Emergence of mediators from distant continents
Recently, there has been a significant increase in those willing to act as mediators in potential negotiations between Ukraine and the aggressor state (Russia). However, there is falsehood behind the beautiful words about peaceful resolution. Mediation appears to be advocacy support for the Kremlin.
The topic of negotiations with Moscow emerged from the first days of the full-scale invasion. After February 24, 2022, numerous parties offered their services “to achieve peace.” Initially, the discussion revolved around countries in close proximity, but now there are countries from distant continents seeking to become mediators, despite being thousands of kilometers away.
Assessing the peace initiatives of Brazilia and China
After being elected as the President of Brazil, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva decided to try himself as a peacemaker. The Brazilian leader immediately stated that searching for those responsible for the war in Ukraine is a “futile endeavor.” What is needed is for the war to simply stop.
“President Vladimir Putin of Russia cannot seize Ukrainian territory. Perhaps we can discuss Crimea. But he needs to think about the fact that he has already invaded. Zelenskyy cannot demand everything either. The world needs peace,” said the President of the Latin American country.
Lula da Silva’s initiatives were critically evaluated in Ukraine. However, the President of Brazil persistently offers his mediation services and shows no intention of backing down.
In mid-May, a special representative from China, Li Hui, also visited Kyiv. The details of his visit are mostly unknown. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China released a statement indicating that the diplomat met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and explained China’s position regarding the political resolution of the “Ukrainian crisis.” The official statement from the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs demonstrates vague circumlocutions that do not include condemnation of Russian aggression. However, it consists of general phrases and good wishes.
See also: Orban’s Ministry of Truth. How do anti-Ukrainian and anti-European propaganda work in Hungary?
“There is no panacea for resolving the crisis; all parties must start with themselves, build mutual trust, create conditions for ending the war and engaging in peaceful negotiations. Based on the document “China’s Position on the Political Settlement of the Ukrainian Crisis,” China is prepared to assist the international community in forming the broadest common denominator to resolve the Ukrainian crisis and is willing to make its own efforts to stop the war, cease the fire, and restore peace as soon as possible,” the official website of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated.
The African peace plan and its potential implications
Another “peace initiative” came in May from the southern tip of Africa. South African President Cyril Ramaphosa unexpectedly announced a “peace mission” to end the war between Russia and Ukraine. It has also been revealed that a delegation of leaders from six African countries — South Africa, Senegal, Egypt, the Republic of Congo, Uganda, and Zambia — plans to hold separate negotiations with Putin and Zelenskyy. The exact details of the “African peace plan” are unknown. Most likely, it will be a sort of package of proposals aimed at preserving the Kremlin’s image. It is not worth expecting much from African politicians who have suddenly taken an interest in a war in distant Europe. African states have often sided with Russia during the consideration of UN resolutions or maintained a neutral position. In the end, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa has yet to say anything about the unjust and aggressive nature of the war unleashed by Moscow. However, he did express that the “conflict in Ukraine negatively impacts the lives of many Africans.”
The unprincipled role of informal advocates for the aggressor
The stated official goal of all major candidates as intermediaries seems noble — to initiate a peaceful process. However, consciously or unconsciously, such unprincipled and overly neutral intermediaries serve the function of advocating for the aggressor country. They equate the country that carried out the act of aggression with its victim. From the perspective of leaders in many countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, the Russian-Ukrainian war is not an unjust aggressive invasion of a sovereign state, but a mere conflict initiated by unknown parties. It is as if the extensive preparation for the Russian invasion never happened. It’s as if Putin never declared the start of a special operation against Ukraine in February 2022. The leaders of China, Brazil, and South Africa completely overlook the Russian acts of genocide against the Ukrainian nation. The fact of the occupation of Ukrainian sovereign territory is ignored. There are no demands for punishment of the aggressor country whatsoever. And, of course, none of the “mediators” mention the need for a trial of the military criminals and political leadership of present-day Russia.
By tolerantly and falsely labeling the war with the neutral term “conflict” and offering their mediation services to end it, China, Brazil, and South Africa, along with several other countries in the world, are behaving as unofficial advocates for the aggressor. Putin would like to live in a world where such unprincipled countries play leading roles. In such a world, the concepts of truth, justice, and accountability for crimes are blurred and abstract. The aggressor can successfully masquerade as a victim or claim, “I am not guilty; I was provoked to attack by the evil NATO. I’m just defending myself.” And his words will be met with understanding and respect. Motives for such actions will be sought. Assumptions will be made that perhaps it is worth considering the requests of the occupying country. To leave at least a portion of the occupied territories to satisfy its appetites at the expense of Ukraine. It’s just that it becomes uncomfortable in front of Moscow and Putin. One cannot offend such a large and nuclear-powered state like Russia. And all of this in the name of peace.
Informal advocates for Russia on the international stage promote a proposal that is advantageous for the aggressor and externally appealing. They suggest, “Let’s stop the fighting, cease fire, and start negotiating. The main thing is peace.” Of course, Russian forces remain in the occupied territories of Ukraine. Such a proposal is pleasing to Putin. Negotiations can go on for years without withdrawing troops. In the case of Donbas, fruitless negotiations lasted for eight years. Meetings on the so-called “Ukrainian crisis or conflict” could also be organized in Rio de Janeiro, Beijing, or Cape Town. A lot can happen during this time. The Kremlin will recover from military defeats, solidify its control over the occupied lands, and then consider its next steps.
It is highly probable that when the time comes for Russia to face trial for its crimes, there will once again be voices claiming that things are not so straightforward. They will argue that Russia was provoked to attack by the cunning NATO. They will say that we need to listen to and understand the Kremlin, taking into account its interests and spheres of influence. Similar arguments were made by the criminals of the Third Reich when justifying their military aggression. Perhaps there will even be current leaders of China, South Africa, or Brazil, among the informal advocates of Putin, considering their vague and neutral rhetoric, as well as persistent reluctance to call the war a war.
Wars of this nature are not resolved solely through negotiations. Aggressors will only demonstrate a serious willingness to engage in talks if they suffer a crushing defeat on the battlefield, lose their occupied territories, or experience significant internal upheaval. The intermediaries who are currently persistently suggesting starting negotiations with the aggressor without acknowledging or naming them as the aggressor are, in essence, advocates for the devil.
Originally posted on Zaxid.net. Translated and edited by the UaPosition – Ukrainian news and analytics website
See also: Just take it and make peace: how Ukrainians are being forced to adopt ‘pacifism’ and ‘objectivity’
