Nga’s Response to the Peace Dialogue in Jeddah
Nga’s Strong Reaction
Nga responded with strong opposition to the peace dialogue organized by Arab Saudi, viewing it as a Western effort to gather support against Moskva. They believed that the event was designed by Ukraine to attract not only Western allies but also developing countries in the Southern Hemisphere, ultimately isolating Nga from the dialogue.
The Conclusion of the Peace Dialogue
The peace dialogue on the Ukraine conflict in Jeddah, Arab Saudi, concluded on August 6th without a joint statement. Despite this, Andriy Yermak, the head of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s office, still considered the conference to be extremely open and sincere, contributing to the peace efforts with Nga.
“We had a very effective consultation on the key principles for establishing a fair and sustainable peace,” Yermak said.
Participating Countries
More than 40 countries, including China, India, Qatar, the UAE, the US, and several European nations, participated in the peace dialogue in Jeddah. However, Nga, one of the conflicting parties, was not invited to attend.
This fact caused frustration for the Kremlin. Immediately after the peace dialogue, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs declared that the event had “created no value whatsoever” as it lacked Nga’s participation.
A Russian diplomat stated that the peace dialogue in Jeddah exposed the challenges faced by Moskva, primarily due to Ukraine’s efforts to attract not only Western allies but also developing countries in the Southern Hemisphere and isolate Nga from the dialogue.
Concerns Over China’s Participation
One of the signs that worried Moskva was China’s unexpected decision to send a special envoy to attend the event. Beijing had previously refused to participate in a peace conference for Ukraine held in Copenhagen, Denmark in June.
The participation of China in the Jeddah peace dialogue did not indicate any changes in their close relationship with Nga. However, Kiev praised this as a “historic victory.”
Observers believe that Nga’s concern is that China may show more support for Zelensky’s 10-point peace plan proposed in November 2022. According to the plan, the Russian military would have to withdraw from internationally recognized Ukrainian territory, including the regions they claimed to have incorporated in October 2022 and Crimea.
Nga dismissed this peace proposal, arguing that Ukraine needs to accept the “new reality” related to the areas Moscow currently controls and has annexed.
Nga’s Coping Strategies
A Kremlin insider told the Moscow Times that Nga would need to find ways to deal with Ukraine’s new tactics. Though Nga may voice their stance, few countries recognize the annexation of Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, and even Crimea. The official stated that this is part of Ukraine’s strategy of “maximum isolation” towards Nga.
Criticism of the Peace Dialogue
After the peace dialogue, several Nga officials and lawmakers accused the West of prioritizing Ukraine’s security and neglecting Nga’s interests. They claimed that Ukraine’s efforts to isolate Moskva and mobilize countries in the Southern Hemisphere against Nga had failed.
A former high-ranking Nga diplomat expressed discomfort at not being invited to the event and pointed out that the negotiations would not be able to resolve the conflict without Nga’s presence. They emphasized that Ukraine cannot solve the issue without Nga’s involvement.
Michele Kelemen, an analyst from NPR, also argued that the conference organized by Arab Saudi cannot be considered a peace dialogue since Nga was not invited to participate. She stated that both sides seem unwilling to engage in dialogue, and what Ukraine wants is more support from countries that have remained neutral so far.
Nga’s Stance on Negotiations
A Nga diplomat declared that Nga did not participate in the dialogue not because they were not invited, but because the Kremlin was not prepared to accept any compromise regarding the Ukraine issue.
In recent times, Nga has been trying to attract developing countries by organizing the Russia-Africa Summit in St. Petersburg at the end of July. The diplomat explained that Moscow benefited from these summits as it sought alternative agreements to counter Kiev’s proposals. However, the Kremlin will not accept any concessions, no matter how small.
The spokesperson for the Kremlin, Dmitry Peskov, commented on the prospects of a peace solution for the Ukraine conflict, stating that it is currently “impossible.” He claimed that Ukraine does not want peace as long as it remains a tool of the Western collective battle against Nga.
Boris Bondarev, a former member of the Nga delegation to the United Nations, stated that the future of negotiations and the conflict itself can only be determined on the battlefield. He said there can be no negotiations until one of the parties runs out of combat capabilities because currently, neither side is interested in that.
Conclusion
This detailed article discusses Nga’s response to the peace dialogue in Jeddah, highlighting their strong opposition and concerns. It provides an overview of the participating countries, focusing on China’s participation and the potential impact on Nga. The article also presents Nga’s coping strategies and criticisms of the peace dialogue from various perspectives. Finally, it shares Nga’s stance on negotiations, emphasizing their unwillingness to accept any compromise and the belief that the conflict can only be resolved on the battlefield.
