The New York Times wonders about the international veto on negotiations between Russia and Ukraine as counteroffensive stalls.
Although in recent weeks the international narrative on the conflict has changed, with open admissions of the failure of the Ukrainian counteroffensive, which everyone believed to be successful, the authoritative voices calling for negotiations and hoping for diplomatic solutions are being suffocated by an embarrassing international silence.
Russia’s Defense Minister Serghey Shoigu himself confirmed the counteroffensive has been a flop. During a videoconference, Shoigu declared that Ukrainian forces have lost a total of 66 thousand soldiers and 7,600 weapons since the offensive’s beginning.
According to Shoigu, the Ukrainian army did not achieve any of its objectives. Previously, both Vladimir Putin and Shoigu himself defined the counteroffensive as a "failure".
However biased, their analyses are not isolated.
The latest to suffer heavy retaliation for daring to mention the need to end this war is Stian Jenssen, chief of staff to the Secretary General of NATO.
His bold suggestion to consider the possibility of territorial concessions to end the conflict was met with a media and political backlash that says a lot about the lack of space for public debate on this issue.
An article published in the New York Times on September 1st, titled "As Ukraine’s Fight Grinds On, Talk of Negotiations Becomes Nearly Taboo," analyzes precisely this ambivalent climate.
This taboo seems to have become inviolable, with analysts and politicians trying to open a critical discussion, but getting woefully ignored. This could be compared to a religious dogma, which does not allow exceptions even in the face of the evidence and which goes as far as sacrificing human lives in order to be fueled by the blind faith of its acolytes.
The NYT observes that the harsh reaction suffered by Jenssen, "reflects a closure of public debate on options for Ukraine precisely at the moment when creative diplomacy is most needed." Yet, “since President Biden also believes the war will likely end with negotiations, Samuel Charap, a political scientist at the RAND Corporation, believes that in a democracy a serious debate about how to get there should take place. But he too has been criticized for suggesting that the interests of Washington and Kyiv do not always coincide and that it is important to talk to Russia about a negotiated outcome."
The decision to end public discussions regarding the options for Ukraine is concerning., especially at a time when the failure of the Ukrainian counteroffensive, which the international media had instead considered successful, is evident.
However, even experts who try to put forward concrete proposals for a "Plan B" are heavily criticized.
Charles A. Kupchan, professor at Georgetown University and former American state official, underlined that the political atmosphere has soured considerably, with a taboo that prevents a serious discussion on the endgame of the conflict.
Criticism increased when Kupchan and other experts met with the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, to explore the possibility of negotiations.
Even more worrying is the fact that some voices – such as Constanze Stelzenmüller, of the Brookings Institution – have called the search for a negotiated solution "immoral".
The current situation, however, requires a different approach.
The time has come to challenge the taboo surrounding the discussion of negotiations in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict.
Diplomacy and dialogue are the only ways to end this ongoing humanitarian tragedy.
Ignoring this reality is immoral and dangerous.
It is time for the international community to put aside silence and do everything possible to end this war through dialogue and diplomacy. The future of peace and stability in Europe and in the world depend on this fundamental choice.
Original article published on Money.it Italy 2023-09-07 08:00:00. Original title: NYT: perché è un tabù parlare di negoziati nel conflitto russo-ucraino
