The international community has overwhelmingly opposed the Russian invasion of Ukraine, launched on February 24, as an illegal act of aggression, and has also opposed the war crimes being committed by Russia during the war. These include direct attacks on civilians and civilian areas in violation of international humanitarian law.
Opposition has been expressed by, amongst other things, UN General Assembly Resolutions adopted on March 2: Aggression against Ukraine and March 24: Humanitarian consequences of the aggression against Ukraine, sanctions against Russia imposed by Western countries and others, military, financial and humanitarian aid to Ukraine from governments around the world and an outflow of statements and other support from civil society.
However, in addition to providing support for Ukraine and condemning Russia for the illegal invasion, governments and civil society must consider two critical issues: a) how to ensure the conflict does not escalate to either a broader regional/global war or to the use of nuclear weapons; and b) how to engage with Russia – and support Ukraine in such engagement – in order to enable agreement on an end to the war and a sustainable solution to the issues which have given rise to the conflict.
In an article Escalation or Reconciliation for Ukraine published today by Basel Peace Office, Marc Pilisuk Ph.D., Professor Emeritus at the University of California, addresses these two points, drawing upon concepts and theories of conflict escalation and escalation dominance that have been expressed by strategists Herman Kahn, Paul Davis and Pete Stan of the RAND Corporation, Robert MacNamara (former US Secretary of Defence), Daniel Ellsberg (The Pentagon Papers) and Craig Whitlock (Washington Post).
“During times of escalating conflicts, one is tempted both to up the level of threat and to blame the adversary’s behavior as the reason why this new level is necessary” says Pilisuk. “Typically, each new level of threat or act of aggression is described as a moral outrage requiring retaliation against an incorrigible and dangerous opponent. Civilian populations are bombarded with images of the enemy and the need for increasing military build-up. Opposition to intervention is viewed as weak and giving in to a tyrant. Increasing the ante is presented as the needed path to create an enemy backdown.”
Marc Pilisuk Ph.D., Professor Emeritus at the University of California. Author of Escalation or Reconciliation for Ukraine
Pilisuk explores rationales from all sides (Russia, Ukraine, US/NATO) that feed into escalation of the Ukraine conflict and threaten a further expansion of the war.
However, Pilisuk suggests that the conflict escalation model is not the only one applicable to the conflict in Ukraine, or elsewhere. He contrasts this model with alternatives of de-escalation and conciliation put forward by theorists Charles Osgood, S Lindskold and the author himself. These include Graduated Reciprocation in Tension Reduction (GRIT), outlined by Charles Osgood in An Alternative to War or Surrender. The model calls for one party to initiate small conciliatory moves on a unilateral basis. The moves would be pre-announced. If reciprocated the magnitude of the conciliatory moves would increase, leading, if successful to a détente.
In addition, the de-escalation and conciliation models suggest that, in order to establish a sustainable security outcome, historical grievances from both/all sides can be addressed without surrendering to aggression or other illegal acts.
As the Ukraine conflict moves into its 12th week with massive loss of life on both sides, threats of nuclear weapons use, and risks of escalation to a regional war, might it be wise to balance opposition to the Russian invasion by adding a de-escalatory, conciliation pathway?