Colonel Satish Singh Lalotra
“Conflict is inevitable, but combat is optional”—-Max lucado
The day of 24 th February 2022 dawned on the European continent with an ominous glow reminding the last of surviving generation of 2 WW the horrors which an unwanted war can heap upon the innocents. With the Russian juggernaut on the roll once again in the neighbouring Ukraine in an escalation widely condemned by the governments the world over ,the question which arises uppermost in the mind of any right thinking world citizen is -If there is a conflict resolution in sight ? The Russian offensive came as weeks of intense diplomacy and the imposition of western sanctions on Russia failed to deter Vladimir Putin who had massed about 1.5 to 2 lakhs of his country’s soldiers all along the Ukrainian borders. Being part of Soviet empire for centuries before coming on its own after the breakup of USSR in 1991, Ukraine had been cosying up to the western sphere of influence since long eventually resulting into its president Victor Yanukovych losing his president ship in 2014. Russians responded by annexing Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula and throwing its weight behind separatist rebellion in the country’s east. According to Kyiv, more than 14.000 people have died in the fighting that had devastated Donbak ,Ukraine’s eastern hinterland. For its part Moscow has strongly criticized the US and its NATO allies for providing Ukrainians with weapons and holding joint drills saying that such actions encourage them to respond by holding rebel areas by force.
As if this was not enough the Russian president has repeatedly said that for him and Russia as a nation, Ukraine’s aspiration of joining the NATO is a red line and akin to “crossing the Rubicon”. The world media is choc-a -bloc with the latest sanctions of all hues including cutting Rubles out of the ‘SWIFT’ (Society for worldwide financial transactions) financial system, which means virtually making the Russian currency standstill in its movement from bank to bank across the globe. Ending of international profit accruing from oil and gas production which is the sine quo non of Russia is the proverbial last straw which Putin has to stomach. Be that as it may, will the world and the western nations as such want this conflagration to continue? Are any back channels churning in full swing to put an end to the war that now rages on and threatens the world peace as such? The major practices of international conflict management during the cold war period reflected the state system dominant in world policies for centuries. In the world of national interests the chief methods of international conflict management were the traditional diplomatic, military and economic means of influence. It made sense to treat international conflict as occurring between nation states that acted in a unitary fashion on the basis of stable and discreet national interests rooted in geo-politics, natural resources and other enduring features of countries. Thus states or coalitions of states tried to prevent or mitigate violence by using threats of armed force (deterrence, coercive diplomacy defensive alliances such as NATO) ,economic sanctions and other tangible non-military threats and punishments such as withdrawal of foreign aid and direct military force to establish demilitarized zones . The strategic tools for “international Conflict management” primarily revolves around four (4) in numbers. Strategy with ‘Power politics” envisages threats of force, defensive alliances, economic alliances, bargaining as a tradeoff of interests and power mediation in that order. The second strategy centers on ‘Conflict transformation’ which involves alternative dispute resolution, reconciliation by truth commissions, etc. The third and final strategy of conflict resolution has electoral system design, autonomy , legal guarantees of free speech ,civilian control of military organisations plus invocation of human rights under the broad heading of ‘Structural prevention” & ‘Normative change”.
The ‘Conflict transformation” approach is seen in its purest form the best option for Conflict termination’ or resolution of all the strategies as mentioned above. This approach features meetings at which members of groups in conflict seek to understand each other’s positions and world views in order to create an atmosphere more conducive to the peaceful resolution of disputes. A case in point is that of the Sino-Indian 15 th round of talks between the two Asian giants over the Himalayan standoff which has started showing signs of thawing of frosty relations between the two opposing sides. But coming back to the present Russian -Ukraine war, it should be known that options for peaceful resolution become increasingly difficult once armed conflict is underway, and that’s what is happening now in that region. Nonetheless our primary goal should be always be to limit and alleviate human sufferings from such conflicts.
So what is the way forward now for the world to see an end to this conflagration? Taking a leaf out of the concept of ‘BATNA’ the ‘Best alternative to a negotiated agreement” which was first mooted in the year 1991 when the breakup of USSR as also Yugoslavia was in full swing , this write up has tried to inject some objectivity in the options laid out on the world table of negotiations for this tangle . The opposite of ‘BATNA’ is the ‘WATNA’ concept i.e ‘Worst alternative to a negotiated agreement’. From the Russian president’s point of view, the ‘BATNA’ concept probably includes territorial expansion, as also capture Kyiv, the fall of Ukraine government and pushing back NATO, while expanding the Russian sphere of influence. Putin’s ‘WATNA’ will be a NATO led military operations against Russia in defence of Ukraine where NATO succeeds and Putin is deposed off his powers. Putin is under the impression that this ‘WATNA’ is most unlikely to happen for his discomfiture. Going over to the other side of the fence, the signals emanating from the western world says that there are no negotiations with the likes of Putin and nothing short of Putin seated in front of an international war crimes tribunal is acceptable as was done during the infamous ‘Nuremberg’ trials immediately after the 2 WW to punish the Nazi war criminals. That may well be the western world’s view. But what about US & its allies in ramping up support to the breakaway countries of erstwhile USSR to push their capitalist agenda eastwards?
I mean this is where Ukraine and Europe’s ‘BATNA’ and ‘WATNA’ come into consideration. The WATNA in this case involves several of the world’s nuclear power countries. Well, what is the most likely option for a negotiated agreement in case we consider the ‘BATNA’ concept is offered to Putin as an off the cuff alternative and will that change the dynamics of this war? With billions of dollars /rubles having gone down the drain with warring parties standing to their own point of view, can the cause and effect in this imbroglio stand to scrutiny? Connected with the cause and effect of this war is the attendant problem of peace and justice all in their separate connotations. How do we weigh justice vs peace? Do they go hand in hand when such wars take place? Or are they co-terminus in their final approach? Are there cases where it can be difficult to have a full realization of both? On the face of it justice means Russia should fully withdraw from the occupied territory, pay reparations to the Ukrainians with Putin facing war crime charges.
But common sense dictates that the above approach may not be yielding much except bloodshed and further spiral injustice. As per various experts of ‘Conflict resolution’ there is a dire need to draw distinctions between positions, interests and needs. In international relations each country is defined by its individual position, interests and needs dictated by geo-political situations. A case in point is that of India adopting its ‘Non-aligned’ trajectory immediately after independence in its foreign relations, which was altered by the 1962 Sino-Indian war forcing India to willy nilly gravitate towards USSR albeit in a nuanced manner for its security needs as well as geo-strategic compulsions. The objective in the above explanation is to get beyond the position that are presented at the surface, where apparent impasses seem most difficult to overcome ,and seek a deeper understanding of the interests and needs of parties in conflict .
With no shifting of stands , Putin claims that parts of Ukraine e.g. Donbas belong to Russia and his position is to say , ‘It’s ours and we will take it”. If that be the case then there is not much room left for negotiations. Digging at a much deeper level, we may find that Putin is in fact gunning for an interest which is not visible to normal eyes of world citizenry. His interest for safeguarding of Russian interests /security thereby safeguarding his own political career is what should and will guide his further course of actions. As mentioned above of all the theories advanced by the experts in ‘international conflict resolution’ the one stressing on ‘Conflict transformation’ is we should settle down for this war. We often treat the symptoms, but leave aside the root causes. This means transforming the conditions that lead to conflict in the first place by addressing the unmet needs of the parties to the conflict. One of the unmet needs in this present crisis is that of Putin’s pride. But then should a single man’s pride and its satisfaction lead to miseries for millions of Ukrainians and Russians alike? It is important to acknowledge here that courageous public dissent made by the Russians who are demonstrating against the war at a great risk to their personal safety is the changed paradigm and ought to be cashed on by the western world. To be clear to all and sundry, the question where to go from here onwards and what course of action to mitigate against further human tragedy can best be answered which India all along has been advocating in its international relations i.e direct and bilateral talks between the two warring nations with least amount of outside interference. As president Zelinsky of Ukraine has told himself recently —‘I have to talk to Putin’. The world body has to allay the fears of President Putin before things go ballistic, as has been quoted by American author Max Lucado— Conflict is inevitable, but combat is optional’.
(The writer is a retired army officer)
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel