Today, Ukraine owes its existence to its Armed Forces and relies on successful diplomacy to garner international support and extract weapons from partners reluctant to confront Russia directly. In the face of survival, diplomatic norms are sometimes surpassed. But to what extent can we afford this?
After the full-scale invasion began, traditional diplomatic methods failed to swiftly mobilise the international community or persuade partners to cross previously drawn “red lines” as of February 23, 2022. Ukrainian leadership’s straightforward communication approach has become a defining trait of Ukrainian diplomacy amidst existential threats, as attempts to adhere to established norms since 2014 have yielded familiar outcomes.
On April 12, Kyiv hosted the Forum on Diplomacy in Wartime, where the successes and failures of Ukrainian diplomacy in 2023 were under scrutiny. The discussion didn’t just focus on the performance of the diplomatic corps, which received commendation, but also on the contributions of the President and his Office, inter-parliamentary collaboration, and public diplomacy.
One of the standout moments was Minister of Foreign Affairs Dmytro Kuleba’s keynote speech on Ukraine’s wartime diplomacy, outlining its seven guiding principles:
- Stubbornness;
- Readiness to confront allies when required;
- Refusal to rely on a plan B;
- Swift decision-making;
- Flexibility in decision-making, in à la carte fashion;
- Embracing open dialogue among all parties;
- Maintaining clarity, directness, and sensitivity to context in statements.
How has unconventional diplomacy fared in various scenarios during these past two years? Will it adapt amidst the world’s growing tolerance of Ukraine’s plight, prioritising the fear of nuclear escalation over the advancement of democracy and the emergence of new conflicts? Let’s explore this and see if we can find some answers.
Principle one: Stubbornness
While the resilience of wartime diplomacy extends beyond just arms negotiations to nearly every international endeavour, let’s focus on this aspect.
“When it comes to supplying weapons, every negotiation for Ukraine began with a resolute and unwavering ‘no.’ Every single one. In peacetime, a traditional diplomat might have given up after encountering repeated refusals. But in wartime, there’s no room for such hesitancy. We must persist until we secure a ‘yes’,” the minister explained.
The memory of Germany’s promise to supply five thousand helmets as military aid in response to Ukraine’s request for weapons shortly before the full-scale invasion remains fresh. However, on February 26, they announced the transfer of 1000 anti-tank systems and 500 Stinger anti-tank missiles instead.
Within a span of mere months, the Ukrainian army swiftly acquired an array of military assets, including self-propelled artillery units such as Panzerhaubitzen, Mars multiple-launch rocket systems, Panzerfaust anti-tank rocket launchers, armoured personnel carriers, Gepard anti-aircraft tanks, and IRIS-T anti-aircraft missile systems. As of January 2023, negotiations were already in progress for the transfer of Leopard tanks, and presently, the focus has shifted to acquiring Taurus.
A nation that has proclaimed itself pacifist since 1945, despite being the world’s fifth-largest arms exporter behind the USA, Russia, France, and China, and maintaining significant economic ties with Russia, has now pledged and committed to providing assistance amounting to approximately 28 billion euros over the coming years. This week, the German government unveiled an initiative dubbed “Needed Action Air Defence,” aimed at sourcing air defence systems from partners.
This outcome is not just a response to the brutality witnessed in Russian-occupied territories, which has shocked the world, but also a testament to the unwavering resolve of Ukrainian diplomacy in the face of evolving challenges. Despite ongoing efforts, the Ukrainian Armed Forces are still awaiting F-16s, facing a shortage of air defence systems, and encountering political hurdles in the US Congress, resulting in a six-month delay in acquiring critical weaponry.
At present, Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba is advocating for the acquisition of seven Patriot anti-aircraft missile systems. Ukraine requires a total of 26 to secure its airspace, yet only 100 such systems are “available” globally, with reluctant countries hesitant to part with them.
Principle two: Readiness to confront allies when required
“Normally, we treat our friends with extra care. However, in times of war, the stark reality is that while they may mourn your loss, lay flowers on your grave, and cherish memories, they’ll continue with their lives. So, if ensuring your survival demands nudging your friends out of their comfort zones, it’s a necessary step,” elaborated the head of the Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
This principle dictates that if resolving an issue privately isn’t feasible, one must address it openly in public. Sometimes, this has yielded positive results, while at other times, it has had unintended consequences.
Perhaps the most notable instance occurred when President Zelensky made strong statements on the eve of the NATO summit in Vilnius in July 2023. Expectations were high for a response to Ukraine’s application for membership in the Alliance. Essentially, Ukraine sought an invitation, fully aware that actual membership could take several years, at the least.
The President threatened to boycott the event if partners weren’t prepared to display “courage.” This move raised significant concern among many. Subsequently, U.S. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan clarified that cooperation on the matter would persist, but there was no inclination to extend an invitation to join the Alliance. Sullivan noted that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky “seemingly holds a differing perspective on this matter.”
It will be intriguing to witness the developments at this year’s significant NATO summit in Washington. Ukraine has already been given the impression that no miracles should be expected, as the United States will never risk being accused of instigating a nuclear conflict or direct confrontation with Russia.
Here, it’s worth highlighting a couple of examples of public diplomacy. Take, for instance, the pointed question posed by Daria Kaleniuk, Executive Director of the Anti-Corruption Action Center, to Jake Sullivan, who was involved in crafting scenarios for Ukraine’s development: “What should I tell my son? That President Biden and NATO didn’t invite Ukraine to the Alliance out of fear of Russia? … Or should I prepare my son to become a soldier – to fight against the Russians when he turns 18 in seven years?” This move was well-received by Ukrainians but not by their partners.
In 2022, Ukrainian activist Iryna Zemlyana initiated a campaign to shut down the border between the European Union and Belarus, which served as a conduit for goods flowing from the EU to Russia. Initially, she garnered the attention of Polish authorities and became one of the driving forces behind the border blockade. Upon discovering that Germany and France didn’t voice support during discussions at the European Council, she took matters into her own hands. Zemlyana delivered a letter of appeal to German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, signed by several dozen civil organisations from Poland, Ukraine, and other nations. The letter was accompanied by the shoes of a girl who died in Mariupol, along with a proposal to sell them to the chancellor, symbolizing a prioritization of close economic ties with Russia over aiding Ukraine. This gesture even made waves in the German media, which, at the time, largely avoided contentious issues. Unfortunately, Poland has since ramped up its purchases of agricultural products from Russia, imported through Belarus.
Another noteworthy aspect is the periodic clashes on social media, such as those on Network X, sparked by ambiguous statements from Elon Musk. The entrepreneur, who had previously facilitated communication for the Ukrainian army by providing Starlink, also offered free advice on peaceful conflict resolution, reminiscent of Russian narratives.
Given Musk’s vast audience, his statement drew reactions from the President of Ukraine, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, advisors to the President’s Office, Ukrainian cultural figures, public opinion leaders, and ordinary citizens. Ukrainian diplomat and former Ambassador of Ukraine to Germany, Andriy Melnyk, emerged as a prominent figure who expressed undiplomatic sentiments and opted for uncensored language.
Principle three: Refusal to rely on a Plan B
“Traditional diplomacy maintains that a diplomat must always have an ‘exit strategy,’ a way out in case their initiative falls flat. But eschewing the unnecessary ‘Plan B’ doesn’t mean being reckless and not preparing a contingency. It’s simply that military diplomacy operates under the premise that it’s either success or bust,” elaborated the minister.
It’s a psychological tactic—refusing to acknowledge the existence of a “Plan B” and concentrating solely on the immediate objective. Presently, one of the mandates set for Ukrainian diplomacy is to “secure those Patriot systems, no matter what.” Aside from the pursuit of weaponry, Ukraine is confronted with several weighty tasks that demand preparedness for various scenarios. As the minister emphasised, the situation with NATO is fairly straightforward, even though Ukraine’s strategic aim for membership is enshrined in the Constitution.
However, at the same notable G7 summit, they endorsed the “Joint Declaration in Support of Ukraine” initiative, advocating for bilateral, long-term security agreements with partners. Nearly thirty countries have signalled their interest in joining this declaration.
Such agreements have already been forged with the United Kingdom, Denmark, Italy, Canada, the Netherlands, Germany, and France. While this approach facilitates tailored discussions regarding the types of assistance based on each country’s capabilities, it falls short of NATO membership. Since the Budapest Memorandum, diplomatic terminology has evolved from assurances to guarantees, and now to commitments, yet in practice, these terms essentially signify the same cautious approaches to safeguarding Ukraine’s security.
More concerning is the definition of victory for Ukraine. While Ukrainian diplomacy strongly advocates a return to the borders of 1991, the Western narratives emphasise Ukraine’s resilience and preservation of sovereignty as a victory in itself.
In essence, the Western strategy of prioritising non-defeat over outright victory, aimed at bolstering Ukraine’s negotiating position, inadvertently weakens Ukraine’s stance. Amidst ongoing speculation in Western media about a potential Plan B in case of cessation of military aid from the West, the implementation of this principle by Ukraine holds immense significance.
Principle four: Swift decision-making
“In traditional diplomacy, the goal is to navigate issues through various channels, often preferring delayed decisions to let them ‘ripen’. But in times of war, there’s no luxury of time for that… When lives are at stake, protocols and procedures take a back seat,” asserted Dmytro Kuleba, emphasizing that every nation “has the capacity to expedite decision-making.”
Following the full-scale invasion, Western partners swiftly implemented an array of unprecedented measures – from supplying weapons and humanitarian aid to offering extensive support to refugees and imposing sanction packages on Russia.
However, it appears that certain matters are either being deliberated slowly or not at all. For instance, the establishment of a special tribunal for the Russian leadership, including the notion of a trial in absentia, the transfer of frozen Russian assets to Ukraine, the designation of Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism, and the disconnection from SWIFT. The latter two points have seemingly fallen off the agenda entirely.
Truly, time unfolds in starkly different ways for those enduring bombardment and those merely observing from afar. Following the recent barrage of over 80 rockets and drones on Kharkiv, the Minister of Foreign Affairs vented on social media X about the delayed supply of Patriots: “I firmly believe that if those responsible for aiding Ukraine had spent just one night in Kharkiv, all necessary decisions would have been expedited.”
Currently, we’re still in the midst of the six-month ordeal with the aid package in the United States House of Representatives, with Speaker Johnson pledging to bring it to a vote on April 20.
Principle fice: Flexibility in decision-making, in à la carte fashion
“War diplomacy demands a delicate balance of strength, integrity, and adaptability. As Sun Tzu famously wrote, war entails both assertiveness and flexibility: being resolute where necessary, yet agile when circumstances demand,” the minister summarized before delving into President Zelensky’s “peace formula,” lauding it as a paradigm of “constructive selectivity.”
According to President Zelensky, the Formula has garnered support from 80 states, although the extent of that support remains uncertain. Former U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine Kurt Volker observes that “the world appears divided between those who feel a certain responsibility to aid Ukraine, such as the United States and most European countries, and those who consider it beyond their purview,” citing examples like India and Brazil.
Contacts with countries in Africa and Latin America only gained momentum following the full-scale invasion. In just two years, Ukraine has achieved more progress in its relations with African nations than in the preceding three decades. The President, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and parliamentarians engaged in negotiations with two dozen African heads of state, visited approximately a dozen countries and announced the establishment of 10 new embassies across the continent.
Additionally, plans are underway to open five new embassies in Latin American countries. The Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs has already formulated distinct strategies for engagement in these regions.
Principle six: Embracing open dialogue among all parties
“In a country at war, it’s imperative that everyone—from high-ranking officials to secretaries and assistants—maintains communication with their counterparts in countries relevant to various issues… While this approach may sometimes compromise the coherence of efforts, the real problem arises when conflicting messages emerge,” explained Dmytro Kuleba.
The minister highlighted that the traditional model of diplomacy, where everything funnels through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, struggles to cope with the communication demands of wartime. Hence, the ministry’s primary role shifts to coordinating this polylogue.
In practice, this polylogue extends beyond official counterparts to encompass Ukrainian experts, journalists, filmmakers, public figures, artists, and veterans engaging with congressmen, members of the European Parliament, presidents, and voters worldwide. And they’re not just discussing culinary diplomacy’s roots in borscht; they’re tackling a multitude of issues.
Principle seven: Maintaining clarity, directness, and context sensitivity in statements
“Everyone knows that traditional diplomacy demands speaking in intricate and overly polite manners. It involves cramming multiple scenarios into a single sentence because you never know how events will unfold, and you don’t want to appear clumsy. But in times of war, it’s preferable to risk appearing clumsy than to speak in a manner that renders your words ineffective,” the minister elucidated.
President Zelensky exemplified this principle across various platforms. Addressing the Three Seas Initiative Summit earlier this month, he underscored the significance of actions over mere promises: “Every day, rockets rain down, and every day, we’re assured that Ukraine will soon receive new air defence systems. Every day, Russian terrorists plunge cities like Kharkiv into darkness, and every day, we’re promised that help is on the way. It’s time for actions to match words and for Russian aggression to face real consequences.”
The minister himself also articulated Ukraine’s stance on strikes against Russian oil refineries, which the United States suggested halting to prevent a surge in global oil prices. “We need to prioritize our own interests. If our partners offer Patriot batteries tomorrow but expect certain concessions from us, then there’s room for negotiation. However, if we lack these batteries, lack the aid, and are still asked to refrain from certain actions, then there’s no basis for discussion. What’s there to talk about? In such circumstances, everyone simply does what they must to survive.”
At first glance, speaking openly seems simpler and more enjoyable, but different contexts demand flexibility. While Ukrainian diplomacy adeptly formulates arguments for Brussels and Washington, according to the minister, crafting persuasive narratives in Africa, Asia, and South America is “an art that we have begun to master primarily thanks to diplomatic efforts during the war.”
In Africa, the discourse of decolonisation doesn’t resonate strongly, whereas, in certain Latin American nations, the focus lies on Ukraine’s alignment with the Western world as a bastion of justice and democracy. Therefore, even when diverging from traditional diplomatic norms, significant diplomatic finesse is required.
As Talleyrand famously said, diplomacy is the art of turning the impossible into the possible. And as Zhou Enlai once noted, diplomacy is just another way of continuing war. Currently, Ukrainian diplomats are working tirelessly to make the impossible a reality, as every moment counts in terms of human lives.
