It's a very sad time for law-driven international relations, as the world has plunged into another Cold War.
Cold War II doesn't have the ideological bent that the first Cold War did, being more of a pure geopolitical struggle, although authoritarianism does lurk in the background. However, like the first Cold War, we have superpowers that are armed to the hilt, greater and lesser economic powers that bandwagon with the superpowers (Russia and North Korea with China and the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance nations, Japan, Australia and others with the United States). Tensions have become more exasperated with Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
What's the next step in the nightmare? Why not de-escalation? That's what writer Carter Malkasian suggested in his story "The Korea Model: Why an Armistice Offers the Best Hope for Peace in Ukraine." Malkasian makes an analogy between the war in Ukraine and the Korean War. In that war, the United States was moving through Korea and the Chinese intervened. By 1951, the two sides were fighting along the 38th parallel. Negotiations began in the summer of that year. By 1952, things were looking bad for the Communists with their food short and industrial facilities destroyed, but Kim, North Korea's Leader, told Mao that he had no desire to end the war.
Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai was known as a cool diplomat during the Cold War, and he made a trip to Soviet Russia to test Soviet Leader Joseph Stalin on the idea of bringing an end to the war. Enlai thought the US would not back down. Eventually, both sides agreed to an armistice, and the US lost 36,574 men while the Koreans lost four million (10 percent of the population), and the Chinese lost one million.
The armistice ended the bloodshed, establishing a demilitarized zone and mechanisms to supervise compliance and mediate violations, although the Korean War did not officially come to an end. Remember the armistice is still alive today - 70 years later. Even though the Korean Peninsula is still a point of high tension, we haven't returned to anything like the 1950's. South Korea's economy is a wealthy economy, and the country has turned into a vibrant liberal democracy.
The war Ukraine bears a passing resemblance to Korea, as stated by Malkasian. He pointed to the durability of the Korean Armistice as a successful example of how to bring the war in Ukraine to an end. Malkasian also reminds us of how many men were lost on both sides in the final year of the Korean War. We currently have a static battlefield in Ukraine and political differences that call for a cease-fire which would pause the violence. There is a debate in Washington as to when Ukraine should negotiate. In looking at the historical example of the Korean War, it can't be long before both sides understand that a military stalemate is the right time to negotiate, as stated by Malkasian.
In Korea, the death toll continued to rise as diplomatic efforts to end the war continued, something we should remember in winding down Ukraine. Right now, neither side in the war seems to be able to deliver a knockout. Unfortunately, it might take a while to bring either side to the negotiating table. A cease-fire in the war could leave Ukraine in a worse position, with lost territory, constricted access to the Black Sea, and a funny security relationship with NATO. Malkasian said: "A cease-fire in Ukraine would depend on sustaining military and economic pressure on Russia. The United States, NATO, and Ukraine should offer to start negotiations." The United Nations could also be a valuable diplomatic tool, as Russia might consider them better than the US or NATO.
Who knows where this chapter in world history will end. However, negotiations carry a low gamble and a high risk. We certainly have many pressing problems at home we need to solve with the money we could save by using diplomacy to end the Ukraine War.
