Earlier this week, Elon Musk’s tweet suggesting a path to peace in Ukraine generated controversy. His suggestions which included a UN supervised referendum in the four regions annexed by Russia, concession of Crimea to Russia, guaranty of access to water in Crimea, and Ukraine’s neutrality, was met with criticism. Most of the critics insisted that Elon Musk’s understanding of history is not only fundamentally wrong, but his ideas were also politically naïve. To me, what is interesting is not the debate about historical facts— whether Nikita Khrushchev made a mistake to handover Crimea to Ukraine as Musk suggested—but the reluctance to now give diplomacy a chance.
Admittedly, efforts to broach a diplomatic settlement before the conflict and in the early days of the military operation were unsuccessful, but should the failures of the past render further efforts unnecessary? In my column a fortnight ago, I argued that these are perhaps some of the most dangerous times for Europe. The large losses that Russia has suffered in its Special Military Operation in recent weeks create the perfect conditions for Vladimir Putin to go beyond conventional war fighting methods. The military doctrine of the Russian state sets lower threshold for the use of weapons of mass destruction. I mentioned that I was inclined to take this new threat by Putin to use nuclear weapons seriously.
From recent reports, it appears my fears were largely valid and my outlined assessment of the state of play is shared by President Joe Biden. In a speech earlier this week, the US president confirmed that he is also inclined to believe that Putin is not bluffing with his nuclear threats. Biden noted that not since the 1962 Cuban missile crisis has the world faced such a pressing danger and the potential of a nuclear war. If this is indeed the case, then surely, it cannot be naïve to seek to deescalate and to insist that a diplomatic solution ought to be prioritised.
Diplomacy to avert war has not been the strong suit of leaders in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) in recent years. This is not surprising, after all it is said that, “if the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail”. The overwhelming military capabilities NATO possesses creates a sense of assuredness that limits the willingness to seek compromises or find true diplomatic solutions to brewing conflicts. The Libyan crisis of 2011 is a case in point. While African leaders were making diplomatic overtures to Colonel Qadaffi, NATO was preparing for war. Indeed, African leaders were almost bombed out of Tripoli after UN Security Council resolution 1973 which authorised a no-fly zone over Benghazi was passed. Of course, we are all witnesses to what has become of Libya since the end of NATO’s military action in Libya. Beyond Libya, the fracturing of that North African country after 2011 has had enormous consequences on the security of African states. Weapons from Libya have helped to intensify the insurgency in Northern Nigeria and created an Islamic insurgency in Mali.
Most analysts would now agree that perhaps diplomacy was not given its fair chance before the fighter jets were deployed in Libya. Clearly, what exactly constitutes enough opportunities for diplomacy can also be difficult to ascertain. How much room for diplomacy should we allow when a people are confronting the possibility of being victims of mass atrocity crimes? Or how much elasticity for diplomacy should we display when we are challenged by the imperial ambitions of a leader committed to restoring the glory of an empire long gone? While these are valid questions, and do not yield themselves to easy answers, what seems clear to me is that the doors of diplomacy ought to never be shut. Even in the blistering blaze of a conflict, seeking a politically negotiated solution ought to remain the priority. This is not an idealistic argument steeped in morality, but a pragmatic one. The decree signed by Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy on October 4th formally making it impossible for Ukraine to enter into talks with a Putin led government is therefore not only poorly thought but a truly terrible decision.
There is no conflict in modern times with a greater pragmatic need for a diplomatic solution than the War in Ukraine. What makes the war in Ukraine acutely risky is that most commentators seem to gloss over the fact of Russia’s nuclear capabilities. This week, Volodymyr Zelenskyy was reported to have suggested that NATO should have launched pre-emptive attacks against Russia to underscore its seriousness. Following condemnations, his spokesperson clarified that the pre-emptive attacks suggested were of sanctions. Whatever the version of the truth is, Zelenskyy’s somewhat cavalier attitude to the prospects of a nuclear war should be a source of concern. In an address to the US Congress in March, Zelenskyy asked for the imposition of a no-fly zone over Ukraine even though such an action would have clearly brought the US into the war as a direct participant. He has been vocal about his frustration that some offensive weapons have been denied his military even though such weapons would cross the Kremlin’s red lines and provide legitimate grounds for Moscow to launch attacks against the donor states.
Zelenskyy’s agitations for more robust international actions are understandable. The deaths and destruction encircling him must have made him less risk averse, but should the rest of the world burn alongside? This is what will happen if conflict goes beyond its current borders.