This commentary is by Bruce W. Dayton, chair of the diplomacy and international relations master’s degree program at the School for International Training in Brattleboro. He is the co-author of “Constructive Conflicts: From Emergence to Transformation.”
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 Early dynamism on the battlefield has been replaced by a hard slog, with minimal gains of territory achieved by either side, and Russian and Ukrainian forces overextended and ill-equipped to gain and hold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 intended. Long-term conflicts have a way of militarizing politics, marginalizing voices of constraint, and amplifying hardline voices that cast the conflict in absolutist terms of good and evil. Constructive forms of contact between the sides 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.
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.
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 or even medium 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 exchanges to begin.
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 alone will save countless thousands of lives, create conditions where refugees can return, and provide the conditions whereby the rebuilding of Ukraine can start.
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 restart. Ceasefires provide space for moderate actors to be heard, confidence-building measures to be implemented, and narratives to be tempered.
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 use sticks if the process goes off the rails.
How might the turn to negotiation begin? Where talk is not possible through formal diplomatic channels, backchannel diplomacy may be possible. Where officials are unwilling to communicate, nongovernmental organizations, religious leaders, business leaders, or other unofficial actors can pave the way.
More of the same in 2023 is a losing strategy for everyone. Any failure to explore a diplomatic off-ramp to the conflict will be a failure of imagination and will.
