Could a coalition of non-Western countries find a pathway to peace between Russia and Ukraine? Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva talked up this prospect on a visit last weekend to Beijing, where he spoke to his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, about creating a “peace group” of states to coordinate an end to the war. Lula was not the first leader to sound out Xi about peacemaking in Ukraine in recent weeks. When French President Emmanuel Macron was in Beijing in early April, he urged the Chinese president to guide Russia “back to reason.”
Xi apparently reacted coolly to Macron’s overtures, but both Western and non-Western statesmen have been scrutinizing China’s intentions since Beijing released a 12-point “position paper” on ending the war in late February. The paper itself was brief and designed to offer something to all sides. It affirmed Ukraine’s territorial integrity but echoed Russia’s narrative that NATO’s enlargement is a threat to Moscow’s core interests. The U.S. and many of Ukraine’s allies dismissed the document, arguing that China is too close to Russia to act as a peacemaker, although Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said that he was willing to discuss it with Xi.
But to date, there has been no Xi-Zelenskyy phone call. Western officials complain that the Brazilians and Chinese have failed to engage Ukraine on their peace proposals, while making direct outreach to Russian President Vladimir Putin. But China’s intervention and Lula’s proposal for a contact group has focused attention on non-Western powers’ potential to help end the war.
Western diplomats have tried to persuade African, Asian and Latin American states to put pressure on Russia since its all-out assault on Ukraine began. In March 2022, 141 of the United Nation’s 193 members, including majorities from all regions, voted to condemn Moscow’s aggression in the U.N. General Assembly after strenuous U.S. and European lobbying. A similar number rejected Russia’s claim to annex Ukrainian territories last fall. U.S. officials also worked hard last year to persuade Xi and other non-Western leaders, such as Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, to warn Russia against using nuclear weapons in Ukraine. These efforts culminated in the Group of 20 summit’s joint declaration calling nuclear use and threats “inadmissible” in November.
If the fighting grinds on indefinitely, non-Western countries will continue to push for a negotiated settlement to the war in Ukraine.
Despite these diplomatic successes, Ukraine’s allies worry that many states in the Global South would be willing to let the war end on Russia’s terms. Listening to U.N. debates marking the first anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine this February, it was notable that many non-Western speakers simply called for “dialogue and diplomacy” as a formula to end hostilities. Others spoke in broad terms of the need for peacemaking mechanisms, without going into details about how these would work in reality. Very few non-Western speakers insisted that Russia should unconditionally withdraw its forces from all Ukrainian territory as a precondition for peace.
Western observers believe that this creates an opening for Russia to make a show of engaging in “dialogue” with Kyiv while reinforcing its grip on swaths of Ukrainian territory. For the time being, most U.S. and European officials appear content to let Kyiv try to win back as much ground as it can in the coming months. Few believe that Russia is ready for real negotiations.
Even if some Western leaders, like Macron, have probed China’s willingness to help end the war, it is still improbable that most NATO countries would accept China—or some non-Western contact group of the type floated by Brazil—as a formal mediator in any peace talks. China has been consistent in pointing to NATO’s growth as one cause of the current conflict, while Brazil’s Lula has accused Western countries of “encouraging” war by arming Ukraine.
Nevertheless, if fighting grinds on indefinitely, non-Western countries will continue to push for a negotiated settlement. While the Brazilian idea of a “peace group” is at quite a basic stage, other non-Western states, from Mexico to Senegal, have advanced similar notions during the war. Lula claims to have discussed his proposals with a wide range of leaders, including U.S. President Joe Biden. He will have ample opportunities to advocate for it through the course of the year at events like the G-20 summit in New Delhi in September. This could become a diplomatic challenge for Ukraine. Moscow can argue that while it is open to talks, Kyiv and NATO are not. Visiting Brasilia this week, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov thanked his hosts for “striving” to find ways to settle the war.
Kyiv’s allies know that they cannot afford to appear dismissive of the need for some sort of peace process in Ukraine. This February, the European Union and U.S. facilitated a U.N. General Assembly resolution calling for a “comprehensive, just and lasting peace” to mark the first anniversary of the war. The text included a call for a “cessation of hostilities” at the suggestion of Brazil as well as other elements aimed at satisfying non-Western states, such as a reference to avoiding more chaos in global food prices, while also demanding an immediate Russian withdrawal from Ukraine and accountability for war crimes. Although Ukrainian officials would have liked a firmer text condemning Moscow, they wisely pursued a softer resolution that won broad support, with two-thirds of U.N. members ultimately backing the resolution.
Macron has also apparently not given up on working with China on peace. The French president has reportedly tasked a senior adviser to engage with Beijing on how to bring Russia and Ukraine to the negotiating table sooner rather than later.
In the short term, U.N. texts and talk of contact groups will have little real impact on the hostilities. China’s position paper and Brazil’s ideas for diplomatic coordination do not offer concrete proposals to change the military dynamics of the conflict. Nevertheless, non-Western leaders will likely float more ideas for ending the war. They are unlikely to gain traction while Russia and Ukraine both still aim to shape the outcome of the war on the battlefield. But they will influence global debates about the rights and wrongs of Russia’s war on Ukraine, and who must compromise for the sake of peace.
Richard Gowan is the U.N. director of the International Crisis Group. From 2013 to 2019, he wrote a weekly column for WPR. Follow him on Twitter at @RichardGowan1.