In late June, Ukraine and the European Union began negotiations on Ukraine’s accession to the EU. The truth is, this whole process has so far been taking place in a staggeringly short time, even if one of the main factors is Russian aggression. But the very fact of the negotiation process is the result not only of the Kremlin’s actions, but also of Ukraine’s long-standing desire to return home, to Europe.
If we recall recent history, the events we have been involved in over the past years began after Viktor Yanukovych refused to sign the Association Agreement with the European Union. Ukrainians, who took to the streets demanding the government to return to the European association – initially these were mostly young people, students – believed that the future of our state was tied to Europe. Many had another important motive as well. Ukrainians realized that the European choice would protect our country from being absorbed by Russia. Indeed, Russian officials, who before the signing of the Association Agreement talked about the inadmissibility of Ukraine’s accession to NATO, immediately started opposing our European integration once the possibility of signing the Agreement became real. As a result, Russia’s aggressive actions and its fight against Ukraine’s European integration accelerated our European path and helped the majority of Ukrainians understand the inevitability and necessity of the European course. And it’s good that the West also understood this.
However, another important event happened in June that is worth mentioning – the peace summit at the Swiss resort of Bürgenstock. It was indeed a representative international meeting, with dozens of leaders and high-ranking officials from many countries around the world coming to Switzerland to express their support for Ukraine in our resistance against Russian aggression and our search for ways to achieve a just peace. The point is not even how much this meeting brings us closer to peace – we all understand that without the aggressor’s willingness to stop the war, any peace negotiations are futile – but the level of support shown.
The preparation for the summit itself became a real sensation. On the eve of the forum, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, during a press conference at the Shangri-La Dialogue security summit in Singapore, openly accused the leadership of the People’s Republic of China of trying to disrupt the representative meeting.
“You can choose not to participate in this summit, you can choose not to help Ukraine and the civilized world to end the war. But I believe that disrupting the peace summit, taking steps to weaken the level of leaders’ presence, to ensure that some leaders do not reach the peace summit, to put pressure on them – this certainly does not bring peace any closer,” Volodymyr Zelensky emphasized. In his opinion, this is not only support for Russia – it is essentially support for the war because if you do not support the peace summit, it means that everything that is happening is normal for you.
It is worth recalling that China launched a genuine diplomatic offensive with the aim of weakening the influence of the peace summit and even disrupting the presence of many Global South countries at it. By and large, the diplomatic tour of Chinese Foreign Ministry representative Li Hui, his virtual meetings with national security advisers and other officials from many Global South countries, and the publication of the Chinese Foreign Ministry’s vision of ending the war, which was agreed upon by Chinese President Xi Jinping, Russian President Putin, and Brazilian President Lula da Silva, were essentially the first steps to disrupt the peace summit and lower the level of representation at it.
China’s official refusal to send any delegation to the summit because the organizers did not fulfill the main condition of the PRC (People’s Republic of China) – the presence of a high-ranking representative of the Russian Federation, namely Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov – can also be seen as a demonstration of not just unwillingness to participate in the peace summit but also an effort to influence the leaders of the Global South not to attend the meeting. But it should be noted that Beijing not only published its vision, as the Ukrainian president said, and emphasized that its delegation would not be present in Switzerland. It also recommended other countries that value good relations with China not to attend the peace summit, but instead to focus on preparing an alternative international conference, which China clearly sees either its own country or BRICS member countries close to it as the organizer.
Therefore, it can be said that China indeed decided to engage in a real diplomatic duel with Ukraine. The PRC leadership understands that its weight in the world, especially in the Global South, is much more significant and convincing than that of the Russian Federation. By and large, Russia cannot exert pressure on Global South countries or threaten them because it is interested in those countries buying its oil. In relations with Global South countries, Russia sees a chance to mitigate the effect of Western sanctions and continue steps to further militarize its economy and prolong the war with Ukraine, which remains the main political task of the Russian leader.
China, on the other hand, is a major investor in the Global South. And of course, the leaders of countries hoping for good economic relations with China thought twice before deciding whether to attend the summit in Switzerland or send a representative delegation there.
Moreover, the attempt to disrupt the summit in Switzerland is also reflected in the publication of an alternative vision for peace in Ukraine, which the Chinese Foreign Ministry is actively promoting, proposing to Global South leaders to solidarize with the Chinese approach. And it must be said that there are already results, as we know that this peace plan is now referred to as the Chinese-Brazilian plan.
Here we see a significant divergence between the understanding of a just peace that Ukraine defends, at least as a negotiating approach – a peace tied to respect for international law, the responsibility of the aggressor for the war that Russia started against Ukraine, and so on – and the Chinese vision, which is primarily about freezing the Russian-Ukrainian war. If we look closely at the proposals put forward by the Chinese leadership today, we see that Ukraine would have to agree to a suspension of the war without any real guarantees for its own security – a serious blow to Ukraine’s national interests; there is no mention of negotiations regarding the restoration of Ukraine’s territorial integrity.
China, in turn, is trying to push the points that concern it the most – primarily the preservation of financial institutions and international trade routes, and the prevention of nuclear danger. Here, one can say that Ukrainian and Chinese positions coincide only in the point related to the use of nuclear weapons. This is certainly an important part of China’s position, which can influence Putin’s perception of his capabilities in using this weapon in the war against Ukraine. However, if Putin sees that he can continue this war indefinitely and that China is ready to help him both economically and in restoring Russia’s military-industrial complex, then the question arises: why would Putin use nuclear weapons when, instead of nuclear weapons, he can rely on time – time that will allow him to hope for the continuation of a war of attrition?
Therefore, if the peace summit had not taken place, we might not have seen China’s position and understood its willingness to assist Russia. At the same time, the level of representation at the meeting in Switzerland could demonstrate a diplomatic defeat for both Russia and China. It once again reminded us that hoping for the illusory “mediation” of Global South countries is not worth it. It is also because Ukraine’s place is in Europe, in the West. And it is the help of the Western world that will depend on Ukraine’s resilience in the war with Russia.
The negotiations on Ukraine’s accession to the European Union reminded us of this once again.
