Grave Escalation in the Russia-Ukraine Conflict: from “Grain Diplomacy” to an All-Out War

Five Questions to Prof. Dr. Hans Köchler

Institute for Cultural Diplomacy, Washington DC / Berlin

(10 October 2022) (Mark Donfried) This week President Vladimir Putin has made a public speech (in delay of one day) where he informed the world that Russia will now partially mobilize the reserve military forces and former soldiers to engage in the conflict in the Ukraine. At the same time, it was announced that a referendum would be made in several regions of the occupied Ukraine with the question if the citizens are asking to be annexed to the Russian Federation. With regards to that, President Vladimir Putin mentioned that the Russian Military Forces would protect Russian territory by all means available to them, implying that this would include also nuclear weapons. He added, it is not a bluff. The Former President Dmitry Medvedev reiterated this speech and repeated the threats. In regards to these serious developments, we would like to ask Prof. Dr. Hans Köchler* the following five questions:

Mark Donfried:** What do these developments mean for Ukraine, for Europe and for the International Community?

Hans Köchler: For the people in Ukraine, the developments mean a further acceleration of the spiral of violence, with even more loss of life and incalculable risks for the territorial integrity and the very survival of the country. For Ukraine and Europe together, the threat of nuclear war – and, with it, the end of prosperity and good life, which all of us in the West had so long taken for granted – has suddenly become more than a distant vision of horror.

As regards the International Community, the developments have profoundly destabilized an already fragile global order. The Russian invasion of Ukraine is not the first illegal use of force by a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. Since the foundation of the world organization after World War II, powerful states have on numerous occasions blatantly violated international law, invaded countries, occupied or annexed their territory, or changed their regime.

Accordingly, the war of aggression in Ukraine is nothing new for the International Community, not even as far as Europe is concerned (if we recall the events of 1999 in Yugoslavia). However, what is new for the International Community is the more than hypothetical threat of a global nuclear war – of World War III. This is the first such constellation since the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.

What should be the reaction of the West to these developments in the short term and in the long term?

It is not easy to give any meaningful advice. What seems to be required, first and foremost, is sober, responsible statesmanship on all sides – and definitely not mass hysteria of the kind we have seen at the beginning of World War I.

What, under textbook circumstances, could be seen as an act of collective self-defense of Ukraine with the support of Western countries, according to Article 51 of the UN Charter, actually has become a proxy war between the “collective West” and Russia. The nuclear threat is the direct result of this constellation; it would not exist if this was a merely bilateral conflict between Russia and Ukraine. Because of the wider regional and geopolitical implications of the conflict, the leaders of the Western world are well advised not to exclusively act along a Manichaean good-evil dichotomy. Fiat justitia, pereat mundus (“Let there be justice, though the world perishes”) is not the right maxim in a situation where global peace may be at stake.

If I may allude to the famous distinction of Max Weber: Gesinnungsethik (ethics of conscience) needs to be complemented by Verantwortungsethik (ethics of responsibility). The West should have heeded the advice of an experienced statesman such as former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who early on said that the West should not be swept up in the mood of the moment and should encourage Ukraine to accept negotiations about a return to a status quo ante.

In Kissinger’s words (May 2022): “Pursuing the war beyond that point would not be about the freedom of Ukraine, but a new war against Russia itself.” Unfortunately, the point of no return may have been reached with the new and rapid escalation on both sides.

The Minsk II agreement of 2015 could have served as basis for a permanent solution of the conflict. Unfortunately, over seven long years, the Western mediators (Germany, France) did not do enough to encourage Ukraine to undertake constitutional reforms and implement the measures for meaningful autonomy, laid out in Minsk II, in the Russian-speaking Donbas region.

If the only short-term reaction of the West to the new developments is the imposition of new sanctions plus additional massive arms shipments, I am afraid the conflict may quickly get out of control. As Russia will always be the neighbor of Ukraine and a part of geographical Europe, the West will need to seek a compromise and should try to convince Ukraine of the need for a negotiated settlement.

This is the only viable long-term perspective – unless gambling with the fate of the Ukrainian people and the fate of Europe is seen as an acceptable strategy.

What are the chances that Russia will use in some capacity, even small capacity, its nuclear arsenal, and if they decide to use it, what will happen next?

I can only answer the first part of your question. The second part would be a question for the Oracle of Delphi. I prefer not to speculate. – Concerning the first part:

Russia has repeatedly said that, according to its nuclear doctrine, it will use nuclear arms only as a last resort – when it is under nuclear attack or the very existence of the Russian state is at stake. As recently as in January this year, President Putin joined the other leaders of the nuclear-weapon states in the Security Council in declaring, “that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never by fought” and “that nuclear weapons […] should serve defensive purposes, deter aggression, and prevent war.”

However, this statement – agreed upon with the US, China, UK, and France – leaves the door open to the employment of nuclear arms in cases where a state determines that its very existence is at stake. The Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (1996) points in the same direction, stating that the Court cannot definitively say whether the use of nuclear arms “in an extreme circumstance of self-defense” would be lawful or not.

In view of this ambiguity, and because of the rapid escalation of the conflict in Ukraine, it is all the more important the nuclear powers of the West, first and foremost the United States, take seriously the sober warning of President John F. Kennedy in his famous “Peace Speech” of June 1963: “Above all, (…) nuclear powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war. To adopt that kind of course in the nuclear age would be evidence only of the bankruptcy of our policy – or of a collective death-wish for the world.”

This describes exactly the risk the world is faced with right now, when, instead of pursuing a negotiated settlement, and encouraging Ukraine to resume the Istanbul negotiations, Western strategy seems to be to end the conflict by total military defeat of Russia, and to convince Ukraine that this is a realistic prospect.

Having gone through the experience of the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, President Kennedy knew what he was speaking about, and understood the importance of Verantwortungsethik (ethics of responsibility) in situations where the common good of humankind is at stake.

We are hearing contradictory messages in Western countries of those who said the conflict should continue as it is important that Russia will lose, while at the same time, other voices are calling for the West to act and impose on Ukraine a compromise through a dialogue with Russia. What is, to your opinion, the way forward?

In view of the frightening alternative of all-out war, the only responsible strategy will be to resume negotiations. I would not say that the West should “impose” a compromise on Ukraine, the country under attack. Instead of “promising” Ukraine victory by defeat of the adversary, thus pushing the country further into the abyss of war, with no end in sight, the West should do its utmost to convince Ukraine – a sovereign state that is understandably disillusioned about the totally ineffective security guarantees of the “Budapest Memorandum” of 1994 – of the merits of a diplomatically negotiated solution.

Unfortunately, after the escalation of the last few days, of which Henry Kissinger has warned early on in the conflict, negotiations will be infinitely more difficult than they were at the time when negotiations stalled after the Istanbul meeting. It is to be hoped that both parties, Russia and Ukraine, listen to the plea of the President of Turkey, Recep Tayyep Erdogan, at the United Nations General Assembly earlier this week:

“We need a dignified way out of the crisis. And that can be possible through a diplomatic solution which is rational, which is fair, and which is applicable.” That the Turkish President is to be taken seriously in matters of diplomacy under conditions of war he has convincingly demonstrated in his facilitating of the grain deal between Ukraine and Russia, and of yesterday’s [22 September] prisoner exchange between the two warring parties.

Despite the fact that thousands of people were killed and wounded in this conflict already and the enormous damage to infrastructure and housing that was inflicted on Ukraine, while simultaneously the Western sanctions caused enormous damage to the Russian economy and its reputation; what can and should be done diplomatically in order to de-escalate this conflict and to enable a bridge to a future diplomatic solution?

The two successful agreements I just mentioned give a hint as to the way forward. While the war was prosecuted with great vigor on both sides, Turkey was nonetheless able to bring both parties together for a deal on the export of food from Ukrainian ports. This was a very complex operation in terms of diplomacy and logistics. “Grain diplomacy” proved the first – and remarkable – success story in terms of bringing the adversaries together for a constructive, namely humanitarian, purpose. So far, the agreement under UN and Turkish auspices appears to be holding.

Similarly, right during major military escalation this week, the mediation of Turkey and Saudi-Arabia made it possible to finalize a highly complex prisoner exchange – almost 300 persons from both sides – between Ukraine and Russia.

This also included the release of five leaders of the Azov Regiment who will now be in Turkish custody until the end of the war, with full guarantees by President Erdogan. On his Facebook page, President Zelenskyy expressed his “sincere gratitude to Recep Tayyip Erdogan, President of Turkey, for the leading role in this process.”

These successful efforts by states that were able to keep channels of communication open with both sides have demonstrated that even in times of war deals on the most sensitive issues are possible on the basis of a rational assessment of the interests of both parties, i.e. by pursuing realpolitik – instead of giving in to the emotions of the moment. It is to be hoped that more leaders will be inspired by the example of the Turkish President and adopt a balanced attitude that gives them credibility vis-à-vis both sides of the conflict.

One major measure of de-escalation on the Western side would be to give up its comprehensive sanctions policy, which many in the targeted country perceive as collective punishment, and which is increasingly unpopular also in EU member states because of its backfiring effect.

Another important measure would be to end the boycott of activities and cooperation in the fields of culture, art and academic activities, which has unnecessarily poisoned the climate and totally undermined cultural diplomacy.

Culture must not be politicized; it must not become a tool in the arsenal of hybrid war. When states are involved in conflict, it is civil society that can build bridges across the divide. Herein lies the virtue of citizen diplomacy. States should not interfere in this domain.

First and foremost, however, de-escalation could be achieved by toning down the rhetoric and propaganda on all sides. As long as the conflict is portrayed as battle between good and evil, it risks acquiring an end-of-times aura that must be avoided at all cost. As we have seen in earlier periods of history, war hysteria of this kind may easily trigger emotions that can quickly get out of control.

Finally, the focus should be shifted from a proxy war between the collective West and Russia to those core issues that were at stake between Ukraine and Russia during the negotiations in Minsk. In their own self-interest, the countries of Europe should return to the constructive role their representatives – Germany and France – played as mediators between the two conflicting parties. The fate of an entire people must not be determined by a struggle for geopolitical dominance.

Source: International Progress Organization, http://i-p-o.org/IPO-nr-RUSSIA-UKRAINE-ESCALATION-Interview-23Sept2022.htm, 23 September 2022

Reproduced with the kind permission of the author.