The conflict in Ukraine has lasted for nearly two years. The fighting between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip has been going on for two months. The question haunting the international community and the people of the countries involved is: when will the war end and in what form?
 |
| Negotiation is an important solution to end conflicts and wars, reduce losses for all parties, and benefit world peace, but the beginning and process are very difficult and complicated. (Source: Getty Images) |
Negotiation is complex and depends on many factors.
In the past, wars often ended in a “blackout”, with one side being knocked out, unable to continue operations, accepting changes in political regimes, and having their territories divided. In recent decades, there have been cases of negotiations ending wars. Why and what conditions lead to negotiations?
First , new types of war have emerged, with complex developments and outcomes that are difficult to predict. In new types such as unconventional war, proxy war, complex war, etc., the role and impact of non-military activities (economic, diplomatic, cultural, information and communication, etc.) are increasingly important. The weaker side can use "asymmetric" tricks and measures, reducing the overall imbalance, bringing the war into a stalemate and prolonging it. The stronger side cannot easily win in a short time, and may even get bogged down. It may win, but then the war breaks out again.
The involvement and impact of external factors are increasingly affecting the balance of power and the situation of the conflict. Western support, weapons, finance, politics, diplomacy, etc. are indispensable factors for Ukraine to defend, conduct counterattacks, and hope to reverse the situation on the battlefield. Hamas receives direct and indirect support from armed Islamic organizations Hezbollah, Houthi and Iran, etc. to reduce the power gap with Israel, in order to seek an acceptable outcome.
Those factors make conflicts easy to prolong, can get bogged down, have unpredictable developments and outcomes, forcing the parties to consider other options.
Second , the consequences are catastrophic, with multi-dimensional impacts that are difficult to measure in many countries and regions. All sides may suffer military, political, economic, and diplomatic losses, etc.; a large number of civilians will die, infrastructure will be destroyed, leaving behind major economic and social consequences for many generations.
Not only the countries directly involved in the war, but also the region and the world are affected. Sanctions and embargoes force many countries to choose sides, causing division, dispersion of resources, disruption of the global supply chain, leading to economic recession. The influx of refugees and migrants causes social instability in many countries.
The longer the conflict lasts, the greater the negative impact. The development of information and communication makes the world feel the consequences of war more quickly, intuitively, specifically and clearly. This forces leaders to carefully consider decisions related to conflicts.
Third , the multifaceted consequences have promoted anti-war movements, calling for ceasefires and peace negotiations in warring and involved countries and in many other countries in the region and around the world. This has created significant pressure on governments and international organizations, especially the parties directly involved in the war. Demanding that the parties take action, move towards a ceasefire, negotiate, and find solutions to end the conflict.
Major powers play a very important role in promoting negotiations. However, the fact that some major powers take advantage of war to weaken their opponents, force other countries to depend on them, and compete for influence and strategic positions will hinder a negotiated solution.
Fourth, it is difficult but there is still hope. The ability to negotiate and the negotiation process depend on many factors, both internal and external, objective and subjective. The correlation of power, purpose, goals, strategies, and tactics of the parties is a direct deciding factor. The higher and more opposing the goals, the lower the ability to negotiate and the more complicated and prolonged the negotiation process.
The most difficult thing is that the positions of the parties are too far apart, even opposing. The weaker party often wants to negotiate, but tries not to lose too much. The stronger party wants to win completely; only accepts negotiation when there is significant loss, strong opposition, difficulty in winning in a short time, and the risk of getting bogged down.
| The most difficult thing is that the positions of the two sides are too far apart, even opposing. |
Negotiations are aimed at ending conflicts in the most beneficial way, but can also be used to gain time to consolidate forces, limit the enemy's momentum of attack, or to deal with domestic and international pressure. The negotiation process can be interwoven with military activities, putting pressure on the enemy, forcing them to accept unfavorable conditions.
Political changes in the warring countries or in the major countries directly involved can affect the possibility and progress of negotiations. If the side that favors resolving conflicts by non-military means gains power, the possibility of promoting negotiations is greater, and vice versa.
Thus, negotiation is an important solution to end conflicts, reduce losses for all parties, and benefit world peace, but the beginning and process are very difficult and complicated. In addition to common factors, the development also depends on the specific situation of each war.
 |
| A memorial to Ukrainian soldiers killed in the conflict with Russia at Independence Square in the capital Kiev. (Source: AP) |
Negotiations in Ukraine are still far away.
Up to now, Russia has basically kept Crimea, the areas of the two breakaway autonomous republics have been annexed and some important areas have been expanded; there has been no economic and social instability; a part of Ukraine's military and economic potential has been consumed... But the goal of demilitarization and neutralization in Ukraine has not been basically achieved. Russia has also suffered significant losses and spent a lot of resources.
The attacks on targets deep inside Russian territory, causing material damage, exposed the limitations of the defense system, and had a certain impact on the psychology and spirit of the people. Relations between Russia and the EU have almost stagnated. Conflicts between countries that were once members of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact and Russia are deepening. Some of Russia's close partners in Central Asia and the Caucasus tend to lean towards the West.
Russia is trying to control the occupied areas and expand to some important targets. Developing a large-scale offensive into most of Ukraine, requiring the mobilization of many forces, could make things more difficult for Russia. Continuing the war of attrition, stimulating the factors causing political and social upheaval in Ukraine, forcing Kiev to accept the conditions, could be a good option. But it is not excluded that Moscow will get bogged down and fall into the West's intentions.
Ukraine’s counter-offensive has largely failed to achieve its goals. There are signs of internal rifts between some military generals and President Zelensky’s government, and between some EU countries and Ukraine. The West is still committed to providing weapons and financial aid to Ukraine, but at a slower pace. There are signs that some countries want Ukraine to negotiate with Russia and are willing to act as intermediaries. However, Ukraine is determined to fight back, hoping to reverse the situation.
Winter is not favorable for expanding military activities, mainly tactical activities, sabotage, air strikes, difficult to lead to military breakthroughs. The battlefield situation is not clear, all sides still declare firmly, determined not to retreat and there are no clear signs of negotiations. But the conflict cannot be prolonged forever. If there is no military settlement, then other options will have to be considered.
Although it is difficult to predict the timing and outcome of negotiations, several scenarios can be proposed. First, Russia gains the upper hand, but not enough to end the conflict victoriously. Ukraine suffers heavy losses, faces many difficulties, is under great pressure from within and without, and must accept a ceasefire and negotiations. Second, Russia suffers losses, faces many difficulties, is under great pressure from without, reaches a ceasefire and negotiations, but still keeps the “new territory”. Third, the war is at a stalemate, and both Russia and Ukraine compromise on a long-term peace agreement.
The second scenario is unlikely; the third scenario is even less likely. The negotiation process must go through many steps, starting with a temporary or permanent ceasefire, a “freeze of the conflict” with specific conditions. Accepting a ceasefire, a “freeze of the conflict” is difficult, but a breakdown is easy, from any side.
The fundamental problem is that Ukraine finds it very difficult to accept giving up its territory. Unless there is a change on the battlefield, a change in internal politics, and the West intervenes and limits the supply of weapons and finance to Ukraine. According to Mr. Zhou Li, former Deputy Head of the Party Central Committee's Foreign Affairs Department, member of the 13th Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference's Foreign Affairs Committee, the key to resolving the conflict in Ukraine lies in the hands of Western countries. But so far they have not made any move. Perhaps Russia will accept a compromise with the West. But this is also very difficult.
It can be said that the negotiation scenario is still far away and unlikely to happen in the near future. If there is no breakthrough, the earliest negotiation time could be in the last months of 2024, when the battlefield situation is clearer and after the 60th US presidential election.
 |
| A fireball rises above a building during an Israeli strike in Rafah, Gaza on December 9. (Source: AFP) |
Gaza Strip, fragile hope
The precious and rare 7-day ceasefire ended. Immediately after, there was an unprecedented fierce fighting. Not too surprising, because this is the most complex, long-lasting and difficult conflict to resolve in the world, leading to more than 6 wars in the Middle East and many bloody clashes.
This situation is due to three main reasons. First, the deep, complicated, overlapping, persistent, historical conflicts regarding territory, ethnicity, culture, religion... Its nature is a conflict over the right to coexistence of two states, two peoples, which is very difficult to resolve. Second, the internal conflicts between factions in Israel and Palestine, preventing the government from "crossing the line", compromising, and finding a breakthrough solution to resolve the conflict. Third, the calculation of strategic interests of countries in the region and other countries, especially big countries. The US and some countries "turned around", not considering Tel Aviv's establishment of resettlement areas in the West Bank as a violation of international law; recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, further complicates the situation. Different viewpoints, opposing impacts push the negotiated solution further away.
The United Nations and the international community oppose the violence that causes the loss of many civilian lives, calling for an end to the conflict. Israel continues to attack with a wider scope, larger scale, and greater intensity. Israel wants to seize the opportunity, completely eliminate Hamas, manage the Gaza Strip, and prevent long-term military actions against Tel Aviv. Hamas does not accept being eliminated militarily or politically, and resolutely fights back. Palestine wants Israel to stop the war, withdraw from the Gaza Strip, and accept the border as proposed by the United Nations.
Two states coexisting and living together is the only solution to bring peace to Israel, Palestine and the region. However, the goals and positions of Israel and Hamas are opposite. International pressure and actions of other countries, especially big countries, are not strong enough to promote compromise, long-term ceasefire, and negotiations. Some other countries and Islamic organizations may be factors that cause the conflict to spread.
Therefore, the hope for negotiations in the Gaza Strip remains fragile. The conflict continues to develop in a complex and unpredictable manner. The time for Israel to achieve its basic objectives in the Gaza Strip and end the offensive campaign is from 1 to 2 months. Tel Aviv can consider a negotiation solution based on its strength with preconditions that Palestine will find difficult to accept. The most necessary thing is compromise from all parties, especially Israel.
If the parties do not compromise, the situation will repeat itself as before. The fighting will end for a while, then it may flare up again, like previous wars and conflicts. It is difficult to reach a negotiation, and it is even more difficult to end it in a way that all parties can accept.
Source
Comment (0)