Geopolitic rivalry in periods of decomposition of forces is always accompanied by large shocks, expressed in conflicts and armed clashes. After any time there is simply a calming and reassurance, they begin to form with the participation of the most crucial players of the fresh peace order.
The first specified conscious transition in modern times from hostility to peaceful arrangement followed the 30 Years ’ War. The treaty concluded in 2 North German cities Münster and Osnabrück in 1648 laid the foundation for the Westphalian order for nearly a century and a half, until the French Revolution broke out.
The Vienna legislature of 1814-1815 then closed the era of destructive Napoleonic Wars and for at least 3 decades (until the break-up of the "European Concert" in 1848-1853, resulting in the outbreak of the Crimean War) ensured unchangeable peace, although the inter-powerful European balance was about maintained until the outbreak of the large War in 1914. All experiences of war disasters, including planet War II, show that even the top hatreds have an end. There are, of course, endemic conflicts that last in a given area for years, specified as between Jews and Arabs in Palestine, but they do not deny that all conflict has a origin in human emotions and it is up to people to put it out.
Even with respect to Iran, now possibly the most implacable state towards the United States, they may appear in place of their intention to retaliate and end the destructive war. This will has been demonstrated in the past for Barack Obama's presidency. Given historical circumstances and many ethnic, linguistic, spiritual and cultural relationships, specified evolution of emotions, attitudes and behaviour is besides possible in Ukrainian-Russian relations.
Trump Phenomena
The current president of the United States, though he has the reputation of unpredictable, gives many reasons both in relations with Russia and China to believe that enemies can become friends. However, there is inactive a large deal of confusion among Western European leaders, which hinders the standardisation and reconciliation process. Trump's phenomenon is to believe in the diplomatic possible of America and the function of cunning and human talent, including the president himself, in negotiating peace agreements. Even though there is much pride and vanity in specified fascination, the global strategy of the United States takes into account the various strengths of the diplomatic game in handling hard matters. It is primarily flexible and pragmatic, which allows to influence opponents both through persuasion and means of direct coercion.
The revisions are mitologicalized claims about the peaceful function of democracy and economical interdependence. Western wars in the post-cold war proved that in the name of imperialist interests the hegemonic power, along with its acolytes, could abuse force unpunished under the pretext of various stabilization missions. For example, the participation of Western states in the break-up of Yugoslavia was evidence of a ruthless game of division of influence alternatively than defending the value of the West. The Trump administration is now reviewing the claim that democratic states do not wage war among themselves.
The democratic strategy does not find a peaceful attitude towards another countries, as the authoritarian regimes do not prejudge pro-war politics. In another words, the kind of political government itself does not prejudge the state's vulnerability to peace or war. For example, Israel, who in the West is credited with a unique democracy in the surroundings of authoritarian regimes, is now considered the most militant and aggressive state attacking its neighbours, including democratic Lebanon. As you can see, the strategy of liberal democracy does not in itself warrant a pro-peaceful attitude. It is much more crucial to practice the strategical restraint of ruling elites, which can respect another people's values, build a community of interests and search compromises in resolving contradictions.
In any case, political will is the main concern, not the governance model. Non-democratic states (there is no single template for specified regimes, as there are different forms of democratic governance) can make as crucial a contribution to stabilising peace as democracies. The problem is not in the story of the solidarity of countries with akin regimes, but in the skillful suppression of conflicts of interest between them.
Diplomacy, not trade
Today, there is besides a revision of another exemplified "wisdom", which has been pushed over the years by supporters of neoliberal geo-economics and globalisation, that economical and commercial interdependence is adequate to build lasting peace. However, it is simply a policy alternatively than an economy that paves the way for reconciliation and normalisation of relations between conflicting countries. erstwhile rulers win in mastering geopolitical rivalry, economical interdependencies can foster, but not decide on the improvement of cooperation. The European Union's modern relations with Russia, as well as the United States with China, clearly indicate that the most costly "value of peace" is diplomacy at the highest levels of political representation, not trade and investment. These are always the consequence and derivative of the organizational-legal framework and psychological-moral climate that arise from the political will of the authorities.
You can see this perfectly on the example of the transatlantic community. In the face of a break in support of the war in Ukraine, Europeans are presently incapable to trust on the United States as a liable leader of the West. At the same time, America ceases to support European unity, suspecting that the European Union is gradually transforming from a partner into their rival. Despite customs wars, an armed conflict in today's conditions between members of the Western community is unimaginable. However, geopolitical competition, especially in relation to Russia and Ukraine, can foster the escalation of tensions and degradation of the existing partnership.
Following the restoration of diplomatic normality in the United States' relations with China and Russia, as suggested by an influential expert in a politician camp Charles A. Kupchan, 4 stages of maturation of this process. First, the process of rapprochement begins with diplomatic probing of each other's attitudes and with a unilateral motion of concessions in any matter. It's a peace offering that signals friendly intentions. That's what he does. Donald Trump, besides in the rhetorical sphere, which many observers resent, but is an crucial instrument for the "absolution" of opponents. The negotiating art experts know perfectly well how crucial the function of the search for rapprochement plays at this stage.
The exchange of information on the anticipation of developing different fields and areas of possible cooperation, bypassing the most delicate points of inflammation, is followed. In the case of Russia, this is simply a hard territorial claim against Ukraine, and in the case of China it is simply a problem of Taiwan's sovereignty.
The 3rd phase means the implementation of common restraint in articulateting different viewpoints in order to gradually make pragmatic cooperation, conducive to calming tensions and seeking compromises. It's about bringing social communities closer together, besides outside government administration. Cultural, technological and academic cooperation is being restored, but most importantly, lobbying from various interest groups is being activated to reduce organization barriers (sanctions) and improve the intellectual climate.
The final phase is to make fresh narratives and identities. States are powerfully changing the interior discourse, which changes the perception of the another organization or parties. fresh political and cultural images are consciously being created, the rhetoric of authorities and the speech of propaganda is changing. alternatively of differences and contradictions, similarities and convergence are emphasized. This is the phenomenon we are presently dealing with in American-Chinese relations. any changes besides concern the US's relation with Russia.
China and Donald Trump
Each recipient of messages coming from China during Donald Trump's visit (13-15.05.2012) noted the importance of diplomatic luminaire, its accompanying enthusiasm, and the symbolic sphere, meaning the desire to calm the relations and projection of a unchangeable peace. This is besides served by the announcement of the revision Xi Jinpinga in the United States this year (24.09.) and the completion of these events by visiting W. Putin in Beijing (19-20.05.). These events, most likely correlated with each other, show the formation of a "new triumvirate" to which the parties give a consultative value. No desperate spells, sedated huffings, or sacred outrage will aid in this matter, since regardless of the epithets and insults directed at these protagonists, they carry out premeditatedly in their common relations an acomodation strategy in order to clearly avoid global conflict. Before our eyes, fresh enemies are turning into partners and friends, demonstrating the will to agree and warrant each another a peaceful future. Let others fight and lose if they are incapable to realize and accept the strategical calculations we have made before our eyes!
We must remember that emotional attitudes are right for people, not institutions. The latter, however, are created and directed by people, hence the characteristics and identities of individuals liable in the country for creating behaviour towards others translate into the quality of diplomatic culture, expression kind or respect for common values.
Against this background, it is peculiarly crucial to respect the rule of strategical restraint, which means conscious and deliberate self-limitation in high-voltage situations. This is the ability to refrain from unfriendly messages and gestures towards the hostile side, helping to mitigate competition and signal friendly intentions. These features let the conflict to be kept under control. They attest to the political maturity of decision-makers, for whom it is more crucial to keep a unchangeable peace than incitement to open war. The deficit of these features is peculiarly brightly manifested, outside Ukraine, in the politicians of the most militant states towards Russia, i.e. Poland and the Baltic republics.
The country's membership of the cultural community plays an crucial function in the process of building a unchangeable peace. The common perception of this belonging is simply a social and pictorial construct. It can undoubtedly be the consequence of certain political projects. However, it is not known how much time it takes and what conditions must be met in order to see Poland as "its" and compatible country in terms of political practices and symbols. So far, despite many declarations and demonstrations of pro-Western affiliations, Poland and Poles are actually closer in cultural and intellectual terms to the community with Ukraine.
Poland – disaster sponsor
Since the beginning of the systemic transformation, Poland has been the easiest to make a communicative about "common heritage" and "strategic partnership" with Ukraine. However, this choice did not lead to safety against the war. On the contrary, Ukraine fell victim to its own antinomies and perfidious game between Western powers and Russia. As a result, Poland became 1 of the most crucial sponsors of this catastrophe at its own request. Since the large political and material commitment and the costly burden on his own society in the long run are causing his opposition, the chances of creating a sustainable cultural community and identity of interests are slim. It is adequate that there should be a change in the political orientation of the authorities in Kiev (which can never be ruled out in the context of the crisis), as well as the retreat of the West, including the European Union from the confrontation with Russia, then the Polish-Ukrainian community and cooperation will be threatened. It is crucial to pray that the 2 states that declare sharing common heritage and fate, not to mention the demonstrated "identity" of interests, do not become fierce rivals or even enemies in the future.
The adoption of many Ukrainian and Russian-speaking diaspora in Poland, due to ethnic, linguistic and spiritual relations, is conducive to the creation and consolidation of a community with Ukraine against Russia. The traumatic war experiences of Ukrainians combined with Polish rusophobia reenforce a negative communicative based on permanent hostility towards Russia. However, there is an impression that Ukrainians do not give Poles reciprocity in terms of respect and support. Historical experience teaches that communities based on negative values, given that the Polish-Ukrainian heritage is burdened with memory of injustice and injustice, have no chance of surviving. Sooner or later, there will be reasons in public that undermine common loyalty and the declared convergence of interests.
Therefore, in order to build peaceful safeguards against Russia, Polish governments must be aware of the instability of the Polish-Ukrainian community. Options are needed, based on normalisation of relations with Russia itself. Although this seems impossible in the current state of head of Polish politicians, it is worth reminding them of the existing fact in the field of safety sciences, that a state governed by the "smart" leaders must have an alternate plan to warrant unchangeable peace, counting besides on the return of the West, especially the United States as our most crucial ally, to standardized relations with Russia.
Not all is lost
The old art of diplomacy teaches that making contact with an opponent is not a concession. It is an component of peace-making mechanisms, demonstrating political prudence and the ability to anticipate future states. It's besides proof of strength, not weakness. Long-term rivalry and hostility do not gotta end with complete isolation, nor do they gotta detonate aggressive actions against each other. Due to the vast wealth of good and bad experiences between Poland and Russia, as well as the inactive present possible of a certain sympathy and understanding, skillful diplomacy, not necessarily authoritative and public, can lead to a breach of bureaucratic and media resistance. Enemies don't gotta become friends right away, but they can make adequate grounds for common acceptance and beginning up diplomatic communication channels. The political will of the rulers is always a derivative of their courage and foresight, and signals about the ability and willingness to agree model public opinion towards overestimation of the present tenacity.
Learning about global relations for at least a 100 years has been seeking to discover mechanisms and conditions enabling states to free themselves from the imperatives of geopolitical rivalry. Historical experience teaches that there are no determinisms that would condemn participants of global relations to permanent wars. The same is actual of the deficiency of lasting conditions for the "everlasting" peace. The basic issue is knowing the dialectical process of intertwining peace and war in the cyclical course of history. Consequently, it is about grasping the pattern erstwhile even fierce enemies transform into friends and vice versa. Since each historical case takes place in circumstantial and exceptional circumstances, it is highly hard to formulate 1 coherent “interpretation theory” that would aid to unravel the hidden motives of the states, especially their governments and all the “secret” players operating from hiding.
After many signs, we are at an early phase of establishing lasting peace, though the leaders of America, seeking to keep a hegemonic position, deficiency the consequences. Surprisingly, however, Donald Trump in his chaotic procedures proves to be effective and causative. By wishing to exchange costly concessions and unambiguous adaptations, the main accomplishment of a return to dialog is to pave the way for common designation as good intentions. The suspicion that both the realists and liberals consider an obstacle to making a return from confrontation to cooperation inactive exists, but the tediously woven common trust between Trump, Xi and Putin minimises the hazard of retreating from the chosen path. strategical uncertainty will long stay in global relations, but will become irrelevant erstwhile a unchangeable peace begins to be treated as something obvious.
Prof. Stanisław Bielen
Think Poland, No. 21-22 (24-31.05.2026)
