Alarm bells of the G7 meeting

The fighting on the front line, where the Russian aggressor continues its futile attempts to change the situation in its favor, understandably forms the headlines of the media agenda. In the shadow of these events, developments on an equally important front of the confrontation - the diplomatic one - often remain unnoticed. The behind-the-scenes work of diplomacy does indeed go unnoticed by the general public. However, there always comes a time when this work receives public political recognition, and conclusions can be drawn.

On April 18, the G7 foreign ministers met under the Japanese presidency and adopted conclusions on Ukraine. This is exactly the moment when it is worth reading and thoughtfully analyzing the formulas fixed by the ministers of our key support group in the world. We should positively note and thank our partners for their continued solidarity and powerful signals of support for Ukraine, including condemnation of nuclear blackmail, demand for the "unconditional" withdrawal of occupying forces, intentions to strengthen sanctions against Russia and its allies, and warnings to third countries to refrain from assisting the aggressor, etc. Against this backdrop, there are some alarm bells that are worth paying special attention to in the G7 Foreign Ministries' statement on Ukraine:

• The good tradition of inviting the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine to attend the meeting live or online to present the position of the Ukrainian side was broken (hopefully not because of the Ukrainian minister's workload);

• The final document lacks a clear and very important symbolic formula on the territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders, which was an integral element of all previous G7 statements. Of course, the statement refers to the UN General Assembly resolution and Ukraine's "peace formula," but a separate statement of this sacred formula seems crucial for understanding the evolution of our allies' fundamental approaches;

“The final document lacks a clear and very important symbolic formula on the territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders, which was an integral element of all previous G7 statements”

• We can see the general refusal of the G7 to further promote the idea of confiscating frozen Russian assets in favor of taking them hostage to force Russia to pay for the damage caused to Ukraine as a result of its aggression. This evolution of the approach to Russian assets significantly reduces the ability of the Ukrainian authorities to rebuild the destroyed infrastructure before the end of the war. In principle, the topic of support for Ukraine's post-war reconstruction, with the exception of critical infrastructure, was left out of the final document of the G7 ministers (unlike the previous ones);

• The G7 fixes a vague and generalized wording on the responsibility of the Russian Federation for war crimes, as well as avoiding fixing Putin's personal responsibility for aggression against Ukraine (as it was in the statement of the G7 ministers in February this year), combined with the G7’s consolidated intention to work towards the creation of a "hybrid" internationalized tribunal that will operate under the laws of Ukraine. As is well known, this approach does not meet the vision of official Kyiv, which insists on the creation of a special tribunal through the adoption of a relevant UN General Assembly resolution;

• The issue of reforms in Ukraine and the fight against corruption is back on the agenda, which symbolizes the renewed attention of our partners to the internal political processes in our country.

“The issue of reforms in Ukraine and the fight against corruption is back on the agenda, which symbolizes the renewed attention of our partners to the internal political processes in our country”

Without dramatizing the above-mentioned bells, one cannot help but notice the fact that the diplomatic information space is increasingly shaking with new peacekeeping initiatives and new candidates for mediation from China to Brazil and Iraq, new scenarios of "the end of the war" and new visions of ways to "pacify" the aggressor. All of these ideas require a systematic and tough response from Ukraine, because the conditions for the end of the war must be determined by the Ukrainian people, who, through their own heroism and sacrifice, repelled the insane aggressor and defended their right to independence and their own civilizational choice.

In addition, our basic principle - "nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine" - must remain unshakable. We must win. Therefore, it would also be equally important to adjust the global philosophy of Western support for Ukraine to include a clear goal: instead of "as long as necessary," it should be "until Ukraine's victory." Success on the battlefield is forged not only at the front line, but also on the sidelines of world politics.

Source

About the author: Kostiantyn Yelisieiev is a Ukrainian diplomat. Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Ukraine.

The editorial staff do not always share the views expressed by the blog authors.