This is not how peace is done.
The Swiss “Peace Summit” on Ukraine, held from 15-16 June 2024 in Bürgenstock, was widely deemed a failure, and rightfully so. Out of the 102 state representatives who gathered, 22 refused to sign the final declaration. This was hardly a peace summit since Russia, a key player in the conflict, was absent. In addition, it lacked the full solidarity needed, with major countries like India and Brazil refusing to back the Western stance on Ukraine. The event became evident as neither a peace initiative nor a forum for international unity on the issue.
The situation exposed a fundamental flaw in how such negotiations were framed. This was not how peace is made. True peace requires the involvement of all parties, particularly the aggressor. Russia’s absence underlined the ineffectiveness of attempting to resolve a conflict without engaging all its key participants. What was proposed was not peace but a one-sided perspective that ignored the complexities of the conflict.
Moreover, the summit failed to garner the broad support required to back any genuine peace plan. The refusal of countries like India and Brazil to align themselves with the West’s position was telling. It reflected a growing divide in the international community over the approach to Ukraine and Russia. For peace to be possible, the global community needs to move beyond partisan lines and recognize that a sustainable resolution requires broader, more inclusive discussions.
Amidst this, there seemed to be confusion, especially among some Western supporters of Ukraine, regarding the distinction between peace and victory. For some, peace talks were seen as a betrayal of Ukraine’s fight for sovereignty. Yet, the reality is that pursuing a victory without a clear strategy is futile. The West does not have a strategy for victory, and it’s crucial to recognize this gap in approach.
A peace agreement favorable to Ukraine remains the best outcome in the current context. However, achieving this would necessitate a dramatic shift in the West’s strategic posture. The West would need to commit fully to a war economy, much like Russia has done, in order to sustain and escalate the conflict. Such a strategy would require vast financial resources and a commitment to long-term military support.
Yet, this approach remains a non-starter for most Western countries. Except for a few nations in Northern Europe and the Baltics, there is little appetite for a sustained war effort. The reluctance of many countries to adopt a war economy reveals the contradictions at play. Without a unified strategy, peace and victory remain distant, and the war continues to ravage Ukraine and Europe.
In the end, the failure of the peace summit was inevitable. It is not enough to simply bring parties together; there must be a shared vision of resolution and a commitment to a genuine process. Until such an approach is realized, Ukraine and its allies will continue to grapple with an uncertain future, while the war drags on.
