Peace Summit and NATO Summit: Expectations and Reality for Ukraine

 

Ukraine is still in the center of attention of the Euro-Atlantic community, especially regular EU and NATO events, American and European elections. With the approach of the Global Peace Summit, which will be held in Switzerland on June 15-16, Ukrainian topics are actively appearing in the diplomatic corridors and media of Asia, Africa and Latin America.

The informal meeting of NATO foreign ministers held in the Czech Republic on May 30 and 31 was devoted to preparations for the summit in Washington scheduled for July. And, of course, one of the central topics of this meeting, as well as the upcoming Alliance summit, was Ukraine. Unfortunately, not in the context of seeking flexible formulations for the country's inclusion in NATO. However, no less important is the issue that was brought up for discussion by Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg and on which an official decision is expected in Washington - military aid to Ukraine.

Stoltenberg, taking into account the reserved attitude of the allies towards his previous proposal to create a five-year NATO fund for military support to Ukraine in the amount of 100 billion US dollars, in order to ensure greater predictability and reliability of this process, transformed it into a proposal for allocation by the allies to the fund of military aid to Ukraine annually at least 40 billion dollars. This corresponds to the practice of previous years, so nothing revolutionary is expected in connection with this decision. However, this will give the process of military support a more predictable character, in which the responsibility for the distribution of funds will be shared among all allies, according to a certain principle, possibly taking into account the size of the GDP. The creation of such a fund will also be a response to the concerns of US presidential candidate Donald Trump, who emphasized the need for greater solidarity among allies in allocating funds to aid Kiev. Similar remarks were repeatedly heard from Germany, which is the second largest donor to Ukraine.

 

Today, it seems that this decision, as well as the approval of the transfer of coordination functions in the Rammstein format from the US to NATO, could become the only practical results of the Washington Summit for Ukraine. The Secretary General believes that in this way it is possible to avoid the possibility of a gradual reduction of military aid to Ukraine over time, which would have a negative impact on the country's defense capabilities.

It can be hoped that the allies will also find a suitable wording for another signal about the prospects of Ukraine's membership in NATO, more ambitious than the previous ones, in the time leading up to the summit. However, this will not significantly affect the speed of the country's integration into the Alliance. Membership in NATO will obviously depend on the country's success at the front and on the conditions for ending the war. Unfortunately, even today, after more than two years of large-scale Russian aggression against Ukraine, in which Ukraine actually has the full support of the West when it comes to NATO membership, some of the representatives of the member states still forget the reasons. In unofficial contacts, it is sometimes noted that before making a final decision on the invitation to Ukraine, some member countries will probably want to be sure about the future of Russia, as well as how the security of the Alliance will be guaranteed against threats from the east. Thus, even after the victory over the aggressor, the decision to invite Ukraine to NATO is unlikely to become fully automatic, and its approval by the allies will take time.

 

Another important issue discussed in Prague is the granting of permission to Ukraine to use Western weapons on the territory of the Russian Federation. Secretary General Stoltenberg personally played a constructive role in moderating this discussion, as well as in achieving a broad agreement between the Allies on this issue. Today, in the light of the shelling of Kharkiv and the region, this issue has become particularly relevant. However, so far Washington, from which most are expected, has taken only half a step in this direction, since ATACMS missiles are not yet subject to such a permit.

During the Washington NATO summit, it is planned to discuss the Alliance's cooperation with the Indo-Pacific partners - Australia, Japan, South Korea and New Zealand, whose representatives will also be invited to Washington. The reasons lie not only in the global interests of the United States, but also in the fact that in the modern world security processes in Europe and other continents are closely connected. With the formation of a new "axis of evil" consisting of Russia, Iran, South Korea and, unfortunately, China, which is increasingly positioning itself as an opponent of the democratic West, these trends are becoming more and more obvious. Proof of this is the situation with preparations for the Global Peace Summit in Switzerland, which is scheduled for June 15 and 16, as well as China's role in that process.

 

The aforementioned summit is planned as an event that should bring the countries of the Global South closer to Ukraine, help them transform their pseudo-neutrality into a position of support in the Russian-Ukrainian war for the basic principles of international law, which are included in the Ukrainian "peace formula". This would, ideally, enable the development of an international system of isolating the aggressor and, ultimately, contribute to bringing the war closer to a just solution. Unfortunately, the activities of Moscow and Beijing, aimed at hindering the countries' participation in the conference, are yielding certain results. The Global South seemed divided on this issue.

Moreover, its key members - China, Brazil, South Africa - actually ended up on Moscow's side. It is possible that Saudi Arabia will also avoid participating in the event. Of course, the position of these countries is formulated in more diplomatic terms, such as insisting on attending the Russian peace summit or holding another alternative international event with the participation of both Kiev and Moscow, such as requests for an immediate ceasefire, moving to negotiations with Moscow in order to find a compromise, etc. Against this background of clearly playing in accordance with the interests of the Kremlin, calling on the mentioned states to respect international law, including the principle of preserving territorial integrity, looks artificial and unsustainable. And the simultaneous continuation of economic cooperation with Russia, including the field of energy, which is decisive for the Russian military budget, as well as trade, primarily with China, in dual-purpose goods makes them effective allies of the aggressors and undermines the effectiveness of Western sanctions.

The problem of China and its pro-Russian "neutrality" in the war against Ukraine did not arise. However, so far all efforts by the West and Ukraine have been rather restrained and aimed at warning Beijing and encouraging it to change its stance. But China's destructive activities regarding the Global Peace Summit have radicalized the situation. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's speech in Singapore at the security conference as part of the "Shangri-La Dialogue" brought the problem of Beijing's non-constructiveness regarding the summit, the Sino-Russian security partnership and Ukraine's attitude towards it in the public sphere.

 

Undoubtedly, such public honesty of the country's leader will not contribute to the development of Ukraine's cooperation with China, which enjoys significant influence among the countries of the Global South. Therefore, Zelensky's statements in Singapore have already met with some criticism from some Ukrainian experts. However, on the other hand, in order to establish mutual understanding, it is sometimes worth speaking frankly about the non-acceptance of the partner's position, because the lack of reaction to hostile actions can be perceived as weakness and tacit agreement. Especially if the harsh statements come after months of efforts and calls to establish a constructive dialogue.

 

By the way, it was not only Ukraine that allowed itself to publicly criticize Beijing's position regarding the Global Peace Summit. Recently, US State Department spokesman Matthew Miller, commenting on this issue, said that it is difficult for the US to see how the Chinese can play a positive role in ending the war, given their assistance to Russia in rebuilding and rebuilding its defense-industrial complex.

 

Commenting on the preparations for the peace summit, official Kyiv highlights the expected number of participants and their level. But the effectiveness of this measure is not determined only by this, and not only by the quality of the final communication, which can be agreed upon. It is also important to continue, translating political agreements into practical processes.

 

The summit brought up issues that have a high chance of becoming consensual, including nuclear and food security issues, as well as humanitarian issues, including the exchange of prisoners of war and the return of Ukrainian children forcibly taken to Russia. However, one should be realistic. Even if the number of participants in the summit is significantly higher than 100, and it makes very correct decisions, for example, on the need to transfer the occupied NEP Zaporozhye to the control of the IAEA, on unconditional respect for freedom of navigation in the Black Sea, on the exchange "all for all", etc. , taking into account the existing realities, there are quite strong doubts about the possibility of their implementation. At the same time, the involvement of partners in solving these problems can give at least partial results.