There is no shortage of volunteers for peace negotiations in Eastern Europe. China, Turkey, Brazil, an African mission and even the Pope have all emerged as potential mediators in the RussiaUkraine conflict.
As negotiation proposals multiply around the world, we have seen continued attacks, rather than tensions, among the main players in the war.
In the most recent chapter, President Vladimir Putin claimed that Ukraine had launched a counteroffensive against Russian forces and replied that the Kremlin had ordered the use of tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus. As we have warned from the beginning, the use of these weapons could significantly aggravate the conflict.
Even in the face of this movement, the thesis still prevails among those who are streamlining the decisionmaking process that increasing tensions in this case does not necessarily mean backing away from diplomatic solutions. For many, we would be faced with the classic “escalation to deescalation,” a military strategy that involves a temporary increase in intensity or action on the ground with the goal of forcing negotiation or a peaceful resolution to the confrontation.
In practice, “escalation to deescalation” means increasing the level of hostilities in the hope that the mounting pressure and expense of confrontation will make the parties involved aware of the need to find a diplomatic way out to avert greater harm.
If this makes sense from both a theater of operations perspective and an analytical perspective, it is important to realize that scaling to descale is not a riskfree strategy. On the contrary: an increasing intensity of the conflict can lead to a spiral of violence and an aggravation of the situation, making it even more difficult for him to find a reasonable solution.
This approach not only requires a great deal of diplomatic skill, but also requires welloiled communication and delicate balance to avoid uncontrolled escalation that could even lead to erroneous or inaccurate interpretations.
Furthermore, this kind of overly optimistic reading of the war can mask the actual unwillingness of the parties to a negotiated exit. The belief that the war will soon be over is a sentiment that drives combatants to persevere and resist in the face of adversity. At the same time, for more Cartesian analysts, it reinforces the belief that there is a certain logic to chaos.
Still, it’s important to recognize that overconfidence in the direction of a conflict can be fragile and prone to disappointment, since “below the fog of war” lurks unpredictability above all else. If the practice or belief in “rising to descend” guarantees some solace in heart and mind, it can at the same time cloud the horizon.
Unfortunately, in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, peace proposals so far seem to have more to do with the search for individual leadership from particular leaders or with particular countries’ sense of opportunity than necessarily with the timing of the battlefield or the strategic direction decisions of its protagonists.