Why did the Ukraine Peace Summit fail?

The Global South remains skeptical of Ukraine's claim to colonial victimhood and has grown more suspicious of US client states following the crisis in Gaza.

The main goal of the Ukraine Peace Summit held in Switzerland on June 15-16 was to rally global support for President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's "peace formula"—a set of demands including Russia's complete withdrawal from Ukrainian territory and the creation of an international tribunal to try Russian officials for war crimes.

Realistically, such a settlement requires a decisive victory on the battlefield, which seems unlikely. However, global backing for these demands would have strengthened Zelenskyy's position against Putin.

The summit, which excluded Russia, failed to promote its peace formula. The communique signed by 81 participants only addressed three secondary issues: Ukraine's grain exports, nuclear power plant safety, and the return of war prisoners and Ukrainian children taken to Russia.

Key countries like Brazil, India, and Saudi Arabia did not sign, arguing that peace talks without Russia were futile. China refused to participate, and even US President Joe Biden opted not to attend, sending Vice President Kamala Harris instead.

Ukraine's failure to gain Global South support is partly due to the declining influence of the US, exacerbated by the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and Biden's unwavering support for Israel. As a perceived US client state, Ukraine faces suspicion from the Global South.

China, feeling provoked by the US over Taiwan, was never likely to support an anti-Russian event. China sees Russia as a crucial ally amid rising tensions with the US.

Ukraine's rhetoric has also hindered its efforts. Since Russia's full-scale invasion in 2022, Zelenskyy has tried to garner sympathy by framing Ukraine as a victim of colonial aggression. This argument falls flat in places like South Africa and Brazil, coming from a European nation that views itself as part of the "civilized world"—a term Zelenskyy used again in June at a security conference in Singapore, alienating former colonies of Europe.

The history of Ukrainian involvement in Russian imperial expansion further complicates the narrative. Many in the Global South view the US as a neo-imperialist power expanding its influence eastward until Russia resisted. For China, the post-1991 history of the former Soviet Union evokes memories of the imperialist "scramble for China" in the late 19th century.

After the summit's failure, Ukrainian leadership seems to acknowledge that anti-colonial rhetoric won't secure global support and that negotiations with Russia are necessary to end the war.

Andriy Yermak, Zelenskyy's chief of staff and summit mastermind, suggested that Russian representatives might be invited to the next peace summit, which Ukraine hopes to hold by the end of the year. While Russia is likely to decline, Yermak's suggestion is significant.

Kateryna Zelenko, Ukraine's ambassador to Singapore, hinted at participation in a peace conference organized by China, whose peace initiative—endorsed by Russia—proposes freezing the conflict along the current front line. However, Putin recently demanded that Ukraine withdraw from the four regions Russia claimed in 2022 to secure peace.

This demand, countered by Ukraine's maximalist stance and a self-imposed ban on talks with Putin, reflects a negotiation posture. Russia might compromise on territory to achieve its broader goals of Ukrainian neutrality, demilitarization, and the protection of Russian language and culture.

For Putin, conceding territory to secure these objectives would be a strategic victory in the broader conflict with the West. Ukraine's leadership, however, may face scrutiny over rejecting earlier peace proposals that offered better terms. Nonetheless, any achievable peace would be preferable to the ongoing suffering of the Ukrainian people.