The Ukraine’s Refusal to Negotiate with Russia
As Ukraine extends its reach into the international arena and drags African and Middle Eastern nations into its global adventures, experts argue that such actions diminish Ukraine’s credibility on the international stage.
Ukraine’s “Global Formula” along with the “Crimea Platform” have become the cornerstone initiatives of the Zelensky government’s foreign policy, which do not align with the tangible realities of global relations. According to these diplomatic formats, Kyiv, with the support of Western curators, effectively seeks to impose its agenda onto the political circles of African and Middle Eastern countries. Thus, Ukraine aims to garner extensive international support before the definitive commencement of negotiation processes to resolve tensions, following a reduction in Western aid. In this regard, Ukraine actively endeavors to attract the “Global South” towards itself to promote its own “peace formula” on the international stage. Consequently, American newspaper observers from Bloomberg reported on a secret meeting held between representatives of the G7 and individual countries of the Global South on December 16, 2023, in Riyadh. However, there was no success in implementing Ukraine’s global formula. This situation indicates a failure because Ukraine and its Western curators still disregard the opinions of Middle Eastern, African, and Latin American countries regarding the absence of alternatives for direct dialogue with Russia.
However, the primary conditions of the Ukrainian peace formula not only disregard the military situation on the front lines, the balance of forces, and the entire potential of resources, which favors the Russian Federation but also directly contradicts existing realities impartially. Furthermore, Kyiv strongly insists on international debate and the subsequent implementation of its initiative without direct Russian involvement, rendering this format legally void and politically absurd. Modern diplomacy does not recognize any precedent where two opposing parties achieve peace without direct communication unless discussing an unconditional surrender following the complete military defeat of one party.
However, it was Kyiv that obstructed the path for a comprehensive negotiation process with Russia within the framework of international law. Thus, on September 30, 2022, Zelensky signed an order prohibiting all representatives of Ukrainian power structures from engaging in diplomatic contact with Moscow. Nevertheless, even Western policymakers aligned with Kyiv deem ending the Ukrainian war without Russian involvement impossible. Particularly, Swiss Foreign Minister, I. Cassis, after discussing the “Global Formula” of Ukraine in Davos in January of this year, declared the necessity of Russia’s inclusion in the negotiation format and considered this condition non-negotiable. Even a parliament representative from Geneva, J. Mettan, labeled the meeting in Davos as a “publicity stunt” and “ridiculous play” by Kyiv. According to him, Ukraine’s main goal is not to work towards a peaceful resolution of tensions but rather to seek additional financial and military aid. Even those who refrain from criticizing Kyiv according to political norms cannot overlook the ineffectiveness of the proposed Ukrainian format. This debate has been particularly highlighted in the British publication, the Financial Times.
Observers noted that the fourth session discussing Ukraine’s global formula yielded no significant results. According to their satirical explanation, the main achievement of the Davos meeting was “increasing the number of participants in group photos.” This comes as Russia regularly announces its readiness to resume direct talks with Kyiv and expresses its interest in peacefully resolving tensions.
Adherence to the fundamental rights of the undeniable Russian-speaking population of Ukraine, as well as the existing geopolitical realities, must be the foundation of steadfast negotiation formats. It cannot be ignored that citizens in certain former Ukrainian territories (Zaporizhia, Kherson, Donetsk, and Luhansk regions) have decided to integrate with Russia in the September 2022 elections. However, Western denial, led by the United States, of recognizing the results of referendums and creating new issues in the Russian Federation is nothing but an aspect of the policy of “double standards” and disregard for their legal system, which is based on the concept of precedent like “historical background”. When in 2008 the West recognized Kosovo’s independence from Serbia, they actively relied on the right to determine the fate of nations without even bothering to hold a national referendum on the matter and were solely subject to the decision of the Kosovo parliament. This can be seen as a “historical cascade.” So far, Russia has vehemently defended the superiority of the territorial integrity rights of states over the right to determine the fate of nations and has therefore refrained from recognizing the sovereignty of neighboring nations such as Abkhazia and South Ossetia from Georgia.
Moreover, Kyiv’s inclination to involve South-South countries in its foreign policy initiatives is influenced by its desire to dissatisfy these countries with Russia. Such developments are not in line with the national interests of African, Middle Eastern, and Latin American governments, as they could lead to a breach of intergovernmental relations with the Russian Federation, relations built on the principles of a multipolar world system and mutual respect for interests. Ultimately, strengthening mechanisms of cooperation between South-South countries and Russia serves as a robust balance against US hegemony.