Conflict Analysis and Resolution Analysis - Essay Example

Name: Tutor: Course: Date: Conflict Analysis and resolution Paper Introduction Annexation of Crimea by Russia culminated into serious and fatal Ukraine-Russia conflict that claimed lives of people and displaced many. Pillar 3 of the Three Pillar Framework provides a means through which violent conflicts can be resolved and peace agreement reached. This paper uses pillar 1-2-3 analysis to look at the conflict. This paper develops an international intervention through which the Ukraine-Russia conflict could be resolved (Sokolow, 2009). Vladimir Putin’s individual interests and objectives were put into play in the course of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Russia pursued the continuation of the conflict hence showing off is influence and military prowess in the region. Russian president, Vladimir Putin, used the protests by separatists to pursue personal interests in Ukraine. Whereas the separatists were protesting for genuine reasons, Putin seized the opportunity to confront the West and show Russia’s presence in the region hence forcing the western powers to come up with a counter response. The West response to the Ukraine crisis relied on economic sanctions against Russia, moderate military reinforcement for NATO members in the east, moderate help to Ukraine, and supporting the peace process brokered in Minsk (Sokolow, 2009). The conflict tested the ability of Russia to back down when confronted by the West. Pillar 2 identified the causes and conditions surrounding a conflict. The causes have been identified at individual level, societal level, international level, and global/ecological level. Pillar 1 explores the conditions and causes of conflict while Pillar three explores conflict resolution using various methods. Discussion Conflict conditions and causes within the Russian-Ukraine conflict involved multiple disciplines at individual level, societal level, international level and global/ecological level. At individual level Russian President Vladimir Putin had his goals and objectives and he wanted to achieve. He used the conflict to settle personal scores and demonstrate Russian military supremacy in the region. It was about the pride of Russia and its influence in the international level. Societal level involved anthropology where the Russian speaking population within the east of Ukraine felt Oppressed by the Ukraine Regime (Ramsbotham, Miall, Woodhouse, 2011). The separatist wanted to be allied to Europe and were tired by the rampant corruption cases in the Ukraine regime. The separatists felt that their interests were not being met within Ukraine and Russia took advantage of the situation. The economic situation was not encouraging hence forcing the separatists to take to the streets and stage protests against the ruling regime (Van Metre, Gienger, & Kuehnast, 2014). The physical local of Ukraine and its eastern region was another driver of the crisis. Its bordering Russia made its worse since it emboldened Russians actions in order to stamp its authority in the region. Historically Ukraine and Russia have had confrontation over resources and regional relationships. The international level involved the balance of power in eastern side of the globe and the influence or Russia, Europe and the United States in the region’s politics and resource allocation (Ramsbotham, Miall, Woodhouse, 2011). Russia wanted to test its influence in the region and it did not hesitate to deploy its military forces on the border with Ukraine. The ecological level influenced the choice of Ukraine to cooperate with other powers in transporting resources such as gas and oil in the region. Russian always feels responsible for all former members of the Soviet Union and what to chaperone them. Russia makes use of hydrocarbons that depends on from neighboring countries. Exhaustion of resources and struggle for new resources is a cause for alarm that contributed to the Ukraine crisis. The Ukraine-Russia conflict broke out in April 2014 when pro-Russian activists seized and tool control of government buildings in cities and towns across the Luhansk and Donetsk regions. This was a repeat of events that have taken place in the Ukraine’s Black Sea peninsula or Crimea (Van Metre, Gienger, & Kuehnast, 2014). Gunmen took control of government buildings in February 2014 and went ahead to raise a Russian flag a week following the fleeing president Viktor Yanukovych in the course of pro-EU street protests in Kiev. An attempt by nationalists to eliminate Russian status as a second language caused panic among the Russian speakers and officials from Moscow painted the new leaders in Kiev as receiving support from the US who are bent non the violation of minority rights (Sokolow, 2009). Referendum on joining Russia was held with many flaws in Crimea and in a month the annexation of the peninsula was complete. The Ukrainian government launched a military counter-offensive targeting the insurgents hence resulting in war. Ukraine considers the annexation of Crimea to be a violation of international law as well as agreement by Russia. Pillar 1 in the 3 Pillar Framework identifies the parties, issues, objectives, means and preferred conflict handling orientations, and conflict environment within a given conflict. It is crucial to identify all parties involved in a conflict sense leaving anyone out may not resolve the conflict at all since some people may feel their interests were not met. Parties involved in the Ukraine-Russia conflict include Russia, Ukraine, separatists, and western powers like France, German, the US, and England; United Nations, religious leaders, civilians, neighbouring countries, and humanitarian groups (Sokolow, 2009). Countries within the region are actively testing the contours of Western and Russian engagement, regional relationships and alliances, as well as regional conflicts dynamics. The previous frozen conflicts can lead to the stress igniting further violence. Georgia-Russia war that occurred in 2008 as well as the annexation of Crimea point to emblematic conflicts and illustrate a strategic pattern characterizing interventions by Vladimir Putin. Russia sent aid convoy as well as military equipment together with armoured vehicles into the territory of Ukraine. Kiev accused Russia of indirectly and directly violating its sovereignty and waging war against it. On the other hand, Moscow accused Kiev of repressing Russian-speakers violently and creating a humanitarian crisis within the east of Ukraine. A bitter information war obscured ground truth increasing the gulf between Russia on one side and Europe and United States on the other side. Voices from both sides exaggerate one’s objectives above the other (Van Metre, Gienger & Kuehnast, 2014). The challenge of building a prosperous Ukraine continued to persist with the escalation in the conflict. People within the Eastern part of Ukraine suffered the most despite their political allegiances; they were innocent victims of policies and disputes of which they do not have their own voice. Many innocent lives were lost. Issues described in Pillar 1 refer to the reasons why parties go to an extent of waging war during conflicts and are categorized as psychological or psychological. The issues are further distinguished as nonrealistic and realistic. Realistic issues deal with real things like land while nonrealistic issues are about the need to “vent” as a result of frustration (Ramsbotham, Miall, Woodhouse, 2011). The extent of instability within the region whether externally or indigenous provoked; invite intervention since they already unstable or building up a conflict. The large Russian population having real or imagined grievances could result into instability. Another issue is Russia’s internal support for Putin and stability. Putin’s desire or capacity to intervene is driven by his comfort that Russia’s key constituencies support intervention. Weakness in Putin’s leadership compelled an intervention that stoked Russian nationalist sentiment as well as support for Kremlin. Another issue is the Western world response to actions by Russia and the manner it is perceived regionally (Sokolow, 2009). A weak response by the western world to the conflict would have emboldened Russian offensive actions. Another issue that is an important driver of the conflict was Putin’s objectives and goals. The conflict escalated according to what Putin desired to achieve. Some of the objectives by Vladimir Putin include changing national borders, precipitating frozen conflicts in order to weaken other countries, growing Russia’s international image or stature, keeping at bay Western influence in countries perceived to be important to Russia, as well as protecting the success of the Maidan model within Ukraine in order to divert any attraction for the Russian populace along with countries that Moscow wants to retain its influence. Russian objectives in the conflict show the desire by Putin to blow the conflict out of proportion and keep the Western powers busy trying to resolve (Van Metre, Gienger, & Kuehnast, 2014). It has been mentioned earlier Putin targets to destabilize more countries in the region so as to maintain Moscow’s influence on them. Crimea annexation from Ukraine was meant to show Moscow power in the region and sent warning to the western world. Pillar 1 also describes the means through which the conflict happened. The conflict can either be non-violent or violent. The Ukraine-Russian conflict was happened through violent means with the Russian-supported separatists waging war against the loyal forces of Ukraine. Ukraine termed this fight as a fight against an act of terrorism where its government buildings were taken over by separatists in Crimea. Fights happen in conflicts when parties label each other as enemies and attempt to destroy one another. Aggressive manifest conflict process (AMCP) was in play in the Ukraine-Russia conflict over Crimea annexation. This process involves parties or their representatives pursue their incompatible goals by destroying or damaging each other high-value symbols or targets or forcibly eliminating each other. Properties were destroyed in Crimea and lives lost while a huge population of people were displaced. The Ukraine-Russian conflict had so much at stake. More than five thousand people died in the conflict and another 13,961 were wounded. The fatalities included two-hundred and ninety-two people aboard a Malaysia Airline flight that was brought down on 17th July. About 600,000 people fled to neighboring countries and where a large part of then (about 400,000) fled to Russia (Van Metre, Gienger, & Kuehnast, 2014). About one million people comprised of internally displaced people in Ukraine including more than 100,000 children. There is need to restore calm and peace when so much is a stake in the conflict region. Preferred conflict-handling orientations in the Ukraine-Russian conflict involve variations orientations that entailed accommodation, confrontation, compromise and collaborative problem solving. The West had to confront Russia by imposing economic sanctions in order to force Moscow onto the negotiation table (Sokolow, 2009). Hard economic times in Russia and instability in the economy compelled Moscow to comprise its objectives and negotiate with the intervention of other parties like France and German. Pillar 1 of the 3 Pillar Framework also describes the conflict environment which is the space within which the conflict plays out. The common types that exist under this conflict environment include exogenous and endogenous. Exogenous refers to systems that do not have any conflict handling mechanisms where the various parties are left to sort out themselves on their own. This is the condition of anarchy that is very common within the international system (Ramsbotham, Miall, Woodhouse, 2011). This was not the case in the Ukraine-Russian Crimea annexation conflict. The second environment is endogenous where systems do have conflict-handling mechanisms where the parties can look for assistance in dealing with the conflict. The members under this system can include the European Union, US government, or the United Nations. The European Union and United States got involved in resolving the Crimea annexation conflict by forcing Russian to come to the negotiation table. Pillar 3 describes means through which conflicts intervention can happen. The third party objectives under Pillar 3 include conflict prevention, conflict management, conflict settlement and conflict resolution and conflict transformation as described before. The third party means of attaining goals include confrontational and/or collaborative mean, negative peace, positive peace orientations, track 1 or multi-track, and actors and processes. Europe and United States had to confront Russia and question its activities and involvement in the Crimea annexation crisis. Third parties play a crucial role in ending conflicts and finding a lasting solution (Ramsbotham, Miall, Woodhouse, 2011). Confrontational means were very important since Russia took the opportunity to bully the former member of the Soviet Union. Moscow still feels in charge of the members of the collapse Soviet Union. Putin still sees Crimea as part of Russia where majority of the population speak the Russian language (Sokolow, 2009). Russia was protecting its interest in Ukraine and the region. Confrontation forced Russia to relook its action in Crimea and come to the negotiation table. A wider view of conflict transformation is needed to correct the misperception that conflict resolution is founded on an assumption of harmony of interests among actors, as well as the third-party mediators are able to settle conflicts through appealing to the underlying humanity of all parties involved. The west and United States used both confrontational and collaborative means into achieving a peace agreement in Ukraine. They collaborated in imposing economic sanctions against Russia and forcing it to negotiate with Ukraine (Sakwa, 2014). The west also helped Ukraine to contact elections and put in place a legitimate regime with the promise of zero tolerance on corruption. The types of various transformations are important as a framework used for analysis of steps towards conflict resolution as well as comprehending about interventions within a conflict. Germany played a big role in bringing the warring parties on the negotiation table during the Crimea conflict pitting Russia against Ukraine. The German foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, set up meetings with his French, Ukrainian, and Russian counterparts in Berlin. In the preceding talks Russian and Ukraine were less confrontational as compared to the previous meetings and they came to almost an agreement on the withdrawal of weapons on the borderline between the Ukrainian and separatists forces within eastern Ukraine. The warring side was in agreement not to lay more mines and clear the one already in the ground. The objectives of the third party intervention in the Ukraine-Russia Crimea conflict were conflict resolution and conflict settlement. The West wanted the conflict to come to an end or a peace settlement brokered (Van Metre, Gienger, & Kuehnast, 2014). Germany played a big role in settling the conflict. Rebel and Ukraine forces blamed each other for breaching the ceasefire but both went on to respect the ceasefire as observed by international monitors. Vladimir Putin welcomed the ceasefire in eastern Ukraine, a change from his earlier accusation against Ukraine for charges of violating a ceasefire. The German foreign minister made the countries to agree in principle that the planned election within eastern Ukraine should be carried out on a joint legal basis with the supervision of the Organization for Security and Co-operation within Europe (OSCE). Conflicts have been inherently dynamic and hence conflict resolution has to involve a complex of changing relations, usually within a wider system that has proved resistant to piecemeal change. Interests, actors and issues change over time as an impact of the social, political and economic dynamics of societies. Conflict resolution is wider as compared to conflict termination. The process of ending a conflict will not address the issues that led to that conflict (Ramsbotham, Miall, Woodhouse, 2011). Resolving issues within a conflict does not guarantee peace. In many cases efforts of resolving a conflict may not necessarily terminate a war, while efforts to end a war may not result in settlement of the underlying conflict. The objective of conflict resolution is for both transforming the conflict as well as eliminating violence, but these are not always attained in many circumstances. Many conflict resolutions efforts began with peace agreements before the conflict was resolved. Regardless of the intensity of the conflict, key players may depend psychologically or economically on the continuation of the conflict. Leaders that are identified with the aim of pursuing the conflict can risk overthrow, prosecution, or death once the war comes to an end and hence possess strong reasons for intransigence/stubbornness (Sakwa, 2014). For such leaders peace can bring loss of status or role, hence directly threatening their interests. In the Ukraine-Russia Crimea annexation conflict, Vladimir Putin of Russia got the attention of the West and intentional community and was able to show-case Russian military prowess to the entire world hence the hardline in negotiations. Regional and local party officials or those military officers who have earned their careers in the conflict may have a hand in its continuation. Moreover, parties cannot openly offer credible guarantees of agreement and this leading to commitment challenges (Sakwa, 2014). This is the situation that is being witnessed in Syria where a Hospital was bombed despite a ceasefire deal being brokered. It is easy for one to conclude that conflict resolution is not possible and political groups will fight with all their might to achieve their own interests. Nevertheless, obstacles have to be kept in proportion. Violent conflicts bring enormous costs on the concerned societies and hence there is a large part of the population which will benefit when the conflict comes to an end. There is a shared interest among conflicting communities, affecting economic and security welfare (Ramsbotham, Miall, Woodhouse, 2011). Ordinary people embrace return to peace so that they can lead a normal life like before the conflict. Practitioners, conflict resolution theorists, conflict analysts and peace researchers embody or use some or any combination of conflict and conflict resolution perspectives for the purpose of understanding and dealing conflict. The Crimea annexation conflict is a typical example of context transformation conflicts that are embedded within a social, regional and international context that is usually significant to their continuation. In many circumstances changes within the context may have dramatic repercussions as compared to the changes in parties or their perceived relationships (Ramsbotham, Miall, Woodhouse, 2011). Russia’s desire to control the political environment in the former Soviet Union region was a driving force that has precipitated many conflicts around the region. The international context was very prominent in the Ukraine-Russia conflict the United States, Europe, NATO and other parties got involved into trying to resolve the conflict. Conflict transformation calls for real changes within the interests, goals and self-definitions of the parties. The Russian claim of Ukraine suppression of the populace in east Ukraine was only an excuse to get involved in the conflict (Van Metre, Gienger, & Kuehnast, 2014). Other issues like regional balance of power and depletion of resources got involved in the conflict hence conflict transformation was necessary in the conflict being resolved. Structural transformation is where the root causes of conflict are embedded in the structure of relationships in which parties operate. The transformation of this structure is needed in resolving the conflict. Where there are asymmetric conflicts structural transformation comprises change in the relationship between the weaker and the dominant party. The Ukraine-Russian does not need any realignment considering the differences in ideologies embodied by the parties in the conflict (Sokolow, 2009). Actor transformation requires the various parties in a conflict to redefine directions and modify their cherished goals, beliefs and values. Russia has to abandon its view that the Russian population in the east of Ukraine is being suppressed after reviewing issues raised by separatists groups. The change in the leadership regime within Ukraine with the help of Europe was a means towards settling some issues leading to the conflict (Sakwa, 2014). Group and personal transformation is crucial to change. It involving accepting opponents and offering reconciliation like was the case of the separatists has to be offered a chance to put their arms down and negotiate for a lasting solution in the east of Ukraine instead of resolving to violence. The conflict can also be described as issue transformation conflict that is described by the conflicting positions that opposing parties take on issues. When the parties change their stand or the issues lose prominence the conflict is automatically transformed. Changes in position are closely associated to changes in interest as well as goals and hence leading to actor transformation together with changes in the structure and context of the conflict (Ramsbotham, Miall, Woodhouse, 2011). Reframing the perceived issues and linking the issues in a new way can open means of reaching settling. Both Russia and Ukraine traded accusations over each other’s role in the conflict. Ukraine felt that its national boundaries and sovereignty had been violated by Russia while Russia accused Ukraine of violently suppressing the rights of the Russian speaking population in the east (Van Metre, Gienger, & Kuehnast, 2014). Russia supported the separatist waging war against the Ukraine military forces. A lasting solution of the conflict can be realized when separatists feel that they grievances have been addressed and Ukraine is on the road towards an accountable and transparent government that practices inclusion and inequity for all races, regions, and everyone. Conclusion Conflict solution is a complex process that has to involve conflict transformation from any of the five types for change to happen. Conflicts cannot be resolved when the parties are holding onto their position and are unwilling to change. Separatists were agitated by the exclusion and suppression they received from the Ukraine government and wanted to be allied to the Russian government. Russia took advantage of the situation to affirm is influence in the region and other interests. The warring parties have to abandon their initial interests and transform towards resolving the conflict. Conflict resolution commences with identification of causes, involves parties, underlying issues and eventually conflict transformation to achieve a middle ground. Conflict resolution is a process that goes through various before settlement. References Sakwa, R. (2014). Frontline Ukraine: Crisis in the Borderlands, London: I.B.Tauris. Van Metre Lauren, Gienger Viola G., and Kuehnast Kathleen, 2014, “The Ukraine-Russia Conflict: Signals and Scenarios for the Broader Region”, Special Report, United States Institute for Peace, 2015, retrieved from:http://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/SR366-The-Ukraine-Russia-Conflict.pdf Ramsbotham Oliver, Miall Hugh, Woodhouse Tom, 2011, “Contemporary Conflict Resolution,” Polity. Sokolow M. “Interview with former Russian energy minister Vladimir Milov”, Radio free Europe, Radio Libertad (January 8, 2009), retrieved from http://www.rferl.org/content/Interview_Gazprom_Harms_Russian_Interests_/1367968.html Read More