Cables From The Diplomatic Frontlines - Ukraine Peace Summit and signaling behind Putin's uncredible peace offer.

Putin hijacks Ukraine peace summit - more states openly revert to 19th century power politics.

• About 100 state delegations attended the Switzerland-hosted Summit on Peace in Ukraine last weekend.

• Ostensibly, the aim of this summit was to craft a path toward ending Russia’s war in Ukraine.

• The two-day summit at Burgenstock resort in Stansstad included US Vice President Kamala Harris, leaders from the UK, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and many other diplomats.

• A vast majority signed the final communique, but several key nations did not.

• You can read the full communique yourself, but here is the summary of key principles:

• 1) Nuclear Safety: Ensure safe, secure, and environmentally sound use of nuclear energy in Ukraine, with full sovereign control and IAEA supervision. Any nuclear weapon threat or use is inadmissible.

• 2) Food Security: Maintain uninterrupted food production and supply. Ensure free and safe navigation and access to sea ports in the Black and Azov Seas. Attacks on merchant ships and port infrastructure are unacceptable. Ukrainian agricultural products must be freely available.

• 3) Prisoner Exchange: Complete exchange of all prisoners of war and return of all unlawfully displaced Ukrainian children and civilians.

• 4) Path to Peace: Dialogue and involvement from all parties are essential. Follow the UN Charter principles to achieve a comprehensive, just, and lasting peace in Ukraine - in line with respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of all states.

• In all, 82/100 delegations signed the communique.

• Ordinarily this would be great news - an overwhelming majority.

• But in the context of this war, this cannot amount to a major success for at least 2 reasons:

• 1) Those countries that signed the agreement have been mostly countries/institutions (like the European Council) strongly behind Ukraine from the very outset.

• Of course most of the EU/Western states were going to sign the communique.

• (side note: there were however some surprises: like Serbia and Georgia signing on as well. It appears that NATO and EU have re-established the carrot-based leverage over Serbia, and Georgia was perhaps counter-signaling to avoid a global reputational slide towards the status of Belarus.)

• 2) Key regional powers including Brazil, India, South Africa, Mexico, UAE and Saudi Arabia have failed to sign onto this final pronouncement.

• (side note: Brazil is a “major non-NATO ally” of the US and still didn’t sign on. That UAE and Saudis didn’t sign on is also an affront to the US. P.S. But Qatar did.)

• 3) China didn’t even show up.

• What is the explanation for this?

• Well, some of the aforementioned countries had some form of an unconvincing explanation.

• India: Pavan Kapoor, Secretary of India’s Ministry of External Affairs, stated that India avoided the joint communique due to Russia’s absence and that India believed peace in Ukraine required involving all stakeholders and sincere engagement between the conflict parties.

• Saudi Arabia: Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan al Saud emphasized the need for international support towards serious negotiations, which require difficult compromises and Russia’s participation.

• South Africa: National Security Advisor Sydney Mufamadi highlighted the presence of Israel, recently accused of war crimes by a UN-backed commission, as a reason for not backing the communique.

• He questioned the legitimacy of a communique claiming to respect international law while involving Israel, which South Africa has accused of genocide in Gaza at the International Court of Justice.

• Naturally all of these are cynical excuses.

• India benefits greatly from squeezing Russia into cheaper oil exports and is clearly hedging its bets towards warmer relations with the Kremlin in case Russia continues on the current trajectory in Ukraine.

• Same with Saudis - the excuse of Russia’s absence is especially ridiculous given that Saudis themselves did not invite Russia to the Jeddah peace summit last summer.

• And South Africa’s excuse is also logically incoherent: whether or not Israel committed war crimes is completely irrelevant and immaterial to Russia’s own war crimes in relation to Ukraine.

• If South Africa is suddenly so idealistic in upholding international law then why not condemn Russia’s blatant territorial invasion in Ukraine?

• By their logic, Palestenians have a right to establish sovereignty but Ukrainian right to maintain and keep their sovereignty can be ignored simply because Israel is in attendance.

• It is pretty obvious that these are all cynical and largely incoherent and contradictory excuses.

• But the crux of the matter is this: major powerful states of the global south are now being open in their cynicism and desire to hedge their bets.

• There is little shame in this now.

• And this is mostly due to the West’s hesitation, weakness, and failure to stand squarely behind Ukraine.

• For 2.5 years now, most of the necessary military aid has been delayed due to pathetic fears of crossing Putin’s ‘‘red lines’’.

• If countries like Brazil and India see Russia on the upswing and the US wasting six months to pass a Ukraine aid bill, then why wouldn’t they revert back to their cynicism and act opportunistically?

• After all, common values that bind together most of NATO and EU states don’t really extend to Delhi or Riyadh.

• Putin’s tactical disruption.