Ukraine Scores Diplomatic Victory at Peace Summit

Executive Summary:

• The Summit on Peace in Ukraine, held in Switzerland on June 15 and 16, demonstrated a unified position held by many states worldwide in respecting Ukraine’s territorial integrity and upholding international law.
• Russian propaganda had tried to raise concerns that the absence of China, whose support has helped Moscow sustain the war effort, would limit the summit’s effectiveness.
• Hope is growing that Kyiv will be able to build on the successes of the summit in bolstering international support for its cause and exerting pressure on the Kremlin to secure the release of political prisoners and prisoners of war.

The conclusion of the two-day Summit on Peace in Ukraine, held in Switzerland on June 15 and 16, underscored Ukraine’s diplomatic victory in expanding international support amid the Russian invasion (President of Ukraine, June 15). While only three aspects of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s peace agenda—nuclear security, food security, and the return of prisoners of war and children removed from Ukraine—took precedence, the high-level representation of over 90 states and 8 international organizations refocused global attention on Ukraine and delegitimized alternative peace initiatives proposed by Russia, China, and Brazil (Government of Brazil, May 23; Kremlin.ru, June 14; Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, June 16). The final communiqué, signed by 78 countries (originally 80, but Iraq and Jordan withdrew their signatures) and four organizations, underscored the importance of respecting territorial integrity and upholding a commitment international law as enshrined in the UN Charter (T.me/svoboda_radio, June 16). The success of the peace summit is crucial to Kyiv’s wider diplomatic offensive as any future peace talks will now reflect not only the Ukrainian stance but also a more unified position held by states worldwide (see EDM, June 17). This collective effort marks a significant step in uniting the world against Moscow’s neo-imperialism and forceful imposition of a “might is right” global order.

The signed document highlights three critical issues (Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, last updated June 17). These issues include the imperative to reclaim control of the occupied Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, ensure food security through the safe export of grain supplies, and conduct a comprehensive exchange of all prisoners of war and repatriation of all deported and unlawfully displaced Ukrainian children, along with illegally detained civilians. The possible use of nuclear weapons in the context of Moscow’s war against Ukraine was also been declared unacceptable. Aligned with the summit’s pragmatic agenda, deliberations did not extend to envisioning postwar scenarios or addressing Ukraine’s aspirations for North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) membership.

Reflecting on the summit’s outcomes, Swiss President Viola Amherd emphasized that the overwhelming consensus on the final document demonstrated the efficacy of diplomacy in navigating global crises (Interfax-Ukraine, June 17). For his part, Zelenskyy hailed the “initial steps toward peace,” highlighting that participating parties had committed to establishing specialized working groups to develop “action plans.” These plans will pave the way for a subsequent peace summit, to which Russia will be invited (President of Ukraine, June 17).

Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin does not appear to be serious about peace talks (see EDM, February 6, 26). On the eve of the summit in Switzerland, he reiterated the Kremlin’s peace plan, demanding Ukrainian troop withdraw from Crimea and the four occupied regions in southeastern Ukraine (Anadolu Ajansı; Kremlin.ru, June 14). While Russian forces have recently made limited gains in Donetsk and Luhansk, they have not gained complete control over any of the four regions (Kyiv Independent, May 10). Putin also insisted that Kyiv abandon its NATO aspirations (RIA Novosti, June 14).

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen emphasized that the summit did not serve as negotiations for peace. Nevertheless, she noted Putin’s unacceptable stance on Ukrainian capitulation and the relinquishment of territories, even those not currently under Russian occupation (RBC-Ukraine, June 16). Additionally, regional powers and key members of BRICS (a loose political-economic grouping originally consisting of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) with significant economic ties to Russia—India, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, and the United Arab Emirates—participated in the weekend gathering but opted against endorsing the joint statement (Euromaidan Press, June 18).

Russian propaganda had tried to raise concerns that the absence of China, whose support has helped Moscow sustain the war effort, would limit the summit’s potential effectivenessdespite the robust participation of Western democracies (Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, June 16). The bigger picture, however, says otherwise. Ukraine’s diplomatic achievements were already becoming evident in revisions of problematic provisions of the draft communiqué days before the summit (Ukrainska Pravda, June 13; Euromaidan Press, June 16). These issues could have diluted the significance of Zelenskyy’s peace formula, opening the door for alternative peace proposals. The final version closed the loopholes that could have implied Ukraine’s concession of territory under the guise of “lasting peace with the Russian Federation,” emphasizing instead the principle of respecting all states’ territorial integrity and sovereignty (European Council, June 16).

The summit took place at a time when a series of steps taken by Ukraine’s Western partners has seemingly demonstrated their readiness to overcome the fear of escalation. The White House’s long-awaited authorization for Ukraine to use US weaponry against military targets on Russian soil aims to minimize missile strikes against Ukrainian civilians and protect Ukraine’s critical infrastructure (US Department of State, May 31; see EDM, June 4). Supported by ongoing efforts to complete the training of F-16 pilots and provide additional air defense systems and missiles ahead of the winter campaign, these steps will help avoid humanitarian crises caused by decimated energy and civilian infrastructure (Ukrainian World Congress, January 5; Kyiv Independent, May 24).

At the Group of Seven (G7) Summit from June 13 to 15, a bilateral security agreement between Ukraine and the United States, which served to strengthen the peace summit’s message (President of Ukraine, June 13 [1], [2]). The agreement is not mean to be a replacement for Ukraine’s NATO membership but a stepping stone to attaining that status (see EDM, May 20). Sustained economic support for Ukraine was another significant achievement to come out of the peace summit. US Vice President Kamala Harris, present in Switzerland, announced a substantial $1.5 billion aid package for humanitarian relief and infrastructure reconstruction in war-torn Kyiv (The White House, June 15).

The G7’s commitment to transferring $50 billion from frozen Russian assets to Ukraine and new sanctions targeting the Russian Stock Exchange and Chinese entities involved in military-industrial cooperation with Russia look to limit Moscow’s economic and production capacity (Gov.uk; President of Ukraine, June 13). Although Russia has found creative ways to circumvent sanctions, the weakening of the domestic economy to the chaos of the 1990s will likely contribute to ending the war and ensure sustainable peace for years to come (see EDM, April 3).

Switzerland aims to engage Russia, China, and other non-participating countries in discussions regarding the summit’s outcomes (Kyiv Independent, June 17). Zelenskyy himself has already expressed concerns about China’s potential role in supporting peace efforts and Ukraine’s reconstruction (President of Ukraine, February 24, 2023, May 18). Looking ahead, Hope is growing that Kyiv will be able to build on the successes of the summit in bolstering international support for its cause and exerting pressure on the Kremlin to secure the release of political prisoners and prisoners of war.