The results of the Global Peace Summit, which took place this weekend in Switzerland (15-16 June), suggest that Ukraine and its allies can begin the negotiation process and are creating the necessary conditions. The summit was organized with the support of Ukraine's European allies, including the leaders of the European Commission, as well as Germany, France, the Netherlands, and other countries. However, the event took place in partial accordance with Ukraine's plans. Absent from the summit were US President Joe Biden (replaced by Vice President Kamala Harris), representatives of China, and leaders of countries in the Global South, which somewhat reduced the status of the peaceful event. As a result, the plan to involve most countries of the world, including the Global South, could not be implemented, and the participation of only 57 state leaders caused disappointment in Ukraine.
In total, 100 participants took part in the Global Peace Summit. Ninety-two countries and eight organizations.
Heads of state or government represented fifty-seven countries.
30 - countries at the ministerial level.
5 - at the advisor level.
Four countries from nine BRICS countries (Brazil, UAE, India, and South Africa) attended the summit, but none signed the final communiqué.
The summit participants limited themselves to approving only three points of V. Zelensky’s “peace formula”: 1) nuclear safety, 2) global food security, and 3) the release of all prisoners of war.
By the way, nothing prevented Ukraine from returning to the full consideration of V. Zelensky’s ten-point “peace formula” after most of the countries of the Global South refused to take part in the summit, and the main participants were the countries of the “collective West” or their allies. The need for compromise has practically disappeared.
The summit did not discuss such essential elements of the "peace formula" as the withdrawal of Russian troops from all territory of Ukraine, payment of reparations, etc. Punishment of Russian war criminals may also mean that Ukraine and its allies have decided not to establish these restrictions ("red lines") for future negotiations. This means that, despite the political rhetoric heard at the summit, there are no severe restrictions or ultimatums for future talks.
Representatives of 79 countries and five organizations signed a joint communiqué on the foundations of peace. Among the signatory countries, the majority are so-called countries. The "collective West" is the United States and its allies (Great Britain, Canada, Australia, the European Union, Japan, etc.), Latin American countries (Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Suriname, Ecuador, etc.), African countries (Somalia, Ghana, Cote -d'Ivoire, etc.). Separately, we can note Serbia, Hungary, and Turkey (conditional "allies" of the Russian Federation).
Organizations: Council of Europe, European Commission, European Council, European Parliament, Organization of American States (joined the peace declaration after the summit).
Fifteen summit guest countries did not sign the communiqué: the Vatican, Armenia, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Brazil, India, South Africa, Thailand, Bahrain, Indonesia, Libya, Mexico, Colombia (whose representatives did not attend the summit), Iraq and Jordan ( withdrew their signatures).
Organizations: UN (observer), OSCE, Patriarchate of Constantinople (observer).
There are two key reasons why many countries did not attend the summit or attended but did not sign the final communiqué of the Global Peace Summit:
These countries are in no hurry to become allies of Ukraine but want to maintain a neutral status. They do not want to support Ukraine without any concessions that benefit them. They continue to bargain over their role and their possible support for one or another model of a peace settlement—Ukrainian, Chinese, Turkish, Russian, or any other.
These countries' positions are influenced by those of the PRC and the Russian Federation, which, through their diplomatic and economic channels, are trying to block Ukraine's attempts to promote its peaceful narratives as much as possible.
Returning to the consideration of the document adopted at the summit, it is essential to note that it contains a proposal that achieving peace requires dialogue between all parties to the conflict. "We believe that achieving peace requires engagement and dialogue between all parties. Therefore, we have decided in the future to take specific measures in the above areas with the subsequent involvement of all parties' representatives, " the Joint Communiqué on the Foundations of Peace says. Thus, President of Ukraine V. Zelensky, relying on a broad international coalition and the position of other countries (the global community), declared in the summit's final document the possibilities and even the need for negotiations with Russia.
This may mean that Ukraine and its allies create a "window of opportunity" for negotiations with the Russian Federation. This formulation of the issue (based on the Summit Communiqué), to some extent, bypasses the Decree of President V. Zelensky No. 679/2022 and the decision of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine dated September 30, 2022, which stated the impossibility of holding negotiations with Russian President V. Putin.
On the other hand, it is noteworthy that in the final text of the Joint Communiqué on the Foundations of Peace, the Russian Federation’s war against Ukraine is called “war” (to which 79 countries of the world have already signed): "The Russian Federation's war against Ukraine continues to cause large-scale human suffering and destruction, as well as create risks and crises with global consequences for the world," the text begins. Let us recall that the Russian Federation calls the war in Ukraine the so-called. "NWO" and the PRC - a conflict.
Verkhovna Rada, a Servant of the People Alexander Merezhko deputy, said that the communiqué clearly states the Russian Federation's war against Ukraine. This is not an incomprehensible "Ukrainian crisis" but a war. In essence, this is widespread recognition by the world that Russia has committed such a crime as an aggressive war.
Even in the resolutions of the UN General Assembly (A/RES/ES-11/1 of 03/02/2022 and A/RES/ES-11/6 of 02/23/2023), which are referred to in the text of the Joint Communiqué on the Foundations of Peace, they avoided using the word "war" directly to the Russian Federation. There, the Russian war in Ukraine was mainly called “aggression against Ukraine.” The text of the document adopted at the summit already directly states: “The war of the Russian Federation against Ukraine...”.
Ukraine and Western countries have not yet deviated from their standard line of beliefs but are already allowing dialogue with Moscow, albeit with reservations. Ukrainian Foreign Minister D. Kuleba said the same after the summit. "The idea is that the next summit will be the end of the war. And, of course, we need the other side at the negotiating table. It is obvious that to end the war, we need both sides. Sooner or later, it will be necessary to talk with Russia. Of course, we understand perfectly well that the moment will come when it will be necessary to talk with the Russian Federation," said D. Kuleba.
Of course, it cannot be ruled out that the final text of the Joint Communique on the Foundations of Peace is only a cunning political position of the Ukrainian government and its allies, the purpose of which is still an attempt to attract the next Global Peace Summit, which could take place in a few months (according to the President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky), countries of the global South and draw them into its political and information agenda.
Whether this summit will connect with the peace event China plans to hold is still being determined. However, President V. Zelensky tried to preserve opportunities for further constructive dialogue with the PRC. Perhaps this is why V. Zelensky, speaking at the final press conference following the results of the Global Peace Summit, said that he does not consider China an enemy and that Ukraine would like China to be a friend. To some extent, the President also justified his previous statements that the PRC was a tool in the hands of Russia and expressed resentment that the PRC influenced the position of other countries regarding non-participation in the global summit. "But we want China to respect our territorial integrity as well. I believe China has an influence on Russia and could help us," said V. Zelensky.
The prospects built around Ukraine will largely determine its ability to positively influence the position of undecided countries for holding the Second Global Peace Summit.
Much will depend, in particular, on the situation at the front, whether Ukraine will be able to recapture its territories or will begin to lose new ones; on the results of the American elections, who will ultimately win—J. Biden or D. Trump; and on the geopolitical situation, on the formation or non-formation of a Russian-Chinese bloc.
Much will also depend on what kind of peace plan Ukraine and its allies will prepare following the results of the first Global Summit and how realistic and compromised it will be compared with the proposals of the PRC and other countries. Negotiations with the Russian Federation (or possible agreements with it) in the future may involve the format of a "grain deal" - with the help of intermediary countries.
Based on the latest statement by the Deputy Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine, I. Zhovkva, that all 10 points of V. Zelensky's "peace formula" will be considered at the second Peace Summit, it can be assumed that the involvement of undecided countries in the peace process of the Ukrainian format may become more difficult in the future.
The Russian Federation publicly demonstrates that it is raising the stakes and radicalizing its position regarding a possible peace agreement with Ukraine. Thus, on the eve of the Global Peace Summit (June 14), Russian President V. Putin voiced the Kremlin's official proposals to end the war with Ukraine. V. Putin put forward ultimatum conditions that relate to a ceasefire and the start of negotiations. At their core, they mean the capitulation of Ukraine and its renunciation of its five regions. V. Putin noted, "We are not discussing freezing the conflict but its complete cessation." Thus, to launch this process, the Russian Federation demands that Ukraine withdraw its troops from all territories of the Donetsk, Lugansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson regions, the annexation of which the Russian Federation announced in the fall of 2022. Ukraine must also refuse to join NATO.
The following conditions apply to the negotiation process itself (if it begins):
1. Ukraine's neutral, non-aligned, nuclear-free status, its "demilitarization and denazification." In this context, V. Putin mentioned ensuring the rights of Russian-speaking Ukrainians.
2. Cancellation of sanctions against the Russian Federation (accordingly, Western countries should also participate in the negotiations).
3. International treaties must fix the Russian Federation's "new borders" with the Crimea, Donetsk, Lugansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson regions.
4. The Russian Federation is ready for negotiations with all countries, including Europe (which V. Putin called on to improve relations). V. Putin said Russia "is making another real peace proposal." Still, if Ukraine and Western countries do not accept these conditions, further conditions will differ since "the situation on the battlefield is changing not in favor of Ukraine."
It is expected that the Russian Federation's ultimatum was rejected by both Ukraine and the majority of Western countries.
Putting forward inflated conditions for peace to Ukraine on the part of the Russian Federation can mean a general increase in the degree of escalation of the war and, on the contrary, act as a starting position for bargaining in the negotiation process.
So, the day after V. Putin’s statements, on June 15, the New York Times newspaper (it is possible that with the assistance of the Russian side) for the first time published the full version of the draft Istanbul Peace Agreement between Ukraine and Russia (it was considered, but never accepted in spring 2022).
Fundamental points discussed during the negotiations:
● Ukraine becomes a neutral state.
● Ukraine proposed that it would never join NATO or other alliances.
● Ukraine was only allowed to join the EU.
● Permanent members of the UN Security Council—Britain, China, the Russian Federation, the USA, and France—became guarantors of neutral Ukraine's security. Russia proposed adding Belarus to Ukraine—and Turkey. The guarantor states pledged to provide armed support to Ukraine in the event of an attack on it.
● Both sides agreed to exclude Crimea from the treaty, leaving it under Russian occupation, but Ukraine did not recognize this. The two countries agreed to "resolve issues related to Crimea" in 15 years.
● Regarding the Donetsk and Lugansk regions, several media outlets wrote that they decided to bring this issue to a personal meeting between Zelensky and Putin. As for the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions, Putin said he was ready to withdraw Russian troops.
● Russia demanded that Ukraine make Russian the state language.
● The Russian Federation demanded the lifting of all sanctions.
● Condemnation of Nazism in all its manifestations and the repeal of several laws and regulations (in particular, regarding the role of the OUN-UPA and the status of their veterans). Ukraine also did not accept this clause.
● The parties discussed restrictions on the size of the Ukrainian army and its weapons.
It is possible that the publication of the Istanbul Agreements was supposed to act as a comparison and a positive alternative after the ultimatum voiced by V. Putin. In general, this may indicate that the Istanbul version of peace is still under consideration by some of the world elites.
President of Ukraine V. Zelensky and US President J. Biden signed a bilateral security agreement on the sidelines of the G7 meeting in Italy (June 13-15). The agreement obliges the United States to continue training Ukrainian armed forces for ten years, expand cooperation in the production of weapons and military equipment, continue to provide military assistance, and expand intelligence sharing. Congress will not ratify the agreement so that any subsequent US President can cancel it. Let us recall that D. Trump often expressed skepticism regarding support for Ukraine, stating that he was "able to end the war within 24 hours."
White House National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan said that thanks to the bilateral agreement, the United States also ensures Ukraine's obligations on reforms and monitoring the end use of weapons. At the same time, by deepening cooperation with the Ukrainian side, the United States will benefit from Ukraine's knowledge and experience, its innovations on the battlefield, and the lessons learned at the front.
One to seven countries have already signed bilateral security agreements with Ukraine. Among them are Great Britain, Germany, France, Denmark, Canada, Italy, the Netherlands, Finland, Latvia, Spain, Belgium, Portugal, Sweden, Iceland, Norway, Japan, and the USA. These documents guarantee long-term support, including military support, intelligence sharing, and economic assistance.
So far, the agreements have yet to be ratified by the parliaments of the countries that signed them, which means that problems may arise due to a change of power in these countries. These agreements aim first at creating conditions under which Ukraine can defend itself, but we need to talk about joint defense.
The proposed documents do not say that an attack on Ukraine should be interpreted as an attack on countries that are guarantors of security, sovereignty, and territorial integrity and an automatic declaration of war on them. The proposed security guarantees do not include automatic mechanisms for providing troops or military assistance to Ukraine in the event of aggression, and nothing is said about a nuclear security regime ("umbrellas") in the event of the use of such weapons against Ukraine or a threat to nuclear facilities on Ukrainian territory.
The agreements do not provide security guarantees to Ukraine under NATO's Article 5 principle; they give the allies expansive room for maneuver, allowing them to take bold steps if political conditions permit.
Regarding the upcoming NATO summit, Secretary General of the Alliance J. Stoltenberg announced what they will tell Ukraine about its possible membership. According to J. Stoltenberg, the summit participants will declare that Ukraine must win the war with the Russian Federation to join the North Atlantic Alliance. "We need to make sure that Ukraine wins. This is the minimum condition for Ukraine to become a member of the Alliance," said J. Stoltenberg.
At the front, the most challenging situation for Ukrainian troops is developing in the Avdiivka-Ocheretino direction in the Donetsk region. The Russian Federation has advanced in the settlement area. Arkhangelske, Novooleksandrivka and Sokil, Umanske. Risks are emerging that the Russian Federation in this area will be able to reach the Pokrovsk-Konstantinovka highway, one of the most critical supply routes for Ukrainian troops in the Donetsk direction. From this route, the RF Armed Forces can attack either the city of Konstantynivka or the city of Pokrovsk and further to the city of Dnipro.
Russian troops advanced to Chasiv Yar from the northeast in the Kalynivka area. At the same time, the Russians retreated from the center of the village. Klishchiivka, near Bakhmut, where they had advanced earlier, retreated to the Serebryanskyi forestry. To the south of Seversk, the Russian Armed Forces are moving towards the settlement Vyemka.
To the west of the city of Maryinka, there are battles for the village of Georgiivka (in the Russian Federation, they say that it has already been captured). Through this village lies the road to the city of Kurakhove, one of the key centers of defense of Ukrainian troops in the Donetsk region.
In the north of the Kharkiv region, Ukraine is trying to carry out counterattacks near Vovchansk and the village—Liptsy (to Gluboke). So far, this has not led to any significant changes to the front line. But Ukrainian troops are strengthening in this direction, drawing up reserves and increasing the use of Western weapons and ammunition (including for attacks on Russian territory). However, the Russians are also replenishing the Kharkiv direction with reserves and may resume attacks here. There are reports that the Russian army is preparing to attack the settlement. Borova, Kharkiv region (east of the Oskil reservoir). In the area from the settlement Raigorodok to Novovodyane the RF troops were increased to 10 thousand infantry and 450 units of military equipment (including 200 artillery systems). In parallel, the Russian Armed Forces are rapidly digging fortifications in the occupied territories; that is, it will be difficult for Ukrainian troops to recapture them.
Regarding the general situation at the front, we can say that the "window of opportunity" that has opened for the Russian Federation (due to early interruptions in the supply of Western military assistance) is beginning to narrow. The RF Armed Forces have achieved limited success, but this advantage is already lost. As Western weapons arrive for the Armed Forces of Ukraine, losses increase, and the advance of Russian troops slows down. At the same time, one should not expect that Ukrainian troops will soon be able to organize a significant counter-offensive, as individual government officials in Ukraine or the US White House may claim.
Personnel rotations. On June 18, the Cabinet of Ministers dismissed Mustafa Nayem from the post of head of the State Agency for Reconstruction and Infrastructure Development of the country. M. Nayyem announced his decision to leave his position on June 10. According to him, the reason for this was systemic obstacles in work. The decision to resign was made against the backdrop of a scandal with M. Nayem's disrupted business trip to Berlin for an international conference on June 11-12, designed to mobilize global support for the restoration of Ukraine. However, Prime Minister D. Shmyhal refused Nayem a business trip for the specified dates, summoning him to the government for a report. The dismissal of M. Nayem and A. Kubrakov (from the post of Deputy Prime Minister for the Reconstruction of Ukraine) is mainly because both built their communications with Western partners, bypassing the Office of the President.
According to rumors, they plan to create a separate central authority for the Reconstruction Agency. This authority would report directly to the Prime Minister and generally strengthen his position.
Public opinion studies among Ukrainian citizens show an increase in those ready for negotiations and certain compromises with the Russian Federation. Still, in general, the majority continues to oppose this. The majority of Ukrainians (58%) agree with the statement that "The Ukrainian authorities should not compromise in negotiations. Ukraine will continue to fight as long as necessary." About a third – 30% – already disagree with this statement. The share of those who agree with this statement has decreased by 22% over the past two years (in May 2022, the figure was 80%).
At the same time, the majority (65%) are ready to put the results of possible negotiations with Russia to a referendum (25% do not agree with this). This is because society is growing significantly tired of the war, but it is not ready to give up some of its goals and make any concessions to the Russian Federation. At the same time, the referendum becomes a way to relieve oneself of personal responsibility if the majority of society makes any compromises.
Combat map.
Internal situation.
Personnel rotations.
On June 18, the Cabinet of Ministers dismissed Mustafa Nayem from the post of head of the State Agency for Reconstruction and Infrastructure Development of the country. M. Nayyem announced his decision to leave his position on June 10. According to him, the reason for this was systemic obstacles in work. The decision to resign was made against the backdrop of a scandal with M. Nayem's disrupted business trip to Berlin for an international conference on June 11-12, designed to mobilize global support for the restoration of Ukraine. However, Prime Minister D. Shmyhal refused Nayem a business trip for the specified dates, summoning him to the government for a report. The dismissal of M. Nayem and A. Kubrakov (from the post of Deputy Prime Minister for the Reconstruction of Ukraine) is mainly because both built their communications with Western partners, bypassing the Office of the President.
According to rumors, they plan to create a separate central authority for the Reconstruction Agency. This authority would report directly to the Prime Minister and generally strengthen his position.
Sociology.
According to a study by the Kiev International Institute of Sociology (KIIS) (from May 26 to June 1, 2024), 70% of respondents agree that V. Zelensky should remain President until the end of martial law, and 22% disagree.
56% of Ukrainians instead approve of V. Zelensky's activities as President of Ukraine. 37% somewhat disapprove.
In September 2023, 77% approved of his performance. Accordingly, the approval rate decreased markedly by 21% but remains high.
Indeed, the share of those who admire the President is trending downward (from 33% in July 2022 to 8% now). However, most Ukrainians (69%) have a neutral-positive attitude (with more pronounced neutrality and restraint).
The majority of Ukrainians (58%) agree with the statement that "The Ukrainian authorities should not compromise in negotiations. Ukraine will continue to fight as long as necessary." Thirty percent disagree with this statement. The share of those who agree with this statement has decreased by 22% over the past two years (in May 2022, the figure was 80%).
65% agree that the results of possible negotiations with Russia should be put to a referendum (25% disagree).
34% of respondents agree (wholly or somewhat) with the statement that they support the new law on mobilization. 20% somewhat disagreed, 32% disagreed, and 14% did not answer the question.
The situation around Ukraine.
Results of the Global Peace Summit in Switzerland.
The main result of the Global Peace Summit in Switzerland is that Ukraine may be starting the negotiation process and creating conditions for this. Of course, the Global Peace Summit did not go exactly according to the scenario planned by Ukraine. This was influenced by the absence of China and other leaders of the Global South, as well as the ignoring of the summit by US President J. Biden. Ukraine held the summit mainly with the help of its European allies, primarily the leaders of the European Commission, as well as Germany, France, the Netherlands, and other countries.
In total, 100 participants took part in the Global Peace Summit. Ninety-two countries and eight organizations.
Heads of state or government represented fifty-seven countries.
30 - countries at the ministerial level.
5 - at the advisor level.
The planned meeting of most countries of the world with the participation of countries from the Global South thus failed; moreover, the presence of only 57 state leaders at the summit also caused disappointment in Ukraine.
Four countries from nine BRICS countries (Brazil, UAE, India, and South Africa) attended the summit, but none signed the final communiqué.
Representatives of 79 countries and five organizations signed a joint communiqué on the foundations of peace. Most of the signatory countries are so-called. The "collective West" is the United States and allies (Great Britain, Canada, Australia, the European Union, Japan, etc.), countries among representatives of Latin America (Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Suriname, Ecuador, etc.), African countries (Somalia, Ghana, Cote d'Ivoire, etc.). Separately, we can note Serbia, Hungary, and Turkey (a pool of conditional "allies" of the Russian Federation).
Complete list of signatory countries: Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Cape Verde, Canada, Chile, Comoros, Costa Rica, Ivory Coast, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Iceland, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kosovo, Latvia, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, the Netherlands, New Zealand, North Macedonia, Norway, Palau, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Rwanda, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Serbia, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Somalia, Spain, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, East Timor, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Antigua and Barbuda (joined the peace declaration after the summit).
Organizations: Council of Europe; European Commission; European Council; European Parliament; Organization of American States (joined the peace declaration after the summit).
Fifteen summit guest countries did not sign the Vatican, Armenia, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Brazil, India, South Africa, Thailand, Bahrain, Indonesia, Libya, Mexico, Colombia (whose representatives did not attend the summit), Iraq and Jordan (withdrew your signatures).
Organizations: UN (observer); OSCE; Patriarchate of Constantinople (observer).
At the same time, the summit participants limited themselves to approving only 3 points of V. Zelensky's "peace formula": 1) nuclear safety, 2) global food security, and 3) the release of all prisoners of war.
After most countries of the Global South refused to participate in the summit, and the main participants were the countries of the "collective West" or their allies, nothing prevented Ukraine from returning to complete consideration of V. Zelensky's 10-point "peace formula." But that did not happen. As we wrote earlier, the Global Summit format has changed several times.
The document proposes that achieving peace requires dialogue between all parties. "We believe that achieving peace requires involvement and dialogue between all parties. Therefore, we have decided in the future to take specific measures in the above areas with the subsequent involvement of all parties' representatives, " the Joint Communiqué on the Foundations of Peace says. Thus, President of Ukraine V. Zelensky, allegedly relying on a broad international coalition and the position of other countries (the global community), declared in the final document of the summit the possibilities and even the need for negotiations with Russia.
This may mean that Ukraine and its allies are creating a "window of opportunity" for negotiations with the Russian Federation since this formulation of the issue (based on the Summit Communiqué), to some extent bypasses the Decree of President V. Zelensky No. 679/2022 and the decision of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine dated September 30, 2022, which stated the impossibility of holding negotiations with Russian President V. Putin.
The summit did not discuss such essential elements of the "peace formula" as the withdrawal of Russian troops from all over Ukraine, the payment of reparations, and the punishment of Russian war criminals. This could mean that Ukraine and its allies have decided not to set these limits ("red lines") for future negotiations. This means there are no severe restrictions or ultimatums for future talks, despite the political rhetoric heard at the Summit. However, it is interesting that in the final text of the Joint Communiqué on the Foundations of Peace, the Russian Federation's war against Ukraine is called precisely a "war": "The Russian Federation's war against Ukraine continues to cause large-scale human suffering and destruction, as well as create risks and crises with global consequences for the world," - stated at the beginning of the text.
Verkhovna Rada, a Servant of the People Alexander Merezhko deputy, said that the communiqué clearly states the Russian Federation's war against Ukraine. This is not an incomprehensible "Ukrainian crisis" but a war. In essence, this is widespread recognition by the world that Russia has committed such a crime as an aggressive war. What is extremely important, thanks to the summit and the joint communiqué, was that it was possible to clearly and unambiguously define the political and legal framework within which peace can be achieved. That is, any peace agreement should not violate Ukraine's territorial integrity and sovereignty, as well as principles of international law such as the principle of non-use of force in international relations and the principle of equality of countries.
Ukraine and Western countries have not yet deviated from their standard line of beliefs but are already allowing dialogue with Moscow, albeit with reservations. Ukrainian Foreign Minister D. Kuleba said the same after the summit. "The idea is that the next summit will end the war. And, of course, we need the other side at the negotiating table. It is obvious that to end the war, we need both sides. Sooner or later, it will be necessary to talk with Russia. Of course, we understand perfectly well "that the moment will come when it will be necessary to talk with the Russian Federation," said D. Kuleba.
At the same time, it cannot be ruled out that, in general, this formulation of the question is only a cunning political position of the Ukrainian government and its allies. The purpose of this formulation is still an attempt to attract countries of the Global South to the next Global Peace Summit, which could take place in a few months (according to the President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky) and draw them into its political and information agenda.
Whether this summit will connect with the peace event that China plans to hold is still being determined. However, President V. Zelensky clearly tried to preserve opportunities for further constructive dialogue with the PRC. Perhaps this is why V. Zelensky, speaking at the final press conference following the results of the Global Peace Summit, said that he does not consider China an enemy and that Ukraine would like China to be a friend. To some extent, the President also justified his previous statements that the PRC was a tool in the hands of Russia and expressed resentment that the PRC influenced the position of other countries regarding non-participation in the global summit. "But we want China to respect our territorial integrity as well. I believe China has an influence on Russia and could help us," said V. Zelensky.
The prospects built around Ukraine will largely determine its ability to positively influence the position of undecided countries for holding the Second Global Peace Summit.
Much will depend, in particular, on the situation at the front, whether Ukraine will be able to recapture its territories or will begin to lose new ones; on the results of the American elections, who will ultimately win—J. Biden or D. Trump; and on the geopolitical situation, on the formation or non-formation of a Russian-Chinese bloc.
Much will also depend on what kind of peace plan Ukraine and its allies will prepare following the results of the first Global Summit and how realistic and compromised it will be compared with the proposals of the PRC and other countries. Negotiations with the Russian Federation (or possible agreements with it) in the future may involve the format of a "grain deal" - with the help of intermediary countries.
Based on the latest statement by the Deputy Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine, I. Zhovkva, that all 10 points of V. Zelensky's "peace formula" will be considered at the second Peace Summit, it can be assumed that the involvement of undecided countries in the peace process of the Ukrainian format may become more difficult in the future.
The US and Ukraine signed a bilateral security agreement.
President of Ukraine V. Zelensky and US President J. Biden signed a bilateral security agreement on the sidelines of the G7 meeting in Italy (June 13-15). The agreement obliges the United States to continue training Ukrainian armed forces for ten years, expand cooperation in the production of weapons and military equipment, continue to provide military assistance, and expand intelligence sharing. Congress will not ratify the agreement so that any subsequent US President can cancel it. Let us recall that D. Trump often expressed skepticism regarding support for Ukraine, stating that he was "able to end the war within 24 hours."
White House National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan said that thanks to the bilateral agreement, the United States also ensures Ukraine's obligations on reforms and monitoring the end use of weapons. At the same time, by deepening cooperation with the Ukrainian side, the United States will benefit from Ukraine's knowledge and experience, its innovations on the battlefield, and the lessons learned at the front.
Sixteen countries have already signed bilateral security agreements with Ukraine. Among them are Great Britain, Germany, France, Denmark, Canada, Italy, the Netherlands, Finland, Latvia, Spain, Belgium, Portugal, Sweden, Iceland, Norway, and Japan. These documents guarantee the provision of long-term support, including military support, intelligence sharing, and economic assistance.
So far, the agreements have yet to be ratified by the parliaments of the countries that signed them, which means that problems may arise due to a change of power in these countries. These agreements aim first at creating conditions under which Ukraine can defend itself, but we need to talk about joint defense.
The proposed documents do not say that an attack on Ukraine should be interpreted as an attack on countries that are guarantors of security, sovereignty, and territorial integrity and an automatic declaration of war on them. The proposed security guarantees do not include automatic mechanisms for providing troops or military assistance to Ukraine in the event of aggression, and nothing is said about a nuclear security regime ("umbrellas") in the event of the use of such weapons against Ukraine or a threat to nuclear facilities on Ukrainian territory.
The agreements do not provide security guarantees to Ukraine under NATO's Article 5 principle; they give the allies expansive room for maneuver, allowing them to take bold steps if political conditions permit.
Regarding the upcoming NATO summit, Secretary General of the Alliance J. Stoltenberg announced what they will tell Ukraine about its possible membership. According to J. Stoltenberg, the summit participants will declare that Ukraine must win the war with the Russian Federation to join the North Atlantic Alliance. "We need to make sure that Ukraine wins. This is the minimum condition for Ukraine to become a member of the Alliance," said J. Stoltenberg.
Ruslan Bortnik, Oksana Krasovskaya, Andrey Timchenko
for the Ukrainian Institute of Politics
