At the outset of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine; ‘The Storyteller’ gave clue, as to means of resolving the conflict, by showing the presence of empty chairs in a conference setting.
The empty ‘Chairs’ remain unoccupied….
It is a little over a year since, and the crisis is yet unmanageable. And so I made enquiry.The result can be summed up in a phrase: the direction of travel. Which direction of travel is preferable, and what is the chosen or desired international political landscape (during and after conflict): Strategic conflict or Strategic peace?
At issue is Geopolitics and International Security. The pressing question is the direction of travel as a ready means to a negotiated peace.The direction of travel-strategic peace or strategic conflict- depends on the desired end results, with every encouragement in the chosen landscape and/or vehicle of travel.
Russia’s reach for security may not lead to Ukraine’s destruction, and vice versa.The entire Clausewitzian approach must now be revised in the context of a peace assembly.The ‘ruined homestead’ must be restored.
Strategic conflict may actually be easier to obtain, but difficult to manage or maintain.Maintaining strategic disequilibrium in a political space where hierarchy of power is undefined is problematic.
Strategic Peace is possible!
It does appear that NATO has made up its mind that strategic conflict is not a priority.Geopolitical considerations must be made in consonance with Geostrategic realities.
The war (and its human toll in the region) need to be recalibrated along the lines of strategic peace. Victors are clearly recognizable, and the goal must now be peace by principal actors.This (strategic peace) is a matter of direction and means of travel.