Sergey Lavrov has discovered the oldest trick in the diplomatic book: when the war is not going your way, blame the people asking you to stop it. At the United Nations, Russia’s foreign minister accused Europe of doing everything possible to obstruct peace negotiations between Moscow and Kyiv. At the same time, Russian and Ukrainian missiles and drones continued to tear into cities, infrastructure and human lives. Moscow insists it wants peace. Kyiv says it wants peace. Washington says it wants peace. Europe says it wants peace.
And somewhere between all these declarations of peace, the bombs keep falling. Lavrov’s accusation would be easier to take seriously if Moscow’s definition of peace did not continue to come with territorial demands, security conditions and the insistence that Russia’s objectives in Ukraine will be achieved. That is not necessarily a rejection of negotiations; it is something more complicated and more dangerous. It is the language of negotiation conducted while keeping the gun on the table.
Europe, meanwhile, is accused of blocking peace because European governments refuse to treat Ukrainian sovereignty and Russian security demands as interchangeable pieces on a diplomatic chessboard. European leaders have repeatedly argued that any settlement must provide Ukraine with credible security and preserve its sovereignty. That position can be debated. It can be criticised. But calling it an international conspiracy against peace is another matter.
The real problem is that everybody has become addicted to the vocabulary of peace while practising the mechanics of war. Russia bombs Ukraine. Ukraine strikes Russian military and industrial targets. Europe supplies Kyiv while preparing for the possibility that the conflict may eventually reach beyond Ukraine. And across the continent, governments are increasingly accusing Moscow of hybrid operations involving cyberattacks, sabotage, disinformation and attacks on infrastructure. The European Union openly describes such activities as part of a growing hybrid-threat environment.
This is where Lavrov's argument becomes particularly convenient. If Europe is supposedly preventing peace, then Russia can present itself as the patient negotiator surrounded by unreasonable Europeans. If Europe strengthens its defences, that becomes evidence of European militarism. If Europe supports Ukraine, it becomes proof that Europe wants endless war. The logic is wonderfully circular: whatever Europe does becomes evidence against Europe.
But there is an uncomfortable truth for Europe too. Supporting Ukraine cannot become a substitute for diplomacy. Weapons can prevent defeat; they cannot manufacture peace. Sanctions can impose costs; they cannot write a peace treaty. And repeating that Ukraine will be supported for “as long as necessary” is not a strategy unless somebody can explain what the necessary endpoint actually is.
The battlefield has already become a graveyard of political slogans. Peace will not arrive because Lavrov demands it. It will not arrive because European leaders reject Moscow's conditions. It will not arrive because Washington announces another diplomatic initiative. And it certainly will not arrive because politicians repeatedly say that negotiations are “close.”
Peace begins when the parties involved accept that the war cannot deliver everything they want. That is the part nobody wants to say. Because ending a war requires compromise, and compromise is political poison in an age when governments prefer victory speeches to painful realities.
Meanwhile, Ukraine burns, Russia bleeds, Europe prepares and the diplomats continue talking about peace. Perhaps the most honest peace conference would begin with one question: How many more people must die before everyone finally becomes serious about stopping the war?
No comments:
Post a Comment