The proposal for mediation in the Ukraine crisis recently presented by the Brazilian government was enough to cause an international uproar that had not occurred since the start of the conflict in February of last year.
It is not the first time that Lula and the Brazilian government have tried to mediate in an international conflict. In 2010, during his second presidential term, the leader of the Workers’ Party (PT) expressed his interest in participating in peace talks between Israel and Palestine.
However, the Brazilian ambitions of that time collided with the reality of a dispute that did not accept external interventions outside the United States and the European powers, which perceived with suspicion the willingness of the South American country to participate in deliberations only reserved for the ” great players”.
Today the situation is clearly different, since the conflict in Ukraine has consequences and correlates on practically the entire planet. The voice of the Brazilian government would be, in this sense, legitimate and authoritative, and not only because it forms part of the strategic block of the BRICS and the G20.
In this sense, the crisis has also affected Brazil, one of the largest food producers in the world, which depends on Russia to obtain a quarter of the fertilizers it requires in an increasingly complex financial and logistical context.
In recent weeks and in the midst of his international tour of China and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Lula da Silva presented the basic aspects of a project that could be essential to advance a progressive dialogue between the main governments involved in the conflict and which, from neutrality, states that “just as Russia could not retain all the Ukrainian territory occupied since last year, Ukraine could not possess everything it currently covets.”
In short, the peace guarantee presented should be based on two fundamental points: the definitive cession of the Crimean peninsula, annexed by Russia since 2014 although the Kiev government claims it as its own, and the rejection of NATO extending to the border with Russia, thus challenging Ukraine’s interest in joining the Atlantic Alliance.
To strengthen the proposal, it was decided to join the governments of China and the UAE, which currently maintain a strategic relationship with Russia amid the isolation to which it is subjected by international sanctions promoted by the United States and the European Union.
Indeed, China is one of the powers that supports Russia economically and, due to its positioning in international forums, has become a factor of increasing weight in prosecuting political dialogue with Moscow and, perhaps, also in initiating peace talks. .
While since 2008, the UAE has been among Brazil’s three main partners in the Middle East and, in 2022, it was the main destination for Brazilian exports among Arab countries. On the other hand, it adopted a neutral position due to its good relations with Washington and Moscow, in addition to the fact that in Dubai it hosted a good number of Russian businessmen opposed to sanctions.
Beyond the fact that the axis of the proposal is centered on the situation in Ukraine, which it does not victimize but rather places it on the same plane as a belligerent country like Russia, the greatest criticism of the PT leader is directed towards the governments of States United States and the European Union, which he directly accused of encouraging the international dispute.
In this sense, Lula’s proposal, but even more so his criticisms, had a clear impact: no government could remain indifferent, and several responded to the Brazilian president, and with different kinds of arguments.
Thus, and while Lula was invited from kyiv to meet on site the consequences of the Russian attack on Ukrainian soil, the European Union made known its disagreement with the idea that the Western powers had contributed to the outbreak of the conflict, which they later continued to fuel through an incessant transfer of arms and military resources .
But the most aggressive response, far removed from a convenient diplomatic code, came from the White House. The spokesman for the National Security Council, John Kirby, not only rejected the proposal to start the dialogue, but also accused Brazil of “repeating like a parrot” what the Biden government considers “Russian and Chinese propaganda” . A very offensive reply to a necessary proposal for pacification in the hottest area of the planet.
With virtually no support from the major Western powers, Lula’s government is interested in forming a group of countries that do not promote war and could also convince nations that supply Ukraine with arms to stop doing so. Although there is still no clarity about which countries and which governments would make up this group, there would be some references that could help to clarify this question.
According to statements by Celso Amorin, the Brazilian president’s main foreign policy adviser, the group of countries for peace in Ukraine should include, at least, India, South Africa and Indonesia, which would give this bloc a profile similar to that of the BRICS.
However, and according to Lula da Silva himself, the invitation would be mainly aimed at the formation of a kind of G20 of countries for peace, with a leading role reserved for Latin American nations with a predisposition to face a productive dialogue with Russia and Ukraine. , but also with the United States and the European Union.
Surely, the rejection of the Brazilian government, along with those of Colombia, Argentina and Chile, to sending arms to Ukraine, as requested by NATO last February, constitutes the best precedent and the best verification of the feasibility of a proposal of this tenor.
Beyond the concrete results of an initiative of these characteristics, it is important to launch a project that, in order to be successful, will require the support of a growing number of governments committed to peace and in rejection of a conflict that, in every moment, it threatens to spill over from the uncontrolled shipment of arms and financial resources to Ukraine.
Even without concrete results in the short term, Lula’s proposal deserves to be analyzed and debated, even more so in a context as dark as this one and in the face of the almost total lack of global leaders capable of influencing, alerting and calling for consensus between the parties. .
Hence, the contribution of Brazil, and of the nations that join this initiative, will be essential for the progressive construction of a multipolar order, with a greater balance of power among the main international actors and, consequently, with less risk of creating conflicts of this nature.
