The Hour of Diplomacy

What is the proper response to Putin’s primitive show of force in the Crimea? Surely not verbal swaggering.

The hype machinery took off at top speed immediately and has been running flat out ever since. Vladimir Putin had scarcely gotten approval from the Russian parliament for a possible intervention in Ukraine before one threatening word began circulating: war!

No television coverage thereafter appeared without asking the question: Will there be war? For the most part, the correspondents actually on the scene could only report: “All quiet on this front.”

As late as Tuesday of this week, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung told its readers, “Russia is moving toward war.” Note the use of the indicative here, as if nothing else was even thinkable!

Threat, aggression, violation of international law — all these descriptions are justified in reporting what Russia did. But those who resort to over-the-top rhetoric generally think over-the-top thoughts as well. Then they can’t come up with any answers, or if they can they’re generally wrong.

But giving the correct response to Putin’s recklessness is decisive in this case. Russia has de facto annexed the Crimea; it ignores the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, in which Russia committed itself to respecting Ukraine’s territorial integrity. On Tuesday, Putin even went so far as to claim that memorandum was no longer in effect since the fall of the Ukrainian government in Kiev.

It’s a primitive demonstration of power staged by the Russian president after he was obliged to watch how the despised Victor Yanukovych was chased out of office and a majority of Ukrainians turned to the West. But Putin has not yet resorted to war and all efforts must be focused on preventing him from doing so: The hour of diplomacy has arrived.

It’s the time for endless telephone calls, a crisis summit, impromptu trips to Geneva, Brussels and Kiev. And — hopefully — also to Moscow, in order to ensure the Russian leadership realizes what awaits them: political isolation, economic damage and the certainty that they will emerge losers in this confrontation.

Does it really make sense to cancel the G-8 summit, scheduled to be held in Sochi? Isn’t Wolfgang Ischinger, leader of the Munich Security Conference, correct in saying that exactly the opposite is what’s called for: a special summit meeting of the G-8? When would it be more important for the members to talk with one another? Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier once said that diplomacy is not a sign of weakness — very likely true.

Sanction threats can be an effective argument, in that case; verbal swaggering cannot.

It’s possible that Putin is mired in 19th century power politics, but is that any reason for us to return to the 19th century? Wouldn’t that be a wonderful way of solving 21st century problems?

Before Richard Nixon flew to Beijing to meet with his archenemy in February 1972, he wrote, “What do they want? What do we want? What do we both want?” That summarizes the golden rule of diplomacy: What do both sides want, individually and collectively, and what can we agree upon together?

Angela Merkel and Barack Obama should both put similar notes in their pockets and sit down at the negotiating table with Vladimir Putin as soon as possible.

What other alternative is there?