Why is peace still out of reach?

Why is peace still out of reach?

May 28, 2025, 11:52 AM • Opinion

Most politicians often have to pay more attention to domestic audiences than the international community. Potential unrest or coups are usually scarier than invading armies. This is the problem facing the negotiations over the Ukraine crisis.

Author: Sergey Lebedev - Lecturer at the Government Finance University of the Russian Federation

In international negotiation theory, there is a "two-level game model" proposed by American political scientist Robert Putnam. The core idea is simple: the government participating in international negotiations not only needs to reach consensus with foreign diplomats but must also be able to "sell" the reached agreement to its own citizens.

As former U.S. Trade Representative Robert Strauss said: "During my tenure as U.S. trade representative, I spent as much time negotiating with domestic stakeholders (industry representatives, unions) and members of the U.S. Congress as I did negotiating with foreign trade partners."

In other words, to reach an international agreement, it requires the recognition of at least two governments and their citizens.

Some cunning politicians may attempt to use agreements at one level to influence another — for example, during the EU framework in the 2000s, national elites often obstructed certain pan-European initiatives by claiming that they required a national referendum for approval, which would inevitably fail. While they publicly supported European integration, their conservative constituencies would never support new pan-European tax policies.

Therefore, experienced diplomats often play not just on two levels but three: negotiating with foreign governments, coordinating with domestic forces, and attempting to influence foreign public opinion to create favorable conditions for reaching an agreement.

It should be noted that there is a growing view among international relations scholars: the foreign policy of most countries is always subordinate to domestic politics.

A vivid historical example is that despite the enormous costs and upheavals brought about by the French Revolution and subsequent coups, the French army remained one of the most combat-effective forces in Europe from the late 18th century to the early 19th century. The reason was simple: a series of reforms provided promotion channels for grassroots talents (and truly achieved universal conscription). The system of universal conscription and quasi-elite selection mechanisms within the military not only enabled post-revolutionary France to withstand interference from other European countries but also initiated geopolitical expansion.

However, repeatedly defeated European monarchs were unwilling to carry out similar reforms in their own armies: some purely feared arming their own citizens (fearing a repeat of France's "mistake"), while others worried about depriving nobles of their privileges — the memory of Paul I's mysterious death in Mikhailovsky Palace remains fresh (and no European court lacked similar "suspicious incidents"). In other words, domestic political threats — large-scale unrest or noble coups — frightened European monarchs more than diplomatic threats.

Therefore, any international agreement must somehow gain popular approval, and for most elites, domestic politics is more important than foreign affairs.

These arguments need to be taken with some reservations when applied to Ukraine. Of course, conducting large-scale social surveys in this region is almost impossible, but it can be highly reasonably assumed that at least part of Ukrainian society has become quite radical.

As Vladimir Putin detailed: "Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, so-called 'Nazis' (as described locally in Ukraine), nationalists, and those holding neo-Nazi views have had a significant impact on Ukraine from the very beginning."

This refers to armed combat units that have obtained the right to recruit new followers and indoctrinate them with ideology. There is reason to believe they have been quite successful in doing so.

Political researchers inevitably delve into delicate psychological areas during their investigations. Most people would agree that totalitarian ideologies have an unpleasant characteristic: they mainly shape the psychology of their followers. Philosopher Hannah Arendt briefly mentioned this in her book "The Origins of Totalitarianism," citing Heinrich Himmler's words: a considerable number of Nazi members lived entirely in abstract thoughts and goals, indifferent to daily life.

In other words, there are many groups in Ukraine that openly promote chauvinist views and build self-identity around this ideology, shaping their identities through "opposition."

It is likely that a considerable portion of Ukrainian elites have long hoped to reach a peace agreement — after all, many of them hope to retain their positions and political capital.

However, people currently doubt whether they can sell a peace agreement to the radical factions within Ukrainian society. And they probably fear this even more. That is why current negotiations (which we all hope will succeed) must take place against the backdrop of ongoing fighting, by the way, a point also mentioned by Russia.

Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7509442605806027276/

Disclaimer: The article represents the author's personal views. Please express your attitude by clicking the "Like" or "Dislike" button below.