At a time when the prospects for a solution to the conflict between Russia and Ukraine seem increasingly hazy, Brazilian foreign policy faces the challenge of maintaining neutrality in relation to the war without becoming frayed with the countries involved. This attempt at balance takes place while Russia, Ukraine and the West tighten their positions and the dialogue does not advance. But, after all, would Brazil have crossed the line of impartiality by voting in favor of a UN resolution against the Russian invasion and jeopardizing its possible capacity for mediation?
On the eve of the one-year war in Ukraine, Brazil expressed a leaning towards Ukraine, voting along with 140 other countries in favor of a UN General Assembly resolution condemning the Russian invasion. The fact that Brazil’s vote differed from that of other countries in the Brics group drew attention. In addition to Russia, which naturally voted against the resolution, China, India and South Africa abstained. In total, there were 30 abstentions. The debate also arose whether Brazil was making its neutrality more flexible and giving in to the West’s alignment.
In the same week, Lula spoke by telephone with the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, and defended “Ukraine’s territorial integrity”. “I reaffirmed Brazil’s desire to talk with other countries and participate in any initiative around the construction of peace and dialogue. War cannot interest anyone,” Lula said on Twitter.
The Brazilian position at the UN provoked a negative reaction in Russian diplomacy. Vice Chancellor Serguei Ryabkov declared that Moscow regrets the position adopted by the Brazilian government and highlighted that “there is no need for mediation” for the Ukrainian crisis. The diplomat, however, reinforced the maintenance of positive dialogue between Russia and Brazil.
“We completely respect the political will of the Brazilian leadership, which wants to find a way to end the war. But when I say that there is no need for mediation, the only thing that needs from others is to recognize Russia’s legitimate interest.” , said the Russian diplomat. “If Brazil were able to fully appreciate the intricate logic of this tragic case, then I think Brazil would vote in a way that would at least be abstention”, completed Raybkov.
For the professor of International Relations at the University of Saint Petersburg, Victor Jeifets, one of the main Russian specialists on Latin America, Brazil maintains consistency in its position on the war. In an interview with Brazil in fact, he states that “Brazil demonstrates a thoughtful position, linked to multilateral principles and UN diplomacy”. “In this sense, Brazil is closer to the role of a mediator in this situation”, he adds.
The researcher observes that, despite the sign of support for Ukraine at the UN – which Moscow sees as “anti-Russian” –, Brazil does not undermine its status as a potential mediator in the conflict with the Kremlin. According to Jeifets, for Russia it is much more important for Brazil to deny the supply of ammunition to the West and not to participate in unilateral sanctions against Moscow.
“The fact that Lula continues not to supply weapons to one side or the other is much more important, because Brazil has reserves of ammunition that could be used in the conflict and Brazil said a categorical ‘no’ during the visit of the (German Chancellor) Olaf Scholz. So I believe the Kremlin sees this with understanding,” he argues.
Despite manifesting a “regret” for Brazil’s vote in the UN, Moscow did not fail to send signals that it values the mediation efforts of the Brazilian government. In the words of another Russian Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mikhail Galuzin, Moscow took note of “statements by the President of Brazil on the subject of possible mediation in order to find political ways to avoid escalation in Ukraine”.
“I would like to emphasize that Russia values Brazil’s balanced position in the current international situation, its rejection of unilateral coercive measures taken by the US and its satellites against our country and the refusal of our Brazilian partners to provide weapons, military equipment and ammunition to the Kiev regime”, highlighted the diplomat.
The role of third countries not involved in the conflict has already had successful moments in the mediation between Russia and Ukraine. The most emblematic case since the beginning of the war was Turkey’s participation in the agreement on releasing the export of Ukrainian grain, which had been blocked in the Black Sea since the beginning of the conflict. Moscow and Kiev did not talk directly, but reached an agreement through Ankara and the UN.
Photo taken on February 22, 2023 shows a damaged building in central Kharkov, amid Russia’s war against Ukraine. / Sergey Bobok / AFP
The professor of International Relations at the University of Saint Petersburg, Victor Jeifets, believes that Brazil has an even more privileged position than Turkey in the current scenario, mainly because it is not involved in supplying arms to any of the parties to the conflict. Turkey, in turn, is responsible for delivering Bayraktar TB2 drones to Kiev and is part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). For Jeifets, Brazil has an “almost ideal” position to play the role of negotiator in the conflict.
“First, it clearly and distinctly hinted that it supports Ukraine’s territorial sovereignty, which must not be altered by military means. And this cannot but be seen as a step in Ukraine’s favor. Second, Brazil has taken to understand that one should not adopt a position for one side or the other, but that one should face the question of the strategic security of all the countries involved, including Russia. This cannot fail to be seen as a step in the direction of Russia”, analyze.
How does Ukraine see Brazil’s position?
Last year, when President Lula was still in the presidential campaign and expressed a scathing criticism of Ukraine and the West for not making efforts to end the war, the intelligence center of the government of Ukraine even included the then presidential candidate in a list in which he was accused of doing “Russian propaganda”. Subsequently, the petista was removed from the list.
In the most recent telephone conversation with Lula, Zelensky thanked Brazil for voting against the condemnation of the Russian invasion at the UN and reiterated the invitation for the Brazilian president to visit Kiev.
In an interview with Brazil in factthe director of the Ukrainian Institute of Politics, Ruslan Bortnik, stated that Kiev appreciated the Brazilian proposal to create a peace group between countries not involved in the conflict, but, at the same time, reinforced that “there is no serious discussion about it”.
He recalled that Ukraine has its own peace plan, which consists of ten points, among which are the restoration of Ukraine’s territorial integrity; the withdrawal of Russian troops and the end of hostilities; and the establishment of a tribunal to prosecute Russian war crimes. For Bortnik, Zelensky’s peace plan “practically assumes Russia’s capitulation and Ukraine is not yet ready to actively evaluate other models.”
The political scientist noted, however, that Brazil’s initiative is fruitful, because, although it does not currently have support in practical terms, Brazilian mediation via the G20 can be the basis of a model to be supported within the scope of the UN.
“The G20 format is perhaps more productive today for peace solutions, because it includes the G7, with the richest and strongest countries in the world, from the western part, and it includes countries from the East, from the South. It is a more balanced format, of more commitment”, he adds.
The next opportunity for Brazil to advance in the attempt to establish itself as a mediator in the Ukrainian crisis has already been set. The Russian Foreign Minister, Serguei Lavrov, is due to visit Brazil in mid-April, and Lula’s proposal to create a group of countries that mediate peace should be one of the central agendas on the Brazilian side.
Editing: Thales Schmidt
