Follow us on social

Diplomacy Watch: What’s the point of Swiss peace summit?

Diplomacy Watch: What’s the point of Swiss peace summit?

There’s little reason to believe the much-hyped diplomatic confab will make progress toward ending the war

Analysis | QiOSK

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky seems to be everywhere. Just this past week, Zelensky zipped between Singapore, the Philippines, Qatar, and France in a whirlwind tour of meetings and diplomatic confabs.

Zelensky’s world tour focused on two major goals: pushing for deeper NATO involvement in the conflict, and boosting attendance at a summit later this month in Switzerland, where delegates from over 100 countries will discuss a diplomatic path forward for the war that has ravaged Ukraine over the past two years.

On the first point, the Ukrainian leader has been rather successful. U.S. President Joe Biden recently authorized Ukraine’s military to strike targets within Russia using U.S. weapons — a move long seen as a red line due to the risks of broader escalation. And France is reportedly on the verge of sending military trainers to Ukraine, which would dramatically increase the odds of direct NATO involvement in the war.

The second goal has been more challenging. Ukraine’s 10-point peace plan, which demands the full expulsion of Russian troops from the country and the prosecution of top Kremlin officials, was easier to entertain when Kyiv still held an edge on the battlefield. Now, after roughly a year and a half of brutal stalemate, the military calculus has shifted in Russia’s favor, making Ukraine’s demands — and the summit itself — seem a bit fanciful.

This is perhaps one reason why Biden rejected Zelensky’s request to attend the June 15 meeting, opting instead to jet off to California for a celebrity-filled campaign fundraiser. Vice President Kamala Harris and National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan have said they will go in Biden’s stead, but the big man’s absence will be hard to ignore.

While this fact alone won’t necessarily sink the summit, most available evidence suggests that meaningful progress toward a diplomatic solution is unlikely at best.

Perhaps the most significant obstacle is credibility. Once-neutral Switzerland has made no secret of its desire to punish Russia for its invasion of Ukraine. The Swiss have largely signed onto Western sanctions and even banned Russian planes from flying over their territory — an entirely symbolic move given that the country is entirely surrounded by European Union states, which had already banned Russian overflights.

These decisions have led the Kremlin to reject the prospect of Swiss mediation, undermining the chances of any meaningful progress at the upcoming summit.

Another major problem is, of course, the fact that Russia was not invited to the talks. Ukraine has said that Kremlin representatives could eventually join the negotiations, but only on Kyiv’s terms.

Russia’s absence appears to be a major reason that China will skip the Swiss summit. Beijing sent representatives to several of the five previous rounds of talks on Zelensky’s plan, but the rising power now seems to have given up on Ukraine’s approach.

The decision is a reflection of China’s broader approach to mediation, which prizes direct talks between belligerents above all else. “The way in which [China] sees itself as contributing is by bringing the parties together, providing a platform for discussion and serving as a more neutral actor that has legitimacy in the eyes of all of the actors involved,” Dawn Murphy of the U.S. National War College told RS in a recent interview.

Zelensky made an effort to change Beijing’s mind during his stopover in Singapore for the annual Shangri-La Dialogue. But Chinese officials chose not to meet with the Ukrainian president, leading him to lash out publicly.

“Unfortunately Ukraine does not have any powerful connections with China because China does not want it,” he said, accusing Beijing of acting as an “instrument” of Russian foreign policy.

All of these indicators now paint a dismal diplomatic picture. China and Switzerland, both of which had some chance of mediating talks, are now seen as hopelessly biased toward one of the belligerents. Other potential mediators — including Brazil, Mexico, South Africa, and the Vatican — have been chastened by their own attempts to convene negotiations.

The Switzerland summit will no doubt involve serious talks on important aspects of Ukraine’s plan. But all available evidence suggests that it will not bring us an inch closer to ending the war.

In other diplomatic news related to the war in Ukraine:

— U.S. officials now increasingly acknowledge that American and Ukrainian interests “are diverging” as Ukraine pushes for direct NATO involvement in the war, according to David Sanger of the New York Times. “At this point, Ukraine has nothing left to lose from escalating with Russia,” Sanger wrote. “Mr. Biden still does.” The administration’s main concern is that Russia could use a nuclear weapon against Ukrainian troops in a bold attempt to reestablish deterrence, creating the possibility of full-scale nuclear war.

— France uninvited Russian officials from this week’s D-Day commemorations following harsh pushback from Western allies, according to Politico. Russian President Vladimir Putin attended previous Normandy anniversaries despite tensions with the West, including a 2014 commemoration on the heels of Russia’s annexation of Crimea. While Putin himself was not invited this time around, the prospect of any Russian representation was too much for many Western officials to countenance. Zelensky, for his part, will join the proceedings to highlight “how the landings resonate with the just struggle that the Ukrainian nation is waging today,” according to French officials.

— In a recent interview with TIME, Biden said he does not support Ukraine joining NATO at this time. “I am not prepared to support the NATOization of Ukraine,” he said, citing “significant corruption” that he witnessed on trips to the country during the Obama administration. (For more notable bits from the interview, check out Blaise Malley’s recent round-up for RS.)

— Russia’s attacks on Ukraine’s energy grid have forced the country to do nationwide rolling blackouts, stoking fears that Ukrainian civilians will have limited access to heating when winter comes around, according to the New York Times. “Experts have warned that power plants have suffered too much damage to be repaired before subzero temperatures set in, around December, which could plunge many people into dangerously cold living conditions,” the Times reported. Such a possibility risks boosting Ukrainian domestic opposition to continuing the war effort, which has already risen in recent months.

U.S. State Department news:

In a Wednesday press conference, State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller dismissed concerns of potential escalation following the Biden administration’s decision to allow Ukraine to strike some targets inside Russia with American weapons. “I would say it is Vladimir Putin that has continually escalated this conflict over and over again, including by these latest actions,” Miller said. “We will continue to take appropriate actions to respond to what President Putin has done, to allow Ukraine to defend itself.”


Analysis | QiOSK
US Marines
Top image credit: U.S. Marines with Force Reconnaissance Platoon, Maritime Raid Force, 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit, prepare to clear a room during a limited scale raid exercise at Sam Hill Airfield, Queensland, Australia, June 21, 2025. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Alora Finigan)

Cartels are bad but they're not 'terrorists.' This is mission creep.

Military Industrial Complex

There is a dangerous pattern on display by the Trump administration. The president and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth seem to hold the threat and use of military force as their go-to method of solving America’s problems and asserting state power.

The president’s reported authorization for the Pentagon to use U.S. military warfighting capacity to combat drug cartels — a domain that should remain within the realm of law enforcement — represents a significant escalation. This presents a concerning evolution and has serious implications for civil liberties — especially given the administration’s parallel moves with the deployment of troops to the southern border, the use of federal forces to quell protests in California, and the recent deployment of armed National Guard to the streets of our nation’s capital.

keep readingShow less
Howard Lutnick
Top photo credit: Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick on CNBC, 8/26/25 (CNBC screengrab)

Is nationalizing the defense industry such a bad idea?

Military Industrial Complex

The U.S. arms industry is highly consolidated, specialized, and dependent on government contracts. Indeed, the largest U.S. military contractors are already effectively extensions of the state — and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick is right to point that out.

His suggestion in a recent media appearance to partially nationalize the likes of Lockheed Martin is hardly novel. The economist John Kenneth Galbraith argued for the nationalization of the largest military contractors in 1969. More recently, various academics and policy analysts have advocated for partial or full nationalization of military firms in publications including The Nation, The American Conservative, The Middle East Research and Information Project (MERIP), and The Seattle Journal for Social Justice.

keep readingShow less
Modi Trump
Top image credit: White House, February 2025

Trump's India problem could become a Global South crisis

Asia-Pacific

As President Trump’s second term kicked off, all signs pointed to a continued upswing in U.S.-India relations. At a White House press conference in February, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi spoke of his vision to “Make India Great Again” and how the United States under Trump would play a central role. “When it’s MAGA plus MIGA, it becomes a mega partnership for prosperity,” Modi said.

During Trump’s first term, the two populist leaders hosted rallies for each other in their respective countries and cultivated close personal ties. Aside from the Trump-Modi bromance, U.S.-Indian relations have been on a positive trajectory for over two decades, driven in part by mutual suspicion of China. But six months into his second term, Trump has taken several actions that have led to a dramatic downturn in U.S.-India relations, with India-China relations suddenly on the rise.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.