World Peace Summit vs. “new geopolitical reality”

The Swiss resort Bürgenstock suddenly started to play a significant role on the world stage, raising possibilities for future diplomatic developments and drawing parallels to historical events such as the Tehran Conference in 1943 and the Yalta Conference in 1945, where key decisions were made regarding the post-World War II order. This underscores the potential importance of upcoming discussions at Bürgenstock.

Almost 100 years ago, the exclusion of Germany, perceived as the aggressor state during World War II, from peace talks in 1943 and 1945 was a deliberate decision to shape the post-war landscape and promote stability. This approach ultimately contributed to decades of peace on the European continent.

Bürgenstock’s crucial peace talks could shape the future global security architecture and mark a significant moment in history, having far-reaching implications for international relations, security and peace.

The President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky has made an announcement of the first inaugural Peace Summit for Ukraine to be held at Bürgenstock near Lucerne, Switzerland, on 15-16 June, 2024. Bringing together key leaders and representatives from various countries and international organisations at the Peace Summit for Ukraine presents an opportunity to foster constructive discussions and explore pathways towards sustainable peace and stability not only in Ukraine but in other parts of the world also.

The organisation of the Summit is the result of the Ukrainian and Swiss sides, but the key participants at the event are expected to be the leaders of countries and heads of governments of the ‘world majority’. The term is being used as a more relevant replacement for the unsuccessful model of the ‘Global South’. However, the Russian and Ukrainian sides understand the term differently.

When speaking about the ‘global majority’, Russian politicians and representatives understand nuclear China, which secretly supports the Russian Federation’s unprovoked aggression against Ukraine, and nuclear India, which  benefits from the delivery of huge amounts of cheap oil from the so-called ‘shadow fleet’ of the Russian Federation that evades international sanctions.

What would happen if nuclear sites in Africa or Eurasia such as Zaporizhzhia NPP or Chernobyl were seized during combat operations? How can they be protected if the IAEA cannot make any decisions? Should we wait for more conflicts between nuclear states and non-nuclear states, or should non-nuclear states pursue the opportunity to acquire nuclear weapons? Should we expect worsening hunger issues and increased food shortages in impoverished regions of the world as a result of military conflicts on land and at sea? Will energy and hydrocarbons continue to be used as weaponised tools to gain an advantage over adversaries?

Is there any hope for justice for those who have been unlawfully deported, captured or tortured during military conflicts? Or will international human rights organisations continue to provide non-partisan reports without contextualising the conflicts?

Should we strive for the restoration of the international principles of territorial integrity,or should we anticipate further attempts to change borders through the use of brute force with missiles and tanks?

The principles of this event were developed and agreed upon during a series of international meetings of national security advisers from various countries. The summit will serve as a platform for dialogue not only on how to achieve comprehensive and lasting peace for Ukraine in line with the UN Charter and international law norms but also as a forum where people of goodwill can seek solutions and tools that can yield tangible results. This stands in contrast to the decisions made by the UN General Assembly, which the aggressor state has disregarded due to its unlawful participation in the UN Security Council.

It is understood that expectations should be realistic. The summit cannot provide immediate solutions to all problems. However, it can serve as a framework to stimulate future peace processes and reforms in the international security architecture. There have been repeated instances where traditional instruments such as the UN, IAEA, Red Cross and others have shown limitations in their effectiveness. The summit could potentially pave the way for new approaches and mechanisms to address evolving global challenges, starting from the devastating aggression against Ukraine.

Russian Federation politicians, speakers and intelligence agencies are attempting to sabotage the summit by promoting various narratives. They argue that discussions without the Russian Federation’s participation are absurd and  demand compliance with the so-called “new geopolitical reality” as a precaution for negotiations.

This wording – a “new geopolitical reality” – is constantly repeated by Russian officials such as Dmitry Peskov, spokesman of the Russian President and various Russian experts. What exactly do they mean by these words? What does the Russian-style “new geopolitical reality” look like?

It is evident that the Russians excel in creating post-truth narratives and virtual worlds:they have linked the Ukrainian President, of Jewish origin, to Nazism; they have demanded the closure of American biological labs, alleging that they spread COVID-19 and create poisonous insects to target Russian nationals with genetic diseases. We could continue to recount these delusional stories fabricated by the Kremlin.

However, the “new geopolitical reality” being promoted by the Kremlin is not just another fanciful idea concocted by the KGB-affiliated 70 year-old senior politicians of the Russian Federation. This is a model of reality that can justify and comfort the authoritarian regimes hiding behind the facade of the idea of “sovereignty” that includes the spheres of influence.

“New geopolitical reality” from the Russian Federation will include the reduction of the global space of freedom and democracy and the automatic increase of the international  space of authoritarianism and kleptocracy. The European Union will face another wave of ‘Putinfersteerism’ when the fatigue from the military conflict will get another fueling from those who want to continue getting the benefits from Russian resources, doing ‘business as usual’.

The “new geopolitical reality” entails a significant decline in the authority of the US, NATO and Western leadership, accompanied by a rise in anti-American sentiment worldwide. This shift may lead to a strengthening of Chinese influence in Europe, seen as a lesser evil compared to neighbouring Russia.

Belarus will be finally de-sovereignised and absorbed by Russia, moving the nuclear threat to the borders of the EU and NATO. After the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons of the Russian Federation on the territory of Belarus, near NATO’s eastern borders, the same can be done on the occupied territories of Ukraine in Donetsk and Luhansk regions, as well as in Crimea.

Young democracies like Moldova and Georgia will go through potential alignment with the Kremlin vision for the future. We can already witness this throughthe events in Georgia and the influence of pro-Russian oligarchs like Bidzina Ivanishvili. As well as the last interview of Maia Sandu, the President of Moldova, with the Russian journalist Yuriy Dud, which is directed to a Russian audience.

The formation of a potential alliance between Russia, Iran, North Korea and Venezuela could exacerbate tensions and lead to new military conflicts in regions like the Middle East, Asia-Pacific and the Mediterranean.

The power of law may be supplanted by the law of power, diminishing the importance of the “Declaration of Principles by which the participating states will be guided in their mutual relations” and the Final Act of the CSCE of 1975.

The UN and the OSCE are devalued and marginalised by a “new geopolitical reality”. Their trust is undermined by Russian spies who infiltrated these platforms, aiming for the justification of the Russian Federation’s politics.

The security guarantees provided by nuclear states to non-nuclear states may ultimately be discredited, leading to the complete breakdown of the nuclear non-proliferation regime. In such a scenario, it may no longer make sense for a country to remain non-nuclear when they would be left to fend for themselves in the event of aggression.

The decision-making process within NATO we witness now may transform the organisation into nothing more than a bureaucratic facade, masking the politicians’ inability to effectively address challenges such as Russian aggression on NATO’s eastern borders. The Russian threat to the Baltic countries and Poland could result in Russia’s breakthrough of the Suval corridor to connect with the Kaliningrad region and the isolation of the Baltic countries from Poland, aiming to demand their withdrawal from NATO and the declaration of neutral status under the threat of aggression.

The Black Sea, which remains the most significant “sea gate” for Russia, will be transformed into a Russian-Turkish condominium under the military domination of Russia. In this regard, because of the logistics and energy supplies geography, Hungary, Bulgaria and Slovakia will consider pragmatically reorienting themselves to the strong trendsetter — Moscow.

These processes can include the growing conflict inside Europe due to “unfair borders” between EU and NATO member states. For example between the Hungarian authorities and its neighbours — Slovakia and Romania – because of the territorial claims, the Hungarian-Slovak conflict over Ukrainian Transcarpathia or the escalation of Greek-Turkish tensions due to Turkey’s efforts to return the “blue homeland” (part of the Greek islands of the Aegean Sea).

The Western media signals the dramatic increase of  Russian intelligence services activity in  Western European countries. Some of these activities can be connected with sabotage operations against those countries who supported Ukraine, putting European citizens in danger. However, the refusal to support Ukraine will not decrease these dangers but only signal to the Kremlin that its decisions are effective and should be continued.

The “new geopolitical reality” will also include Arctic falling under the control of the Sino-Russian tandem, with China taking the lead. Even now, the LNG terminals and icebreaker ships are being built to provide the trade for gas mining throughout the Arctic. Western companies will be displaced by Chinese and Asian companies utilising large deposits of energy resources, critical raw materials, rare earth metals and uranium raw materials. The same can be said about the control of the logistics transport corridors. Especially regarding the ongoing problems in the Red Sea connected to the Houthis activity. That can also complicate the supply of non-Russian sources of oil, gas, and uranium raw materials to the EU.

Russia’s use of migration as a tool of provocation, particularly through its presence in countries like the Central African Republic, Mali, Sudan, Chad and Ethiopia, could lead to increased instability and challenges for Europe.

The influx of new migration waves from Africa to Europe, potentially instigated by Russian actions, could strain the resources and capacities of European countries, leading to financial instability and the potential collapse of the Paris Climate Agreement. The need for increased defence and security spending to address these challenges may divert resources away from initiatives to promote sustainability and combat climate change, such as Europe’s “green transition”.

The “new geopolitical reality”  being proposed and promoted by the Russian Federation to sabotage the Peace Summit in Bürgenstock and the Peace Forum, proposed by the president of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky, should be taken seriously. The consequences of this reality mentioned above can influence everyone on the planet, highlighting the interconnected nature of global challenges and the potential for geopolitical actions.

It underscores the importance of finding sustainable and inclusive solutions to the challenges and requires concerted efforts from the international community. However, it should also inspire critical thinking about the issue of the Russian Federation’s participation in the Peace Summit, as some politicians and experts express their concerns about the necessity of inviting the Russian side to the negotiations.

Certainly, that day will come, as all wars eventually end through negotiations. However, it is essential first to address the issues of the geopolitical reality we envision for the coming decades without inviting the source of global destabilisation—the Russian Federation.

The Peace Summit is dedicated to bringing sustainable and justified peace to Ukraine. But, it also underscores the importance of upholding democratic principles and resisting efforts to undermine the international rules-based order. It is crucial for the international community to participate in the Bürgenstock Peace Summit and build their own vision of the desired geopolitical reality in the face of evolving geopolitical challenges, before discussing the “new geopolitical reality” proposed by the Russian Federation.

 The views expressed in this #CriticalThinking article reflect those of the author(s) and not of Friends of Europe.