When the President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyi visited Helsinki at the beginning of May, peace was mentioned a few times.
Ukraine already presented a ten-point peace plan last fall, which includes a demand for the complete withdrawal of the aggressor’s forces.
Western countries support the goal, which is based on international law.
In terms of the sense of justice, however, the self-evident goal in the history of wars has not always been the way to peace.
Professor of Peace and Conflict Studies Tarja Väyrynen reminds that usually the parties to a war have to make compromises.
“Both parties have to agree to a compromise”
– Saying this may be taboo, but often the peace process means that both sides have to give in at some point, says Väyrynen in an interview with .
– In the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, this may mean a compromise on the control of Crimea.
In the peace process, the parties compare the price of continuing the war with that of going in search of reconciliation.
Russia has tried to subjugate Ukraine to its control, but has already had to back down from the goal.
Ukraine needs security guarantees for its protection
When the state of war changes to a ceasefire and a truce, obtaining security guarantees is a key issue for Ukraine. The peace researcher reminds that there is no decision on the matter yet:
– Would European countries act as guarantors of Ukraine’s tough security when the country’s NATO membership is not in sight, Väyrynen ponders. – This requires a vision that we have not yet seen in world politics.
According to Väyrynen, in the early stages of wars, there is often a temporary opportunity for negotiations.
Negotiation contacts after Russia attacked Ukraine remained fruitless, as Russia tried to take over the capital of Ukraine.
– When there have been losses in the war, the conditions for striving for peace have become more difficult.
There would be an order for the peace mediator
A peace mediator has been needed to find a way out of the situation caused by the Russian attack. China has emerged most prominently, whose peace initiative has, however, been doubted in the West.
– A great power like China can act in this role, but the mediator must have the approval of both sides of the conflict, reminds Väyrynen.
The mediation process may provide an opportunity for a ceasefire or truce before a comprehensive peace agreement.
But for now, the guns aren’t going silent, and the two sides are locked in an all-out war of attrition.
No peace before a military coup
From the soldiers’ point of view, the initiative is now on the front.
– We will only be able to negotiate a ceasefire, a ceasefire and then peace when Ukraine has achieved a military turnaround, assesses the security researcher, brigadier general evp Juha Pyykönen Radio 1’s Ykkösaamu interview in the beginning of May.
– Then we will get to the point where the shooting will stop and the losses on both sides will decrease, said Pyykönen. According to him, peacekeepers may also be needed to ensure a truce and peacemaking.
At the NATO summit in Vilnius in July, we will see what kind of support the military alliance is ready to give to Ukraine.
According to Pyykönen, after this we will see how Russia reacts. NATO’s policy can open the way to negotiations – or close it.
– Diplomatic skills are needed now, said Pyykönen. – Russia should also be ready for negotiations. This is in its beginnings, because Russia plays by its own rules.
Russia’s nuclear deterrence limited the war to Ukraine
Instead of negotiations, Russia fires missiles deep into Ukraine, as far as the capital, Kiev. Ukraine, on the other hand, has increased its drone attacks on targets located in Russian territory.
A special feature of Russia’s campaign of conquest – starting with the occupation of Crimea – is that a nuclear weapon state is a party to the war in Europe.
Ranhan activist, elected to the leadership of the international Doctors Against Nuclear War organization in May Kati Juva says nuclear deterrence seems to have worked so far between the major powers. At the same time, however, it opens the way to “lower level” conflicts.
– Russia set out to conquer Ukraine knowing that the United States cannot interfere in the game with the same measure.
Due to Russia’s nuclear deterrence, the war has mostly been fought only on the territory of Ukraine. At the same time, Russia’s attack has increased the attractiveness of nuclear weapons in the eyes of countries like Iran.
–– As long as there is war in Ukraine, the reduction of nuclear weapons will hardly progress, Juva estimates.
– Still, it would be necessary, because the agreements limiting nuclear weapons began to crumble long before the war.
Despite the harsh words coming from Russia, Juva estimates that the country’s nuclear weapons doctrine has not changed. According to it, the Kremlin would resort to doomsday weapons only when it assessed that the existence of the empire was threatened.
Despite the nuclear deterrence, both sides are seeking a solution with conventional weapons, and with Ukraine’s anticipated counterattack, the fighting will likely only intensify.
Can artificial intelligence help in making peace?
However, researchers have also outlined how to get rid of the cycle of wars that plagues humanity. Artificial intelligence researcher Timo Honkela suggested in his book Rauhankone to resort to machine intelligence.
Honkela (1962-2020) wrote his work as a testament shortly before his death.
According to the researcher, artificial intelligence can prevent wars. He referred to the “peace machine” as an ensemble of millions or even billions of software that accompanies modern people on their smartphones.
Honkela predicted the growth of the social importance of artificial intelligence in ‘s Actually heard in 2017. He believed that artificial intelligence will change the world in a completely different way within a hundred years.
– Software can help us as humanity understand each other and be more peaceful, Honkela said.
Honkela thought that even if the “peace machine” did not have time to affect the relations between, for example, Putin and Trump, who was in power in 2017, collective reason could replace the narrow view of those in power in the future.
– One person cannot have the kind of knowledge about the world that would enable them to make good decisions, Honkela concluded.
Timo Honkela outlined a vision of a democracy like the Athens People’s Assembly, where disasters like wars would be avoided with the help of broad popular power made possible by artificial intelligence.
– This way one person with crazy shiny eyes can’t decide on things alone, said Honkela Juho-Pekka Rantalan in the interview.
Honkela didn’t have time to see what kind of consequences one leader’s decisions could lead to in 21st century Europe.
But the researcher managed to leave behind a proposal on how arbitrariness and drifting into wars could be curbed in the future.
The material used in the story is:
– Timo Honkela: Peace machine – testament of an artificial scientist. Gaudeamus 2017
– Pertti Koistinen and Ilpo Salonen (ed.): The Ukrainian war and the world after it. Counterweight 2022