Ninety world leaders recently gathered in a resort above Lake Lucerne, hoping to broker peace in Ukraine. Despite their effort, the Kremlin claimed that this summit produced no results. At the same time, it stated that Vladimir Putin was “still open to dialogue and serious discussion”.

Ukraine, on the other hand, will find it hard to sit around the same table and agree to peace talks if Russia does not back down from its primary demand, namely, that Ukraine gives up claims to the four regions currently under illegal Russian occupation. Russia is also demanding that Ukraine forfeits its right to pursue NATO membership. These demands constitute an effective surrender for Ukraine.

Ukraine’s demands have been reflected to some extent in the outcome of this conference, particularly in terms of nuclear safety, food security and other humanitarian concerns. Ukraine is also demanding a return to the 1991 borders with Russia, a complete withdrawal of Russian troops, prosecution for war crimes and guarantees against future Russian aggression. These should be backed by a peace conference and an international treaty.

These demands are unacceptable to Russia. This comes as no surprise, though all demands are legitimate and realistic.

Nonetheless, Russia is not correct when it claims that this summit produced no results. In some ways, it cemented the commitment of the international community to safeguard some crucial principles.

The first concerns nuclear safety. The joint communiqué released at the end of the summit stated that “Ukrainian nuclear power plants and installations, including Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, must operate safely and securely under full sovereign control of Ukraine and in line with IAEA principles and under its supervision”. It also condemned the threat or use of nuclear weapons.

The second concerns food security. The joint communiqué described attacks on merchant ships, civilian ports and civilian port infrastructure as “unacceptable” and declared that “Ukrainian agricultural products should be securely and freely provided to interested third countries.”

The third concern was humanitarian, calling for the release of all prisoners of war, as well as of Ukrainian civilians unlawfully detained by Russia.

However, some shortcomings could have been spotted from the start. For example, Russia and China were not part of this conference. It is naïve to think peace can be brokered if one of the warring factions does not participate directly in brokering a solution.

Moreover, there seems to be a lack of goodwill from both sides to come to a solution since both are anxious to appear to emerge victorious from this conflict.

Ukraine may be somewhat naïve in thinking that it could go back to its 1991 borders, particularly when Russia has illegally annexed Crimea for a decade. It can make some other concessions while exercising great caution and demanding specific guarantees. For example, it could re-examine its request for NATO membership, provided, of course, that any agreement with Russia would include adequate security guarantees for Kyiv.

Russia would, however, also need to demonstrate some goodwill on its part. It cannot expect Ukraine to yield large swathes of its territory after it was illegally invaded. Moreover, Russia’s scant regard for international law is a significant cause of concern. Whether the international community can trust Russia remains a moot point.

Perhaps the greatest challenge for a potential peace is that the longer the war takes, the more the two sides become entrenched in their positions. While there is no doubt that Ukraine is the injured party, it will have to come to terms with having to deal with the bully next door if any lasting peace is to be achieved.