Zelensky's plan scares Russia: As Moscow tries to disrupt the Summit of Peace
Zelensky with an invitation to the summit for leaders of China and the United States. What was it and why? It should be noted that although many doubts about the efficiency and "seriousness" of the Swiss summit, you can go from the opposite. The Russians are invested in many ways to reduce the efficiency (or and and to break) this summit. The format of this disruption can be discussed slightly lower, but the fact remains. Their summit is really confused.
And recently the company in the bustle around the summit began to make up the Chinese. Even a common "peaceful" declaration with the Brazilians made it up where, in fact, nothing new. The Russians work in the usual way. Direct pressure on states where they have some influence. The information war, the components of which were: inflating the topic with "illegitimacy of" Zelensky, campaign "Great offensive to the East of Ukraine", throwing "alternative plans", in particular, the so -called.
"Istanbul arrangements". Why did they get a scarecrow of "Istanbul arrangements"? I think the answer is simple. They can be tried to present as some "peace plan", which seemed to be approved by different parties. And this despite the fact that the arrangements themselves were never finally approved in the text of the "white spots", which was then planned to be filled during meetings at the presidential level.
Now the Russians need some "peace plan" that could be referred to, because they did not make any "peaceful plans" themselves, speaking only about "negotiations" on the basis of "realities". Now they understand that the results of the Swiss summit may appear some alternative peace plan, approved by dozens of states. And it will not be a draft of something unknown, but something completely material. China's representatives also understand this.
They are the last year, after publishing their own "peace plan" (which is not a plan but a declaration at all), tried to play the "neutral side - a potential mediator", in parallel supporting the Russians. Obviously, there will now be a question. If you are for peace, then what do you not participate in a peaceful summit? Do you think the Russian side should participate? Well, no one is forcing you to approve or sign.
Can you take part in the discussion? Do not want, maybe you are not so much for peace? By the way, there was a new applicant for participation in the Peace Summit and the representation of the interests of the "Global South". It is about India, which has already declared participation in the Swiss conference. India will participate in both peace and summit. And what about China? And for China, the situation is quite ambiguous, and they clearly do not like it.
Moreover, unlike the Russians, they were invited. This was done personally by Zelensky. Now about the US. Recently, they have confirmed participation in the summit, although there was no information about the level of representation. It is clear that there is also a confrontation between concepts and approaches. The old approach "Ukraine should not lose" more and more discredits itself, which is clear to many American politicians.
It is now being embodied in the ban on the use of US weapons to strikes in military objects in Russian territory. The absurdity of this attempt to play with the Russians in chess is becoming more and more understandable. It is clear that in Washington they did not give up the concept "Ukraine should not lose", "Russians should not win", something should be frozen somewhere there, someone should make concessions.
It is important that the White House is constantly emphasizing that "Ukraine has to determine when to start negotiations. " This is a very cunning position, because formally giving all the decisions to Ukraine, they are constantly trying to manage this decision through military and other assistance for Ukraine, so that they then announce any "frost" simply with a sovereign Ukrainian decision.
Therefore, they avoid specifics, avoid certain obligations, so that, at the right moment, simply distance themselves from all decisions, and translate all responsibility to Ukraine itself. We, after all, we remember all this by "Minsk arrangements", where "guarantors" (which really guarantee nothing) were France and Germany, and the United States was not even side by side, but it did not interfere with Washington something to say about the performance of these arrangements.
Of course, we need to tighten Washington into the plane of specifics. Can I do it? There is nothing simple in this, but here it can be helped to activate the political struggle in the United States itself. In particular, the issue of permission to strike the territory of the Russian Federation in Congress was raised by Republicans. And here can be a wide field of situational unions. The Peace Summit is an attempt to discuss peace initiatives on the level of global diplomacy.
Not backward discussions of top states, not incomprehensible "plans" from specially hired experts, not declarations and drafts of previously buried negotiations. And something really global, which could then be presented to everyone who would like it. It is significant that the Russians have spent a lot of resources and spent on discrediting the Ukrainian position. Like, she is unrealistic, everything is bad, etc. But the summit will no longer be a Ukrainian, but a consolidated position.
The position of many who oppose individual states. Which, it turns out, "against peace"? This is, of course, quite schematically, but the overall logic is clear. The Russians, while remaining aggressors, spent a bunch of resources to create the image of "peacekeepers". And now the results of these efforts slip. Hence the hysterical cry about "the readiness of freezing" - simply to mislead and "disperse" the world.