The conflict manager Wolfgang Sporrer is in favor of negotiations in addition to arms deliveries to Ukraine. In the Merkur interview, he explains how this is supposed to work.
Munich – Weapons deliveries are necessary, but not enough. Wolfgang Sporrer, who worked for the OSCE in Kiev for a long time and mediated between Ukrainians and pro-Russian separatists, advocates negotiations in the Ukraine war. In an interview, the conflict management expert explains how this is supposed to work, why an imminent ceasefire is illusory – and what he thinks of Sahra Wagenknecht’s peace manifesto.
Mr. Sporrer, a manifesto has recently been issued calling for a halt to further arms deliveries to Ukraine and for immediate negotiations. Can you gain something from this?
The call is a classic case of: well is the opposite of well intentioned. That’s why I didn’t sign it. In terms of the goal of achieving de-escalation and peace as quickly as possible, the text goes in the right direction. But he prescribes the wrong medicine. Stopping arms shipments is not the right way to achieve peace quickly. You would rather get Russia to bleed Ukraine dry and win the war, it would be a catastrophe for all of Europe.
What would be the right way?
First of all we have to have the right debate, namely the one about the war aim, which the West, especially the USA, has never precisely defined. Some say that Ukraine must win the war, others that it must not lose it. There are worlds in between. If I want to strengthen Ukraine in such a way that Russia realizes it cannot win, then arms deliveries can be dosed well. If I say Ukraine has to win the way the government in Kiev wants it to, namely across the board, it needs a completely different type of support. Unfortunately, there is no consensus on how far the West wants to go.
Chancellor Scholz stuck to the formula that Ukraine must not lose. is that wise
This is very clever, because the wording includes the possibility of a Ukrainian victory. The other position is firmly committed to something that will be difficult to achieve. But the important debate about it is not being conducted, it is being obscured by partly uninformed debates about weapons.
War in Ukraine: interview with conflict manager – both sides set “impossible” conditions for negotiations
After a year of war, Kiev and Moscow rule out talks. In view of Russian war crimes, the call for negotiations is also cynical, isn’t it?
That may be morally correct, but I think the problem lies elsewhere. There is no fundamental unwillingness to talk to each other, but rather an unwillingness to forego preconditions and an unwillingness to negotiate political solutions to the conflict. May I remind you that both sides are setting impossible preconditions: Ukraine is demanding complete removal of the Russian Federation from its territory, Russia is demanding recognition of territorial gains. Neither will happen.
With the difference that Ukraine is right with its preconditions.
Morally, Ukraine may be right about its preconditions. But from a pragmatic perspective, the preconditions are unattainable on both sides and are designed solely to prevent negotiations.
How can this knot be untied?
Talking about a grand ceasefire and political solutions at this point is unrealistic, at least as far as direct talks between Russia and Ukraine are concerned. Both sides believe too much that they will become stronger on the battlefield. I advocate first closing the gap that comes with all demands for peace: namely, alleviating the suffering of the people. What is missing are suggestions. My idea is to conduct negotiations on small, concrete projects and to take feasible steps. This must happen without any precondition. And a mutually recognized mediator is needed, ideally someone from the ranks of the UN or the OSCE.
Conflict Manager Sporrer on negotiations – the West can have a proactive effect on Ukraine
What is there to talk about?
Anything that is in the interests of both parties. A ceasefire around the nuclear power plant in Zaporizhia, for example. Or also de-escalation zones in the vicinity of hospitals, schools, kindergartens and other humanitarian institutions.
The Russians would now claim that they weren’t bombing clinics and schools.
They say they don’t intentionally bomb those targets, which I don’t want to comment on. But if that were the case, there should be an additional incentive to make unintentional bombing through unbundling zones impossible. The important thing is that if this works, you can build on it and expand the negotiations. One could talk about complete but temporary ceasefires at Easter or when school starts. These are small steps that save lives.
But that requires a level of trust that cannot exist…
I believe that small settlements will help slowly, slowly to restore rightly lost confidence in the reliability of the Russian Federation. And: Such a forum, in which the West, China and Turkey must also be present as observers, could serve as an instrument to prevent a major escalation. If important representatives from all sides sit regularly in a room where they can throw frustration, accusations and threats at each other, but also drink coffee together, this builds trust and reduces the potential for escalation a priori.
Why should Kiev and Moscow get involved?
You have to make it clear to both sides from the start that participating in such talks costs them nothing at all. Of course, the West would have to proactively inform Ukraine that its participation in such negotiations would be highly desirable.
Negotiations in the Ukraine war possible? China and Turkey should put pressure on Moscow
We should push…
And China and Turkey should do that with Russia.
But Vladimir Putin doesn’t want a coffee party, he wants to destroy Ukraine…
Like the West, the Russian Federation has not defined a precise war aim. This is open and highly dependent on the development on the battlefield. I am sure that the Kremlin is discussing how to get out of this war without suffering a huge strategic loss. For Putin, things are actually easy. Let’s not forget: he dominates the media and public opinion and can sell virtually any outcome of the war as a victory – as long as it doesn’t include the total loss of Crimea, including the Sevastopol naval base.
You took part in the Minsk negotiations, which had such discussion forums. As we know, that went wrong. What makes you so sure that it would be different now?
There was basic trust in Minsk – for seven years. That was only lost when the talks could no longer take place in person from January 2020 due to Corona. People only shouted at each other via video conferences and no longer talked to each other normally during breaks in negotiations. And yes, the negotiations were deadlocked in several areas, but not in others. There were prisoner exchanges, many successful measures to protect critical infrastructure, etc. I think it is wrong to judge the Minsk trial only by the outbreak of war.
Peace negotiations in Ukraine: often not based on “international law and morality”
Will Ukraine have to give up territory in order to come to peace?
It is not for me to judge what Ukraine must do. Unfortunately, international relations are often not based on international law and morality, but on realistic power relations and the reality on the battlefield. There you have to do what has to be done. Is it possible to take action at the same time so that things don’t escalate and as few people die as possible? I mean yes.
The moral dimension is very simple: Russia is to blame, Ukraine is the victim. Isn’t it wrong to look at the balance of power?
It is true: Russia is acting illegally and immorally; the main victims are the Ukrainians. However, if one broadens the moral assessment of the conflict and looks, for example, at the severe effects on the Global South from increased grain and energy prices, then the moral consideration is a much more difficult one.
Interview by Marcus Mäckler
…
#Small #steps #save #lives