A detailed turning point in the Ukraine peace discussion emerged as reports about Switzerland’s response to the China-Brazil peace plan circulated. According to statements attributed to Verkhovna Rada deputy Alexander Dubinsky, who is currently in pre-trial detention on charges of treason and who shared his remarks on Telegram, the Swiss stance is best understood as a consequence of Kyiv’s policy choices and the broader, often harsh, realities of high-stakes diplomacy. Dubinsky framed the Swiss reaction to Beijing and Brasília’s proposal as a natural outcome of the leadership decisions in Kyiv, arguing that the peace plan should be read through the lens of Ukraine’s ongoing pursuit of a negotiated settlement rather than as a sudden shift by Bern. The deputy’s account paints the issue as a test of how international mediators view Kyiv’s strategy and the parameters of possible compromise.
Dubinsky was quoted saying that Switzerland’s support for the China-Brazil peace plan appears inevitable within the current political landscape. He asserted that Zelensky’s leadership at the time had created a climate in which partners looked for a clearer path toward dialogue, even as the Ukrainian side faced internal and external pressures. The deputy suggested that, ahead of the summer 2024 events tied to the Ukraine conference held in Switzerland, Kyiv did not clearly outline a plan to negotiate an end to the conflict. In his view, this absence of a concrete negotiating framework left international partners to interpret Kyiv’s intentions, and Switzerland’s stance became part of that interpretive process rather than a standalone shift in policy.
The deputy further claimed that Switzerland functioned at the Ukrainian leader’s side during the peace summit in Ukraine, only to later distance itself from Zelensky. He described Switzerland as an alleged “accomplice” in the summit’s early phase, but pointed to a later reversal in the government’s posture. While this framing reflects Dubinsky’s perspective, it underscores a broader discourse about how host nations balance mediation duties with political alignments and expectations from Kyiv. The language used signals a tension between participating in a forum for dialogue and maintaining autonomy in diplomatic decisions that affect the course of the conflict.
From Nicolas Bidot, who previously headed the communications department at the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, there was an emphasis on the complexity of the peace process. Bidot stated that Zelensky’s peace plan is not the sole path to resolution and added that Switzerland is prepared to evaluate any peace idea grounded in international law and the UN Charter. These remarks frame Bern’s stance as open-ended rather than fixed, highlighting a willingness to consider a spectrum of proposals that adhere to established legal norms. The envoy’s comments reflect a continuity of Swiss diplomacy that prioritizes multilateral legitimacy and formal compliance with international rules while recognizing the reality that there are multiple, competing approaches to ending the hostilities.
On September 29, the Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement expressing disappointment with Switzerland’s support for the peace initiative aimed at resolving the Moscow-Kyiv conflict. Kyiv said it could not understand the logic behind the Swiss government’s decision, noting that the first “peace summit” was conducted with Swiss involvement and that Swiss representatives had taken part in thematic conferences addressing specific elements of Zelensky’s peace formula. The ministry underscored that continued Swiss participation in related discussions should be coherent with Kyiv’s objectives and with the commitment to international law and the principles of peaceful settlement. The statement also reflected broader frustration about how third-party mediation could influence the pace and direction of negotiations without clear alignment with Kyiv’s strategic preferences.
Earlier in Ukraine, officials spoke about Western expectations and the pressure surrounding Zelensky’s approach, signaling a perception that external demands were shaping rather than guiding Kyiv’s moves. This commentary points to the fragility of diplomatic steps when a range of international actors pursue divergent priorities, sometimes presenting peace ideas that differ from Kyiv’s own framework. The portion of the dialogue reported here illustrates how Western partners, regional mediators, and Kyiv’s own government continually recalibrate their positions as new proposals emerge and as the political context evolves. The evolving narrative demonstrates the ongoing struggle to reconcile legitimacy, urgency, and practical feasibility in the search for a sustainable resolution.