possible, considering the wishes of all participants. On 28 May, a compromise version was sent from Bern to all capitals, and initially, Kyiv had to agree to it.
Everything changed when the public learned that this draft was dangerous for Ukraine.
The discussion began with an article by European Pravda, published on 5 June. The next day, on 6 June, Kyiv was forced to make public statements asserting that “Ukraine will not retreat from the Peace Formula.” This fueled discussions in the capitals of Ukraine’s allies, which were also not thrilled with the wording of the Swiss document. At least a few of them contacted Bern with a proposal to revise the joint statement.
On 9 June, Switzerland had sent a completely new draft to all countries. Amending the communiqué took mere days, not months as before.
What has changed
The summit’s decision remains unchanged in format and structure. This is a two-page document dedicated to three issues: nuclear security, food security and the prisoners of war. Key issues that lay outside these points have been addressed though.
Russian Aggression
– Old wording: The May draft decision of the Peace Summit did not mention the word “aggression,” meaning the international crime where Russia is the perpetrator and Ukraine the victim.
– New wording: This has been amended. The joint communiqué now refers to “the aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine”.
Territorial Integrity and the UN Charter
– Old wording: the previous summit decision version created a legal window to include Ukraine abandoning part of its territory in the conditions of “sustainable peace with Russia”, if necessary.
– New wording: the new draft decision clearly states that the basis for sustainable peace will be only “a solution based on the principle of respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of all states”. [Crimea back to Ukraine, and no neutrality that includes “limitation on military forces”]
Alternative Peace Formulas
– Old wording: the previous draft blurred the meaning of the Peace Formula and opened up space for international discussion of all alternative visions of peace, such as the Chinese-Brazilian one, which envisages a halt to the strengthening of Ukraine’s Armed Forces and a cessation of hostilities.
– New wording: the new wording states that only peace proposals that comply with international law (i.e. an unconditional return of the 1991 borders, unless revised by Ukraine itself) and the UN Charter (in particular, Ukraine’s unconditional [no force limitation] right to continue repelling Russian aggression and liberating the occupied territories) will be taken into account.
Involvement of Russia
– Old wording: the earlier version turned Russia from an aggressor into a participant in peace talks, requiring only vague “confidence-building measures” on nuclear and food security.
– New wording: this section has been rewritten from scratch. The Swiss agreed not to mention Russia at all in the provision on peace talks, instead referring to “all parties”. There is no longer a weakened requirement for “confidence-building measures”, but instead “specific actions” are required. And most importantly, the references to a “second peace summit” that hinted at a commitment to invite Russia to participate have been removed.
Food Security
– New addition: The updated document includes the statement that “attacks on merchant ships in ports and along the entire route, as well as against civilian ports and civilian port infrastructure, are unacceptable”. This falls under the global food security section but applies to all civilian vessels, including container ships or those exporting Ukrainian metals. Continued attacks would block Russia’s participation in peace initiatives.
These significant changes ensure that the new draft of the summit decision is more acceptable to Ukraine, reinforcing its territorial integrity, addressing Russian aggression accurately and maintaining stringent conditions on peace negotiations involving Russia.
The document is acceptable for Ukraine
The Joint Communiqué on a Peace Framework in its new version aligns with Ukraine’s interests. Although there are still minor remarks, the main dangers have been addressed. Currently, the draft is not yet final: there is still a possibility of point changes on 13-14 June. However, European Pravda’s sources are inclined to believe that the updated content of the decision will remain.
Realistic expectations are necessary. This summit will not lead to a breakthrough or end the war. Ukraine is merely taking one of the first steps on a long path. However, it is crucial that this step is in the right direction and does not create new problems.
The higher ambition of the document came at a cost:
several countries have declined to participate in the summit. As of 5 June, Switzerland officially announced that it had “received more than 80 confirmations of attendance at the level of heads of states and governments”, and the total number of confirmed attendees, as reported by officials, exceeded 100. However, in the following days, this phrase had to be removed from the event’s website, and now it reads that “around 90 states have confirmed their participation in the Summit on Peace in Ukraine, most of them at head of state or government level”.
Sources of European Pravda reported that, in reality, about 15 countries have “paused” their attendance. In addition, the number of those who have signalled a demotion from the presidential or prime ministerial level to the level of ministers or even their deputies is in the dozens.
Although it is obvious that due to the recent changes, the summit will be attended by fewer states than initially anticipated by Bankova Street [where the Ukrainian President’s Office is located] eight days ago, it is better to have a summit of like-minded people than to make concessions on issues that are critical for the state.
edit: Funding for good friends at European Pravda provided by:
International donors support the project financially, on the proviso that they do not interfere in editorial policy. Financial support was provided by the European Endowment for Democracy, International Renaissance Foundation, Council of Europe, and NATO Public Diplomacy Division (PDD).
Since June 2016, European Pravda has been co-financed by the European Union. Partial co-financing is provided from the NATOPDD and from advertising revenues. From 2018, the main co-donor of the project is the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), funded from the US Congress budget.[3]
According to the editor, Serhii Sidorenko, “EP” is a non-profit organization, as of February 2021.[8]
Am Ukraine-Gipfel zerschellten diplomatische Hoffnungen an den geopolitischen Realitäten. Was bewegte wichtige Schwellenländer, Sand ins Getriebe des Friedensprozesses zu streuen?
Zum Abschluss des Gipfeltreffens auf dem Bürgenstock bemühten sich die Schweizer Gastgeber, das Bild eines rundum geglückten Grossanlasses zu zeichnen. Doch bei einem genaueren Blick zeigt dieses Bild klare Risse. Berns Hoffnung auf eine breite Einheitsfront für den Frieden zerschellte an den geopolitischen Realitäten. Symptome dafür gab es auf dem Bürgenstock und in den Tagen davor zuhauf: Ein Staatspräsident sagte unter wütendem Protest seine Teilnahme kurzfristig ab, zwei Länder desavouierten die Schweiz mit ihrem Nein zur Schlusserklärung, nachdem die Gastgeber sie bereits zum zustimmenden Lager gezählt hatten.
Zuletzt verweigerten insgesamt 15 von 93 teilnehmenden Staaten ihre Unterschrift unter die Bürgenstock-Deklaration. Das ist ein unüblich hoher Anteil. Denn bei solchen Gipfeltreffen wird normalerweise im Voraus ein Konsens gesucht, oder man einigt sich notfalls in letzter Minute auf eine verwässerte Variante.
Also great success! According, to the austrian Newspaper “Der Standard” - die NZZ titelt derweil bereits
Great success, much hope, very! For next session of Selenskyj peace formula summit! Why in Saudi Arabia - AGAIN (Copenhagen, Jeddah (KSA), Malta and Davos)? Because country very neutral, and great democracy!
Diese Webseite verwendet Cookies um die Nutzungserfahrung für seine Besucher zu verbessern. Bitte informiere dich bei Gelegenheit darüber wie sich Cookies auf deine Privatsphäre im Web auswirken.
