G20 for Peace: Can Brazil head the Russo-Ukrainian negotiations?
The international arena is currently experiencing gradual geopolitical reconfiguration. Those actors that were only moderately active in raising their voices in matters related to inter-state conflicts are now getting a chance to reshape the image and establish new political positioning. With Ukraine as one of the most prominent topics on not only European but global political agenda nowadays, non-European states are becoming vocal players in the matter too.
Brazil has thus far formed a very uncommon point of view on the situation in Ukraine and the potential resolution scenarios. Earlier this year, Lula da Silva, the Brazilian president, announced that he disagrees with the idea of supporting a military conflict and refuses to send ammunition to Ukraine as a part of the joint efforts aimed at repelling Russian aggression. Conversely, the president expressed willingness to become a mediator in the Russo-Ukrainian dispute and therefore establish a negotiating group, the so-called G20 for peace, which would lead the peace talks between the conflicting parties.
The major aim of such an initiative is to promote peace and work on a jointly produced peace deal by considering the concerns of both parties. Such a grouping would invite the “semi-neutral” countries which have yet not positioned themselves concerning the conflict as well as China, which can play “a crucial role” in the negotiating efforts. Lula’s proposal tackles the aspect of significant shifts in global governance and windows of opportunities that previously static countries are using to speak up. However, does the plan sound promising and realistic?
Friendship with Russia
The Brazilian government has recently attended numerous meetings with high-ranking Russian public servants with lurid outcomes. By doing so, Lula maintains long-standing diplomatic relations with Russia and remains reluctant to position himself as a supporter of either party. It might be a part of the Brazilian neutral foreign policy agenda, which the leftist leader perceives as the way for the country to return to the global politics arena. Lula nevertheless repeatedly emphasized the importance of creating lasting peace between the conflicting sides and promoting human rights worldwide. It is sometimes difficult to follow the Brazilian narrative since there is yet a lot of criticism directed towards the EU, the US, and Ukraine itself between such peacemaking lines.
While most of the international community acknowledges the Russian self-provoked aggression against Ukraine and differentiates between the aggressor and the defender, Brazil tends to distribute the blame burden between both the parties almost equally. In one of the Brazilian president’s interviews, he stated that the Ukrainian side is responsible for encouraging military activities and not going for peace-oriented resolutions. Such discourses are subtly turning into anti-Western narratives where European and US authorities are seen as promoters of war, and the Global South is their main recipient.
Seemingly, such controversial statements might, in the long run, contradict Lula’s strive for global peace as the gap between the West and the rest of the world in terms of opinions on the war is getting much wider.
Is it an option?
While peace has been the leading goal to be achieved among the global community since the end of the Cold War, the question of how such a peace deal should look and whether it would be feasible considering the visions and interests of both sides remains a disputable topic. If peace can be a response to aggression, then who is the one to bear most of the losses in such a scenario, given that any win-win situation is highly unlikely?