Against the backdrop of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s visit to the United States and his meetings with Joseph Biden, Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, as well as reports of the American president’s decision to hold a meeting in the ‘Ramstein’ format at the level of state leaders in October, the formation of the ‘Friends of Peace’ platform, which has become, in fact, a de facto presentation of a ‘parallel track’ of peacekeeping efforts by Brazil and China, and Beijing’s attempt to impose its own agenda in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, looked underestimated by the international community. Despite the fact that it is not the first time that such initiatives have been voiced, this event is truly remarkable for its ambitiousness and globalisation in terms of the number of participants.
In this piece Ascolta analyses the prospects for further promotion of the Global South’s initiative to form its own agenda for ending Russian aggression against Ukraine. The piece also considers possible options for Western states to join this initiative, as well as possible implications for geopolitical processes.
This Content Is Only For Subscribers
Getting into the game
On 27 September, China and Brazil on the margins of the UN General Assembly held a meeting on a peace plan to end the war in Ukraine, which the two countries presented at the end of May 2024. The plan promoted by China and Brazil consists of six points:
- China and Brazil call on all parties involved to abide by the three principles of de-escalation of the situation, namely not to expand the battlefield, not to escalate hostilities and not to commit provocations.
- China and Brazil believe that dialogue and negotiations are the only viable solution to the Ukrainian crisis. All parties should create conditions for the resumption of direct dialogue and work to de-escalate the situation until a comprehensive ceasefire is reached. China and Brazil support the convening of an international peace conference at an appropriate time that will be recognised by both Russia and Ukraine, ensure the equal participation of all parties and ensure honest discussion of all options for a peaceful settlement.
- Efforts should be made to increase humanitarian assistance to the regions concerned and to prevent the humanitarian crisis from escalating. Strikes against civilians and civilian objects should be avoided, and civilians, including women and children, as well as prisoners of war, should be protected. China and Brazil support the exchange of prisoners of war between the parties to the conflict.
- It is important to oppose the use of weapons of mass destruction, in particular nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. All possible efforts should be made to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and to avoid a nuclear crisis.
- China and Brazil oppose attacks on nuclear power plants and other peaceful nuclear facilities. All parties should abide by international law, including the Convention on Nuclear Safety, and resolutely prevent man-made nuclear disasters.
- The division of the world into closed political or economic groupings must be resisted. The Parties call for strengthening international cooperation in areas such as energy, currency, finance, trade, food security and the security of critical infrastructure such as oil and gas pipelines, undersea optical cables, electricity facilities and fibre optic networks, to protect the stability of global supply chains.
The Parties call on members of the international community to support and join this consensus, to jointly play a constructive role in helping to de-escalate the situation and to advance peace negotiations.
The ‘Friends of Peace’ platform created by the initiators of this plan should become a tool for the implementation of this plan. As Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi noted at a meeting with Brazilian presidential adviser Celso Amorim on the margins of the UN General Assembly in New York, Friends of the World is not a closed group, but an open platform; it does not seek competition and confrontation, but inclusive dialogue. The Friends of Peace platform was created in the name of peace and should be welcomed by the international community.’
For his part, the Brazilian presidential adviser noted the importance of the ‘six-point consensus’ reached by Brazil and the PRC on the Ukrainian crisis. According to Amorim, Brazil and China are ready to work to cool down the situation in Ukraine. ‘I am not here to answer Zelensky or Putin, but simply to propose a path to peace,’ Celso Amorim emphasised at the Friends of Peace meeting. And this approach demonstrates quite vividly the essence of China and Brazil. As Ukrainian expert Vitaly Portnikov notes, they are trying to level the victim and the aggressor, so that the world perceives Russia and Ukraine as reckless ‘brawlers’ who simply need to be helped to find a constructive recipe for peace. And of course this formula should be prescribed by mediators, not by any of the ‘brawlers’.
The first meeting of the ‘Friends of Peace’ on the margins of the UN General Assembly was attended by representatives of 17 countries: China, Brazil, Egypt, Turkey, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Indonesia, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Zambia, Mexico, Algeria, Bolivia, Colombia, as well as Hungary. In addition, representatives of France and Switzerland were among those present, which caused mixed reactions from Russia and Ukraine. It is noteworthy that Bern expects to play the role of a ‘link’ between the West and the Global South in the issue of achieving peace. This was stated by the head of the communications department of the Swiss Foreign Ministry, Nicolas Bidault. The diplomat noted that the country is ready to support efforts to hold a summit to resolve the conflict.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said it was ‘strange to learn’ about the presence of people from these countries, as the Swiss ‘cannot be called neutral for a long time’ and ‘the French are NATO members’ who are ‘zealously in favour of Ukraine’. Lavrov asked his Chinese counterpart how the representatives of France and Switzerland ended up at the meeting. According to the Chinese foreign minister, ‘they were very much requested’, so it was collectively decided to invite them as observers. The Ukrainian Foreign Ministry said that ‘the Ukrainian side is disappointed with the information about the Swiss side’s support of the so-called China-Brazil consensus’. Naturally, the ministry emphasised that the Ukrainian ‘peace formula’ was the only possible way to resolve the conflict. The Foreign Ministry also said that there was no need to create additional platforms for discussing ways to achieve peace.
According to preliminary information, a large-scale presentation of the new platform is planned to be held at the BRICS summit in Kazan. As experts note, China is really trying to create a different platform of dialogue next to the ‘Peace Summit’ platform and offer an alternative to the countries of the Global South, which on the one hand would like to declare their peacefulness, and on the other hand would not want to spoil relations with China and Russia. And this approach may work, despite all its criticism from the leadership of Ukraine and the US State Department.
Peace initiatives of the Global South
As we have already noted, the peace plan being promoted by China and Brazil is a slightly modified version of the peace plan presented by Beijing on the anniversary of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine on 24 February 2023. It took China a year to come out with a detailed position on Russia’s war against Ukraine. China’s plan originally consisted of 12 points. At the time, the West called the Chinese document ‘superficial’ because it lacked specifics on pressing issues such as the border line or security guarantees for Ukraine, and its streamlined language did not bind anyone, including China itself. And the vagueness of the Chinese document, the essence of which could be summarised in the formula ‘for all good against all bad’, was called its main weakness. After all, it was really impossible to imagine how to end the war with such a plan.
However, as it turned out, the document was probably not written for that purpose: China did not think of getting so deeply involved in the Ukrainian conflict. The ‘peace plan’ was not a roadmap on how to stop the war. Rather, it was an indulgence that was supposed to help China fend off Western accusations of quietly supporting Russia, and at the same time strengthen its image as a responsible world power in the eyes of developing countries.
The Chinese peace plan initially drew attention with its ambiguity. On the one hand, Beijing immediately came out in favour of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and at the same time in favour of an early end to the war. On the other hand, Chinese diplomats repeated the wording of the statement signed by Xi and Putin on 4 February 2022, according to which the root of the crisis is NATO’s eastward expansion and the West’s disregard for Russia’s demands regarding European security. Western sanctions, meanwhile, China condemned but rather rigorously enforced – as it has always done since 2014.
Such ambiguity is a reflection of China’s complex and multifaceted interests. For Beijing, the principle of territorial integrity and its primacy over the right of peoples to self-determination is important, given the problem of not only Taiwan but also internal separatism in China. But strategic relations with Russia are also very important for China. The two countries share a long border, which after territorial separation became a border of peace and no longer diverts military resources. The economies are complementary, and China is happy to have a giant petrol station, a gas storage facility, a source of metals, timber and almost the entire Mendeleev table, and at the same time some of China’s advanced weapons, such as modern air defence systems or new generation Russian fighter jets. A scenario in which Putin is replaced by a pro-Western government in the Kremlin because of war is a strategic nightmare, and Beijing is ready to help the Kremlin as much as it can to avoid such a scenario.
At the same time, ties with the West are no less important for China. No one in Beijing had any illusions that these relations could improve in the foreseeable future. But Beijing was not going to bring the inevitable future break with the US and its allies any closer: the longer China has access to Western technologies, markets and financial instruments, the more it will be able to use them for self-reinforcement in preparation for a decisive battle. Therefore, China cannot unconditionally support Russia.
This position has allowed China to become, in fact, one of the main beneficiaries of the conflict, even if Beijing did not intend it to be so. The war in Ukraine drew on U.S. resources and forces and took up a lot of the Biden administration’s time. Under different circumstances (for example, if the Kremlin had accepted American concessions last January and not started the war), all of this would have been aimed at containing China.
However, it was becoming increasingly difficult for Beijing to comfortably watch what was happening from the sidelines. Criticism of China was becoming louder and louder, including from Europe, whose steady drift into the transatlantic coalition led by Washington was of great concern to Beijing. China needed a convincing response to Western criticism and, at the same time, a way to explain its position to the developing countries that Beijing favours. It was for these purposes, then, that China’s ‘peace plan’ was written.
It is worth noting that in 2023, not only China but also other countries in the Global South have come forward with their own peace initiatives. In April, there followed a proposal from Brazilian President Lula da Silva to create a group of countries (among them China, India, Indonesia, and a number of Latin American states, among others) that would jointly develop a plan for a peaceful resolution of the Ukrainian conflict. ‘When there was an economic crisis in 2008, we quickly created a G20 to try to save the economy. Now it is important to create another G20 to end the war and establish peace,’ the Brazilian president said.
No official document on the peace initiative has been prepared, but Lula da Silva’s statements allow us to reconstruct his proposals. Firstly, it was supposed to form a negotiating group of neutral intermediary countries, not participating in the conflict and not supplying arms to the parties, which would encourage the participants to start the process of coordinating positions. Second, Ukraine had to renounce its territorial claims (in particular, to recognise Russia’s annexation of Crimea) and acknowledge the changed strategic realities, which would become the starting point for the parties’ interaction.
Thirdly, it was necessary to stop the West’s support for the Ukrainian side, which led to the ‘fuelling’ of the conflict. Not surprisingly, the Brazilian proposals were strongly opposed in Washington and Kiev, where they were characterised as ‘a repetition of Russian and Chinese propaganda’. At the same time, the Brazilian initiative did not receive any further follow-up, nor was it seen as an intensification of diplomatic efforts in this direction. Thus, the Brazilian president’s peace gesture had more of a political and ideological intent, constructing the president’s image as an influential peacemaker and asserting the country’s great-power ambitions.
In June 2023, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa unexpectedly came forward with his peace plan. On 16 June, a group of representatives of African countries South Africa, Senegal, Republic of Congo, Uganda, Zambia, Comoros and Egypt made a special visit to Kiev and then to Russia, where they presented a ten-point draft for the settlement of the Ukrainian conflict. It should be noted that the published proposals were not characterised by clarity and detail, but rather represented a set of principles and good wishes on the need to establish peace as soon as possible.
The leitmotif of the peace initiative was the early start of negotiations, cessation of hostilities, respect for sovereignty, exchange of prisoners and detainees, and post-war restoration of the territory. At the same time, the main goal of the diplomatic mission was to draw the attention of the world community to the threats of supply chain disruption and the risks of worsening global food security as a result of the continuation of the war. At one point it said that part of the plan to resolve the conflict was to ensure uninterrupted supplies of grain and fertiliser to the foreign market. In particular, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa explained the African diplomatic engagement as follows: ‘As African leaders, we are talking about this because we have come to the conclusion that this conflict, while not directly affecting Africa in the form of deaths and destruction of infrastructure, is still impacting the lives of many. We are talking about food security: fertiliser prices have gone up, cereal and fuel prices have gone up.’
The year 2024, however, has brought adjustments to peace initiatives in the Global South. There was a tendency to actually abandon their own initiatives and support the Chinese plan formulated by President Xi Jinping. Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva was the first to support it. And then the Sino-Brazilian initiative, which began to appear in the media in this very definition, was supported by South African President Cyril Ramaphosa.
On the eve of the China-Africa summit, which took place in Beijing on 4-6 September, the South African leader had separate talks with Mr Xi, during which he joined his colleagues’ plan. According to Ramaphosa, South Africa supports the initiatives of China and Brazil for a political settlement of the ‘Ukrainian issue’. The South African leader explained that a ‘high level of political trust’ has been established between Pretoria and Beijing, there is a ‘deep traditional friendship’ between the countries, and their positions on many issues coincide. Support for a Sino-Brazilian ‘common understanding’ on ways to politically resolve the Ukraine crisis was also recorded in a joint statement by Cyril Ramaphosa and Xi Jinping following the talks. ‘Both sides agreed that comprehensive dialogue and peace talks are the only viable political ways to find a lasting solution to the crisis. Both sides call on the relevant parties to the conflict to respect three principles: not to expand the battlefield, not to escalate hostilities and not to allow provocations,’ the document says.
Earlier, in early August, Li Hui, the Chinese government’s special envoy for Eurasian affairs, who serves as a negotiator on Ukraine, paid a visit to Indonesia, during which he proposed to Umar Hadi, the director of the Department of American and European Affairs of the country’s Foreign Ministry, to jointly create conditions for the resumption of direct dialogue between Moscow and Kiev. Mr Hadi ‘appreciated the positive role of the agreements reached by China and Brazil’ and expressed readiness to work with Beijing to find a solution to the crisis. In other words, of all the peace plans ever presented by the Global South, only the Chinese one, transformed into the ‘China-Brazil’ one, was actually left on the agenda.
The new peace plan was born after China’s special envoy Li Hui made a series of visits to the Global South. He visited Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Turkey, Egypt, and held a series of meetings with representatives of Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Brazil, and South Africa. Beijing has been coordinating with these countries on its approach to the so-called ‘cooling’ of the war. On 23 May 2024, the Brazilian and Chinese governments issued a joint statement advocating political negotiations between Russia and Ukraine to achieve peace, and called for a conference to that effect. Realising that the Biden administration cannot bring in its peace plan, China is actively taking advantage of this and bringing in its own. Now, no matter who wins the US election, the Chinese peace plan will be discussed both before and after November. If the final document is adopted, it will be based on Chinese proposals. In essence, a new, alternative agenda has been formed.
‘Friends of peace’ or enemies of Ukraine?
On the eve of the current session of the UNPO General Assembly, Politico noted that China is trying to gain support for its peace initiative on Ukraine. According to a document obtained by Politico, the Chinese government came to the current UN General Assembly with a plan to enlist the support of Latin American, Asian and African countries for an agreement that would freeze the front lines in Europe’s bloodiest conflict since World War II. So Ukraine began to work hard on various fronts to dissuade its allies from adopting the China-backed plan.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, speaking at the UN Security Council, said the military conflict with Russia ‘cannot be ended by mere negotiations’ and ‘action is needed.’ ‘There is no separate Russian-Iranian UN Charter or Chinese-Brazilian UN Charter,’ the Ukrainian leader said and criticised countries that offer talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin or peace plans that involve “concessions” to Moscow. He said that when the ‘Sino-Brazilian duo’ tries to grow into a ‘chorus of voices’ with someone in Europe and Africa, declaring something alternative to a complete and just peace, it raises the question of what their real interest is.
He also added that the world has already gone through colonial wars and great state conspiracies, noting that ‘every country, including China, Brazil, countries in Europe, Africa, the Middle East, understands why this should be a thing of the past. And Ukrainians will never accept the fact that someone in the world thinks that now instead of a normal, peaceful life, Ukraine can be imposed such a brutal colonial past, which today does not suit anyone.’
Raising the stakes, in an interview with ABC News, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said Russia could threaten Ukrainian nuclear power plants. He said Russian Federation is using Chinese satellites to photograph details of facilities at Ukrainian nuclear sites. The Ukrainian leadership believes that the end of the conflict is possible only on the basis of Zelenskyy’s ‘peace formula’. This formula formed the basis of the first ‘peace summit’ held in the Swiss town of Bürgenstock in June, to which Russia was not invited. The participants in the event then discussed three points of the ‘peace formula’ – nuclear security, prisoner exchange under the ‘all for all’ formula, and safe navigation. Zelensky promised to bring the agreed action plan on them to Russia’s representatives, and at the second ‘peace summit’ to fix the end of the military conflict.
In addition, Ukraine believes that China’s ‘peace initiative’ is nothing more than an image project to present itself as a peacemaker. Because, according to the Ukrainian side, there are big doubts about Beijing’s neutrality. Therefore, Beijing’s call for negotiations and ceasefire is very much in line with the Kremlin’s position.
The creation of the ‘Friends of Peace’ platform caused a painful reaction in Ukraine. Thus, Mikhail Podolyak, advisor to the head of the Office of the President, said that there are no ‘friends of peace’. ‘These are ‘friends of surrender’. They propose these all ‘peace initiatives’ that are solely based on the concept of the Russian Federation. That is – let’s stop the war immediately, let’s leave the RF in the occupied territories and let’s not let the RF lose the war…,’ he said in a telethon broadcast. The Institute for the Study of War also said the Kremlin is likely to promote this new ‘Friends of Peace’ platform and use its support for numerous alternative peace efforts to falsely portray Ukraine as a country unwilling to negotiate.
Ukraine’s official position on the Friends of Peace is clear. Firstly, according to the Ukrainian version, they are, based on official rhetoric, ‘accomplices of the Kremlin’. Secondly, the countries of the Global South are trying to hijack the peacekeeping agenda not only from Ukraine, but also from the West, on which official Kyiv not only hopes, but on which it directly depends. Therefore, Zelensky’s top priority during his stay in the US was to secure his ‘victory plan,’ which the Ukrainian president said would provide enough security guarantees from allies to force Russia into peace talks.
However, as Bloomberg notes, not everyone in the West was inspired by the Ukrainian president’s victory plan. According to the publication, one person familiar with Zelensky’s talks, who asked not to be named, said the ‘victory plan’ contained no real surprises and was not a major game changer. Another official called it a wish list. The gloomy assessment of the plan underscores a deepening sense of pessimism among allies as the war enters its third year. Ukraine’s partners also fear weakening support for Ukraine if former President Donald Trump returns to the White House. As the publication notes, according to the two officials, it is probably time for a new round of contacts with Vladimir Putin, whether by Zelensky or representatives of other countries.
Nevertheless, the United States administration has opposed the peace initiatives of China and Brazil. This was announced to journalists by US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken at a press conference in New York. He was asked to comment on the peace plan presented by Brasilia and Beijing in light of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s opposition to it. ‘A peace plan in which the aggressor gets everything he sought and the victim has no opportunity to defend his rights is not a recipe for a lasting peace and certainly not a just one,’ Blinken replied.
‘From our point of view, any proposal, any plan that is clearly based on the principles of the UN Charter, in particular territorial integrity, sovereignty, independence, is something worth paying attention to. I was very clear a couple of days ago in the Security Council about what we and most other countries believe to be the basis for a just and lasting peace,’ the US foreign policy chief added. ‘Any proposal that comes forward, we will consider and evaluate on that basis,’ he concluded.
Jens Stoltenberg, who recently stepped down as secretary-general of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), also believes that the Alliance states should support the Ukrainian ‘peace formula’ rather than alternative proposals by other countries. ‘The Ukrainian peace initiative is an initiative that ensures that we have a process that can lead to a lasting peace. And, of course, it is the Ukrainians who ultimately have to decide what terms are acceptable. They are the victim of a full-scale invasion,’ Stoltenberg believes.
In other words, the clear position of the West is visible: nothing can be discussed without Ukraine. At least, this is the official position. So the platforms for discussing the settlement of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict are very different. However, as far as the effectiveness of the platforms is concerned, Western countries are largely focused on the result of the US elections. And Donald Trump’s position is not so different from the position of the participants in the Global South event. At least from what we know about Donald Trump’s position. That said, there are also a number of expert opinions in Western countries that say that we need to move away from a maximalist position on supporting Ukraine to a greater or lesser extent. So there may be points of convergence here as well. And this is what China is counting on. The West is getting tired of Ukraine, and the West will soften its position. However, besides the West, Ukraine, China, there is Russia. It has its own position, and it does not quite coincide with China’s position. Therefore, the Friends of Peace platform promoting the China-Brazil peace plan was received with scepticism not only in the West and Ukraine, but also in Russia.
Forcing Russia to make peace?
A year ago, Russian President Vladimir Putin, commenting on the peace initiatives of China and Brazil, said that Russia highly appreciates the proposals. ‘I believe that they are quite realistic, at any rate, they could be the basis for peace agreements,’ Vladimir Putin said. However, a year has passed and it seems that Russia is not entirely satisfied with the peace plan of China and Brazil and the ‘Friends of Peace’ platform created by them. No, of course, outwardly everything looks very complementary and the Russian leadership pays lip service to and supports its allies. Nevertheless, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has already issued a reserved assessment of Friends of the World’s actions, which showed Moscow’s clear displeasure. This included a hint of divergence with Beijing.
And judging by the publications appearing in the Russian press, the content of the Sino-Brazilian memorandum, the statements of the participants of the meeting in New York and, finally, the invitation of Ukraine’s allies to the meeting are yet another way of pressurising Russia, or rather forcing it to make peace.
On what Russian experts base their message. First of all, after a detailed analysis of the Chinese-Brazilian peace plan supported by the Friends of Peace, they believe that the first point of the plan, which calls for an immediate halt to the war, contradicts the position of Russia, which, after the failed experience of the Istanbul agreements, is ready to stop hostilities only after Ukrainian troops leave Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson and Zaporozhye regions. The third, fourth and fifth points, according to Russian experts, overlap with two of the three points of Zelensky’s plan: exchange of prisoners of war, refusal to attack peaceful nuclear facilities of critical infrastructure and the use of weapons of mass destruction. The sixth point is a generalisation of another of Zelensky’s demands for unimpeded sales of Ukrainian agricultural products and ensuring the stability of global industrial and logistics chains.
Therefore, if you put the text of the Sino-Brazilian peace plan in front of you and next to it the text of Zelensky’s three-point Formula for Peace presented at the conference in Bürgenstock, Switzerland, you cannot help but find a number of coincidences. However, as noted in the Russian media, the Friends of Peace plan, announced by Putin in June of this year, does not overlap with the Kremlin’s position at all. As we have already noted, this includes the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from the territory of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhya regions, the refusal to join NATO and the enshrined neutral status of the country. Based on this, we can conclude that China, which calls itself a strategic partner, and with it Brazil (a BRICS partner) are doing nothing more than broadcasting Ukrainian and American narratives and completely ignoring Moscow’s demands.
The Russian expert community also has many questions about the composition of the Friends of the World. Particularly resonant is the participation in the meeting of the Friends of… France and Switzerland, who have been dubbed ‘spies’ of the West who want to hear what Beijing is broadcasting.
However, experts from Russia, for some reason, immediately deny that Switzerland is pursuing purely pragmatic goals. ‘We took part in this meeting as an observer and we support this dynamic,’ Reuters quoted Bidault as saying about the event. The Swiss foreign ministry spokesman emphasised that the reference to the UN Charter added to the peace initiative first proposed by China in May was the reason why Bern changed its attitude towards the document. ‘From our side, this leads to a significant change in our view of this initiative. Concrete diplomatic efforts initiated by the Sino-Brazilian group may be of interest to us,’ Bidault was quoted by Reuters as saying.
In turn, the Swiss online publication Swissinfo quotes the Foreign Ministry spokesman as saying: ‘This initiative is important because it offers an alternative to the bellicose speeches made this week at the UN by both the Ukrainian and Russian sides. Switzerland has always emphasised the importance of referring to the UN Charter in peace initiatives.’
As for France, Macron’s team does not have a clear idea at the moment of what exactly the country needs. Therefore, it is possible that it is trying to build a foreign policy line in the most comfortable way for itself, regardless of the U.S. position, or it is possible that Macron prudently wants to be close to BRICS, just in case… In addition, the Russian expert community somehow forgets that the point of associations like the Friends of the World platform is their inclusiveness, which is why France and Switzerland were probably accepted there as observers. If a country declares agreement with the principles of the platform and commitment to a diplomatic way of conflict resolution, it may well be accepted into such a format.
However, there is another important factor. Despite the fact that Europe’s war fatigue is presented in many media as a fake of Russian propaganda, the situation is quite ambiguous. Firstly, there is an economic factor related to the impending recession in Europe and the financial losses from the Russian-Ukrainian war. For example, economic researchers estimate that the Russian Federation’s war against Ukraine has cost Germany alone more than 200 billion euros.
‘Germany’s economic losses after two years of war in Ukraine are likely to far exceed 200 billion euros,’ said Marcel Fratscher, president of the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW). ‘Above all, high energy prices have reduced German growth by 2.5 percentage points or €100 billion in 2022 and by a similar amount in 2023 to date,’ the DIW chief said. However, these are only ‘direct financial costs’. Further costs will arise from ‘escalating geopolitical and geo-economic conflicts, especially with China’ due to the war. This will hit exporting companies particularly hard.
It is no coincidence that in September many media outlets wrote about Olaf Scholz’s peace plan. La Repubblica, commenting on the German plan for a peace settlement in Ukraine, noted that, according to a source, this plan does not exclude the transfer to Russia of part of the territories that used to be Ukrainian. Clearly, another side of the coin for the German chancellor is the upcoming 2025 Bundestag elections. Today, his SPD is increasingly losing elections in the federal states to right-wing populists from the Alternative for Germany and left-wing populists Sarah Wagenknecht, who are making full use of the rhetoric of peace talks with Russia and reducing military and financial aid to Ukraine.
Therefore, he too needs peacekeeping successes to stay in power in the future. Perhaps this, among other things, is the reason for Scholz’s desire to have a telephone conversation with Russian leader Vladimir Putin for the first time in almost two years. This is reported by Die Zeit with reference to sources in government circles. It is indicated that the request for a conversation has not yet been submitted. However, the possibility of holding it on the eve of the meeting of the G20 countries in Brazil, scheduled for November. The publication noted that if the conversation were to take place, Scholz would be the first head of government, most supportive of Ukraine, who has resumed contacts with Putin.
Returning to the reaction in Russian circles to the peace initiatives of China and Brazil, as well as the formation of the ‘Friends of Peace’ platform, it should be noted that in the comments of some Russian experts there are persistent accusations against China, which wants to play first fiddle in resolving the situation in Ukraine, and at the same time to protect itself from secondary sanctions for cooperation with Russia. They say that they want to buy Russian resources cheaply, but they have no desire to fall under secondary sanctions. By the way, Beijing does not hide it. Thus, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said that Friends of the World opposes the arbitrary imposition of sanctions under the pretext of involvement in the war in Ukraine. Hungary, which has joined the Friends, also expresses the same opinion. Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto said that the countries of the Global South ‘are disappointed that they have to pay for the conflict in Ukraine, which has nothing to do with them, and therefore want peace’.
Russia is also concerned that in the medium to long term, the Friends may switch from pleading with Russia ‘for peace’ to ‘forcing peace.’ All the more so because China and other BRICS members have all the levers to do so. And first of all, economically.
It is no secret that Beijing uses not only the Friends of the World platform to strengthen its influence. There are also, for example, the BRICS or the SCO. And the states of the Global South are involved there for a very pragmatic task – to stop the war in order to calmly trade and make money. And who will say that this is a bad thing? Certainly only Russia, which considers it a ‘betrayal’ of its interests. Some Russian media quoted Wang Yi, who ‘dared’ to compare Russia with Ukraine, as saying that ‘the conflict between Russia and Ukraine should not get out of control, and both states should proceed from the interests of their own peoples, mutually respecting each other’s sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity’. According to the Russian expert community, this is a very strange statement for a partner that recently said it would stand ‘back-to-back’ with Russia.
It is also ironic that we have to wait for Beijing to follow the example of Iranian President Masoud Pazeshkian and condemn Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. However, Iran and Pazeshkian are a separate topic. In the meantime, the general mood in the Russian expert community and media, as well as in the Ukrainian one, is that both Russia and Ukraine do not accept the peace initiatives of China and Brazil, as well as the platform that promotes them, because they consider all these peacekeeping proposals to be an act of surrender for themselves. Russia believes that without demilitarisation and denazification, the goals of the war will not be achieved and Russian society will not accept such a peace option, but will regard it as a truce to regroup and prepare for a new war on both sides of the conflict between NATO and Russia. In conditions when the military initiative is on the side of the Russian Armed Forces, they believe that it is foolish to go for the Chinese-Brazilian peace option, as the army may negatively perceive it as an attempt to ‘negotiate’. Therefore, Russia will continue fighting in Ukraine until peace is concluded on its terms.
Therefore, we should definitely not expect a breakthrough from the Friends of Peace in the near future, because, as we can see, not all countries are satisfied with the terms of the peace initiatives. This means that both Russia and Ukraine will continue to clarify their relations, exhausting each other on the battlefield.
