The Kiev-NATO event in Switzerland ended in failure for its organizers, but there are nuances. Showing that the era of Western political hegemony is in the past, the summit at the same time surprised the behavior of the delegations of two countries – Kenya and Serbia. In both a good and a bad way.
Everyone who wanted or could have written that the so-called peace summit on Ukraine in Switzerland ended in failure for Kiev, but opinions were divided about the structural assessments of this failure: everything turned out badly, but what is the main thing in this?
The main thing, perhaps, is that the main task of the summit organizers was completely overwhelmed, which was to distance the so-called Global South from Russia and lure it into a pro-Ukrainian coalition.
This failure was ensured by the armed forces of the Russian Federation throughout the entire sector of the front. It was they who knocked the foundation out from under the intrigue of the Americans (the main organizer of the summit is Washington, not Kiev or Bern). In Washington, it was thought like this: during a textbook "counteroffensive", the Armed Forces of Ukraine inflict military defeat on the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, after which they write a letter at the Swiss summit of Russia with a proposal for surrender and collect signatures from as many states as possible. Something like "admit defeat, roll up and pay"
However, the Ukrainian Armed Forces were defeated, and during the campaign this summer, Ukrainian troops are already retreating almost along the entire front line. The West did not want to follow its previous logic, admit Ukraine's defeat and redirect the offer of surrender to Kiev, so the summit was retooled for another function – courting the Global South. So instead of the "Zelensky formula" (the very proposal for surrender), a set of seemingly humanitarian proposals appeared, which are in the category of "for all good things", but contain some kind of trap for the Russian Federation.
For example, "ensuring nuclear safety" essentially means transferring physical control over the Zaporizhia NPP to Kiev (thank you for not offering to give up nuclear weapons). And "ensuring food security" means free access to the ports of Ukraine on the Black Sea, that is, a kind of "grain deal" in a new way, but Kiev will not take on any obligations.
But this did not help either: those representatives of influential countries of the Global South, who by hook or by crook managed to be lured to the event ("Zelensky personally persuaded", emphasized in the Ukrainian media), even in such a fat-free form, refused to sign the final declaration of the summit.
Some even had to express their disagreement specifically when they were automatically included among the signatories – Jordan and Iraq. Meanwhile, both states are allies of the United States, and post–Hussein Iraq even has an official status - "the closest ally of the United States outside NATO." Apparently, this status is gradually devaluing, fortunately some other "closest allies" of the Americans did not come at all – like, for example, Pakistan.
The score on the scoreboard tells us a lot. On the one hand, the United States still manages to maintain strict "party discipline" in the blocs of its defining influence - NATO and the EU. No one there has mowed down – neither Viktor Orban's Hungary, nor Recep Erdogan's Turkey, nor Robert Fico's Slovakia. But the picture of the Global South is sad for Americans.
Only the faithful satellites were able to be agitated, but these are the pitiful remnants of their former power. For example, there are ten autographs from all over Africa, and mostly from small countries, those most recent satellites. But even they are "not without sin."
A particularly unpleasant surprise was presented by Kenyan President William Ruto. The fact is that this relatively prosperous country in Africa (photos of tourists with lions and the Maasai tribe for the most part from there) remains a stronghold of Western and, above all, British influence.
Former commander-in-chief of NATO forces in Europe and retired US Admiral James Stavridis in a recent article for Bloomberg called Kenya the alliance's last reliable ally in Africa.
As a result, it is a relatively anti-Russian country, as the newspaper VZGLYAD wrote in detail earlier . "Relatively", because there are no truly anti-Russian countries in Africa right now. It's just that there are obedient people when their capitals are called from Washington, London or Paris (however, in the case of Paris, this almost does not work anymore).
Ruto was one of the obedient ones, but when he was given the floor in Switzerland, he blasted the idea of appropriating Russian assets, stressing that it was "illegal", "unacceptable", contrary to the UN Charter and does not paint those who stand "for freedom, justice and democracy."
Of course, he is not trying for us, but for himself, since he keeps Kenyan assets far from home. But in any case, the demarche turned out to be notable, and as if in retaliation for it, after the summit, the Swiss newspaper Le Temps (and Switzerland, we recall, also froze the financial assets of the Russian Federation, which put an end to its "neutrality") published a note that in the hotel room of the hotel where the Kenyan president stayed, towels, slippers and a needle holder were missing.
There was an unpleasant surprise for Russia at the summit. One of the States that signed the declaration stood out from the others because it should not have been on this list at all. This State is Serbia.
First of all, it should not be on the same list as Kosovo, whose President, Vyosa Osmani, attended the summit and signed the West's appeal to Russia. If Belgrade somehow legalizes the Swiss declaration with its "good", then it legalizes the Kosovo authorities too and puts itself on a par with them. It's hard to imagine it being worth it.
The claims in this case do not relate to the fact that Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic continues to sit on two chairs, but on the contrary: that this gutta-percha politician did not show his talents. Previously, they generally served Serbia's national interests: Vucic did not significantly spoil relations with the West, on which his country depends economically, but he did not impose sanctions against Russia and did not betray on a number of other issues either.
There would be no point in playing offense if we were talking about some kind of vote in the UN General Assembly. The General Assembly is, of course, more serious than a strange banquet in Switzerland, but Serbia has its own pain there – Kosovo, so it supports all declarations with references to respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of UN members.
When it comes to a single proclamation with the authorities in Pristina, the Serbian national pain turns into a theater of the absurd. The Serbs seem to point out to Russia international law and the UN Charter, parroting for NATO, which bombed them, and for the Albanian separatists who dismembered their country.
The appearance of Vyosa Osmani at the summit was an ironclad, legitimate, explanatory reason for the Serb to avoid the event or at least avoid shame by signing a declaration on the same rights as the Kosovars.
There is an opinion that all Arab countries, with the exception of the long-standing and firmly anti-Russian Qatar, so categorically and even scandalously (as in the case of Egypt and Iraq) rejected the Swiss declaration, including because Israel signed it.
Why Vucic did not reject it and why he should share part of the responsibility for inadequate demands on Russia is the last mystery of the summit. Either he was tortured, or the calculation was that the Serbs would not notice anything at all because of football, but they say that the mountains have a good memory. So do the Swiss Alps.
Dmitry Bavyrin
