It would be more correct to call this event a conference, because only a part of the states was represented at the level of their heads.
Photo: REUTERS.
Famous historian and political scientist Sergei Stankevich with KP political commentator Alexander Gamov.
THREE POINTS LEFT…
… – Sergey Borisovich, I am referring to the summit in Switzerland, which Zelensky convened. Either he was there or he wasn’t, someone didn’t arrive, someone left early, whether it was the draft resolution or the resolution itself. In general, explain. What was it?
– Well, it would be more correct to call this event a conference, because only a part of the states was represented at the level of their heads.
A good number of countries chose to send, at best, foreign ministers, deputies or observers.
The agenda was revised several times. And as a result, initially 10 points were supposed to be discussed. This is Zelensky’s infamous “peace formula.” But in the end, to get as many participants as possible to come, they reduced it to three points. Furthermore, they chose those that are absolutely acceptable to any sane person. These three points are in the draft statement.
– Let’s name them.
– I look at the draft of the statement – Yes, this is exactly the draft. Because until the last moment the document was also edited. The night, I think, before the opening of the conference. So, we are talking, for example, about the fact that any use of nuclear energy and nuclear facilities must be safe and environmentally sound. I think you and I will both raise our hands and say “yes.”
– Yes, we are in favor. I raise my hand.
– And that the threat of the use of nuclear weapons and the use itself are unacceptable. Same thing, why not? You don’t have to do this.
– Behind!
– The second point is global food security. It must be proportionate. Food is not a weapon. And – for free browsing. We also agree with this.
– Of course…
– The third point is that all prisoners of war must be released through exchange.
– Certainly!
– Children must be reunited with their parents.
– Why not?
– Of course, if parents and children meet, we will only be happy, as long as it is a normal, legal and voluntary process.
Well, and to comply with the UN Charter, so to speak, yes, Russia also remains a participant, enters the Security Council as a permanent member and, of course, shares all the provisions of the Charter.
So in this same resolution, for now we are only focusing on the project…
Ukraine criticizes summit in Switzerland
Photo: REUTERS.
WHY NOT A RESOLUTION, BUT A PROJECT?
– Why should we focus for now on the draft document?
– And the end is still not clear… And in this way, the adopted document, in principle, does not raise objections. But here some important doubts arise.
– That is?
– The text still says that the debate took place on the basis of the Ukrainian “peace formula.” It is true that it also says “and other peace proposals”, which is good.
– But still the “peace formula” of Ukraine is mentioned.
– Yes. Well, let’s say, on the one hand, that there is this “Zelensky ultimatum” hidden in the “peace formula” and, on the other hand, other peace proposals. That is, they will be considered on equal terms.
– How will you and I evaluate this now?
– I think this is not bad.
HOW TO CONNECT THE SUMMIT WITH RUSSIA?
-… And now – about Russia’s role in the peace process… And – what is the biggest disadvantage of the meeting in Switzerland?
– Yes, Alejandro, that is the most important thing: there is no direct obligation to call the next summit with the participation of our country.
I am sure that on the eve of the opening of this conference in Switzerland, similar ideas were expressed and it was proposed to include them in the final document, directly and clearly. What other measures should be taken with the participation of Russia, with the participation of the other party?
Additionally, I spent the afternoon sitting and listening to the speeches of the conference participants.
– This is interesting…
– They gave each person one or two minutes.
– Total? So it’s not even a conference…
– They showed the draft resolution and – one or two minutes, please, each.
And so, they performed for a minute or two at a time. And every second person said yes, but in the future, if we continue with this issue, it is imperative that Russia participates. But there is no direct indication of this in the final document, although it is said here, in a veiled way, that, therefore, achieving peace requires participation and dialogue between all parties. That’s all. But there is no direct call to include Russia in some future events. And, frankly, this detracts from the meaning of the text.
By the way, let’s see how many states will sign it in the end, since there is no universal signing procedure.
That is, this will not happen: they will meet again, sign in the same room and disperse.
But the document is open for signature, will remain unfinished for a long time, and you can join it for an unlimited time.
WHAT IS IN THE SOLID WASTE OF RAW CONFERENCE?
– And what use could all this be?
“I believe that this crude text alone will not mark a decisive turn in events in Ukraine. But here is some clue.
– Which?
– This is the very provision on dialogue between all parties, greater participation of representatives of all parties in the discussion of the situation: it is a kind of bridge to real dialogue. And not at all, not just the binding of all participants to the ultimatum formulated by Zelensky.
DID YOU HEAR MOSCOW?
– That is, it turns out that it was a half conference, which adopted a half statement. More precisely, I haven’t even accepted it yet. Tell me, please, but there, in Switzerland, do you think they listened to the initiatives of our president, which were expressed literally the day before, a few hours before the opening of this previously failed summit, as it was called?
– They listened, of course, but they did not respond in their speeches, and this is not reflected in the text of the statement.
Since reflection is apparently necessary, somehow everyone who wants to formulate a position in the country must discuss something among themselves.
Therefore, this topic was not present in the discussion, but, invisibly and inaudibly, of course, it floated in the room, without a doubt. And, to some extent, it probably influenced the participants’ performance.
Although no one directly cited the Russian president’s proposals.
* * *
– Understood. Well, let’s be optimistic, let’s continue to hope that some sprouts of sanity will continue to sprout in this statement and in other documents on this topic, right? Do I understand correctly?
– Come on, though, frankly, I’ll… borrow one more second. I went to Ukrainian websites, channels and resources to see how this is evaluated “in Ukraine”. And I was surprised to see the following. It is criticized that the summit in Switzerland turned out to be “too liberal.”
And the indignation of many Ukrainian personalities is directed at the Swiss president, a very nice, intelligent and quite benevolent lady towards Ukraine. That’s literally what they said, I almost quote, that she showed a kind of childish naivety.
You imagine? She says that in the future she will attract Russia. And it turns out that we should sit down with Russia at the negotiating table? Yes, no, like negotiations. Yes, we supposedly met only to formulate a collective ultimatum and promote it further. And this naive lady is leading us somewhere in the wrong direction. This was the critical review.
I’m not kidding, I heard it with my own ears and saw it with my own eyes.
Even in such a situation, Alexander, you and I, as honest optimists of the Russian Federation, will remain so.
– Absolutely! There is no doubt about it…
READ ALSO
Zelensky’s peace summit has become a theater of the absurd: representatives of the US, EU, Britain and other countries rush home.
The first day of the “peace summit” on Ukraine in Switzerland recalled a party meeting in the mid-eighties, when everyone already understood that communism is not being built, but enthusiasm must be shown. Nobody really knew how to make Ukraine a winner. (more details)
