More of the same is a losing strategy for everyone
By Bruce W. Dayton, PhD
As we move into the second year of the war in Ukraine, it is high time for all parties to explore a diplomatic off-ramp. The case for negotiation rests on three pillars.
First, it is unlikely that either side in the conflict will achieve their goals through military action alone. Early dynamism on the battlefield has been replaced by a hard slog, with minimal gains of territory achieved by either side, and Russian and Ukrainian forces over-extended and ill-equipped to gain and hold significant new territory. Expected spring offensives by both Russians and Ukrainians may make marginal gains on the battlefield, but few expect short-term military actions to be decisive.
Second, as the fight continues, dangerous unintended consequences are likely to occur. Relying on brute force to achieve political aims often has the opposite effect than that intended. Long-term conflicts have a way of militarizing societies, marginalizing voices of constraint, and amplifying hardliners that frame any search for accommodation as a treasonous betrayal.
Constructive forms of contact between the sides—in sports, cultural and educational exchanges, scientific collaborations—are canceled. Prior agreements designed to limit escalation, such as the START nuclear arms agreement recently suspended by Russia, are abandoned. New external actors such as China may join the fray to actively support one side or the other.
A ceasefire will save countless thousands of lives, create conditions where refugees can return, and allow the rebuilding of Ukraine to begin.
Third, an ongoing stalemate will only compound terrible suffering of all. For Ukrainian civilians terrified, displaced, and traumatized. For soldiers locked in a daily fight for survival—including Russian conscripts who find themselves in the role of cannon fodder for leaders unable to extract themselves from a failed strategy. For external partisans, like the United States, which will devote billions of dollars in additional military resources that could be better spent addressing the challenges facing people at home. For communities around the world who depend on food and fertilizer exported by Ukraine and Russia to fend off famine.
No side is signaling any intention to capitulate, quite the opposite. Sooner or later, sheer exhaustion, depletion of resources, domestic opposition—or all three—will compel political leaders to the negotiation table. Sooner is better than later.
No one should expect negotiations to produce a comprehensive agreement in the short term. It is likely that negotiations will focus first on agreeing to the terms of a ceasefire in hopes of creating space for more substantive diplomatic exchange. Of course, later substantive negotiations may never come. A state of war still exists between the Koreas despite the 1953 Armistice ending overt hostilities. Nonetheless, a ceasefire will save countless thousands of lives, create conditions where refugees can return, and allow the rebuilding of Ukraine to begin.
After that, contested areas could be demilitarized with the cease-fire guaranteed by third party peacekeepers agreeable to both sides. This approach has worked successfully to bring about the cessation of several wars, including the 1975 Sinai II agreement between Egypt and Israel which facilitated the placement of international observers in the Sinai Peninsula to monitor territory previously occupied by Israel. More difficult issues could be pursued after that, including security guarantees, the exchange of prisoners, conditions related to NATO expansion, the return of lands, the return of remains, formal recognition of Ukraine’s sovereignty, the solidification of semi-autonomous governance, where appropriate, as well as other measures.
Sooner or later, sheer exhaustion, depletion of resources, domestic opposition—or all three—will compel political leaders to the negotiation table. Sooner is better than later.
The way of negotiation is fraught. Each side might take advantage of a ceasefire to rearm and regroup. Politicians on all sides will face claims that they are naïve and soft. Putin might view any accommodation by Ukraine or the West as a sign of weakness, leading him to expand his ambitions in the future. Spoilers on all sides of the conflict, including military industrial providers and mercenary groups, will likely try to undermine diplomatic breakthroughs before they occur.
While each of these eventualities is possible, none is preordained. Wars, once paused, can be difficult to re-start. Ceasefires provide space for moderate actors to emerge and confidence-building measures to be implemented. Moreover, diplomacy, done right, should not be conflated with weakness or appeasement. Diplomacy can be hard-nosed, proceeding incrementally, insisting on verification of agreements, providing carrots where breakthroughs are possible, and broadcasting a readiness to return to sticks if the process goes off the rails.
How might the turn to negotiation begin? Just as military leaders probe for and take advantages of weaknesses in the opponent’s defenses, diplomats probe for and take advantage of opportunities for pathways to negotiation. Where talk is not possible through formal diplomatic channels back-channel or track II diplomacy may be possible, sometimes facilitated by third party intermediaries performing shuttle diplomacy. Where officials are unwilling to communicate in any way, non-governmental organizations, religious leaders, business leaders, or other unofficial actors can be used to pave the way.
More of the same in 2023 is a losing strategy for everyone. Failure to at least explore a diplomatic off-ramp constitutes a failure of imagination and will.
Bruce W. Dayton, PhD, is the co-author of Constructive Conflicts: From Emergence to Transformation. He is chair of SIT’s Diplomacy and International Relations Global Master’s program.
‘When the elephants fight, the grass gets trampled’
Find the recording here
School for International Training faculty and academic experts explored multiple angles and implications of the Ukraine crisis during a virtual panel on March 23. Moderated by SIT Dean of Faculty Dr. Said Graiouid, “Ukraine and Beyond: Reflections and Implications” examined diverse perspectives on what the future holds for a peaceful and just conclusion to the conflict.
“This is an awakening moment, not only for the people in Europe, but also beyond, because there is so much that will be impacted by what’s happening, and there is so much that can be learned,” Graiouid said.
Dr. Goran Jovanovic, SIT Study Abroad academic director in Switzerland, drew insight from European history to explore what brought Russia and Ukraine to the point of conflict and its mid- and long-term impacts. He explored the main drivers and trends of the conflict and offered scenarios on how the conflict might end.
Dr. Bruce Dayton, chair of SIT Graduate Institute programs in peace studies and international diplomacy, explored why the conflict escalated, the future of global peace, and Ukraine as a case study of direct negotiation. He emphasized how violence perpetrated by a major power often inspires people to rise up and fight back against an oppressor, as we’ve seen in the case of Ukraine.
“We have this obvious and tragic example of a flawed assumption by a leader that if only enough force is applied, surely the adversary will yield,” he said. “But, in identity conflicts, we know that things don’t work out that way—more force creates greater in-group solidarity and a greater willingness to fight.”
Dr. Orli Fridman, who leads SIT graduate and undergraduate programs in Serbia, explored the current landscape through the lens of the media, digital activism, and engaged citizenship.
She shared examples of thought leadership and advocacy across the news and Twitter, where much of the Ukraine discourse has made comparisons to the conflicts and anti-war activism around southeastern Europe in the 1990s, often from those who experienced it firsthand. Referring to Hannah Arendt’s 1963 book “Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil,” Fridman said this discourse is crucial as “a motherland cannot exist without the option for opposition and criticism.”
People play ping pong with Africa.
SIT Faculty Member Stewart Chirova
Stewart Chirova, academic and program director for SIT programs in South Africa, shared perspectives from outside Europe, specifically from the context of Africa. He drew upon an African proverb: “When the elephants fight, the grass gets trampled,” meaning that when powerful forces go to war, it is the people that suffer the most. When it comes to the Ukraine conflict, major world powers have proven that they may forgo multicultural diplomacy in favor of unilateral action, often to Africa’s detriment.
“People play ping pong with Africa,” he said. “They tend to come to Africa for convenience, but when Africa doesn’t offer them anything, Africa is often left to fend for themselves. Hopefully, this will allow us all to reflect on what it means to be a human being in the world we are living in today.”
Concluding the panel before a question-and-answer segment was Tim Rivera, World Learning advisor and affiliate of the Transatlantic Policy Center at American University who has extensively studied Russian language and politics.
Rivera focused on the European Union’s response to the conflict and explored the impacts of the Ukraine crisis on trans-Atlantic relations. As the conflict continues, the U.S. and Europe are experiencing a critical moment of trans-Atlantic solidarity and community. He explained that this is especially true with the Biden administration, but the next presidential election makes for an uncertain future.
While the future of this crisis is uncertain, what remains true for many is the hope that this conflict comes to a swift conclusion and a pathway forward for peace is put in place.
Click here to access the webinar with password OneWL1932.