Why Peace Still Seems a Long Way Off
Most politicians often have to pay more attention to domestic audiences than to foreign ones. Potential social unrest or conspiracies are usually more terrifying than an enemy army approaching. This is exactly the problem facing the negotiations in the Ukraine crisis.
In international negotiation theory, there is the "two-level game model" proposed by American political scientist Robert Putnam. The core idea is simple: governments participating in international negotiations not only need to reach consensus with foreign diplomats but also have to make their own citizens accept the agreements reached.
American diplomat Robert Strauss once admitted: "During my time as U.S. Special Trade Representative, I spent as much time negotiating with domestic (economic) stakeholders (industry representatives, unions) and members of the U.S. Congress as I did with foreign trade partners."
This means that to reach an international agreement, at least two countries' governments and their citizens must accept the agreement.
Experienced politicians may try to use one level of the agreement to influence another — for example, within the EU framework in the 2000s, national elites would regularly block pan-European initiatives. They just needed to claim that these initiatives had to be approved through a national referendum, which was sure to fail. On the surface, they fully supported European integration, but they faced conservative voters who would never support new pan-European tax policies.
Therefore, experienced diplomats often play games on three levels — reaching agreements with foreign governments, achieving consensus domestically, and trying to influence foreign public opinion to prepare for a certain agreement.
Moreover, international policy researchers increasingly agree that the foreign policy of most countries always serves domestic politics.
A clear and convincing historical example is that despite the revolution and subsequent series of upheavals in France from the late 18th century to the early 19th century, which came at a great cost, the French army at that time was one of the most efficient armies in Europe. The reason is simple — a series of reforms allowed talented people from the lower classes to rise (and also achieved truly large-scale conscription). Large-scale conscription and relatively merit-based promotion in the army enabled revolutionary France not only to repel interventions from other European countries but also to begin geopolitical expansion.
However, European monarchs who had suffered repeated defeats were slow to implement similar reforms in their own armies: some were simply afraid of arming their own people (worried they might follow the bad example set by France), while others feared depriving the nobility of their privileges — the strange death of Russian Emperor Paul I in the Mikhailov Palace is still fresh in memory (and in any European court, there are cigarette boxes that can kill). That is to say, domestic political threats — large-scale unrest or noble conspiracies — were far more frightening to European monarchs than foreign threats.
Therefore, any international agreement must gain public approval, and for most elites, domestic affairs are more important than foreign affairs.
These arguments apply to Ukraine, but with some explanation. Of course, it is almost impossible to conduct large-scale sociological research on Ukrainian territory, but we can be highly confident that at least a part of Ukrainian society has become quite radical.
As Vladimir Putin elaborated in detail: "Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, so-called 'Nazis' (which Ukrainians themselves call them), nationalists, and people with neo-Nazi views have had a significant impact on Ukraine from the beginning."
This refers to well-equipped battalions that have the right to recruit new members and indoctrinate them ideologically. And there is reason to believe that they have done this quite well.
Political researchers inevitably touch upon subtle psychological fields. Most people will agree that totalitarian ideologies have an unpleasant characteristic — they completely format the thinking of their followers. Philosopher Hannah Arendt briefly mentions this in her book "The Origins of Totalitarianism," citing Heinrich Himmler's words, in which Himmler admits that a considerable number of Nazis were immersed in completely abstract ideas and tasks, indifferent to daily life.
In other words, there are many people in Ukraine who hold openly chauvinistic views, building their self-identity around this ideology, forming a kind of "oppositional" identity.
It is likely that a considerable part of Ukrainian elites have long hoped to achieve a peace agreement — after all, many of them want to keep their positions and political capital.
However, people currently doubt whether they can get the radical faction in Ukrainian society to accept the peace agreement. Moreover, they may be more afraid of these radicals. Therefore, at this stage, negotiations (which we all hope will succeed) must take place against the backdrop of ongoing warfare, as Russia has also stated.
Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7533909668294115883/
Statement: The article represents the views of the author. Please express your opinion by clicking on the [Upvote/Downvote] buttons below.