The announcement that Russian President Vladimir Putin has been invited to join Donald Trump’s new “Global Peace Council” has sparked widespread criticism and concern among international observers. This controversial move comes amidst ongoing tensions between the West and Russia over the latter’s military aggression in Ukraine.
Many have questioned the appropriateness of including the leader of a nation currently engaged in an illegal occupation of Ukrainian territory on a panel tasked with promoting global peace and conflict resolution. Analysts argue that Putin’s participation risks lending an undeserved veneer of legitimacy to Russia’s actions, while potentially undermining the council’s credibility and effectiveness.
“It’s an absolute gift for Putin,” said foreign policy expert Dr. Sarah Williamson. “By placing him on this high-profile international platform, Trump is effectively endorsing Russia’s conduct and sending a troubling message that there are no consequences for blatant violations of international law.”
Critics point out the stark disconnect between Putin’s record and the council’s stated purpose. “How can you have the person responsible for the annexation of Crimea and the destabilisation of eastern Ukraine playing a role in maintaining global peace?” questioned Labour MP Emily Thornberry. “It’s a complete contradiction in terms.”
The White House has defended the decision, with a spokesperson stating that “robust dialogue” is necessary to address international conflicts. However, many remain unconvinced, arguing that Putin’s inclusion risks legitimising Russian aggression and undermining Western efforts to isolate the Kremlin.
“This is a classic example of ‘false balance’ – treating all sides as equally valid, even when one side is clearly in the wrong,” said Dr. Williamson. “It’s a dangerous path that could further embolden Putin and weaken the West’s position.”
As the Global Peace Council prepares to convene, the debate over Putin’s participation is likely to continue, with critics warning that it could do more harm than good in the pursuit of lasting global stability.
