Why did G20 Summit's final statement provoke reaction in Kyiv? Stopping short of condemning invasion

On September 10, the G20 countries’ leaders gathered in India for the next summit, though Russian President Vladimir Putin was absent from the event, which was unsurprising to others. Putin also missed the previous summit in Bali, Indonesia, and did not attend the most recent BRICS gathering in Johannesburg, South Africa, nor the Association of Southeast Asian Nations summit in Jakarta in early September.

Instead of Putin, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov attended the summit and hailed the G20 summit in Delhi as a success after Moscow was shielded from criticism over the Ukraine war in a joint declaration.

The G20 was initially set up as an economic body of finance ministers in 1999. It has no permanent secretariat, and there is no one to do checks on how things are being delivered. Since it is a multilateral grouping, change is slow and incremental.

However, the summit’s final statement, which avoided using "aggression" and "aggressor" terms, dragged harsh criticism of Ukraine and other states for falling short, highlighting the real scales of the Russian aggression. Ukraine itself, which was not represented at the summit, was unhappy - though critical players, including the US, the UK, Russia and China, praised the outcome.

Indeed, the language on the invasion of Ukraine was noticeably softened, seemingly to appease China and Russia, omitting any condemnation of Moscow or reference to Russia’s aggressions. In contrast to Kyiv's reaction and criticism, the declaration earned the praise of the United States.

US national security adviser Jake Sullivan called the statement a “significant milestone for India’s chairmanship and a vote of confidence that the G20 can come together to address a pressing range of issues.”

Earlier drafts of the declaration are reported to have featured stronger language in relation to Russia, but a senior European Union official who was part of the negotiations said that it would have spelt the end of the G20 as an organisation if the leaders had not agreed to the watered-down version.

The unwillingness of the leading powers to exert pressure on Moscow regarding the Ukraine issue marked a diplomatic victory by the Russian state media. Moreover, the close partnership of Russia with India and China, two leading G20 member states, played a crucial role in releasing such a final statement.

As a result, Sergey Lavrov, deputising for Putin at the summit, declared it “a success” and thanked countries of the Global South for maintaining a consolidated position on Ukraine. The Western countries' narrative suggests that "the balanced approach" toward Russia over Ukraine is the price worth paying to "prepare the ground for peace talks".

Thus, Western officials defended the result, with British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak touting the document as a “good and strong outcome.” Consequently, there is still space for Western allies to claim that “their position over Ukraine has not changed,” and that the G20 final statement does not change the reality.

India, the host of the major event, has invested extraordinary efforts in its G20 presidency. Prime Minister Narendra Modi sought to strengthen his political capital by boosting the profile of the summit. Modi hoped to focus the G20’s attention on economic matters, and US President Joe Biden obliged by presenting a plan for reforming the World Bank and expanding credit lines for developing economies.

Notwithstanding, the most recent G20 summit did not take any critical action to tackle tremendous issues like poverty, global warming, and the global market crisis. Analysts argue that the economic balance and power dynamics are shifting within the G20 away from advanced market economies of the West to emerging giants, particularly in Asia.

Instead, major powers, including Russia, paid much attention to how to paraphrase the final statement to address concerns about Ukraine. Unlike this year's summit, In Bali last year, most members had deplored "in the strongest terms the aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine".

Despite the final statement, the Western allies will keep supporting Kyiv amid the Ukrainian forces' counteroffensive against the Russian troops in Eastern Ukraine. Of greater concern, Ukraine's counteroffensive comes at enormous casualties and stirred debates in the West as to whether Kyiv will be able to inflict grave damage on Russia.

Under current circumstances, Kyiv will receive further military aid from the West, though, after 2023, it will be arguable if NATO countries will be eager to proceed with the aid and instead push Kyiv to start peace talks with Moscow.