Ukraine has formally requested Switzerland to host a peace summit tentatively scheduled for mid-2025, advancing President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s 10-point ‘Peace Formula’ first unveiled in November 2022. The proposal addresses three core areas: nuclear safety, food security, and territorial integrity. Switzerland, which has a longstanding tradition of offering its good offices as a neutral state, previously hosted a meeting of national security advisors in January 2024. A critical detail of the current plan is that Russia has not been invited to the initial summit.
Kyiv’s strategy, as outlined in the proposal, is to first present a unified front among its supporters and then engage Moscow at a subsequent stage. The diplomatic mechanics are delicate: convening a summit without the belligerent constitutes a diplomatic statement rather than a negotiation.
A Fractured Mediation Landscape
Multiple international mediators are already active in the conflict, each bringing distinct relationships and interests. Turkey brokered the Black Sea Grain Initiative, which operated from July 2022 to July 2023, facilitating Ukrainian grain exports during the war.
Saudi Arabia hosted talks in Jeddah in August 2023, providing another venue for diplomatic engagement. China proposed a 12-point peace plan in February 2023 but has not actively mediated since then, a notable absence given Beijing’s stated interest in a political solution. The United States approved a $60 billion military aid package in April 2024, and the European Union continues its own military support for Ukraine.
On closer inspection, the Western strategy remains one of arming Ukraine to strengthen its negotiating position rather than forcing a quick ceasefire. This approach shapes the entire diplomatic environment: mediators who also provide weapons can complicate any claim to impartiality, yet their leverage on the battlefield influences the timing and terms of any political settlement.
The presence of so many mediators reflects a fractured diplomatic landscape where no single actor commands the trust of both sides.
Why a Ceasefire Remains Distant
A ceasefire remains unlikely without a major shift in battlefield dynamics or internal pressure within Russia. That blunt assessment underlies the entire diplomatic calendar leading up to the proposed summit in Switzerland. The success of the summit will test whether Ukraine can hold together a coalition of supporters while keeping the door ajar for eventual Russian participation. Without effective mediation, the conflict risks dragging on, with consequences for global food prices, energy markets, and alliances.
International mediators serve as third parties who help conflicting sides communicate, negotiate, and reach agreements. They can be individual diplomats, countries, or multilateral organizations.
Their role is to facilitate dialogue, not to impose solutions. The practice gained structure after World War II, when the United Nations Charter encouraged peaceful settlement of disputes. During the Cold War, superpowers often acted as go-betweens in regional wars.
The end of apartheid in South Africa involved international facilitators. More recently, mediators have worked on peace processes in the Balkans, the Middle East, and parts of Africa.
Success often depends on the mediator’s perceived impartiality and the leverage it can apply. A mediator without the trust of both sides rarely makes progress. What to watch next is whether Switzerland formally accepts the mid-2025 date, and whether any of the absent mediators — particularly China — decide to engage more directly before then.
Wars do not end by fighting alone. At some point, a political settlement becomes necessary.
Mediators are the mechanism through which that settlement is built. The test of the coming months will be whether the international community can maintain a unified front while leaving room for eventual Russian participation in diplomatic talks.
