Why diplomacy keeps failing in Ukraine: Key roadblocks to peace

For more than three years, Russia and Ukraine have been engaged in a deadly conflict that has resulted in thousands of lives lost, billions of dollars spent on arms and military equipment, and repeated calls for peace.

Yet, diplomacy has been powerless, and despite numerous statements from Kyiv and Moscow, the sides remain divided. But what prevents Russia and Ukraine from securing a diplomatic breakthrough?

There are four major issues preventing the war in Ukraine from concluding via diplomatic talks. These causes can be categorised into two groups – structural impediments and operational or outcome-based challenges.

Structural constraints

Although the sides reached a stalemate on the battlefield, the current situation is far from a mutually hurting stalemate, a phenomenon where neither side can win, and continuing fighting is damaging to both.

Since the start of the war in 2022, Russia has relied heavily on its numerically superior pool of military equipment and population, while Ukraine bets on Western arms, NATO support, and cash injections. This strategic calculation remains unchanged even today, signalling that despite the years of fighting, both sides perceive that they can outlast their adversary.

Another structural hurdle lies in the root cause of the Russo-Ukrainian conflict. The source of the issues between the conflicting parties is the incompatibility of the two standpoints. The Kremlin perceives Kyiv’s policies as a threat to Moscow’s security, while Ukraine seeks to further an approach that will enable the country to distance itself from Russia, ensuring decision-making sovereignty in its domestic and foreign policies. The clash of these two strategic visions is the core issue preventing Ukraine and Russia from peaceful coexistence.

Fundamentally, both Kyiv and Moscow view the war as a zero-sum game, where the losses of one side increase the payout of the other. It would be hard to disagree with such views, as the war between the two nations is not limited to territorial gains or losses.

From a purely political perspective, for Russia, losing in this conflict bears the risk of forfeiting its political prestige, power projection capacity, and influence in strategic regions. For Ukraine, losing this war could mean relinquishing its sovereign foreign policy-making capability.

Importantly, neither side reached its strategic objectives since the start of the war. Deep-rooted mistrust, winner-takes-all perception, and inability to reach political objectives on the battlefield are the major structural impediments that dictate the positions of Kyiv and Moscow behind the negotiation table.

Yet, while these constraints are critical, they are only a part of the explanation for diplomatic failure. These problems are merely one side of a problem, influenced and amplified by another group of challenges, discussed below.

Operational and outcome-based challenges

Beyond structural issues and incompatibility, another set of issues hampers diplomatic progress.

The term ‘operational and outcome-based challenges’ encapsulates two major hurdles: the inability to address the issue of territories and the lack of a credible mechanism preventing the conflict from reigniting in the future.

The territorial question is at the heart of the problem. For Ukraine, conceding the loss of territories would not only undermine its sovereignty but also risk legitimising conquest and power politics.

Meanwhile, Russia has formally incorporated internationally recognised territories of Ukraine into its territory, claiming them as part of the country. Consequently, the sides are at an impasse, as concessions on this matter are likely perceived as a sign of weakness and a strategic defeat.

Equally important is another part – the problem of post-conflict peacebuilding and conflict prevention. Earlier agreements between Russia and Ukraine, namely the Minsk Agreements, have failed, paving the way for renewed fighting and eventually an outbreak of war in 2022. Although these agreements had provisions on security and eventual revival of economic relations, a lack of a proper implementation framework meant that none of the provisions have been carried out.

This dynamic suggests that agreeing on a deal that would merely postpone the final resolution of the conflict may lead to another round of violence in the future. With prospects of fighting resuming in the future, both sides fear that making concessions will adversely affect their positions, interests, and needs in the future.

Lessons from the failure of diplomacy

Failed diplomatic efforts suggest several lessons for policymakers and experts.

One important obstacle to successful peace talks is the lack of a mechanism that would prevent the conflict from intensifying in the future.

Another critical element that needs to be addressed to make the sides more cooperative in negotiations and mediations is the elimination of the zero-sum mindset. As we can see from the case of the Ukrainian conflict, an all-or-nothing perspective creates tunnel vision, greatly diminishing the prospect of resolving conflicts.

This zero-concessions mindset is particularly harmful when dealing with territorial issues. One way to eliminate this narrow way of thinking for mediators would be to secure micro-agreements on several issues, instead of aiming at securing one big package deal. While this approach may seem to be more resource-intensive, it may encourage the sides to make concessions, as a non-cooperative side may lose out.

A large-scale swap of prisoners of war secured during Istanbul talks suggests that Russia and Ukraine are capable of securing small agreements, which do not threaten their long-term strategic interests. Mediators need to leverage this knowledge to obtain further diplomatic successes.

Without addressing these fundamental issues, Ukraine risks becoming a modern-day blueprint for protracted frozen conflicts, impacting countless lives and future generations.

Tags

News Russia Ukraine War Politics