In an open letter, some prominent Germans called on the West to admit that it had no interest in continuing the war. But such a commitment could be fatal for future negotiations because it weakens the position, says peace researcher Ursula Schröder. The political scientist heads the Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy at the University of Hamburg. From their point of view, negotiations, even a ceasefire, can also harbor dangers.
ntv.de: The open letter demands that the West should "do everything in its power to ensure that the parties come to a negotiated solution in the near future." Everyone agrees on that, right?
Ursula Schröder: We know from research that wars are often either ended at the negotiating table or continue. Very rarely, only one in five cases, does an interstate war end in one party outright defeating the other. There is therefore very likely to be no alternative to a negotiated solution in the long term. The Western Alliance's position is to allow Ukraine to negotiate from a position of strength when the time is right, through arms sales and tough sanctions. That's what it's about, and I think that's right.
According to the authors, the West can use diplomacy to ensure that this moment for negotiations comes more quickly.
The open letter does not help on the way to a negotiated solution that will be necessary sooner or later. It contains a number of misunderstandings and misinterpretations that may tend to hamper calls for a negotiated solution.
For example?
Of course, the international community must do everything possible to create conditions under which negotiations are possible. I share this assessment. But the letter then argues that Western actors should state that they "have no interest in continuing the war." That doesn't make any sense at all. Because negotiations in wars of this kind often only become possible and result-oriented when a military stalemate has occurred.
Is it up to this point in time to fight?
A key misconception in this letter is that warfare and negotiation are seen as alternatives. But warfare is already part of a possible future negotiation process, and not an alternative to it. Because the respective starting position of the parties for negotiations will be decided on the battlefield.
You fight in order to be able to negotiate afterwards?
One fights until the warring factions realize that they are in a very expensive predicament in which further warfare cannot achieve their goals. Unfortunately, this predicament has to be fought for in the case of the Russian attack on Ukraine. Russia must recognize through hardness that it is no longer in a position to achieve its goals militarily. And that requires supplies of weapons from the West, sanctions and, of course, concerted preparations for a multilateral initiative for negotiations.
The authors want to start negotiations with the West declaring its willingness "to end the war as soon as possible".
Of course, it is desirable that this war ends as soon as possible. As a political signal to Russia, that would be fatal today. Because if it is said beforehand that the Western alliance does not want this war to be continued, and thus indirectly gives it to be understood that military support for Ukraine will be ended in the foreseeable future, Ukraine's negotiating position will deteriorate immensely.
According to the authors, one cannot assume that "Putin does not want to negotiate". In the beginning there was a willingness to come to an understanding.
Negotiations have been going on from the start, that's quite normal, for example to agree on the exchange of prisoners, which has just happened. However, negotiations do not automatically lead to a solution to the conflict. The authors of the letter approach this subject far too naively.
Where do you see dangers?
For example, negotiations can be conducted tactically, for example to obtain more information about the opponent. Even agreeing to a temporary or local ceasefire is not automatically positive. In the Syrian war, Russia used ceasefires to reposition itself militarily and then to attack all the more intensely afterwards.
Are there other pitfalls?
In Syria, we saw that Russia used the establishment of humanitarian corridors to demolish cities afterwards, with no regard for the residents who stayed. Negotiations for a ceasefire must therefore be conducted very strategically. It must not be seen as an end in itself, as is the case in this letter.
Does the West have to be clear about what goal it is pursuing in this war, as the authors demand?
Different war aims are being pursued within the western alliance. The letter argues that the war is being waged "with the aim of Ukraine's complete victory over Russia". This is not correct in this simplification. In my view, the question of the war goal has been well answered by President Biden. At the end of May he told the New York Times that Ukraine should be and remain a sovereign, independent, democratic state.
Frauke Niemeyer spoke to Ursula Schröder
