At the dawn of the fourteenth month of war in Ukraine, the voices calling for a negotiated solution are becoming more and more insistent. After a trip to China last week, Brazilian President Lula on Sunday proposed joint mediation with Beijing and Abu Dhabi to end the conflict. And accused in passing the United States and Europe of extending it. A week earlier, the Brazilian head of state had – already – suggested that Ukraine give up Crimea, saying that Zelensky “can’t want everything either”…
So many comments strongly criticized by Washington, which this week accused Brasilia of “echoing Russian and Chinese propaganda without taking the facts into account”. For its part, Beijing had proposed in February its own twelve-point plan “on the political settlement of the Ukrainian crisis”, which had also left more than skeptical supporters of kyiv. “This maintains the idea that it is the Ukrainians who must give in to achieve peace, and accept to lose control of their territories illegally annexed by Russia”, estimates the former ambassador Michel Duclos, today special adviser to Institut Montaigne and author War in Ukraine and new world order (Editions de l’Observatoire, 2023).
L’Express: Is the Brazilian president’s proposal really credible?
Michael Duclos: The answer is no, as Brazilian President Lula is biased. It should be remembered that he had declared as soon as the war broke out – before being elected president – that the Ukrainians and the Westerners had a large share of the responsibility in the outbreak of this conflict. His recent statements and the way in which the head of Russian diplomacy Sergey Lavrov was received in Brasilia at the beginning of the week only confirm this inclination of the Brazilian government in favor of Moscow.
Moreover, Lula’s recent remarks that Ukraine should agree to cede Crimea to Russia, as a concession for peace, point in the same direction. Behind this offer of mediation, there is undoubtedly a will of the Brazilian president to restore an important place to his country on the international scene, after the Bolsonaro years. And perhaps even a sincere desire to find a way out of this war, but his biased view of the conflict does not allow him to be a credible mediator. His proposals do not seem to have convinced either Beijing or Abu Dhabi.
Before him, China had hardly convinced either with its twelve proposals for a political settlement of the conflict…
Effectively. In this document, one could find arguments developed by Moscow, such as the condemnation of the enlargement of “military blocs”, that is to say NATO, and more general considerations such as Beijing’s opposition to the use of nuclear weapons. But the whole ultimately remained rather vague. As in the Brazilian case, the Chinese proposals were not really intended to lead to negotiations or mediation. They were mainly aimed at giving Beijing the image of a responsible country seeking peace.
Making these proposals, which remained rather vague, was above all a good way to pass for a credible actor while pretending to spare each other. It is not impossible that the Chinese will one day become more interested in a real settlement of the conflict. But for the time being, they are positioning themselves with a view to future developments and will adjust their position as they go along, in particular according to the balance of power.
Doesn’t the very fact of offering mediation or negotiations at a time when Russia is still occupying several Ukrainian regions play into the hands of the Kremlin?
Yes, in the sense that it sustains the idea that it is the Ukrainians who must give in to achieve peace, and agree to lose control of their territories illegally annexed by Russia. But these calls for negotiation do not have much meaning, apart from the self-interests of those who formulate them. Indeed, neither of the two belligerents has shown great interest in opening negotiations. And certainly not Putin’s regime, which clearly places itself in a logic of long-term confrontation of a millennial character: that is to say, a struggle of holy Russia against a West that it considers decadent and perverted.
In this context, calls for negotiations or mediation, as President Lula does, appear completely disconnected from reality. It must be said that there were precedents. In 2010, an attempt at Turkish-Brazilian mediation carried out by Lula on the Iranian nuclear issue was marked by a certain amateurism: it had been rejected not only by the Americans, the French and the British, but also by the Russians and the Chinese. .
Wouldn’t a ceasefire risk giving Russia time to rebuild its forces?
Absolutely. It is certainly not in the interest of Ukraine, nor of those who support it, or support international law. Ultimately, the risk would be that a new conflict breaks out in the longer term. The Russian calculation would be to consolidate their positions to return to the attack a few months or years later, being better prepared. This is a prospect that is by definition unacceptable to Ukraine.
When will the conditions be met for peace negotiations?
It’s hard to say, but we can imagine two scenarios. If the Ukrainians managed to break through the Russian front and reach the shores of the Sea of Azov, or if they were in a position to threaten the Russian positions in Crimea, then Putin’s regime would be in serious trouble. From then on, he would begin to be forced into the negotiation.
Another hypothesis, which cannot be ruled out even if it seems unlikely, is that on the contrary the Ukrainians end up cracking under Russian pressure, and have no choice but to accept negotiations. Be that as it may, a momentum could open up after the Ukrainian counter-offensive expected in the spring. But at the moment it would not make much sense to negotiate.
When the time comes, who could participate in these peace negotiations?
The Ukrainians will demand that their allies be part of it, because they will need security guarantees from the West. And they will not be able to trust biased countries like China or Brazil. At the end of the day, it is likely that there will be a Ukraine-Russia format, surrounded by permanent members of the Security Council. In this context, France’s role will depend on how, by then, we have been able to inspire confidence in Ukrainians, Europeans and Americans.
