Different world leaders have offered to mediate peace in Ukraine. State and religious leaders are among the most prominent.
Photo: IG-franciscus, President.az, Alexander Astafyev, European People's Party
LatinAmerican Post | Santiago Gómez Hernández
Listen to this article
Leer en español: Estos son los facilitadores para una paz en Ucrania
The conflict in Ukraine has not only brought tragic consequences in human deaths within the combat zones. The economic consequences have also been felt throughout the planet. The price of fuel, food, energy, and inflation, among others, are some side effects that have been noted in Latin America. This is why several world leaders have already offered to bring about peace in Ukraine.
You may also be interested: In France Emmanuel Macron Won, but What Is the Cost?
The leader of the Catholic Church has always been a voice for peaceful solutions. Pope Francis has insisted on seeking a peaceful solution to the conflict in Eastern Europe . To this end, even attempts have been made to meet with Vladimir Putin or to travel to Ukraine, still without success.
In his favor, the Argentine has the support of appearing as a neutral figure, and he has always tried peaceful solutions in the world. He has insisted that the only or quickest solution to the conflict in Ukraine is peace. He has not been part of the sanctions against Russia and already has a back to approach other religious leaders. An example is the case of his meetings with Patriarch Kiril, leader of the Orthodox Church of Russia and Ukraine.
Against him is, mainly, that in matters of religiosity or spirituality the Catholic Church does not have a great presence in the area. In a region with an Orthodox majority, his figure does not cause devotion among the parties. Likewise, for many, Francis, the figure of the Pope and the Vatican are figures of the West, and therefore, they associate him with the pro-Western side.
Recep Tayyip Erdogan
The Turkish president has also been a figure who has positioned himself as a possible facilitator for peace in Ukraine. The Turkish leader has offered his nation as the venue for talks between Vladimir Putin and Volodimir Zelensky. In favor of the figure of Erdogan is his closeness to Putin and being a member of NATO. Unlike Francisco, Erdogan is a person active in international politics and with enough influence.
Against it has little legitimacy within the West. His authoritarian and dictatorial character gives him the image of having his own interests. The fact that Turkey itself is a regional power also makes it an active part of the possible consequences.
The Belarusian dictator is another figure who has repeatedly stated that he is offering himself as a facilitator. His closeness to Vladimir Putin gives the Russian side confidence in its possibility of being a guarantor in headquarters and in proposals.
Lukashenko is possibly the president closest to the Russian leader and has his favor. This could make you sit down to negotiate in your country. It is precisely on the border between Ukraine and Belarus where the failed negotiations have been taking place.
Against him is the same thing that favors him. Being close to Putin, and having the ability to convince him to sit down for a dialogue with his Ukrainian counterpart, means that Lukashenko is not seen as a neutral figure. It is the main historical ally of Russia and neither Ukraine nor the West welcomes its interference.
Finally, another figure that today stands as a possible intermediary in the conflict in Ukraine is the Hungarian far-right leader, Viktor Orbán. The European president is the closest ally that Putin can have within the EU and is the only one capable of building bridges between the two. Above the failed attempts of Emmanuel Macron, Orbán can have a more conciliatory voice for the Russian dictator and this places him as an important player when starting dialogues.
In his favor, both sides can see him as a neutral figure who guarantees rapprochement. It is a figure that can build bridges between the European Union itself and Russia, as well as for possible approaches or vetoes for Ukraine and the EU.
Little has against him. It is a figure that can be suitable for both sides and serve as a mediator. However, precisely his closeness to Putin has already made him receive different criticisms from the West and from Zelensky himself. The Ukrainian president told him that he must decide which side to take in the conflict and that his pragmatism can be seen as closeness to Putin, whose most expansionist side is being seen today.