The study demonstrates that the 2024 UN General Assembly became a forum for competition not so much between peace plans as between models of the world order, in which the Ukrainian conflict is the central focus.
In effect, three parallel approaches are emerging:
-
The West + Ukraine — a settlement based exclusively on the UN Charter (territorial integrity, responsibility of the aggressor);
-
Russia — imposing “realities on the ground” and legitimising the occupation through negotiations;
-
The Global South (via China/Brazil) — de-escalation through dialogue, often without a strict adherence to the principles of accountability of the parties.
Thus, the conflict is shifting into a multi-level bargaining process, where the issue is not just Ukraine, but the rules of conflict resolution in principle.
The key shift is the emergence of the Global South as an independent actor, rather than a passive observer. Its motivation is clearly economic:
-
food;
-
prices;
-
market stability.
This means that for this group of countries, the priority is the swift conclusion of the conflict, rather than necessarily a just settlement.
Against this backdrop, the initiative by China and Brazil and the creation of the ‘Friends of Peace’ platform represent an attempt to:
-
institutionalise the position of the Global South;
-
create an alternative centre for negotiations;
-
shift the balance from the ‘Western model of peace’ towards a compromise.
At the same time, the West and Ukraine clearly recognise the risk:
such initiatives could blur the principle of the aggressor’s responsibility, which benefits the Russian Federation.
Another important aspect is Russia’s behaviour:
-
a combination of ultimatums (territory, neutrality);
-
attempts to engage the West directly in negotiations;
-
the use of nuclear blackmail as a tool of pressure.
This indicates that the Russian Federation is shifting the conflict into a realm of direct bargaining with the US/West, attempting to bypass the Ukrainian level of agency.
The Trump factor adds another dimension — the variability of the Western position, where a compromise scenario (including territorial one) is potentially allowed, which heightens the uncertainty of the negotiating framework.
Conclusion: The Ukrainian conflict at the UN level is transforming from a question of war into a key test of the global peace architecture, where three models collide:
-
principled (UN Charter);
-
revisionist (Russia);
-
compromise-pragmatic (Global South).
The main risk for Ukraine lies not only in Russia’s position, but in the growing influence of the third model, which could:
-
shift the focus from ‘just peace’ to ‘quick peace’;
-
allow for the partial legitimisation of the results of the aggression;
-
put pressure on Ukraine and the West to make compromises.
At the same time, the emergence of the ‘Friends of Peace’ platform creates the opposite potential —
provided there is consolidation around UN principles, it could become a tool for exerting pressure on the Russian Federation.
Key conclusion:
in 2024, the negotiation process will enter a phase of global realignment, where the outcome will depend not only on the positions of the parties to the conflict, but on which model of peace — principled or compromising — gains the support of the majority of international actors.
RESEARCH.
Introduction.
The Ukraine/West peace plan (terms under the UN Charter)
-
‘Victory Plan’
-
New meetings as part of the ‘peace formula’ initiative
-
Discussions on the second conference regarding the ‘peace formula’
-
Alternative venues and mediators
Initiatives by China and Brazil
-
Implications for countries of the Global South
-
The China and Brazil initiative
-
The ‘Friends of Peace’ platform
Russia’s peace plan, the Trump factor (violation of Ukraine’s territorial integrity)
-
Nuclear threats to stimulate negotiations between the Russian Federation and the West
-
The Trump Factor
Conclusions.
Introduction.
The General Assembly convened for its annual 79th session: during which, on 22 and 23 September 2024, the ‘Summit of the Future’ was held for the first time, at which issues of peace and global security were discussed and the ‘Pact for the Future’, the Global Digital Compact and the ‘Declaration for Future Generations’ were adopted, and the traditional High-Level Week took place.
Another key event of the General Assembly sessions, as is traditional, is the High-Level Week — an event to which heads of state and ministers gather annually to speak on pressing issues. The annual debates took place from 24 to 28 September, as well as on 30 September.
Particular attention was paid at the General Assembly to the conflict in Ukraine and the search for ways to resolve it on fair terms. The diagram below schematically illustrates the main trends in the discussions: the peace plan proposed by Ukraine and the West, proposals from China and Brazil, Russia’s ultimatum, and the preliminary outlines of US presidential candidate Donald Trump’s peace plan, which have recently come to light.
The position of the UN and the West (US, EU)
Russia has sought to prevent the UN Secretariat from supporting and directly participating in peace initiatives regarding Ukraine that would promote a resolution of the conflict in accordance with the UN Charter and guarantee the preservation of Ukraine’s territorial integrity, which runs counter to Russia’s ultimatum to Ukraine, in which the Russian Federation demands recognition of the realities on the ground and recognition of the legality of the occupation and annexation of Ukrainian territories. Thus, UN Secretary-General António Guterres, speaking at the general political debate of the 79th session of the UN General Assembly (GA). on 24 September 2024, stated that the conflict in Ukraine must be resolved on the basis of the UN Charter and resolutions, as well as international law and Ukraine’s territorial integrity. For his part, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, on 27 September, urged UN Secretary-General António Guterres not to allow representatives of the organisation to be drawn into “politicised pseudo-peace initiatives” regarding Ukraine, insisting that the UN must maintain an impartial stance towards the parties to the conflict in Ukraine.
In their statements, the US and the EU noted that the conflict in Ukraine is a global challenge and affects the resolution of global issues, and that the West will continue to support and assist Ukraine in its confrontation with Russian aggression.
Thus, US President Joe Biden, speaking from the rostrum of the UN General Assembly in New York as part of the general political debate at the 79th session on 24 September, stated that the conflict in Ukraine and the escalation of the Palestinian-Israeli confrontation have become serious global challenges in recent years, alongside such global issues as hunger, terrorism, displacement, the climate crisis, democracy under threat, and so on. Joe Biden emphasised that he expects the West not to tire of supporting Ukraine, which might otherwise cease to exist. According to his stated position, the West will not cease to support Ukraine until it achieves a just and lasting peace in accordance with the UN Charter.
For his part, the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs, Josep Borrell, speaking on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly session on 25 September, expressed the view that failure in Ukraine would be a widespread failure. In his speech, he emphasised that the West does not want Ukraine to surrender and become a second Belarus, and this must be clear to everyone. Speaking on 27 September at a seminar organised by the Council on Foreign Relations in the US, which was broadcast by the European Commission’s press service, Josep Borrell stated: ‘We must help Ukraine more and faster. We must give Ukraine an economic and strategic advantage over Russia and allow it to decide for itself what is acceptable and what is not.’
Ukraine/West peace plan (terms under the UN Charter)
The diagram shows Ukraine’s position within the UN.
‘Plan for Victory’
Note: Addressing the UN General Assembly, Zelenskyy announced that he has a specific plan to end the conflict, the details of which he intends to discuss with US President Joe Biden, as certain aspects of this plan depend on Washington’s decision. The Ukrainian leader described the solution to the situation as a “plan for victory”, based on his own proposed “peace formula”.
On 24 September 2024, Volodymyr Zelenskyy stated that his so-called ‘victory plan’ for Ukraine has no bearing on negotiations with Russia; it is aimed at strengthening the Armed Forces of Ukraine and is about bolstering Ukraine and the Ukrainian army. It has emerged that Zelenskyy’s initiative will include details of the military aid Kyiv requires and a list of certain political and diplomatic steps, whilst it has been emphasised that the ‘plan’ contains no concessions to Russia. On 26 September, US President Joe Biden discussed the diplomatic, economic and military components of Kyiv’s proposed ‘victory plan’ during a meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
John Kirby, the White House National Security Council’s Coordinator for Strategic Communications, stated that Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s ‘Plan for Victory’ is a set of initiatives that the US and Ukraine need to examine more closely over the coming weeks, adding that Biden and Zelenskyy will hold a meeting on 12 October in Germany, where, in particular, they will discuss the proposals put forward. It has also emerged that aides to US President Joe Biden and Volodymyr Zelenskyy are discussing the details of the ‘plan’ proposed by the Ukrainian leader to resolve the conflict in Ukraine. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, for his part, stated at a press conference in New York that the United States would carefully examine the ‘victory plan’ proposed by Kyiv to understand what else is required from Washington to assist Ukraine. According to the US Secretary of State, President Joe Biden “intends to ensure that Ukraine has everything it needs” for a successful military confrontation with Russia.
The newspaper Il Messaggero reported that, according to its high-ranking diplomatic sources, Rome, Paris and Washington are currently aiming to transform Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s ‘victory plan’ into a ‘peace plan’, by drawing up a concrete roadmap for achieving a ceasefire. This plan is to be guaranteed regardless of the outcome of the US presidential election in November.
Zelenskyy’s peace plan
Note: A conference on Ukraine took place in Bürgenstock on 15–16 June. Switzerland, which organised the event in agreement with the authorities in Kyiv, did not invite Russia. Delegations from some countries, including China, did not attend the forum. None of the BRICS member states endorsed the final communiqué. The joint communiqué issued following the conference calls for Kyiv to regain control of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, and also contains calls for freedom of navigation in the Black and Azov Seas, and for the exchange and release of all prisoners of war. The document also refers to the need for dialogue between all parties to end the conflict. Of the 91 participants at the meeting, 76 supported the communiqué. Armenia, Bahrain, Brazil, India, Indonesia, Libya, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Thailand and the United Arab Emirates did not sign the final communiqué. Iraq, Jordan and Rwanda later withdrew their signatures from the communiqué.
New meetings under the ‘peace formula’ initiative
The Canadian Foreign Ministry has announced that a ministerial conference on the humanitarian aspects of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s so-called ‘peace formula’ will be held in late October. “Canada, together with the other co-organisers — Norway and Ukraine — will host a Ministerial Conference on the humanitarian aspects of Ukraine’s 10-point peace formula on 30–31 October 2024,” the document states. It is expected to be attended by the foreign ministers of countries supporting Kyiv. Conference participants intend to discuss humanitarian issues, in particular the return of prisoners of war.
Switzerland has not invited Russia to the international conference on demining in Ukraine, which it is organising jointly with Kyiv on 17–18 October in Lausanne. “Switzerland has invited more than 50 states, as well as relevant international and regional organisations. There are also participants from NGOs, the academic community and the private sector. In addition to all EU countries, donor countries and affected states from the Global South have also been invited,” said Raggi. The list of participating countries and organisations will be published before the conference begins, the spokesperson added.
Discussions on a second conference on the ‘peace formula’
Indeed, on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, views were expressed that a second conference on Ukraine is necessary, but it is currently premature to discuss an exact date for its holding for a number of reasons, including: difficulties in engaging countries of the Global South, particularly due to the Russian Federation’s refusal to participate in such a conference; the lack of a venue for the conference (host country) that would be accepted by all parties; the lack of a joint plan that would satisfy all potential mediators, and so on.
For example:
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan stated that he expects his country to participate in the peace conference proposed by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. However, the President emphasised that ‘the parties are not yet close to this’ peaceful solution.
Vikram Misri, First Deputy Minister of External Affairs of India, commenting on the meeting between Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, which took place in New York, stated that it is still too early to discuss in detail a new summit on the settlement in Ukraine, similar to the one held in Switzerland in June.
Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó stated that a second ‘peace conference’ on Ukraine is more propaganda than anything of substance. He emphasised that a new conference on Ukraine would only be successful with the participation of both sides and the existence of a concrete plan, but neither of these currently exists.
Russia’s Ambassador to Switzerland, Sergey Garmonin, stated that Switzerland, which supported the EU’s sanctions against Russia, cannot serve as a neutral venue for negotiations. In March 2022, the Russian government approved a list of foreign states and territories engaging in unfriendly actions against Russia, its companies and citizens. The Swiss Confederation has been included on this list.
Swiss Foreign Minister Ignazio Cassis, speaking on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly session, stated that the countries of the Global South and the BRICS nations had major issues with the conference in Bürgenstock — some did not attend, others were represented at a low level, as they felt that their understanding of the realities and search for solutions had not been sufficiently taken into account. They also believed that Russia should have participated. As the Swiss Foreign Minister noted, ‘it is im e to think of peace without the presence of both parties to the conflict’. It was stated that “Switzerland understood this, but at the time of organising the first conference, it was impossible. However, it is planned to achieve this during the organisation of the second conference in order to take a step forward,” he added. It was therefore emphasised that the peace initiative by China and Brazil regarding Ukraine represents an interesting contribution to the cause of a peaceful settlement.
Alternative platforms and mediators
Note: In August, The Hindu reported that Volodymyr Zelenskyy had proposed to a number of Global South countries that they host a new peace summit on Ukraine. Among other countries, he singled out India, but stated that holding the summit in a country that had not signed the communiqué of the last peace summit was impossible. Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced that Kyiv is in talks with Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey regarding a second summit on Ukraine. As reported by RIA Novosti, citing a diplomatic source in Ankara, the exact venue for the second conference on Ukraine has not yet been determined, with Saudi Arabia being one of the options under discussion.
India – as an alternative mediator (under the UN Charter)
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi stated on 24 September during a meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy that his country is ready to provide any possible assistance for a peaceful resolution of the conflict in Ukraine. “India remains open to providing all possible support to facilitate a robust and peaceful resolution of the conflict,” the Indian Ministry of External Affairs’ website states. Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar emphasised that India does not have a peace plan for Ukraine, but it is in communication with both sides of the conflict and relays information from one to the other. He also expressed the view that negotiations between Russia and Ukraine will take place at some point, but both sides of the conflict must participate in them. According to him, New Delhi is in communication with Moscow and Kyiv to understand what India can do to facilitate the start of serious negotiations on a settlement.
The European edition of the newspaper Politico, citing a high-ranking source within the Ukrainian leadership, reported that the Ukrainian authorities are counting on India’s mediation efforts to help them conclude a peace agreement with Russia on terms acceptable to Kyiv. According to the report, this conclusion was reached in Kyiv following Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Ukraine in August 2024. At that time, the Indian leader allegedly agreed with the Ukrainian authorities’ position that a peace agreement with Russia ‘should not involve the transfer of territories to Moscow’. However, according to the publication, the Indian leader insisted that Ukraine would have to make compromises with Russia on other issues. The Ukrainian Foreign Ministry did not directly confirm the newspaper’s report, but noted that it considers New Delhi a reliable partner and counts on its assistance in resolving the conflict. “We want to see India’s participation in the process of [creating] a peace formula, as India can change the situation,” explained Georgiy Tykhyi, a spokesperson for the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry, to Politico.
Turkey — as an alternative mediator and alternative negotiating platform (under the UN Charter)
On 26 September, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan expressed Turkey’s readiness to organise a conference on Ukraine. He emphasised that Turkey’s ability to negotiate with both the Ukrainian and Russian sides is seen as an advantage on the path to peace.
Qatar — as an alternative mediator (under the UN Charter)
Note: Qatar is acting as a mediator between Russia and Ukraine on the issue of returning children taken from the combat zone. On 8 July, the press service of Maria Lvova-Belova, the Russian Federation’s Presidential Commissioner for Children’s Rights, reported that Russia, with Qatar’s assistance, had facilitated the reunion of a mother from Ukraine with her daughter. The girl became the 71st child to return to her family in Ukraine and other countries.
The Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, speaking from the rostrum of the UN General Assembly in New York on 24 September, called on Russia and Ukraine to work towards finding ways to peacefully resolve the conflict. He stated that he was reiterating his call on all parties to adhere to the provisions of the UN Charter and the norms of international law, as well as to work towards finding a peaceful solution as the only viable option. Speaking about Qatar’s mediation efforts to resolve various conflicts, Sheikh Tamim noted that Doha’s actions had helped reunite “dozens of Ukrainian children with their families”.
Egypt — as an alternative mediator (under the UN Charter)
Indeed, in a statement issued by the Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs following a meeting between the country’s Foreign Minister, Badr Abdel Aty, and Ukraine’s Foreign Minister, Andriy Sybiga, which took place in New York on the sidelines of the 79th session of the UN General Assembly on 25 September, it is stated that the Egyptian authorities support efforts aimed at resolving the conflict between Ukraine and Russia through diplomatic means. Furthermore, speaking on 27 September at a multilateral meeting to discuss the initiative by China and Brazil aimed at resolving the Ukrainian conflict, stated that the Egyptian authorities had expressed their readiness to facilitate a political settlement of the conflict in Ukraine by all means and to participate in genuine efforts to resolve the Ukrainian-Russian crisis. He expressed Egypt’s desire to achieve a political solution to the conflict and to secure a lasting settlement based on the UN Charter and the principles of international law.
Saudi Arabia (platform and mediator).
Saudi Arabia announced at the UN the formation of an international alliance to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on the basis of the two-state solution. The alliance includes Arab, Muslim and European countries, with the first meetings to be held in Riyadh and Brussels. No public official statements were made regarding Ukraine.
Initiatives by China and Brazil
The diagram shows the initiatives of China and Brazil at the UN.
Consequences for the Global South
Countries of the Global South recognise the negative consequences of the Ukrainian conflict for the world as a whole and for their own economic performance. This is prompting countries of the Global South to take a more active role in resolving the Ukrainian conflict as mediators between Kyiv and Moscow, as well as to propose their own peace initiatives to bring it to an end.
Here are a few examples of such statements.
On 27 September, on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, Egypt’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Badr Abdel Aty, highlighted the importance of uniting international efforts to achieve peace in the Ukrainian conflict, particularly given the negative consequences of this conflict for the humanitarian, political and economic spheres, which Egypt, as one of the world’s largest wheat importers, is also experiencing. The head of Bangladesh’s caretaker government and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Muhammad Yunus, speaking at the general political debate of the 79th session of the UN General Assembly, stated that Bangladesh believes the conflict in Ukraine, which has economic consequences for many countries around the world, including the South Asian republic, must be resolved through dialogue between its parties. “The war in Ukraine, which has been going on for two and a half years, has claimed too many lives. It has affected many countries and regions of the world and led to profound economic consequences,” he said. Somali Foreign Minister Ahmed Muallim Fiki stated that his country has been severely affected by the conflict in Ukraine due to rising food prices.
There are two ways to remedy the situation:
• minimising the impact of the Ukrainian conflict on countries of the Global South, which may mean a deep freeze of the conflict with Russia retaining (or not) the results achieved previously, including territorial ones – partial implementation of the UN Charter,
• a complete resolution of the Ukrainian conflict on fair terms – in accordance with the UN Charter.
China has taken the lead in addressing the consequences of the Ukrainian conflict at the global (international) level for the countries of the Global South, with active support on this issue from representatives of Hungary.
Indeed, Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó stated that the countries of the Global South are disappointed that they are having to pay the price for a conflict in Ukraine that is far removed from them, and that they want peace. The Foreign Minister noted that countries of the Global South, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, are “disappointed that they have to pay the price for a distant conflict”. Péter Szijjártó also stated, following a meeting with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, that Hungary appreciates China’s efforts to establish peace in Ukraine. According to him, Beijing is now “effectively leading” the global majority that advocates for peace.
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi stated at the UN Security Council meeting on Ukraine on 24 September that an increasing number of countries in the Global South are uniting to support peace and create conditions for a peaceful resolution of the Ukrainian conflict. Wang Yi also noted that countries in the Global South, among which developing nations have been hardest hit, are under significant pressure due to the ongoing conflict.
Reactions to the China-Brazil initiative
According to Punchbowl, against the backdrop of the 79th session of the UN General Assembly held in New York, Ukrainian officials sent materials to their American counterparts expressing Kyiv’s dissatisfaction with China’s peace plan. Furthermore, in his address to the UN General Assembly, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy accused the global organisation of inaction, spoke out against plans to resolve the conflict that were alternative to Kyiv’s, and also opposed a freeze on the conflict. In his speech, he also spoke out against initiatives aimed at suspending the conflict. Zelenskyy added that the settlement must be such as to prevent a ‘second or third phase’ of the conflict with Russia.
The EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs, Josep Borrell, held talks on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly with his Chinese counterpart Wang Yi, after which Borrell emphasised that “any proposal for a comprehensive, just and sustainable peace in Ukraine must be based on the UN Charter”, and considered that the joint statement with Brazil from May 2024 did not move in this direction.
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken also criticised the proposals put forward by other countries regarding a peaceful settlement in Ukraine. He noted that other countries had submitted their own proposals. Some of them make no mention of the UN Charter and its provisions, make no distinction between the aggressor and the victim of aggression, and call on all parties to de-escalate. According to Blinken, implementing such proposals would benefit Russia, but not Ukraine, and would also “encourage potential aggressors around the world”. “History teaches us that a world without principles is a prelude to new conflict, new suffering and greater instability,” said US Secretary of State Blinken. “A peace plan in which the aggressor gets everything it sought, and the victim has no way to defend its rights, is not a recipe for a lasting peace, and certainly not a just one,” Blinken replied. “In our view, any proposal, any plan that is clearly grounded in the principles of the UN Charter, in particular territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence, is something worth paying attention to. That is why the US administration opposes Brazil and China’s vision for a political settlement of the Ukrainian crisis.
The China-Brazil Initiative
Note: In May 2024, following consultations between Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi and the Brazilian President’s Special Representative, Celso Amorim, a joint statement was published. It states that dialogue and negotiations are the only way to resolve the Ukrainian crisis. China and Brazil also proposed holding an international peace conference ‘at an appropriate time’, with the equal participation of all parties and the discussion of all peace plans. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy sharply criticised the Brazilian and Chinese plan for resolving the Ukrainian conflict, calling it destructive.
The original document issued by China and Brazil on resolving the Ukrainian crisis calls on all parties involved to adhere to three principles for de-escalating the situation, namely: not to expand the theatre of operations, not to intensify hostilities, and not to engage in provocations. Secondly, the document emphasises that dialogue and negotiations are the only viable solution to the Ukrainian crisis. Thirdly, the document calls for an increase in humanitarian aid to the affected regions and for preventing the humanitarian crisis from escalating, as well as avoiding attacks on the civilian population and civilian infrastructure; China and Brazil have also expressed support for the exchange of prisoners of war between the parties to the conflict. The fourth point emphasises the inadmissibility of the use of weapons of mass destruction and the need to prevent a nuclear crisis from arising. In the fifth point, China and Brazil opposed attacks on nuclear power plants and other peaceful nuclear facilities. Sixthly, the parties called for resistance to the division of the world into closed political or economic blocs.
Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, speaking at the UN General Assembly on 24 September, stated that creating the conditions for the resumption of direct dialogue between the parties is of crucial importance at this moment. He noted that this is precisely the message contained in the draft agreements proposed by China and Brazil to establish a dialogue process and cease hostilities. Brazilian President Lula da Silva also stated that the Ukrainian leadership is not obliged to accept the peace plan proposed by Brazil or China, but that it is important to begin peace negotiations, and that peace can only be achieved through dialogue.
According to Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó, Budapest considers it unacceptable that some countries regard certain peace initiatives regarding Ukraine as more worthy of consideration than others. Hungary hopes that the initiatives of China and Brazil regarding the resolution of the conflict in Ukraine will be considered alongside the rest, and believes that the principle of ‘exclusivity’ should not apply in this matter.
Meanwhile, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian stated at a briefing on 27 September that China and Brazil’s vision for a political settlement of the Ukrainian crisis is supported by over 110 countries worldwide. He also added that China is ready to engage with the relevant parties and work together to facilitate a political settlement of the crisis.
The “Friends of Peace” platform
Consequently, during a meeting with the Brazilian President’s Special Representative, Celso Amorim, in New York on 27 September, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi stated that China, Brazil and other countries of the Global South would establish the ‘Friends of Peace’ platform to promote a peaceful resolution to the Ukrainian crisis. He noted that this would be “an attempt by China, Brazil and the countries of the Global South to achieve peace”. The Chinese diplomat added that “Friends of Peace” is “not a closed group, but an open platform. He noted that Brazil and China could work together to de-escalate the situation and reach a broad consensus on resolving the crisis”.
Special Representative of the Brazilian President Celso Amorim reported that, in addition to Brazil and China, 15 other countries took part in the meeting on the political settlement of the conflict in Ukraine, which took place on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly: Algeria, Bolivia, Vietnam, Zambia, Egypt, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Colombia, Mexico, the UAE, Thailand, Turkey, Ethiopia and South Africa, whilst Hungary, France and Switzerland were present at the meeting as observers.
Furthermore, Celso Amorim, an adviser to the Brazilian president, stated that the ‘Friends of Peace’ group, established on the initiative of China and Brazil to facilitate a settlement in Ukraine, is convinced of the need to hold a peace conference involving Russia and Ukraine and stands ready to organise a peace summit for them. According to the Brazilian leader’s adviser, the Brazil-China document met with no objections at the meeting and was signed by all participating countries, with the exception of Saudi Arabia, which is involved in the negotiations. The Brazilian diplomat concluded by expressing the view that Russia and Ukraine would become part of the negotiation process to end the conflict when the time is right.
Reaction to the ‘Friends of Peace’ proposals.
Switzerland. Nicolas Bido, Head of Communications at the Swiss Foreign Ministry, stated that Switzerland welcomes and supports the peace initiative by China and Brazil regarding Ukraine, as it is based on UN values. “Given that the initiative developed by the Chinese and Brazilians has now been adapted to reflect UN values, the specific diplomatic efforts organised by the Sino-Brazilian group may be of interest to us. Switzerland supports all peace initiatives that are in keeping with the spirit of Bürgenstock. We welcome this peace initiative, which is primarily aimed at achieving peace,” said Bido. He also emphasised that Switzerland wishes to act as a bridge between the West and the Global South to achieve peace in Ukraine. “We see our role, among other things, as a link between the West’s vision and that of the Global South on the path to peace,” said Bido.
Russia. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated that Russia calls on those countries proposing peace initiatives regarding Ukraine to take into account the need to address the root causes of the conflict. Russia is ready to assist the ‘Friends of Peace’ group in resolving the Ukrainian conflict, provided that its proposals are grounded in reality. He noted that it is necessary to understand the specific content of the initiative by China and Brazil to create the ‘Friends of Peace’ platform for resolving the Ukrainian conflict. He also emphasised that, specifically, no one has yet informed him how they plan to move towards peace; this issue is apparently still under consideration. He noted that Switzerland’s participation in the meeting of the ‘Friends of Peace’ group, established on the initiative of China and Brazil to resolve the conflict in Ukraine, struck him as odd given Bern’s departure from the principles of neutrality. The Russian Foreign Minister added that he had asked his Chinese counterpart how this had come about. “He says they were very keen to join, and we collectively decided to invite them as observers,” Lavrov reported.
At present, it can be assumed that we are witnessing an attempt to consolidate the countries of the Global South regarding the Ukrainian conflict under China’s leadership – the creation of a ‘Peace Group’.
Russia’s peace plan, the Trump factor (violation of Ukraine’s territorial integrity)
Consequences for Russia
Factors pushing Global South countries towards a compromise with the West – worsening consequences for Russia due to the war with Ukraine, increased pressure, including from China. As a result of these factors, pressure from Global South countries on Moscow regarding the Ukrainian conflict may increase. Among these consequences, one may also see the Global South countries refusing to implement a sanctions-evasion system, which Russia is actively imposing on them in its own interests in the near future; however, this does not mean that the issue will be removed from the agenda. The issue of implementing a sanctions-evasion system or elements thereof within the BRICS and SCO frameworks requires close attention.
Thus, among the measures to exacerbate the consequences for Russia due to the war with Ukraine, which have been announced during this period, the following can be cited:
-
The G7 countries intend to continue exerting pressure on the Russian state’s revenues from the sale of energy resources and raw materials in the context of countering Moscow in the Ukrainian conflict. As specified in the document, maintaining this pressure will involve ‘enhancing the effectiveness of oil price cap policies’ by taking further steps ‘to strengthen compliance and enforcement’, including against the ‘shadow fleet’ used by Russia. At the same time, efforts must be made to maintain market stability.
-
Ministers also emphasised their support for “Ukraine’s right to self-defence” and reaffirmed their intention to “increase industrial production and supply capabilities to assist Ukraine’s self-defence”, as well as “expressed their determination to strengthen Ukraine’s air defence capabilities”, the communiqué states.
-
Furthermore, G7 members expressed their intention to “continue to take appropriate measures”, consistent with their legal systems, against entities in China and third countries that materially support Russia’s defence industry, including “financial institutions and other entities that facilitate Russia’s procurement of goods for its defence industrial base
-
US President Joe Biden stated that Russia’s sovereign assets would be frozen until Russia ceases its aggression and pays for the damage it has inflicted on Ukraine.
Nuclear threats to spur negotiations between Russia and the West
Russia resorted to indirect nuclear blackmail during the UN General Assembly; the diagram outlines the reasons.
Nuclear blackmail and changes to nuclear doctrine, which came to light during the UN General Assembly, are countermeasures taken by the Russian Federation to avoid/mitigatemitigate negative consequences for Russia, including avoiding a military defeat in the conflict, aimed at preventing Ukraine from obtaining permission to strike deep into Russia using Western weaponry, and depriving Ukraine of the ability to liberate occupied territories, etc.
Indeed, shortly before the start of the high-level week on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, it emerged that Russia had conducted an unsuccessful test of the RS-28 ‘Sarmat’, also known as ‘Satan-2’. Shortly afterwards, changes to Russia’s nuclear doctrine were announced on 25 September. Russian President Vladimir Putin announced these changes at a regular meeting of the Security Council on nuclear deterrence. Among the most significant changes are the expansion of the categories of states and military alliances subject to nuclear deterrence, as well as the list of military threats against which it may be applied. The document emphasises that the grounds for a nuclear response by Russia would include a critical threat to its sovereignty, even by conventional weapons; aggression by any non-nuclear state, but with the participation or support of a nuclear state; and aggression against Belarus as an ally. Later, on 28 September, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated that it would become clear to Russia whether the West had understood its signal regarding the change in nuclear doctrine once it became clear whether Kyiv would be granted permission to strike deep into Russia using Western long-range weapons.
Another objective of Russia’s nuclear blackmail is to persuade or compel the West into direct negotiations with Moscow to improve relations and create an opportunity to bargain directly over its ultimatum regarding Ukraine and other issues or assets. In other words, to create an opportunity and a platform for bargaining with the West, primarily with the US.
Indeed, Russia’s ambassador to Washington, Anatoly Antonov, also stated that the US administration, which is seeking Russia’s strategic defeat, has effectively become one of the parties to the conflict in Ukraine. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, speaking at the general political debate of the 79th session of the UN General Assembly, stated that Moscow is not closing the door on dialogue with the West and proposes to establish an architecture of equal and indivisible security in Eurasia, open to all countries and organisations on the continent. Meanwhile, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov stated that Russia is not ready to resume negotiations on the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) with the US. He emphasised that dialogue is impossible without a change in Washington’s hostile anti-Russian stance . Hungary is also actively advocating for direct talks between the West and Russia. Indeed, Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó, in light of these events, stated that a global nuclear conflict and the division of the world into Eastern and Western blocs can only be avoided through diplomatic means. He called on the East and West to establish a civilised dialogue and to find a way to resolve the conflict in Ukraine in order to spare the world from irreversible consequences.
The West’s reaction so far: at a press conference in Brussels, EU foreign policy spokesperson Peter Stano stated that the European Union is not changing its position on supporting Ukraine following Russian President Vladimir Putin’s decision to update the country’s nuclear doctrine. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken criticised the changes to Russia’s nuclear doctrine: “This is completely irresponsible,” Reuters journalists quoted him as saying.
The issue of Ukraine’s territorial integrity (Russia’s ultimatum and Trump’s alternative scenario)
Notes: On 14 June, Russian President Vladimir Putin, during a meeting with Foreign Ministry officials, outlined the conditions for resolving the situation in Ukraine. These include the withdrawal of the Ukrainian Armed Forces (UAF) from “Donbas and Novorossiya” (territories within Ukraine occupied by Russian troops), and Kyiv’s refusal to join NATO. Furthermore, Russia considers it necessary to lift all Western sanctions against it and to establish Ukraine’s non-aligned and non-nuclear status. Kyiv has rejected the Russian peace plan.
Former US President and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed that he could achieve peace in Ukraine overnight, though he has not specified exactly how. However, several of his former officials and advisers have suggested that this could involve an unofficial territorial concession in exchange for significant Western security guarantees for Kyiv, writes the FT.
Trump’s factor.
Indeed, Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó believes that the Republican Party’s US presidential candidate, Donald Trump, could help resolve the conflict in Ukraine. According to Szijjártó, ‘external pressure must be exerted’ on Ukraine and Russia to get them to begin peace talks. He expressed the view that under Trump, the international situation and Hungarian-American relations would improve. Meanwhile, Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić, speaking on Informer TV from New York, where he was attending the 79th session of the UN General Assembly, stated that, in his opinion, the Ukrainian conflict will ultimately end with a ceasefire along the line of contact, following the Korean model, and that such a situation could persist for decades. He expressed confidence that, should Republican candidate Donald Trump win the US presidential election, he would seek an alternative solution for a peaceful settlement.
Former US President Donald Trump himself, at a meeting with Volodymyr Zelenskyy on 27 September, expressed the hope that, should he win the November presidential election, he would be able to find a ‘good’ solution for both sides of the conflict in Ukraine even before the 20 January inauguration, and that, should he be elected, he is ready to work with both sides to resolve the Ukrainian conflict
The EU’s foreign policy chief, Josep Borrell, stated that he would consider Donald Trump’s proposals for resolving the conflict in Ukraine only if he were to become US president again. “Trump is currently just a candidate. I will wait until he is in the White House to consider his proposals,” Borrell said on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly session, stressing that he did not wish to comment on Trump’s remarks at this stage.
John Kirby, the White House National Security Council’s Coordinator for Strategic Communications, said that the US administration assumes the Kyiv authorities will have to make territorial concessions to resolve the Ukrainian conflict, but only if they decide to do so themselves. “As for President [Joe] Biden in the United States, Ukraine is Ukraine, all of Ukraine. Internationally recognised borders must be respected by all, especially Russia,” he said. “We are not sitting with maps of Ukraine and markers, devising alternative scenarios in which we might persuade Zelenskyy to trade this for that. We do not engage in such games,” added the White House spokesperson.
The Russian side, meanwhile, has begun actively promoting its Scenario 2. Thus, on 25 September, at a meeting of the UN Security Council on Ukraine, Russia’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Vasily Nebenzya, stated that ‘Russia will continue its special military operation in Ukraine if Western countries do not allow us to get rid of the cancerous tumour that is the Kyiv regime’.
Conclusions.
As can be seen from the above, there is as yet no common, unified vision in the international arena regarding the conditions for ending the Ukrainian conflict. At present, it would be desirable for the countries of the Global South to finally define their criteria and conditions in favour of ending the war in Ukraine on the just terms of the UN Charter.
What consequences might arise from such a consolidation of the Global South countries around the ‘Friends of Peace’ group:
• Firstly, it can be assumed that the ‘Friends of Peace’ group intends to rely more firmly on the principles of the UN Charter or to specify them further in its discussions and proposals, bringing together representatives of the Global South on its platform with the participation of, or under the observation of, representatives from the West, specifically – Switzerland, which may help to bring the positions of the West and the Global South closer together on the fundamental principles and criteria for ending the Ukrainian conflict on fair terms in accordance with the UN Charter.
• Secondly, it can be assumed that, given that the Russian Federation is somewhat unaware of the aims and objectives of this project, the ‘Peace Group’ could be seen as a restraining factor against the Russian Federation pushing its ultimatum on Ukraine and/or as a means of increasing pressure from Global South countries on Russia regarding a number of issues in the Ukrainian conflict that run counter to the UN Charter – provided, of course, that these Global South countries themselves manage to develop a common position with on such matters. Most likely, this will require Ukraine to make certain compromises on other issues that are less significant than the preservation of the country’s territorial integrity.
• Thirdly, it is also conceivable that, when formulating and upholding a common position among the countries of the Global South, issues of importance to Ukraine and the West (such as partial compliance with the UN Charter) may be overlooked or given insufficient consideration; in which case, pressure will be exerted on the West and Ukraine to adopt this position. It is important to closely monitor developments within the ‘Peace Group’ and the decisions taken there, in order to identify negative scenarios for Ukraine in good time and develop countermeasures against them.