Ukraine peace summit failed to live up to ‘fairy tale’ expectations

Matthew Allen

When he’s not covering fintech, cryptocurrencies, blockchain, banking and trade, swissinfo.ch’s economics correspondent plays cricket on various pitches in Switzerland, including the frozen lake of St. Moritz.

• More from this author

• English Department

The Bürgenstock declaration, supported by 84 of the countries and organizations present, placed the responsibility for the conflict squarely on Russia.

Check out our selection of newsletters. Subscribe here.

But the declaration failed to garner support from several participants, including India, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Mexico and Brazil. Russia and China were not present at the two-day conference in central Switzerland.

+ Why China avoided the Swiss-led Ukraine peace summit

Unsurprisingly, Russian and Ukrainian media have issued conflicting verdicts on the summit results. The final communiqué contained significant changes compared to the initial draft, Ukrainian newspaper European Pravda reported.

“In a short time, it was radically revised, correcting key problems,” the newspaper wrote. “The updated project turned out to be quite acceptable for Ukraine. Its authors have (finally!) found the courage to call this war “Russian aggression”.”

Russian state-controlled media were less complimentary, echoing the view previously expressed by the Kremlin.

“The result of the peace summit in Switzerland looks doubtful even to a layman,” said the Russian newspaper MK.

“Diplomatic tightrope walk”

One of the non-signatories, South Africa, challenged Israel’s participation in the peace summit, despite being accused of war crimes and human rights abuses by a commission of the United Nations Human Rights Council.

+ How to find the path to peace in Ukraine

Daily Maverick quoted South Africa’s chief delegate, Sydney Mufamadi, as saying that “the failure to uniformly and fairly implement international law in all conflict situations globally weakens the normative framework of international responsibility and makes the world less secure for all.”

Colombian President Gustavo Petro withdrew at the last moment from the Bürgenstock summit, notes the Spanish newspaper El País. Petro took to social network X on Saturday to complain that the summit’s “conclusions are already predetermined” by “pro-war blocs of countries.”

The Indian Express interpreted India’s refusal to sign the declaration as another sign of New Delhi’s “diplomatic tightrope walking which has marked its diplomacy since the start of the war”. Several Indian media outlets have highlighted India’s dependence on Russia for weapons and discounted oil imports.

“Dangerous illusion”

Above all, Bürgenstock reinforced the deep divide between the United States and Europe on the one hand and the nations of the “South” led by China. “The division of the international community remains unresolved and the difficulty of achieving peace has once again been revealed,” noted the Japanese newspaper Mainichi Shimbun.

Swiss media also focused on the lack of global consensus, highlighted by the summit’s joint communiqué.

“This weekend, at the luxurious fairytale hotel Bürgenstock, people indulged in the no less fairytale idea that a diplomatic solution to the conflict could somehow be found. This is a dangerous illusion,” reports the newspaper Blick.

“India is missing. Saudi Arabia is absent. Mexico is absent. South Africa is missing,” Der Bund said. “Unity and solidarity were invoked at the start of the Bürgenstock conference, but when it came to the decisive final document, the very countries in which so much hope had been placed disappeared.”

Edited by Balz Rigendinger/ts