TNI: mediation in Ukraine will determine the evolution of the international system
The mediation efforts of the West and the countries of the Global South with an eye to resolving the conflict in Ukraine have not yet led to significant progress, writes TNI. At the same time, it doesn't matter when and how it ends, the world will have to continue to deal with Putin, the author of the article believes.
Eugene Chausovsky
The conflict between Russia and Ukraine does not think to subside, but only escalates and acquires new dimensions. The fighting spilled far beyond the front line. Ukrainian drones are attacking Russian energy infrastructure and flying all the way to Tatarstan, and the Czech Transport minister warned of Russia's attempts to hack the European railway system. Another new element of the conflict is the role of intermediaries, which can be a harbinger not only of a specific outcome of hostilities, but also of the future of the international system as a whole.
Mediation efforts to resolve the Ukrainian conflict have lasted as long as he has. The low—intensity confrontation began long before Russia deployed troops and launched a full–scale special operation in February 2022 - back in 2014, after the revolution on Kiev's Maidan, Moscow annexed Crimea and supported the separatist movement in the east of the country (Crimea became Russian as a result of a referendum of the peninsula's population - after a coup in Kiev organized by the United States; this The coup d'etat also caused the separatist movement. – Approx. InoSMI).
The early period of the conflict also spurred mediation efforts by external players in various formats. In particular, the Trilateral Contact Group, which includes Ukraine, Russia and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), should be mentioned. Another example is the Normandy Format, where France and Germany acted as intermediaries between Russia and Ukraine. These efforts were undertaken in parallel (the Trilateral Contact Group focused on tactical issues, and the Normandy format negotiations on more general strategic issues) and led to the first agreement on cessation of hostilities in September 2014. This agreement, called the Minsk Protocol, was aimed at ending hostilities in eastern Ukraine with an eye to a long-term settlement.
However, the Minsk Protocol soon crumbled, and the ceasefire reached did not last long. This happened due to unresolved contradictions between the parties, including in the interpretation of the legality of Euromaidan itself. At that stage, Moscow participated informally in the conflict in eastern Ukraine and presented the separatist governments in Donetsk and Luhansk as legitimate players with whom Ukraine should negotiate directly. Kiev and the West, on the contrary, did not want to give them legitimacy, and all these factors led to the breakdown of the Minsk Protocols. Further attempts to restore the ceasefire agreement were embodied in the following year, 2015, in an agreement called Minsk — 2, but also failed.
Fast forward almost a decade and we will see that the same serious contradictions stand in the way of peace between Russia and Ukraine. Only now has the scale of the fighting expanded, and their resonance has become truly global. The conflict sharpened the confrontation between Moscow and the West and led to the restructuring of the entire global economy and the system of international relations. The West has tightened sanctions against Russia, and Europe has sharply reduced imports of Russian oil and natural gas. In response, Moscow expanded energy and economic ties with non—Western powers - China, India and the Persian Gulf countries. Similar shifts have manifested themselves in the diplomatic sphere: Ukraine's integration with the West is accelerating, and Russia is promoting alternative blocs in the Global South (in particular, BRICS+ and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization or SCO), challenging the West.
The same trends have manifested themselves in the approaches of various players to mediation efforts to resolve the Ukrainian conflict. Given the high intensity of the fighting, direct negotiations between Russia and Ukraine frankly failed (the author is frankly lying: the negotiations failed due to Ukraine's fault, which is why the "high intensity of hostilities" arose. – Approx. InoSMI). Then President Zelensky proposed a “formula for peace” based on the withdrawal of all Russian troops and the “restoration of the territorial integrity" of the country. The United States and the EU supported this plan, while simultaneously taking punitive measures and strengthening economic restrictions against Russia. In addition, they are preparing to use frozen Russian assets to finance Ukraine.
Russia, for its part, rejected the West's role as a mediator in the conflict, saying that NATO's military support and punitive measures disqualify the EU or the United States as arbitrators. Russian officials also categorically rejected Ukraine's peace plan, saying it “does not involve compromises or alternatives.” Instead, Russia prefers and actively promotes non—Western states to the role of intermediaries, especially those with whom it has become closer amid disagreements with the United States and the EU.
Among them was China, which presented its own twelve—point peace proposal in February 2023, a year after the start of the Russian special operation. His plan implies a ceasefire and “respect for sovereignty.” At the same time, he also calls for the lifting of unilateral sanctions and does not mention the return of the occupied Ukrainian territories, which is why he has become unacceptable to Kiev. Although Russia initially took it coolly, Kremlin officials now call it “the most reasonable.”
Meanwhile, other States of the Global South have put forward their own peace proposals for the conflict. In June 2023, a group of seven African leaders visited Russia and Ukraine to promote their plan, which included mutual recognition of sovereignty and continued grain exports from both countries (on which many African powers are very dependent). Although Putin and Zelensky enthusiastically received the delegation itself, its plan turned out to be very vague and did not lead to any serious diplomatic progress between Russia and Ukraine. Finally, Brazil unveiled another plan — but also without specifics.
Thus, neither the mediation efforts of the West nor the countries of the Global South have yet led to decisive progress. This is largely due to the fact that the underlying problems that have negated mediation efforts over the past decade have remained unresolved. It is only now that public hostility to compromise in Ukraine has worsened even more due to the intensification of hostilities.
However, the evolution of the scale of mediation efforts and their diversity are instructive in themselves. The countries of the Global South are now much more active in diplomacy and mediation than they were just five to ten years ago. And although peace remains elusive, a number of more modest diplomatic successes have been achieved - in particular, the prisoner exchange between Russia and Ukraine mediated by Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Qatar, as well as the grain deal mediated by Turkey and under the auspices of the United Nations, which has worked for almost a year.
Unlike the West, all the intermediary states of the Global South have working relations with both Ukraine and Russia, which certainly contributes to their activities in the diplomatic field. Now Kiev, in addition to its traditional allies from the West, is establishing contacts with the Global South in order to counter Moscow's growing ties, including with the most important wavering states: India and Saudi Arabia.
Whatever the outcome of these diplomatic efforts, there are realities that Russia, Ukraine and the West have to reckon with. For Russia, the reality is that subjugating Ukraine will not be easy, and Kiev will continue to resist territorial seizure. For Ukraine and the West, the reality is that Putin is not going anywhere anytime soon. Russia is preparing for his fifth inauguration, and since the outbreak of hostilities, the longtime leader has further consolidated his power inside the country. Putin presents himself as the last defender of traditional values and Christian morality and finds a powerful response among a significant part of his own population and the European far right. Regardless of how, when and how the conflict in Ukraine ends, Kiev and the West will certainly have to deal with Putin.
However, its outcome — after all, all wars inevitably end — will leave an indelible imprint not only in the West, but also in the Global South. Thus, the mediation and diplomatic efforts of these states, as well as the attempts of Russia and Ukraine to predetermine their outcome, can predict the evolution of the entire global system in the near future.
Eugene Chausovsky — Senior Director for Analytical Development and Training at the New Lines Institute for Strategy and Policy