Opinion: Fernanda Magnotta – The War in Ukraine is not over yet

Sylvester Stallone popularized the phrase “it just ends when it’s over” when playing wrestler Rocky Balboa in one of his movies. In the context of a boxer this is, of course, an invitation to flexibility. An incentive for players not to give up early in a fight.

More broadly, however, it is also a call to stinginess and sobriety, whose relevance extends far beyond the boundaries of sport. It applies to different moments of life and certainly to what we are seeing in Ukraine right now.

The volume of topics on the agenda and the urgency of other issues, particularly in Brazil, have caused the media to reduce the emphasis on the conflict in Eastern Europe. At the same time, news comes from time to time pointing to progress in the negotiations between Russia and Ukraine. The combination of these two factors allows the most optimistic observer to conclude that we are very close to the end of this war. Maybe not.

The continual conduct of diplomatic dialogue rounds is not something to be underestimated. Since this is the starting point of all negotiations, it is also important that leaders have statements that point to a more concrete list of demands and concessions. It is also beneficial to harmonize short-term measures such as protecting humanitarian corridors and reducing military attacks in certain cities.

But that’s little for what this conflict entails. There is crossover information that cannot be ignored and a watchful eye is required.

While there are promises of military withdrawal in the capital Kiev, there are also accusations that this will be nothing more than a strategic restructuring to increase offensive capacity later on. This is what US and UK intelligence points to. This is what NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said a few days ago: “Russian forces are not withdrawing, they are regrouping in Ukraine.” So here appears the beginning of a new phase of the conflict.

It is also noteworthy that the volume of mutual accusations continues to be enormous. We continue to attempt all kinds of accusations on both sides. In the past week alone, the debates have covered topics such as attacks on facilities deemed sensitive, attempts to foment polarization, accusations of using mercenaries, complaints about blockades to save civilians, reports of rape by the incumbent military, mass attacks. bombs, use of land and sea mines, and alleged illegal deportations. We’ve also seen leadership changes in the security sector across countries, including layoffs and relocations of senior officials. Here, however, it is clear that uncertainty and insecurity continue.

Finally, it is important to keep in mind that opinion polls conducted in Russia show that the majority of that country’s population supports the Putin government and its role in the conflict. At the same time, in Ukraine, President Zelensky says that any agreement with Russia will necessarily go through public consultation. Here, finally, internal forces are a timing which negates the agility of any negotiated exit.

In terms of compromise, we know that the power that defines success or failure is the capacity of interlocutors to move away from their position to focus on their own interests. Experts like William Ury, Roger Fisher, and Bruce Patton of the Harvard negotiation program say that the more someone clings to their positions and shields them from attack, the more determined they are.

In such cases, actors often start dialogue in extreme positions and stick to them stubbornly, which undermines any possibility of understanding. Diplomatic exit, therefore, becomes a contest of wills. Worse still is when one side faces the intransigence of the negotiation, bowing to the other’s stern desires and putting aside their own worries. The result, in this case, is usually anger and resentment.

Negotiations between Russia and Ukraine have advanced significantly on the issue in dispute. Today, a little over a month after the initial attack, we have clear definitions of interests, points of resistance and possible alternatives. We’ve talked about these before, including here.

Despite this, we still have problems when it comes to the trust dilemma. In order to build diplomatic outlets in international politics, the parties must trust each other and work hard to establish and maintain this trust. This process involves believing the other person’s needs are legitimate and honoring signed agreements.

Even if a ceasefire is declared at any moment and the world rejoices at the so-called “end of war,” I will remain skeptical and stick to Rocky’s wisdom that “it only ends when it’s over”. Until then, unfortunately, there is no objective indication that would allow us to conclude that all is well in Eastern Europe.