There are two fundamental ways of human coexistence.

In the one form of coexistence, one side takes what it wants from the other, mainly by force (history is full of examples of this form of "human coexistence"). The other way of living together is based on voluntariness. You only get what you want if the other side is willing to give it. 

The latter way is the principle of a free and civilised society, and negotiation is the means of putting this principle into practice.

Our daily life is full of negotiations; we just rarely realise it any more (at least as long as everything goes smoothly, which it mostly does). Buying bread rolls in the morning at the bakery, working in the office, booking a holiday by the sea – in every activity, there is a negotiation aspect that is usually not carried out openly since legislation dramatically shortens the negotiation process (buying bread rolls only takes a few moments, but, hey, ask a lawyer what happens in these few moments viewed from a legal position and you will spend a whole evening on this subject).

War, as it is currently happening in Ukraine, is the exact opposite of this way of living together. Rules are overridden. There are no negotiations. People take what they want – even human lives.

How can that change? How can this lousy form of human coexistence, namely appropriation through violence, turns into a decent form again, where one does not do what the other does not want? How and when does war turn into a negotiation?

A debate has erupted (once again) in Germany about whether my country should halt arms deliveries to Ukraine and do whatever it takes to force both sides to the negotiating table. Five hundred thousand people (!) have petitioned against the supply of weapons. And next Satuday a large demonstration is supposed to take place in Berlin.

The idea of these people is that if no more weapons were supplied, then negotiations would more likely to take place.

Is this train of thought promising? 

To answer this question, one has to link the two possibilities of human coexistence mentioned above (bargaining vs coercion).

In a world without morality, violent takeovers are an effective strategy. Unlike in negotiations, you don't have to give anything for what you get. 

This type of acquisition is effective as long as you are powerful enough to carry out the acquisition. If the other side becomes powerful too and can defend itself successfully, the strategy must change. Then negotiation replaces predation.

In other words, which form of human coexistence people/parties/countries choose – bargaining or force – depends on the conditions. 

Referring to the war in Ukraine, this means that there will only be negotiations if negotiations are seen as more profitable for both sides than the continuation of violence.

Putin's Russia, which started this war (and could end it overnight if it wanted to), will only be willing to negotiate if such negotiations promise a better outcome than moving on with the fighting. This means the weaker Russia's position on the battlefield, the more likely negotiations will succeed. 

What does that mean for the free world? Continued military support will strengthen the prospect of a negotiated settlement.

This is an uncomfortable truth for peace activists. It’s nonetheless the truth. Or as Wesley Clark, a retired four-star U.S.-general, recently said in the New York Times: “If we want to end the war with a negotiated peace, we have to figure out the battlefield situation that will lead to a successful negotiation.” And Clark added: “That probably requires going after Crimea in a serious way to convince Putin that he can’t win.”

Onwards, 

The Strolling Economist