Another path is possible. Peace plans exist.

Intervention of Marc Botenga, Member of the European Parliament and Belgian Workers Party at Diplomacy Now! International Conference in Berlin, organised by the Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung and International Peace Bureau.

Diplomacy prevents and ends wars. It is a great tragedy that, in these times of global change, several European countries, including my own Belgium, as well as France, devalue and underfund their diplomatic corps. I listened with particular interest to the speakers from Brazil, China, and India, who offer essential perspectives on war and peace that extend beyond the eurocentric view dominant in EU institutions.

In over two and a half years of war in Ukraine, the European Union has not proposed a single diplomatic initiative to stop the war. This inaction contrasts sharply with the EU’s proactive diplomatic stance in other conflicts, such as the recent war between Azerbaijan and Armenia. The Union’s diplomatic absence is particularly notable compared to the long list of proposals and attempts by other countries, especially from the Global South. Consider the recent Brazilian-Chinese proposal to initiate peace negotiations, the efforts of the African Union, and the mediation attempts by diverse actors, including Turkey and the Vatican.

The claim that negotiations are futile does not withstand scrutiny. While success cannot be presumed, negotiations between Ukraine and Russia have occurred regularly. Some discussions on topics ranging from grain exports to prisoner exchanges and nuclear safety have even concluded successfully. A recent article in Foreign Affairs suggested that Ukraine and Russia were close to an agreement to stop the war just a few weeks after it began. The EU not just failed to provide support for these negotiations. Western diplomacy may have actually undermined the peace deal.

Many leaders from the Global South, including Brazilian President Lula and South African President Ramaphosa, have suggested that the Ukraine war might have been entirely avoidable had the West not insisted on guaranteeing Ukraine NATO membership. Similarly, Pope Francis pointed to the detrimental impact of NATO’s “barking” at Russian borders. Over the years, rather than insisting on NATO as the sole solution to everything, European governments and diplomacy could—and should—have played an indispensable role in establishing a different arrangement for collective security on the continent, including robust security guarantees for Ukraine. Such an arrangement might also have diminished the appeal of Putin’s nationalist-imperial rhetoric inside Russia, weakening his grip on power.

Yet the EU chose not to engage in that kind of peace diplomacy. Without any such roadmap, last-minute trips to Moscow by French President Emmanuel Macron or German Chancellor Olaf Scholz were unlikely to make any difference.

In response to Russia’s invasion, the European Union instead adopted several policies that harmed both the social and hard security of the European working class without bringing peace any closer.

Sanctions neither prevented nor stopped the war. The Russian economy militarized but did not collapse. However, sanctions did drive up energy prices in Europe, negatively impacting not just citizens but also European industry. The United States capitalized on this situation. The Inflation Reduction Act and active economic diplomacy pulled investors across the Atlantic. As Europe severed ties with Russia, US shale gas deliveries further increased EU dependency on Washington.

Arms deliveries to Ukraine undermined the EU’s credibility as an honest diplomatic broker. The refusal to engage in diplomacy meant accepting and pushing military escalation. Initially, European countries spoke of mostly protective gear, but they soon began sending first so-called defensive arms

and then escalated to offensive weapons, including fighter jets and tanks. Mission creep followed. From an initial position of banning the use of Western weapons for attacking Russian targets, the European Union ultimately green-lit the entry of Ukrainian troops into Russia.

The subsequent massive increase in military expenditures, despite European countries already outspending Russia on defense, diverted funds away from essential investments in schools, hospitals, public transport and pensions.

All this came with the erosion of the Cold War acquis. The stationing of US long-range missiles in Germany does not enhance our security; rather, it heightens the other side’s threat perception and mistrust. Increasing mutual trust and security was the reason the US and USSR jointly decided to ban such missiles toward the end of the 1980s—a lesson from the Cold War that has now been forgotten.

Was it out of fear of antagonizing either the United States or Ukraine that the EU and its member states chose not to take seriously even the terrorist attack on European critical energy infrastructure like Nord Stream?

In an increasingly multipolar world, where many countries no longer adhere to Western policies, the dominant trend within the EU seems determined to align more closely with the US—or rather, to submit increasingly to the waning dominance of the US. Indeed, the US referred to support for the ongoing war as “the best investment ever made.” We can understand why: the war of attrition weakens a historical adversary like Russia, allows the US to reinforce its military presence in Europe, boosts arms sales for US companies, and pushes the EU toward greater dependency on the US, all without jeopardizing US interests.

Some countries, like the Polish government or the Baltic states, have been leading the way in this regard. The probable nomination of Estonian Kaja Kallas as the new High Representative reflects the tendency.

Bandwagoning and reinforced dependence on the US stand in stark contrast to the idea of creating an independent, non-aligned European pole in this world. The growing inability of Europe to play a positive and non-aligned role on the international stage directly harms the working classes of our continent on multiple levels.

The EU establishment is creating a more dangerous world for all. We are not only losing the entire Cold War acquis in terms of diplomacy and disarmament, but by submitting to US imperialism, Europe is forfeiting any credibility as a diplomatic actor on the international scene. Why should Russia engage with Europe if decisions are made in Washington? The US sent that exact message when it unilaterally withdrew from Afghanistan without even notifying its EU allies.

Bandwagoning behind US imperialism also entails abandoning any claim to universal values. Nowhere is this more evident than in Palestine today. Twenty years ago, the European Parliament called for the suspension of the Association Agreement with Israel in response to Israeli violence following the second Intifada. Today, even verbally condemning the genocide in Gaza seems too much to ask. As Josep Borrell lamented, wherever I go to seek support for Ukraine, countries worldwide point out our double standards. “Yes, you say you defend sovereignty and international law, but why don’t you do so in Palestine?”

Indeed, today, full alignment with US policy in support of Israel—some even increasing arms sales to Israel, as Germany has—represents not only a blatant example of double standards but also sends a message that the EU endorses a world order in which it is acceptable to ignore the International

Court of Justice, violate international law, the Vienna and Geneva Conventions, massively displace millions of people, target journalists, UN staff, and healthcare professionals, and massacre thousands of children, starve entire populations, and commit sexual assault and rape against prisoners. Such a world of legalized crime is less safe for all of us.

Fortunately, submission to Washington is not the only option. Different tendencies persist in Europe and in several countries—they always have. The intra-European debate on the 2003 Iraq War revealed a similar internal rift, with some blindly and fully supporting the US, even as it prepared to violate international law, and others refusing to join the Coalition of the Willing. Since the start of the Ukraine war, the “autonomous” current has lost prominence in public debate. But it is still very much present. As is the people’s desire for peace.

Another path is necessary. German General Harald Kujat, former Chief of Staff of the German Armed Forces and former Chairman of NATO’s Military Committee—no naive pacifist— just emphasized that Ukraine continues to weaken and lose territory, while sanctions have failed to bring Russia to its knees. Further escalation carries enormous risks. If our armies are to provide support for strikes against Russian nuclear defenses, for instance, we risk reaching a ‘point of no return’, the German general recently stated. Do we want to risk a third world war?

In 2022 already, US General Mark Milley, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had alerted the world to the fact that neither Ukraine nor Russia were likely to achieve their objectives militarily. We need a just negotiated peace, based on the principles of international law.

Another path is possible. Peace plans exist. Diplomatic roadmaps have been proposed. What is lacking now is political will. That is why mobilization for peace is so essential. Let us create a future of peace in Europe and beyond.