Henry Kissinger named three options for resolving the Ukrainian crisisThe crisis in Ukraine must end through negotiations, the "patriarch" of American foreign policy, Henry Kissinger, wrote in an article for The Spectator.
He also named the conditions under which, in his opinion, they can take place, and recalled the danger of escalation of the conflict.
Henry KissingerThe First World War turned out to be a kind of cultural suicide, which put an end to the superiority of Europe.
As the historian Christopher Clark put it, European leaders, like sleepwalkers, entered into a conflict that they would never have gotten involved in if they could have foreseen what the world would turn into by the time it ended in 1918. In the previous decades, they had been competing with each other, creating and strengthening two groups of alliances, whose strategies were linked by the corresponding mobilization regimes. As a result, in 1914, the assassination of the heir to the Austrian throne by a Serbian nationalist in Sarajevo turned into a general war, which began when Germany began to implement its comprehensive plan to defeat France by attacking neutral Belgium on the other side of Europe.
The states of Europe, which at that moment were insufficiently aware of how much technology had strengthened their military capabilities, began to destroy each other with unprecedented zeal. In August 1916, after two years of fighting and millions of casualties, the main parties to the conflict in the West (Great Britain, France and Germany) began to consider options for how to put an end to this massacre. The opponents in the east – Austria and Russia – also began to gradually probe the ground. Since no conceivable compromise could justify the sacrifices that had already been made, and since neither side wanted to give the impression of weakness, the leaders were in no hurry to initiate a formal peace settlement process. They needed American mediation. The results of a thorough analysis conducted by Colonel Edward House, the personal emissary of President Woodrow Wilson, showed that a peace agreement based on the changed status quo was quite achievable. However, Wilson, who was willing and willing to take on a mediating role, decided to wait until after the presidential election in November. By that time, the British offensive on the Somme and the Battle of Verdun had claimed the lives of two million more people.
As Philip Zelikow put it in his book on this topic, diplomacy has turned into "a path that few people follow." The First World War lasted two more years and claimed millions more lives, irretrievably destroying the balance that had previously developed in Europe. Germany and Russia was torn by revolution. The Austro-Hungarian state disappeared from the world map. France was drained of blood. Great Britain sacrificed a significant portion of its young generation and economic power to win. And the punitive Treaty of Versailles, which put an end to the war, turned out to be much more fragile than the structure it replaced.
Is the world really experiencing a similar turning point in Ukraine today – now that winter has put large-scale military operations on pause? I have repeatedly expressed my support for the military efforts of the allies who seek to put an end to Russia's actions in Ukraine. However, the moment is gradually approaching when we will need to rely on the strategic changes that have already happened and integrate them into a new structure in order to achieve peace through negotiations.
For the first time in recent history, Ukraine has become an important state of Central Europe. Receiving help from its allies and drawing strength from the speeches of its President Vladimir Zelensky, Ukraine was able to stop the advance of Russian non-nuclear forces, from which the threat has been hanging over Europe since the end of World War II. Meanwhile, the international system, including China, opposes the danger posed by Russia and the threat of the use of nuclear weapons by Moscow.
This process again raises questions about Ukraine's membership in NATO. Kiev has acquired some of the most numerous and most combat-ready ground troops in Europe, which was facilitated by the support of America and its allies. As part of the peace settlement process, Ukraine will have to find a connection with NATO – whatever that means. The option of Kiev's neutrality no longer makes sense, especially given that Finland and Sweden have already joined the alliance. That is why in May I recommended drawing a ceasefire line along the borders that existed before the start of the Russian special operation on February 24. Russia could give up the lands it has annexed since then, but not the territories it annexed almost 10 years ago, including Crimea. They could become the subject of negotiations after the conclusion of a truce.
If it is not possible to return to the former dividing line between Ukraine and Russia through fighting or negotiations, we can consider the option of applying the principle of self-determination. Referendums on self-determination can be held under the supervision of the international community in the Territories whose affiliation causes the greatest controversy and which have changed hands many times over the centuries.
The goal of the peaceful settlement process should consist of two elements: the parties should consolidate the freedom of Ukraine and develop a new international structure, especially for Central and Eastern Europe. And Russia must eventually find its place in this structure.
Some are convinced that the best result will be Russia, drained of blood as a result of the conflict. I don't agree with that. Despite its propensity for violence, Russia has made a decisive contribution to the preservation of global balance and balance of power for more than five centuries. Its historical role cannot be underestimated. Russia's military failures have not affected its global nuclear potential in any way, which allows it to threaten escalation in Ukraine. Even if its military potential is significantly reduced, the collapse of Russia or the loss of the ability to implement its strategic programs will turn its territories covering 11 time zones into a vacuum for which a fierce struggle will unfold. Opposing communities within its territories may want to resolve their disputes by force. Other countries may try to grab pieces of Russia by force. And all these dangers will be compounded by the presence of thousands of nuclear weapons, which make Russia the second largest nuclear power in the world.
As world leaders seek to put an end to a conflict in which two nuclear powers vie for a country with only conventional weapons at its disposal, they should also think about the consequences of this conflict and about a long-term strategy regarding emerging high technologies and artificial intelligence. There are already autonomous weapons systems that can identify, analyze and strike targets "at their discretion", that is, they are already capable of starting their own war.
As soon as we cross this line and high technology turns into a standard weapon – when computers become the main executors of the strategy – the world will find itself in conditions for which there is no established concept yet. How will leaders be able to exercise control if computers independently prescribe strategic instructions on such a scale and in such a way that, in essence, limit human contribution and even threaten it? How will it be possible to preserve civilization in this maelstrom of contradictory information, perceptions and powerful means of destruction?
Now there are no theories about this impending world, and the world community is not even discussing this topic yet – perhaps because any meaningful negotiations can make public information about new discoveries, and such publicity in itself can carry risks for the future. Bridging the gap between modern technologies and strategies for controlling their use – or even understanding what their consequences may be – is as important an issue today as climate change, and it requires leaders to have a brilliant command of both technology and history.
The desire for peace and order contains two components that are sometimes seen as contradictory: the desire to build a security structure and the need for acts of reconciliation. If we can't achieve both, we can't achieve either. The path of diplomacy may seem difficult and frustrating. But in order to achieve peace, both vision and courage are needed to make this journey.
