TITLE PAGE

THE ROLE OF DIPLOMACY IN RESOLVING VIOLENT CONFLICTS:

A CASE STUDY OF RUSSIA-UKRAINE CONFLICT

BY

VODAH CHARITY MADUABUCHI

P21DLPS80460

A PROJECTED SUBMITTED TO THE SCHOOL OF POSTGRADUATE

STUDIES, AHMADU BELLO UNIVERSITY, ZARIA
IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
AWARD OF MASTERS OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS AND
DIPLOMACY (MIAD) IN THE DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL
SCIENCE AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES, FACULTY OF SOCIAL
SCIENCES, AHMADU BELLO UNIVERSITY, ZARIA NIGERIA

SEPTEMBER, 2023
 TITLE PAGE

THE ROLE OF DIPLOMACY IN RESOLVING VIOLENT CONFLICTS:

A CASE STUDY OF RUSSIA-UKRAINE CONFLICT

BY

VODAH CHARITY MADUABUCHI

P21DLPS80460

A PROJECTED SUBMITTED TO THE SCHOOL OF POSTGRADUATE

STUDIES, AHMADU BELLO UNIVERSITY, ZARIA
IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
AWARD OF MASTERS OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS AND
DIPLOMACY (MIAD) IN THE DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL
SCIENCE AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES, FACULTY OF SOCIAL
SCIENCES, AHMADU BELLO UNIVERSITY, ZARIA NIGERIA

SEPTEMBER, 2023
 DECLARATION
I, VODAH CHARITY MADUABUCHI hereby declare that this project
entitled “THE ROLE OF DIPLOMACY IN RESOLVING VIOLENT
CONFLICTS: A CASE STUDY OF RUSSIA-UKRAINE CONFLICT” has
been carried out by me under the supervision of Mr Abdul Ahmadu. All the
information in the literature has duly been acknowledged in the text and a list of
references provided. However, to the best of my knowledge, no part of this
project was previously presented for another degree at this or any other
institutions of higher learning.

___________________ ____________
_________
Name of Student Signature
Date
 CERTIFICATION

This project entitled “THE ROLE OF DIPLOMACY IN RESOLVING

VIOLENT CONFLICTS: A CASE STUDY OF RUSSIA-UKRAINE
CONFLICT” by VODAH CHARITY MADUABUCHI, meets the regulations
governing the award of degree Masters of International Affairs and Diplomacy
(MIAD) of the Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria and is approved for its
contribution to knowledge and literary presentation.

________________________ _______________
Supervisor Signature
Date

________________________ _______________
Programme Coordinator Signature
Date

________________________ _____________
Director Distance Learning Centre Signature
Date

_______________________ _______________
Prof. Sani Abdullahi Signature
Date
Dean, School of Postgraduate Studies
 DEDICATION
This project work is dedicated to my husband Mr Kevin Vodah and my three
children Ezekiel A. Vodah, Raphael S. Vodah and Priscilla C. Vodah.
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my gratitude to all the people who helped me to
successfully complete my project and master program.

Firstly, I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude ABU Zaria for giving me
such a wonderful opportunity to create a project and gain knowledge about this
topic.

Secondly, I would like to thank my project supervisor Mr Abdul Ahmadu for

giving me his wonderful support and motivation to complete the project
successfully.

Thirdly, I would like to say a big thank you to Mrs Asueleme for her financial
support, advice and encouragement throughout my master program.

Lastly, I would like to thank my parents Mr and Mrs Joel Maduabuchi, siblings
(Victoria, Samuel, Joshua and Daniel), My Head teacher Ms Jane Luxmoore,
My colleague Mr Moses and my children’s nanny Mrs Mary Lawal.
 ABSTRACT

Diplomacy is the art of negotiation and peaceful settlement of disputes between

two or more parties. It has been used throughout history to resolve conflicts,
both large and small. In the case of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, diplomacy has
played a key role in trying to prevent the conflict from escalating into a wider
war.

The conflict began in 2014, when Russia annexed the Crimean Peninsula from
Ukraine. Since then, there has been fighting in eastern Ukraine between
Ukrainian government forces and Russian-backed separatists. The conflict has
caused thousands of deaths and displaced millions of people.

Despite the ongoing violence, there have been some diplomatic successes in
trying to resolve the conflict. In 2015, the Minsk Agreements were signed by
Russia, Ukraine, France, and Germany. The agreements called for a ceasefire
and a withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukraine. However, the agreements
have not been fully implemented, and the fighting continues.

In recent months, there have been renewed efforts to find a diplomatic solution
to the conflict. In January 2023, the United States and Russia held a summit in
Geneva, Switzerland. The summit was unsuccessful in reaching a breakthrough,
but it did pave the way for further negotiations.

The role of diplomacy in resolving the Russia-Ukraine conflict is complex and

challenging. However, it is clear that diplomacy is essential to finding a
peaceful solution to the conflict.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE
Title page ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
Declaration -------------------------------------------------------------------- 2
Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------- 3
Dedication --------------------------------------------------------------------- 4
Acknowledgement ----------------------------------------------------------- 5
Abstract ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 6
Table of contents ------------------------------------------------------------- 7
CHAPTER ONE
Introduction.
1.1 Background to the Study.
1.2 Background to the Study
1.3 Statement of the Problem
1.4 objective of the study
1.5 Research Questions.
1.6 Research Hypothesis
1.7 Scope of the Study.
1.8 Organisation of the Study
1.9 Definition of Terms.
CHAPTER TWO
Literature Review
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Diplomacy
2.1.1 Conflict Management
2.1.2 Diplomacy and Conflict Management
2.2 Historical Analysis of the Crimean War (1853-1856)
2.2.1 The Ukraine’s Orange Revolution.
2.3 Theoretical Framework
2.3.1 Structural conflict Theory
2.3.2 Realists Theory
2.3.3 Psych-cultural Conflict Theory

CHAPTER THREE
Research Methodology
3.0 Introduction
 3.1 Research design
3.2 Method of Data Collection
3.3 Data Analysis
3.4 Ethical Considerations
3.5 Limitations

CHAPTER FOUR
Background of the Ukraine-Russia crisis
4.0 Introduction
4.1 Russia’s Perspective
4.1.1 Russia's Historical Experiences
4.1.2. Security Concerns

4.1.3. Strategic Interests

4.2. Review of United States of America’s Role in the Ukraine-Russia Crisis

4.2.1. President Joe Biden’s Administration and the Russia-Ukraine Crisis
4.3. International Community’s Response to the Russia-Ukraine Crisis

4.4. Analysis of Diplomatic Negotiations

4.4.1. The Minsk II Agreement
4.4.2. Normandy Format Talks
4.4.3. The Trilateral Contact Group

CHAPTER FIVE
Summary, Conclusion and Recommendation
5.0 Introduction
5.1 Summary
5.2 Conclusion
5.3 Recommendation
5.4 References
 CHAPTER ONE
GENERAL INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to the study

Diplomacy, a word derived from the Greek word “diploma” which is an

official document emanating from princes; a diploma is understood to be a
document by which a privilege is conferred. Some scholars have argued that
the origin of diplomacy is hard to trace. According to them, the major
subject of concern in the field of diplomacy has been its practice, rather than
its origins (Der Deriam, 1987:2). Diplomacy as predicating the art of
representation and representation is as old as human society itself. Nicolson
(1969:6) argues that even in pre- history there must have come moments
when one group of savages wished to negotiate with another group of
savages, if only for the purpose of indicating, that they had had enough of
the day‟s battle and would like a pause in which to collect their wounded,
and to bury their dead. The fact that these savages did not spend all their
time fighting, in Nicolson‟s view, is diplomacy. The nature and the nearness
to one another of the numerous Greek city/states encouraged the
development of inter-state relations. The political and commercial relations
among the states gave rise to the cause of the states they represented in the
popular assemblies of the other city-states. These intermediaries or
„pourpaleurs‟ as they were called had to be orators and they enjoyed certain
privileges and immunities such as the inviolability of their person.
Diplomacy in the era of the Greeks was far from perfect. Ambassadors were
appointed on an ad-hoc basis and for specific purpose. This led to the
appointment of many ambassadors from a state to another at the same time.
The contributions of the Romans, to the development of diplomacy were
more in theory, in the realm of international law, than in practice. Their
determination to impose “Pax Romana” on the world meant the ascendancy
of force over diplomacy. In spite of this, however, the idea of appointing
people with very high status started with them. Renaissance diplomacy was
introduced which increased the functions of ambassadors. They were no
longer political emissaries but also commercial agents. They needed to
gather general information relating to the political, social and economic
activities of the state to which they were accredited. Renaissance diplomacy
suffered serious shortcomings. There was no agreed order of precedence,
either in presenting credentials or in signing treaties, and each of these
activities often led to unseemly wrangles, sometimes resulting into physical
combat. Besides, it was noted for its immorality. Ambassadors were not paid
well, yet they had to cater for their staff. They often had to resort into
bribery, pinching and converting funds into their own pockets. After the
congress of Vietnam in 1815 the array of the shortcomings of Renaissance
diplomacy were removed. The Regalement of 19 March, 1815 and the
subsequent regulation of the congress of Aix-la-Chapelle settled the issue of
precedence and the hierarchy of diplomatic representation. Precedence was
no longer based on the prestige and status of an ambassador’s sovereign but
on the priority of the ambassador’s appointment. (Olusola Ojo, Amadu
Sesay,1988:203). However, ancient Greece and Roman history and literature
are replete with records and references to “diplomatic” activities. The
growing interdependence of states as well as the two World Wars have
shaped and continue to affect the development of diplomacy. The common
features of diplomacy in the contemporary system includes; “open”,
“parliamentary” and “multilateral diplomacy”. Open diplomacy means the
negotiations and discussions carried out in handling affairs without arousing
hostility. It is usually carried on with free access to interested observers and
members of the press. It refers to the art and practice of conducting
negotiations between nations.
Multilateral diplomacy can be defined as the practice of involving more than
two nations or parties in achieving diplomatic situations to supranational
problems (Kishore Mahbubani, 2013). Multilateral diplomacy also known as
“conference diplomacy” involves relations between more than two states.
Within the European system of states, there were multilateral conferences
related to peace settlement or congress in the 17th century. Multilateral
diplomacy began in its modern form in the early 19th century, following the
end of the Napoleonic wars, congress of Vienna in 1815. Multilateral
diplomacy blossomed in the 20th century because they were essential to the
conducts of negotiation when states became too numerous. Multilateral
diplomacy brings together all the parties whose agreement is necessary.
Multilateral diplomacy also holds its popularity to the fact that conferences
in the European system of that time were essentially conferences of the great
powers. It was a device for identifying and advertising membership of the
great power club, but small states were also allowed to attend if their vital
interests were concerned but they were usually condemned to margins.
Conference diplomacy also became popular because it also gives impetus to
bilateral diplomacy in two ways (Tunji, 2014). Hence, a multilateral
conference can provide opportunities for participants to discuss matters
outside the formal agenda. For example: (a) A conference at the UN is an
opportunity for states to hold bilateral talk (b) Powerful mediators can hold a
multilateral conference to kick-start under “discreet cover” a series of
essentially bilateral negotiations. The types of multilateral diplomacy
include: plurilateral diplomacy, para-diplomacy, parliamentary diplomacy,
conference diplomacy, and associative diplomacy to mention but a few. In
conclusion, multilateral diplomacy is challenging and often
underappreciated. The dynamics are often more complex because one is
dealing with multiple players. Following from the forgoing, in contemporary
times, the machinery of diplomacy is made up of two components. First,
there is the home government ministry called various names in various
countries. In Nigeria, it is called the Ministry of Foreign affairs‟, in Britain,
it is called the Foreign Office, and in the United States, it is called the
Department of State. The second is the numerous diplomatic missions
abroad, the embassies and the high commissions and consulates. The
diplomatic mission which is the centre of all diplomatic activity is headed by
an Ambassador which is the eyes, ears and mouth of the ministry of external
affairs. Hence, the functions of diplomats can be divided into four broad
categories: negotiation, representation, reporting and protection of national
interest and subjects. A good diplomat is sported with the following
qualities: Specialist knowledge, professional skills and Personal qualities
(Tunji, 2014). On the other hand, the term conflict in international relations
generally refers to armed conflict (Goldstein and Pevehouse, 2010:157).
Conflict is the universal framework of the society. Its origin is derived from:
economic differentiation, social change, cultural formation, psychological
development and political organization. Conflicts are dynamic as they
escalate and de-escalate and are constituted by a complex interplay of
attitudes and behaviors that can assume a reality of their own. Conflicts have
been variously defined in relations to fights, games and To some people,
conflict has been used to refer both to „consensual‟ conflicts over interests
(disputants want the same thing) and to „dissension‟ conflict over values
(disputants do not want the same thing) (Aubert, 1963 In Oliver et al, 2012:
9); others however have called the former „disputes‟ that require settlement
and have reserved the term conflict for deeper struggles over unsatisfied
human needs that require resolution (Burton, 1990a in Oliver Ramsbotham,
Tom Woodhouse, Hugh Miall 2012: 9). Conflict is defined as an
irreconcilable contention between two or more parties such as political
ideologies, religious differences ethnic and social differences. Likewise,
conflict management is the effective ways to deal with conflict,
peacemaking, negotiation skills and all aspects of influential communication.
Conflict resolution started in the 1950s and 1960s. This was at the height of
the Cold War, when the development of nuclear weapons and the conflict
between the superpowers seemed to threaten human survival (Oliver et al
2012: 4). In 1980, conflict resolution ideas were increasingly making a
difference in real conflicts. Examples of countries where conflict resolutions
ideas were making a difference as at 1980 include South Africa, Middle East
and Northern Ireland. As a result of this development, war-torn regions of
Africa and South-East Asia, development workers and humanitarian
agencies were seeing the need to take account of conflict resolution as an
integral part of their activities. (oliver Ramsbotham, Tom woodhouse, Hugh
Miall 2012: 4) Conflict management is the process of limiting the negative
aspects of conflict while increasing the positive aspects of conflict. The aim
of conflict management is to enhance learning and group outcomes,
including effectiveness or performance in organizational setting (Ra him
2002: 208 [Link] retrieved January 3rd, 2015). The inevitability
of conflict whose history can be traced to the beginning of mankind/creation
has shaped us into what we are and who we are today. Conflict also has it
basis from the disparity between social classes: the “haves” and the “have-
nots.” It is however, universally admitted that despite the shortcomings of
diplomacy and its methods, it has been historically proven that no other firm
basis for the settlement of differences has so far been invented to replace
diplomacy. Wars, blockades, and other methods of coercion like sanctions
employed at times, have proved to lead to dead ends that diplomats are once
again called to solve. In the field of „Peace and conflict resolution ”
diplomacy in relation to conflict management can be likened to the concept
of “Nonviolence Resistance” It is considered to be the art of the feasible,
because it embodies the elements of understanding, convention and
compromise which are the only elements normally leading to the finding of
solutions and ensure for people the much desired peace, via the conjunction
of common interests and away from inopportune publicity an chauvinistic
loud tones and rivalries that surely lead to conflicts, particularly in areas
characterized by the lack of balance in the post-bipolar era. Since the end of
the Cold War the international community through international institutions
has been focusing on preventive diplomacy whose action is to prevent
disputes from arising between parties, to prevent existing disputes from
escalating into conflicts and to limit the spread of the latter when they occur.
By and large, the concepts of Diplomacy and conflict management are
inseparable and interrelated concepts. In the context of this project,
Diplomacy shall be critically examined broadly in conflict management and
specifically in the Russia and Ukraine crisis.

1.2 BACKGROUND OF THE RUSSIA-UKRAINE CRISIS

The Russia-Ukraine crisis over Crimea has its basis to the aftermath of the
orange revolution. The crisis is an international crisis majorly involving
Russia and Ukraine over the Crimea. Crimea peninsula was never
historically a part of Ukraine; its population was Tatar. It was invaded and
annexed by Russia in 18th century. In 1940-s, the Soviets expelled all Tatar
population from Crimea, only after collapse of Soviet Union they were
permitted to return. Crimea was administratively joined with Ukraine only in
the second half of 20th century. Most of the non-Tatar population is Russian.
Crimean Peninsula is controlled by the Russian Federation, a status which is
not recognized by the United Nations. Crimea is populated by an ethnic
Russian majority and a minority of both ethnic Ukrainians and Crimean
Tatars. Prior to the crisis, Crimea comprised Ukraine's Autonomous
Republic of Crimea and the administratively separate municipality of
Sevastopol. The Russian Federation has organized them as the Crimean
Federal District. The crisis unfolded in the aftermath of the Ukrainian
Revolution. On 21 February 2014 President Viktor Yanukovych of Ukraine
fled Kiev, the capital. The Ukrainian parliament deposed him the next day,
and the next week appointed an interim President (Arseniy Yatsenyuk), and
formed an interim government which was recognized by the United States
and the European union. Beginning on February 26, pro-Russian forces
began to gradually take control of the Crimean Peninsula. While troops
occupied or guarded Crimea's parliament building, the Crimean parliament
voted to dismiss the Crimean government, replace its Prime Minister, and
call a referendum on Crimea's autonomy. A referendum on whether to join
Russia had an official turnout of 83% and resulted in a 96.77% (Crimea) and
95.6% (Sevastopol) affirmative vote, but was condemned by the EU, the US,
Ukrainian and some Crimean Tatar officials as violating Ukraine's
constitution and international law. On March 17, the Crimean Parliament
declared independence from Ukraine and asked to join the Russian
Federation. On March 18 Russia and Crimea signed a treaty of accession of
the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol into the Russian Federation. On
March 27, the UN General Assembly passed a non-binding Resolution
68/262 that declared the Crimean referendum invalid and the incorporation
of Crimea into Russia illegal. On April 15, the Ukrainian parliament
declared Crimea as a territory temporarily occupied by Russia. Russia, trying
to salvage its lost influence in Ukraine, invaded and annexed Crimea. In
April 2014, pro-Russia separatist rebels began seizing territory in eastern
Ukraine. The rebels shot down Malaysian Airlines flight 17 on July 17,
killing 298 people, probably accidentally. Fighting between the rebels and
the Ukrainian military intensified, the rebels started losing, and, in August,
the Russian army overtly invaded eastern Ukraine to support the rebels. This
has all brought the relationship between Russia and the West to its lowest
point since the Cold War. Sanctions are pushing the Russian economy to the
brink of recession, and more than 2,500 Ukrainians have been killed
(Kendall 2014 [Link] Retrieved 5th January, 2015).
Diplomacy is central in every conflict management and prevention situation
and thus every effort geared towards managing and preventing the Russia
and Ukraine crisis is an act of diplomacy. The anarchical nature of the
international system makes states prone to conflict and when conflict arises,
they result to peaceful means of resolving such conflict. Diplomacy, the
major tool for resolving conflict is considered to have failed when states
result into war to resolve their differences. Several diplomatic measures have
been made in ensuring that the Russia and Ukraine crisis does not escalate,
to curb the excesses of Russia and its president (Vladimir Putin) as well as to
reverse specific actions that will escalate the crisis. In the Russia and
Ukraine crisis, there are five stakeholders and prominent diplomats. They
are: Russia, Ukraine, The United Nations, the European Union and the
United states. These diplomats have contributed immensely in conflict
management in Russia and Ukraine crisis. Examples of diplomatic measures
in managing the Russia and Ukraine crisis include: The March 24th, 2014
G7 meeting in Brussels, instead of a cancelled summit in Russia as a blow to
Russian president Vladimir Putin ([Link] Retrieved 5th January,
2015). Restrictive measures include: asset freezes and visa bans, economic
and diplomatic sanctions imposed on Russia by the United states and
European Union, the June 6th G7 meeting in Brussels; the first meeting
without Russia in 17years as world leader condemn Putin‟s actions
([Link] Retrieved 5th January, 2015). The United States and
UK pile pressure on Russia President, Barrack Obama‟s phone call to
president Vladimir Putin over the Russia and Ukraine crisis, the G7 submit
in Hague on march 24th, 2014 where the G7 leaders talk about what extra
sanctions they can take in response to Russia on the seizure of a Ukrainian
airbase on the peninsula ([Link] Retrieved 3rd January, 2015).
The EU-Russia summit was cancelled and EU member states decided not to
hold regular bilateral summits. Bilateral talks with Russia on visa matters as
well as on the New Agreement between the EU and Russia were suspended,
17 March 2014 the EU imposed the first travel bans and asset freezes against
Russian and Ukrainian officials following Russia’s illegal annexation of
Crimea.

1.3 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The anarchical structure of the world, the struggle for power within the
international system and most especially, the inherent evil within man is the
basis of conflict. In this vein, the concept of diplomacy cannot be left un-
emphasized. The world today is surrounded by various violent conflicts
namely; The Russia-Ukraine crisis, the Syrian war, the Turkey conflict,
Israeli-Palestinian war, Israeli-Gaza crisis, to mention but a few. Most
conflicting parties result into violence means of conflict resolution which is
the root cause of the disrupted international peace today. Most diplomats of a
country are non-career diplomats with little or no experience in the field of
diplomacy; hence the result is failed diplomacy Diplomacy as an important
approach in conflict resolution has been employed by various conflicting
individuals, communities as well as nations states/countries and have
achieved maximum result. They include: late Norwegian minister of foreign
affairs: “Johan Jorgen Holst”, Nelson Mandela, and Kofi Anan amongst
many others. A lot of research has been carried out on diplomacy as an
important tool for conflict management but most of these researches have
not really described the importance of diplomacy and also they have failed to
look at the various ways in which diplomacy is carried out. Therefore, this
work considers it important to undertake howbeit compendiously, a
historical excursion into the art and practice of diplomacy globally. This it is
hoped will shed light into our understanding of diplomacy as practiced by
states within the international system. This project will enlighten the reader
on the efficacy of diplomats as well as diplomacy in conflict management
and various ways in which diplomacy can be effected.

1.4 OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

Amongst the various means of conflict management tools in both

contemporary and anachronous times, this project’s main objective is to
examine the roles of diplomacy in resolving violent conflicts. The specific
objectives of the study are;

i) To examine the historical relevance of diplomacy in conflict management

and prevention;

ii)To identify the roles and significance of diplomats in the Russia-Ukraine

crisis; and

iii)To assess the effects and impacts of diplomacy in the Russia-Ukraine

crisis.

1.5 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The following research questions are derived from the research objectives of
this study.
 i) To what extent has diplomacy served as an effective tool in conflict
management and prevention?

ii) What specific roles did diplomats play in managing Russia-Ukraine

crisis?

iii)How effective was diplomacy in managing the Russia-Ukraine crisis?

1.6 RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS

 Diplomacy is an effective means of preventing and managing conflict

 Diplomacy is necessary in redressing power conflict

 Diplomacy is an important tool in realizing peace and stability in the

society

 The role of diplomacy is underrated and underestimated within the

international system.

 No other firm basis for the settlement of conflict has so far been
invented to replace diplomacy.

1.7 SCOPE OF THE STUDY

This work analyzes diplomacy as a mechanism for easing hostility,
diffusing, preventing and managing conflict amongst states within the
international system. This study majorly gives a compact assessment on the
Russia and Ukraine crisis that unfolded in the aftermath of the Ukrainian
Revolution on 21February2014.

1.8 ORGANISATION OF STUDY

This research work is divided into five different chapters. The first chapter
discusses the following: Background to the study, statement of the problem,
the objective of the study, hypothesis, research questions and operational
definition the of term. Furthermore, the scope of the study the limitations
are also discussed. The second chapter of this project work is concentrated
on conceptual clarification and theoretical framework with the aim of
providing fundamental and historical background to the study of the roles
of diplomacy in conflict management and prevention. The third chapter of
this research takes cognizance of the research methodology, research
design, research population, sample and sampling technique(s), research
instrument(s) validity, and reliability of instrument(s). Validity and
reliability of instruments, data collection technique, and finally the data
analysis technique(s) that will be employed in the research on its part,
Chapter four discusses analysis and assessment of data collected. In
conclusion, the fifth chapter, being the last chapter of this project contains
the summary, research findings and conclusion of research work as well as
recommendations on how the problems mentioned can be solved.

1.9 DEFINITION OF TERMS

a) DIPLOMACY
Diplomacy is a political process under which political entities states are
interconnected with official relations in the framework of the international
environment ([Link] 1990 [Link] Retrieved 5th January,
2015). Diplomacy is the business of making agreements, treaties and
negotiation between countries. It is the business of looking after the affairs
of one‟s country in a foreign country. Simply put, diplomacy is the use of
tact, skills and intelligence in dealing with people.

b) CONFLICT
Conflict has been used to refer both to „consensual‟ conflicts over interests
(disputants want the same thing) and to „dissension‟ conflict over values
(disputants do not want the same thing) (Aubert, 1963 In Oliver
Ramsbotham, Tom Woodhouse, Hugh Miall 2012: 9); others however have
called the former „disputes‟ that require settlement and have reserved the
term conflict for deeper struggles over unsatisfied human needs that require
resolution (Burton, 1990a in Oliver Ramsbotham, Tom Woodhouse, Hugh
Miall 2012: 9) An emotional or mental disturbance resulting from the
opposition or simultaneous functioning of mutually exclusive impulses,
desires, or tendencies([Link]). Conflict is defined as an
irreconcilable contention between two or more parties such as political
ideologies, religious differences ethnic and social differences. Conflict
occurs between two or more people who disagree on an issue that threatens
their respective goals, values or needs. Conflict can take many different
forms. They include: Structural, data, values, relationship and interest.

c) NON-VIOLENCE
Nonviolence is usually defined in opposition to physical violence. Physical
violence is “the use of physical force against another‟s body, against that
person‟s will, and that is expected to inflict physical injury or death upon
that person” Bond (1994) Thus nonviolence is a direct substitute of violent
behavior; it implies deliberate restraint from expected violence, in a context
of contention between two or more adversaries. Nonviolence is a
philosophy and strategy for social change that rejects the use of physical
violence.

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0 INTRODUCTION

This chapter contains clarification of key concepts of the research,

theoretical framework upon which the research is conducted and review of
some existing literatures on the subject of the research.

2.1 DIPLOMACY
According to Harold (1939, in Geoffrey 2010:4), diplomacy is the
management of international relations by negotiations; the method by
which these relations are adjusted by ambassadors and envoys; the business
or art of the diplomatist. Harold‟s definition of diplomacy concedes a wider
range of diplomatic processes other than only negotiations, as well as the
roles and duties of the practitioners: the ambassadors, envoys and other
professional diplomats. As defined above, Harold basically sheds light on
the role of professional diplomats in the field of international relations.
Olusola and Sessay (2011:202) defined diplomacy as the methods through
which a nation state conducts its business with the other actors in the
international system. They further explained their definition of diplomacy
as not been synonymous with foreign policy as well as more than the art of
negotiation. In Olusola and Sessay‟s definition of diplomacy, diplomacy is
further explained as the tool which a state uses in its relations with actors
within the international system.

According to Oladele (2003:725) diplomacy is defined as a new device by

primitive society in response to the environmental stimuli created by the
exigencies of interminable conflicts, and his desires for survival and peace;
the application of this new device in situations of war and peace in order to
minimize the horrors of the former and to maximize the benefits of the
latter. This definition of diplomacy is further explained thus: the further
application of the diplomatic device in more recent times to the
management of international relations, in the hope that it could put an end
to wars; the success and failures of failures of failures of efforts in this
regard, particularly with the emergence of multilateralism in international
affairs. Oladele (2003) refers to diplomacy as a tool which can indicate a
track record, in the task of working for world peace and stability, that no
other tool thus far devise by man can. Furthermore, Oladele (2003) states
that, the maintenance of international peace and security has over time
become so inextricably identified with the diplomats‟ role that the world
cannot now imagine the survival of the former without the latter, and
diplomacy has perhaps forever assumed the role of an indispensable factor
in the equation of peace and security in the world. This definition of
diplomacy suites my research so it is adopted.
2.1.1 CONFLICT MANAGEMENT

Akpuru-Aja (2007:35) defines conflict management as a process that spans

the full spectrum of early warning system, peace education, conflict
avoidance or conflict prevention by peacemaking, peace keeping, peace
enforcement and post-conflict confidence building measures. He further
explains that conflict management is wholly interventionist and as a
process, it has an advantage over the legal approach per se. Akpuru-Aja
(2007:34) distinguishes between conflict management and conflict
resolution which are often treated synonymously. Conflict resolution
represents a theoretical design, while conflict management represents the
operational and implementation mechanism and process.

According to David (1998:1) conflict management is defined as perceived

incompatibilities resulting typically from some form of interference or
opposition. Conflict management, then, is the employment of strategies to
correct these perceived difference in a particular manner. David 1998
further says that conflict may actually be either functional or dysfunctional.
Whereas dysfunctional conflict is destructive and leads to decreased
productivity, functional conflict may actually encourage greater work effort
and help task performance. He critically examines the evolution of conflict,
whereby several factors may create organizational conflict.

2.1.2 DIPLOMACY AND CONFLICT MANAGEMENT

Scholars of the classical approach to diplomatic studies have regarded the

mediation of estrangement between nation-states that can lead to violent
conflict as the most central and most important of diplomatic tasks. The
diplomatic needs that were identified during and immediately after the
Second World War and the process and practices that were devised to meet
those needs appeared to make the classical diplomacy scholars‟ case. The
ability to mediate, manage and resolve conflict through communication and
negotiation has been key to the survival of polities since the dawn of
civilization, but what changed after the nuclear strikes on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki in August 1945 was the relative significance of the consequences
of failure to achieve the needed diplomatic mediation (Pigman 2010:161).
Over the last two centuries, there has been a drastic change in diplomacy
compared to the proceeding period. Diplomats have sought to
institutionalize the diplomatic mechanism for presentation and
communication in a new and more formal way in order to facilitate regular
consultation, mediation and, when required, negotiation to avoid or resolve
conflict. By the end of the Second World War, the nineteenth-century
Concert of Europe security system that developed following the congress of
Vienna in 1815, and its successor, the League of Nations, created in the
Versailles Treaty in 1919 after the Great War (the First World War), could
not be credited with having prevented the two largest wars in human
history. Yet governments continued to believe that the development of
institutions to facilitate security diplomacy had played a positive role in
avoiding even more frequent and destructive conflict. Hence they set about
negotiating the creation of the multilateral institutional structure for security
diplomacy that prevails today, in which the united Nations Security Council
occupies a central role, and in which regional collective security bodies
such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the organization
for security and cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the commonwealth of
independent States‟ Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) are
also prominent (Pigman 2010:161).

2.2 HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF THE CRIMEAN WAR (1853-1856)

The Crimean War, also known in Russian historiography as the Eastern
War of 1853–1856 (October 1853 – February 1856), was a conflict in
which Russia lost to an alliance of France, Britain, the Ottoman Empire,
and Sardinia. The immediate cause involved the rights of Christian
minorities in the Holy Land, which was controlled by the Ottoman Empire.
The French promoted the rights of Catholics, while Russia promoted those
of the Orthodox Christians. The longer-term causes involved the decline of
the Ottoman Empire, and the unwillingness of Britain and France to allow
Russia to gain territory and power at Ottoman expense. Russia lost the war
and the Ottomans gained a twenty-year respite from Russian pressure. The
Christians were granted a degree of official equality and the Orthodox
gained control of the Christian churches in dispute (Orlando 2012 in
[Link] retrieved 15th April, 2015).
The Ottoman Empire declared war on Russia in October 1853 and suffered
a major defeat that gave Russia control of the Black Sea. The Russian threat
to the Ottoman Empire required control of the Black Sea, and the key was
the Russian naval base at Sevastopol, on the Crimean Peninsula. The allies
realized that, if they captured Sevastopol, they would control the Black Sea
and win the war. During most of the fighting in the Black Sea, a large
French army and a smaller British army fought to capture Sevastopol.
Death from disease was very high on both sides. After Sevastopol fell, the
neutrals started aligning with the allies. Isolated and facing a bleak prospect
if the war continued, Russia made peace in March 1856. The original
superficial religious issues had already been resolved. The main results of
the war were that the Black Sea was neutralized and Russia would not have
any warships there and the two states of Wallachia and Moldavia became
largely independent (retrieved 15th April 2015 from [Link] .com)
The war was largely fought in and near Crimea, with smaller campaigns in
eastern Anatolia, Caucasus, the Baltic Sea, the Pacific Ocean and the White
Sea. This war is also known as the "Eastern War". The war had a permanent
impact. Through nationalist movements incited by the war, the present-day
states of Ukraine, Moldova, Bulgaria, Romania, Greece, Turkey,
Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, and regions such as Crimea and the
Caucasus all changed in small or large ways due to this conflict. It also
helped set the backbone of several geopolitical conflicts between the
Western world and Russia and other Eastern world powers, which will
include the 20th century Cold War. The Crimean War was one of the first
conflicts to use modern technologies such as explosive naval shells,
railways and telegraphs. The war was one of the first to be documented
extensively in written reports and photographs. As the legend of the
"Charge of the Light Brigade" demonstrates, the war quickly became an
iconic symbol of logistical, medical and tactical failures and
mismanagement. The reaction in Britain was a demand for
professionalization, most famously achieved by Florence Nightingale, who
gained worldwide attention for pioneering modern nursing while treating
the wounded (Trevor, 2000 [Link]. Retrieved 15th April
2015). The Crimean campaign opened in September 1854 with the landing
of the allied expeditionary force on the sandy beaches of Calamita Bay on
the south west coast of the Crimean Peninsula. Their main strategic goal
was to capture the Russian fortresses at Sevastopol located to the south of
Calamita Bay ([Link]. Retrieved 15th April, 2015). However,
to protect the allies' left flank from attack by the Russians, the allied armies
first moved north and west along the coast of the Peninsula to occupy the
city of Eupatoria. After the crossing of the Alma River on 30 September
1854, the allies moved on to invest Sevastopol. The Russian army retreated
to the interior. Meanwhile at Sevastopol, the allies had surrounded the city
with entrenchments and, in October 1854, unleashed an all-out
bombardment (the first of many) against the city's defenses‟. Winter and a
deteriorating supply situation on both sides, led to a halt in ground
operations. Sevastopol remained invested by the allies, while the allied
armies were hemmed in by the Russian army in the interior. A storm sank
30 Allied transport ships on 14 November in February 1855, the Russians
attacked the allied base at Eupatoria, where an Ottoman army had built up
and was threatening Russian supply routes. The battle saw the Russians
defeated led to a change in command. The strain of directing the war had
taken its toll on the health of Tsar Nicholas. The Tsar, full of remorse for
the disasters he had caused, caught pneumonia and died on 2 March
([Link] .com. Retrieved 15th April, 2015).

2.2.1 THE UKRAINE’S ORANGE REVOLUTION

The Orange Revolution of November/December 2004 set in motion by a

newly assertive Ukrainian society opened a new chapter in Ukrainian
history and led to a tangible change in international politics. Europe and the
rest of the world were challenged to come to terms with the unexpected
demands of a new wave of democratic development, the strongest since the
velvet revolutions of the late 1980s in Central and Eastern Europe and the
collapse of the Soviet Union (Sushko2004:1).
"Razom nas bahato! Nas ne podolaty!" meaning: "Together, we are many!
We cannot be defeated”. The rhythmic chant spread through the crowd of
hundreds of thousands that filled Kiev's Independence Square on the
evening of November 22 emerging from a sea of orange. The mantra
signaled the rise of a powerful civic movement, a skilled political
opposition group, and a determined middle class that had come together to
stop the ruling elite from falsifying an election and hijacking Ukraine's
presidency. Over the next 17 days, through harsh cold and sleet, millions of
Ukrainians staged nationwide nonviolent protests that came to be known as
the "orange revolution." The entire world watched, riveted by this
outpouring of the people's will in a country whose international image had
been warped by its corrupt rulers. By the time victory was announced in the
form of opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko's electoral triumph the orange
revolution had set a major new landmark in the post-communist history of
eastern Europe, a seismic shift Westward in the geopolitics of the region.
Ukraine's revolution was just the latest in a series of victories for "people
power" in Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia in the late 1980s and,
more recently, in Serbia and (Karatnycky 2005:1). The spark that ignited
the popular fire in Ukraine's case was election fraud. Nonpartisan exit polls
during the November 21 presidential runoff election had given Yushchenko
a commanding lead, with 52 percent of the votes, compared to Prime
Minister Viktor Yanukovich's 43 percent. Yet when the official results
came in, Yanukovich, the favorite of Ukraine's corrupt elite, had
supposedly beaten the challenger by 2.5 percent. This tally was
immediately challenged. When the polling stations had first closed, the
Central Election Commission (CEC) had reported that voter turnout in
Ukraine's Russian-speaking eastern districts was consistent with the
nationwide average of 78 to 80 percent. But four hours later, after a
prolonged silence, the election commission radically increased the east's
turnout figures. The eastern Donetsk region--Yanukovich's home base went
from a voter turnout of 78 percent to 96.2 percent overnight, with support
for Yanukovich at around 97 percent. In neighboring Luhansk, turnout
magically climbed from 80 percent at the time the polls closed to 89.5
percent the next morning, with Yanukovich winning 92 percent or more of
the votes. Indeed, in several eastern districts, turnout was as much as 40
percent greater than during the first round of the presidential election three
weeks before. This "miraculous" last-minute upsurge was responsible for
approximately 1.2 million new votes well over 90 percent of which went to
the regime's favorite, giving him enough for a comfortable 800,000-vote
margin of victory. Throughout the Election Day, independent domestic
monitors sounded the alarm about the emerging fraud. Numerous reports
indicated that roving teams of voters, tens of thousands in all, were being
transported in trains and buses from polling station to polling station, each
armed with multiple absentee ballots. If each of these people cast ten
ballots, this voter "carousel" would have padded the final result by at least
half a Million votes. The efforts to steal the election for Yanukovich had
started much earlier, however. For six months, government controlled
national television had subjected Yushchenko to a steady torrent of negative
press and distortions, while refusing him the opportunity to defend himself.
Yushchenko's campaign faced other impediments as well. Sometimes his
plane was denied landing privileges minutes before major rallies. Road
barriers slowed his travel and, once, a truck tried to force his car off the
road. Yushchenko's private security detail discovered that he was being
followed by a state security operative, who was caught with false identity
papers, multiple license plates, and eavesdropping equipment. Then, on
September 6, Yushchenko became gravely ill. His mysterious sickness
forced him from the campaign trail for nearly a month, leaving his body
weakened and his face badly scarred. Later tests revealed that he was
suffering from dioxin poisoning. The opposition cried foul, but the
government-controlled media responded that Yushchenko had contracted
the disease himself, by eating contaminated sushi, getting herpes, or
undergoing Botox treatment to preserve his 50-year-old good looks
(Karatnycky 2005:1). Nongovernmental groups were quick to complain.
"It's the biggest election fraud in Ukraine's history, declared the nonpartisan
Committee of Voters of Ukraine, which had deployed more than 10,000
monitors to observe the runoff. According to the group, 85,000 local
government officials helped perpetrate the fraud, and at least 2.8 million
ballots were rigged in favor of Yanukovich. Claims of massive voter fraud
were also bolstered by an unlikely source, Ukraine's Security Service
(SBU). In the days before and after the runoff vote, a high-ranking SBU
official had kept in regular contact with Oleh Rybachuk, Yushchenko's
chief of staff. SBU operatives had been cooperating with the Yushchenko
camp since the first round of elections, regularly reporting on possible
security threats and dirty tricks. Ukraine's most pressing international
challenge will be to manage the relationship with Vladimir Putin's Russia.
Putin strongly backed Yanukovich, and Russian-led election monitors
attested to his victory in the first runoff. Putin spent four days in the week
before the first-round vote promoting Yanukovich in lengthy press
interviews and public meetings. Kremlin image- makers played a crucial
role in advising and directing the Yanukovich campaign, and the
Yushchenko camp believes Russia spent several hundred million dollars to
help Yanukovich win. Yushchenko's victory is thus a humiliating defeat for
Putin and a setback for Russia's hegemonic inclinations. On the other hand,
Ukraine is eager for U.S. support on a number of fronts. Economically,
Ukraine's leaders hope the United States will declare Ukraine a market
economy and push for the country's quick integration into the World Trade
Organization. Diplomatically, should Russia start flexing its hegemonic
muscles, Ukraine would appreciate Washington's backing. What is more,
quiet lobbying from the United States could only help the Ukrainian aim of
integration into Europe. In particular, Washington could encourage the
United Kingdom and Italy to add their support to those of central Europe's
leaders, who are pressing Ukraine's case for eventual integration
(Karatnycky 2005:1). In conclusion, there are three implications of the
orange revolution on International politics. The first is the so called
„rediscovery‟ of Ukraine by the West after several years of neglect. This
rediscovery may lead to a reshaping of the European political map if
Ukraine‟s transformation is continued through the consistent application of
policy by a new Yushchenko government. The second is the collapse, or at
least a weakening, of Mr. Putin‟s neo- imperial policy toward the New
Independent State (NIS). The third relates to the call for further
democratization in Eastern Europe, which is likely to become a real
challenge for existing autocracies and semi-democratic regimes such as
Belarus, Russia, Moldova, Armenia, and Azerbaijan (Sushko2004:1). The
Orange Revolution in Ukraine has destroyed the myth that events of this
sort are possible only in depressed economies (as in the case of Georgia).
The lack of democracy and rule of law, accompanied by massive electoral
fraud, can bring millions of people onto the streets if they have sufficient
determination to defend their rights. In Ukraine, the newly emerged middle
class proved to be the engine driving the protests in what is a quite stable
and rapidly growing economy. The case of Ukraine has provided a final call
for the post-Soviet elites, who are accustomed to living and governing by
their own rules in the virtual space of Byzantium politics (Sushko2004:6).

2.3 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

The theories of conflict are captured and discussed, and each theory
emphasizes a particular angle of analysis. These theories are not totally
mutually exclusive rather; most of the theories overlap in order to explain
this work critically. The theories are discussed subsequently:

2.3.1. STRUCTURAL CONFLICT THEORY

This theory is similar to transformative theory. It addresses the reactions of
individuals, groups, cultures, institutions and societies to change. It further
sees incompatible interest based on competition for resources, which in
most cases are assumed to be scare, as being responsible for social conflicts
(Collier 2000:2 in Shedrack 2006:41). The structural conflict theory has
two main sub-orientations. The first is the radical structural theory
represented by the Marxist dialectical school with exponents like Marx and
Engels,V.I Lenin to mention but a few. The second is the liberal
structuralism represented by (Ross 1993 in Shedrack 2006; Scarborough
1998 in Shedrack 2006) and the famous work of (Galtung1990 in Shedrack
2006) on structural violence. The main argument of structural conflict
theory is that conflict is built into the particular ways societies are
structured and organized. The theory looks at social problems like political
and economic exclusion, injustice, poverty, diseases, exploitation, and
inequity to mention but a few as sources of conflict (Shedrack 2006:41)

2.3.2. REALISTS THEORY

Realism is a term used in varied disciplines. George Kinan, Hans

Morgenthau, Reinhold Neibabour and Kenneth Waltz in the United States
and E.H Karl in Britain are the emblematic 20th century figures of realism.
Also, Nicollo Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes, Thucydides and Sun Tzu made
the call of realist. It is the oldest and most frequently adopted theory of
international relations; it is regarded as a tradition of analysis that stressed
the imperatives that states face in the pursuit of power politics of their
national interests (Adesanya 2014). Realism emphasized the constraints on
power politics (egoism) and the absence of international government for
example (anarchy) which translates to the primary in all political life of
power and security. Thus, the conjunction of anarchy and Egoism and the
resulting imperatives of power politic form the core of realism. Realist
theory or realism highlights inherency and traces the root of conflict to a
flaw in human nature which is seen to be selfish and engaging in the pursuit
of personalized self-interest defined as power (Shedrack:44). The theory
originates from classical political theory and shares both theological and
biological doctrines about an apparent weakness and individualism inherent
in human nature. Thus the starting point for the explanation of conflict is
the individual level. Realism believes that “competitive process” between
actors, primary defined as states, is the natural expression of conflict by
parties engaged in the pursuit of scare and competitive interests (Deutsch,
1973 in Shedrack 2006:45). In the pursuit of states individual national
interest which most times are tainted with Egoism, countries ensure that
they display some levels of power while announcing their presence. Put
differently, realism is an approach that explains the display of power by
states towards each other, it is sometimes explained as power politics, a
term coined by former German Chancellor “Otto Von Bismark” This theory
greatly justified the militarization of international relations, the arms race,
and helped the emergence of other theories like deterrence theory, balance
of terror, to mention but a few. The theory has been accused of elevating
power and the state to the status of an ideology. Suffice it to say, however,
that realism has had tremendous impact on conflict at the international level
(Shedrack2006:45).

2.3.3. PSYCO-CULTURAL CONFLICT THEORY

Psyco-cultural conflict theory focuses on the impact of cultural induced

conflict. It shows how enmity develops from deep-seated attitudes about
human action that are learned from early stage of growth in the explanation
of conflict (Ross, p.18 in Shedrack 2006:50). It argues that though there are
different forms of identities, the one that is based on people‟s ethnic origin
and the culture that is learned on the basis of that ethnic origin is one of the
most important ways of explaining violent conflict. Irrespective of the
psyco-cultural conflict theorists that ethnicity is the biggest source of
identity-based conflicts; those who hold this view accept that this does not
mean that conflict is inevitable wherever ethnic differences exist (Shedrack
2006:50). Theorist of psyco-cultural conflict believes that social conflict
that persists arises as a result of discrimination of a particular group or
deprivation of basic materials and psychological (non-material) needs on
the basis of identity. Maslow‟s theory of “motivation” (1970) and Burton‟s
human needs theory 1990 in (Shedrack 2006:50), explain this basic needs
as well as describe the process by which an individual or group seeks to
satisfy a range of needs ranging from the basic ones such as food and sex to
the highest needs that they describe as „self- actualization‟-the fulfillment
of one‟s greatest human potential. Theorists of the psyco-cultural theory
gives importance that consider the recognition and protection of identity as
the most important even though there are other equally important needs for
physical security, food, belonging, political and economic empowerment
(Shedrack 2006:50). Actors form beliefs in a subjective way that draws
mainly on the experiences of past interactions with others. The fear that
individuals and groups experience force them to see threats; whether real or
imagined, and to suspect the motive of others around them. This tendency
to see things in a selective way is mostly due to a past history of
competition for scarce resources in which the opposition always comes out
as winners (Shedrack 2006: 50).
 CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.0. Introduction

The research methodology for studying the role of diplomacy in resolving the

Ukraine-Russia crisis would involve employing qualitative research methods.

These methods would be utilized to gather and analyze data from various

sources, including primary and secondary sources, to explore the effectiveness

of diplomatic efforts in addressing violent conflicts.

3.1. Research Design

The research design would be a case study approach, focusing specifically on

the Ukraine-Russia crisis. This approach allows for an in-depth investigation of

a specific event or situation and provides rich contextual information. The case

study design would enable the researcher to examine the role of diplomacy in

resolving the conflict through analyzing various diplomatic efforts and their

outcomes.

3.2 Method of data collection

This research work is evaluative as well as qualitative. The reason for which is

to gain a holistic overview of the context under study, including its logic

arrangement and explicit and implicit rule. Data collection here is majorly on

secondary basis. That is, from published books, existing literatures, articles,

journals, newspaper report, documentaries, research works, and other print

Medias which is generally referred to as “Document Analysis” in relation to

the case study” The nature of this research requires the use of secondary

sources because it is the best and most appropriate method for this work

because the information is more comprehensive and has a deeper insight into

the phenomenon under study.

3.3 Data Analysis

The researcher would use thematic analysis to identify and analyze patterns,

themes, and key concepts emerging from the collected data. This analysis would
involve categorizing and coding the data to draw meaningful insights and

conclusions about the role of diplomacy in addressing the Ukraine-Russia crisis.

3.4 Ethical Considerations

Respecting ethical considerations is vital in research methodology. The

researcher must ensure confidentiality, informed consent, and voluntary

participation of participants during data collection. Moreover, proper citation

and referencing should be followed to avoid plagiarism.

3.5 Limitations
The research may face limitations, such as restricted access to certain

diplomatic documents or biased data obtained from interviews. Additionally,

subjectivity and interpretation biases can occur during data analysis, which

should be carefully addressed and acknowledged. Generalizing the findings

beyond the specific case should be done cautiously due to the unique context of

the Ukraine-Russia crisis.

CHAPTER FOUR
BACKGROUND OF THE UKRAINE-RUSSIA CRISIS

4.0. Introduction

This chapter comprises of an analysis and a review of the background of the

Ukraine-Russia crisis. As we adopt the secondary method of analysis, our role

would involve examining existing data and information related to the topic of

diplomacy in resolving the Russia – Ukraine conflict. Our aim is to gain insights

and draw conclusions based on the available secondary sources.

4.1. Russia’s Perspective

The Russia-Ukraine crisis remains one of the most prominent geopolitical

conflicts in recent years, with deep-rooted historical, political, and economic

implications. Understanding Russia's perspective is crucial in comprehending its

motivations and actions throughout the crisis. Russia's perspective in the

Russia-Ukraine crisis is based on the country's historical experiences, security

concerns, and strategic interests. Understanding Russia's perspective in the

Russia-Ukraine crisis is essential for shedding light on its motivations and

actions throughout the conflict. Historical experiences, security concerns, and

strategic interests provide valuable insights into Russia's decision-making

processes. Acknowledging and addressing these perspectives may contribute to

a more comprehensive approach to resolving the crisis.

4.1.1. Russia's Historical Experiences

To fully grasp Russia's perspective in the Russia-Ukraine crisis, one must

acknowledge the historical context that shaped its mindset. The collapse of the

Soviet Union in 1991 left Russia in a vulnerable state, leading to a perceived

loss of influence over its former territories (Legvold, 2014). This historical

experience instilled a desire to maintain a buffer zone of friendly governments

along its borders, which is an important aspect of Russia's perspective in the

crisis.
The Russia-Ukraine crisis, which began in 2014 and still persists, has been

influenced by various historical experiences that have shaped Russia's actions

and attitudes towards Ukraine. These experiences include the historical ties

between the two countries, the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and Russia's

perception of its own security concerns.

One significant factor is the historical relationship between Russia and Ukraine.

Throughout history, the two countries have shared close cultural, economic, and

political ties. Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire until the 20th century and

remained closely connected during the Soviet era. This historical connection has

led Russia to perceive Ukraine as part of its sphere of influence and has

contributed to its desire to maintain control over the country (Plokhy, 2017).

Moreover, the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 has also played a crucial

role in the Russia-Ukraine crisis. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union,

Ukraine gained independence, which was seen by Russia as a loss of its

hegemonic control in the region. This perception has led Russia to assert its

influence over Ukraine, as it aims to maintain its sphere of influence and

prevent Ukraine from fully aligning with Western powers (Mearsheimer, 2014).

Additionally, Russia's actions in Ukraine can be understood within the

framework of its own security concerns. Historically, Russia has viewed itself

as vulnerable to threats from the West. From Napoleon's invasion in the early

19th century to Nazi Germany's aggression in the 20th century, these

experiences have shaped Russia's perception of the need to secure its borders
and maintain a buffer zone between itself and potential adversaries (Motyl,

2021). Russia's annexation of Crimea and support for separatist movements in

Eastern Ukraine can be seen as a response to its perceived security threats and

the desire to prevent Western influence from encroaching closer to its borders.

In conclusion, the Russia-Ukraine crisis has been influenced by several

historical experiences that have shaped Russia's actions towards Ukraine. The

historical ties between the two countries, the dissolution of the Soviet Union,

and Russia's security concerns have all played significant roles in this ongoing

crisis.

4.1.2. Security Concerns

Russia's security concerns played a significant role in the Russia-Ukraine crisis.

These concerns can be traced back to several factors such as historical,

geopolitical, and domestic security considerations.

One of the key historical security concerns for Russia was the fear of NATO

expansion eastward towards its borders. The collapse of the Soviet Union and

the subsequent enlargement of NATO raised alarm bells in Moscow, as it saw

the alliance's presence moving closer to its borders, potentially compromising

its security. The fear of encirclement by a hostile alliance was a longstanding

concern for Russian policymakers (Kofman, 2014).

Geopolitically, Russia viewed Ukraine as a crucial buffer state that provided a

strategic depth for its security. Throughout history, Ukraine has served as a

buffer zone between Russia and the West, protecting Russia from potential
invasions. Therefore, any attempts to bring Ukraine closer to Western

institutions like the European Union (EU) and NATO were seen as a direct

threat to Russia's security interests (Balmaceda, 2014). On the domestic front,

Russia had concerns regarding the rights and well-being of its compatriots in

Crimea and eastern Ukraine, who are predominantly ethnic Russians or Russian

speakers. Fearing potential discrimination or mistreatment of its fellow

countrymen, Russia sought to protect their interests and influence events in

Ukraine to ensure their safety and security (Von Neuburg, 2016). Russia's

perspective on the Russia-Ukraine crisis is significantly shaped by its security

concerns. NATO's eastward expansion since the end of the Cold War has been a

major worry for Russia, as it perceives this military alliance as encroaching on

its traditional sphere of influence (Hedenskog, 2019). The prospect of Ukraine,

a neighboring country of utmost strategic importance to Russia, aligning with

the West did not align with its security interests. This led to Russia's decision to

take action to protect its security concerns and prevent Ukraine's alignment with

the West.

These security concerns underpinned Russia's decision to annex Crimea in 2014

and its subsequent involvement in the Ukraine conflict. By annexing Crimea,

Russia ensured its continued access to the Black Sea, which is strategically vital

for its naval forces. Furthermore, Russia's military intervention in eastern

Ukraine aimed to protect pro-Russian separatists and maintain its influence in

the region, thereby safeguarding its security interests (Chivvis, 2015). In

conclusion, Russia's security concerns, including the fear of NATO expansion,

geopolitical considerations, and domestic worries about its compatriots, played

a significant role in the Russia-Ukraine crisis. Understanding these concerns is

crucial to comprehending Russia's motivations and actions in the conflict.

4.1.3. Strategic Interests

Another important dimension of Russia's perspective in the crisis is its strategic

interests, particularly regarding energy resources and geopolitical positioning.

Ukraine serves as a crucial transit country for Russian natural gas exports to

Europe (Fawn & Cooper, 2019). The crisis provided an opportunity for Russia

to assert its influence and control over Ukrainian energy infrastructure, ensuring

continued dominance over European energy markets. Furthermore, the strategic

significance of Crimea, which hosts Russia's only warm-water naval base in the

Black Sea, played a crucial role in Russia's decision to annex the region

(Kramer, 2014).

Russia's strategic interest greatly factored in the Russia-Ukraine crisis. Moscow

has long considered Ukraine to be a crucial element in its geopolitical

calculations. Historically, Ukraine has been viewed by Russia as part of its

sphere of influence and a buffer zone against potential threats from the West

(Balmaceda, 2016). The Russian leadership has consistently perceived Ukraine's

alignment towards the European Union and NATO as a direct challenge to its

strategic interests, which led to heightened tensions between the two countries.

Furthermore, Russia's strategic interest in Ukraine is closely tied to its energy

security concerns. Ukraine serves as a vital transit route for Russian natural gas

supplies to Europe. By maintaining influence over Ukraine, Russia aims to

ensure control over its energy infrastructure and avoid potential disruptions in

its energy exports (Nakhooda, 2015).

These strategic considerations played a significant role in Russia's annexation of

Crimea in 2014 and its subsequent support for pro-Russian separatists in

Eastern Ukraine. Moscow aimed to prevent Ukraine from slipping further into

the Western sphere of influence, protect its energy interests, and maintain its

strategic advantage in the region (Balmaceda, 2016). In conclusion, Russia's

strategic interest in Ukraine, both as a buffer zone and an energy transit country,

played a crucial role in triggering the Russia-Ukraine crisis. These factors

underscore the importance Moscow places on Ukraine in its broader

geopolitical calculations.

4.2. Review of United States of America’s Role in the Ukraine-Russia Crisis

The United States has played a significant role in the Russia-Ukraine crisis

since its inception in 2014. Historically, the U.S. has been a strong supporter of

Ukraine's sovereignty and has condemned Russia's annexation of Crimea and its

support for separatist movements in eastern Ukraine. This viewpoint can be

observed through the actions and statements of U.S. government officials, as

well as the policies implemented to address the crisis. One of the earliest

expressions of the U.S. view was seen in President Barack Obama's statement in

March 2014, where he declared that Russia's actions in Ukraine were a violation
of Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity. He also emphasized that the

U.S. stood with Ukraine and its people in their pursuit of democracy and self-

determination (The White House, 2014).

Similarly, President Joe Biden has continued this strong stance against Russia's

actions in Ukraine. In 2021, President Biden reaffirmed the U.S. commitment to

Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity during a phone call with

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. He also expressed support for

Ukraine's desire to join NATO and emphasized the importance of addressing

Russia's aggressive actions in the region (The White House, 2021).

The U.S. government has implemented various policies to address the Russia-

Ukraine crisis. These include imposing economic sanctions on Russia,

providing military and financial aid to Ukraine, and actively participating in

diplomatic efforts to resolve the conflict. For instance, in 2014, the U.S.

imposed sanctions on Russian individuals and entities involved in the

annexation of Crimea and the destabilization of eastern Ukraine (U.S.

Department of the Treasury, 2014). Furthermore, the U.S. has provided

significant military assistance to Ukraine, including weapons, training, and

surveillance equipment, to help strengthen its defense capabilities (U.S.

Department of Defense, 2021).

The U.S. has also been actively engaged in diplomatic efforts to find a peaceful

resolution to the crisis. This includes participation in multilateral negotiations

such as the Normandy format and the Minsk agreements, which aim to facilitate
a ceasefire and a political resolution to the conflict. The U.S. has consistently

called on Russia to abide by these agreements and to withdraw its military

forces from Ukraine (U.S. Department of State, 2021).

In conclusion, the United States has consistently voiced its opposition to

Russia's actions in Ukraine and has taken a firm stance in support of Ukraine's

sovereignty and territorial integrity. The U.S. government has implemented

various policies, including economic sanctions and military assistance, to

address the Russia-Ukraine crisis. Furthermore, the U.S. has actively

participated in diplomatic efforts to find a peaceful resolution to the conflict.

4.2.1. President Joe Biden’s Administration and the Russia-Ukraine Crisis

President Biden's administration has faced a significant foreign policy challenge

with the ongoing Russia-Ukraine crisis. Since taking office in January 2021,

President Biden has taken several measures to address the situation and support

Ukraine in its territorial integrity.

One of the key steps taken by the Biden administration was to reaffirm the

United States' commitment to Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity. In

his first conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Biden

expressed his support and reiterated the US's opposition to Russia's ongoing

aggression in the Donbas region. This message was further reinforced through

the deployment of two US Navy ships to the Black Sea in response to Russia's

military buildup along the Ukrainian border in April 2021 (Landler, 2021).
The Biden administration has also worked closely with its European allies to

coordinate a collective response to the Russia-Ukraine crisis. The United States

has engaged in diplomatic efforts with European countries to encourage a

unified stance against Russia's actions. This includes consulting with NATO

allies and urging the European Union to maintain a strong position through

sanctions and other measures (Crowley & Smith, 2021).

In addition to diplomatic efforts, the Biden administration has imposed several

rounds of sanctions on Russia in response to its aggressive actions. These

sanctions target individuals and entities involved in Russia's occupation of

Crimea and its support for separatist forces in Eastern Ukraine. The

administration has also increased military aid to Ukraine, providing additional

resources to enhance its defense capabilities (Steinhauer, Shear, & Eddy, 2021).

Furthermore, the Biden administration has been actively engaged in diplomatic

talks with Russia to de-escalate the tensions. The US Secretary of State, Antony

Blinken, held a meeting with his Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, in May

2021 to discuss the crisis. Although no breakthrough was achieved during this

meeting, the dialogue between the two countries signals a willingness to find a

peaceful resolution (Collinson, 2021). Joe Biden's administration has taken a

firm stance against Russia's aggression in Ukraine. Through diplomatic efforts,

sanctions, and military aid, the administration has sought to support Ukraine's

territorial integrity and ensure Russia is held accountable for its actions. The

ongoing dialogue with Russia also indicates the administration's commitment to

 finding a peaceful resolution to the Russia-Ukraine crisis. Highlighted below

are the efforts of President’s Biden’s in addressing the Russia-Ukraine’s

conflict;

a. Diplomatic Efforts

Diplomacy has played a significant role in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, both in

terms of preventing the conflict from escalating further and in terms of February

a peaceful resolution.

In the early stages of the conflict, diplomacy was able to prevent the conflict

from escalating into a full-scale war. In February 201 4, Russia annexed the

Crimean Peninsula from Ukraine. This was a clear act of aggression, but it was

not met with military force from the west. Instead, the west responded with

diplomatic measures, such as imposing sanctions on Russia. These measures

were successful in deterring Russia from further aggression, and they helped to

keep the conflict from escalating.

The Joe Biden administration has put significant diplomatic efforts into

addressing the Russia-Ukraine crisis. The focus has been on condemning

Russia's actions, providing support to Ukraine, and working towards a

negotiated solution.

One of the key diplomatic moves made by the Biden administration was the

imposition of sanctions on Russia. On March 2, 2021, President Biden signed

an executive order that authorized sanctions against individuals and entities

involved in the ongoing conflict in Ukraine (The White House, 2021a). This

action was taken in coordination with the European Union, which also imposed

its own sanctions on Russia (European Council, 2021). The use of sanctions is a

diplomatic tool aimed at pressuring Russia to deescalate the situation and

adhere to international norms. In addition to sanctions, the Biden administration

has engaged in diplomatic dialogues with Ukraine and other international

partners. For instance, Secretary of State Antony Blinken spoke with Ukrainian

Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba on February 9, 2021, to reaffirm the United

States' support for Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity (US

Department of State, 2021). The Biden administration has also reached out to

allies and partners, such as Germany and the United Kingdom, to seek a

coordinated approach to address the crisis (The White House, 2021b).

Furthermore, the Biden administration has actively worked to revive diplomatic

negotiations between Ukraine and Russia. On April 12, 2021, a bilateral

meeting was held in Paris between the foreign ministers of Ukraine and Russia,

mediated by France and Germany (AFP, 2021). Resuming dialogue between the

parties involved is a crucial step towards finding a peaceful resolution to the

conflict. Overall, the Joe Biden administration has taken significant diplomatic

actions in response to the Russia-Ukraine crisis. These efforts include the

imposition of sanctions, engaging in dialogues with Ukraine and other

international partners, and working towards diplomatic negotiations. While the

 situation remains complex and challenging, the administration's diplomatic

approach aims to deescalate tensions and find a peaceful resolution to the crisis.

b. Sanctions

The Russia-Ukraine crisis has been a major concern for Joe Biden's

administration, prompting them to take decisive actions through sanctions

against Russia. Joe Biden has emphasized the importance of holding Russia

accountable for its aggressive actions in Ukraine, and has employed a range of

sanctions to apply pressure on the Russian government.

Sanctions are a common diplomatic tool used by governments to pressure

another nation into changing its behavior. They typically aim to inflict

economic or political costs on the targeted country, in this case, Russia. It is

important to assess whether these sanctions have produced the desired outcome

and influenced Russia's behavior. One of the key sanctions implemented by the

Biden administration is the expulsion of Russian diplomats. In April 2021, the

United States expelled ten Russian diplomats and imposed new sanctions on

multiple Russian entities. This move was seen as a strong condemnation of

Russia's role in the ongoing tensions in Ukraine (U.S. Department of State,

2021).

Additionally, the Biden administration has targeted the Russian economy by

imposing sanctions on specific industries and individuals. In response to

Russia's interference in the 2020 U.S. election and its cyberattacks, the United

States imposed sanctions on several Russian technology companies and

restricted access to U.S. financial markets for Russian debt (U.S. Department of

the Treasury, 2021). Furthermore, the Biden administration has actively sought

to garner support from international partners to impose coordinated sanctions on

Russia. In coordination with the European Union, the United Kingdom, Canada,

and other countries, the U.S. government has expanded its sanctions by

targeting Russian officials and entities involved in the Ukraine crisis and human

rights abuses (U.S. Department of State, 2022).

The Biden administration's approach to sanctions against Russia in the Russia-

Ukraine crisis aligns with the belief that the appropriate response to aggression

and human rights violations is through diplomatic and economic pressure (U.S.

Department of State, 2021). In conclusion, Joe Biden's administration has

implemented a range of sanctions against Russia in response to the ongoing

Russia-Ukraine crisis. These sanctions include the expulsion of Russian

diplomats, targeting the Russian economy, and building international support

for coordinated sanctions. These actions aim to hold Russia accountable for its

actions and promote stability and security in the region.

One of the most significant aspects of the U.S. sanctions on Russia is their

economic impact. The Biden administration has targeted key sectors of the

Russian economy, such as energy, finance, and defense, with measures like

asset freezes and restrictions on access to global financial markets (Reuters,

2022). This has resulted in considerable economic strains on Russia, which

heavily relies on energy exports and foreign investments. Studies have shown
that economic sanctions can have varying degrees of effectiveness. For instance,

Hufbauer and Oegg (2020) found that targeted sanctions against Russia have

caused a decline in its GDP growth rate and negatively impacted its currency's

value. Furthermore, a study by Ibragimov (2021) found evidence suggesting

that these sanctions have affected Russia's foreign exchange reserves and

hindered its economic development. These findings indicate that the economic

impact of the sanctions has influenced Russia's behavior to some extent.

Sanctions can also have political ramifications by isolating the targeted country

on the international stage. They aim to damage the reputation of the nation in

question and encourage other nations to limit their political and economic

interaction with it. In the case of Russia, the Biden administration's sanctions

have been accompanied by efforts to rally support from European allies and

seek a unified response to Russia's aggression. The alignment of the United

States with European partners in imposing sanctions increases the pressure on

Russia and demonstrates a united front against its actions. Notably, the

European Union has also implemented its own set of sanctions against Russia

for its involvement in the Ukraine crisis (European External Action Service,

2022). This coordinated approach enhances the impact of the sanctions and

sends a strong message to Russia.

Overall, the imposition of sanctions by the Joe Biden's administration has had

notable effects on the Russia-Ukraine crisis. The economic impact of these

measures has caused strains on Russia's economy, impacting its GDP growth
rate and foreign exchange reserves. Furthermore, the political consequences of

aligning with international partners in imposing sanctions have increased

pressure on Russia. However, it is essential to acknowledge that sanctions alone

are unlikely to resolve the complex geopolitical challenges posed by the Russia-

Ukraine crisis. A comprehensive strategy involving diplomatic engagement,

dialogue, and potential negotiations is crucial for a long-term resolution.

4.3. International Community’s Response to the Russia-Ukraine Crisis

The international community has responded to the Russia-Ukraine crisis with a

range of diplomatic, economic, and military measures. One major step taken

was the imposition of economic sanctions against Russia by several Western

countries. These sanctions targeted key sectors of the Russian economy,

including its banking, energy, and defense industries (Crisis in Ukraine, 2022).

The United States, for example, issued multiple rounds of sanctions on Russian

individuals, entities, and government officials, freezing their assets and

restricting their access to global financial markets (U.S. Takes Sanctions

Against Russia Over Ukraine Invasion, 2022).

One of the most impactful international community sanctions imposed on

Russia was the European Union's (EU) restrictive measures. In 2014, the EU

implemented economic sanctions targeting Russia's financial, energy, and

defense sectors (European Union External Action, 2021). These measures

included restrictions on loans to Russian state-owned banks, bans on imports of

goods from Crimea and Sevastopol, and an embargo on arms exports to Russia

(European Union External Action, 2021). These sanctions severely impacted

Russia's economy, leading to a decline in foreign investment, a decrease in

access to international financial markets, and a contraction of its GDP growth

(Makarov, 2017).

Similarly, the United States (US) imposed several sanctions on Russia in

response to its actions in Ukraine. The US sanctions, implemented through

various executive orders, targeted Russian officials, entities, and sectors,

including defense, finance, and energy (U.S. Department of the Treasury, 2021).

The international community sanctions against Russia also included diplomatic

measures. Several Western countries expelled Russian diplomats and closed

Russian consulates in response to the Russia-Ukraine crisis as a signal of

political disapproval and in support of Ukraine's territorial integrity (The

Guardian, 2018). These diplomatic actions aimed to isolate Russia politically

and reduce its ability to exert influence internationally.

The impact of international community sanctions on Russia's economy and

foreign policy has been significant. The sanctions have contributed to a decline

in Russia's economic growth rate and GDP, leading to reduced government

revenues and increased inflation (Imaishev, 2016). Additionally, the sanctions

have limited Russia's access to foreign technology and investment, hindering its

economic development and modernization efforts (Cook et al., 2018).

Furthermore, international community sanctions have affected Russia's foreign

policy objectives. Russia's economic isolation due to the sanctions has

accelerated its pivot to Asia, seeking closer economic and strategic ties with

countries like China and India (Khanna, 2017). Additionally, the sanctions have

further strained Russia's relations with the West, leading to a more assertive and

adversarial foreign policy approach (Dawsey et al., 2014). In conclusion,

international community sanctions imposed on Russia in response to the Russia-

Ukraine crisis have had a significant impact on Russia's economy and foreign

policy. The EU and US sanctions, alongside diplomatic measures, have

contributed to a decline in Russia's economic growth, limited its access to

foreign investment and technology, and fuelled a pivot towards Asia. These

sanctions reflect the international community's condemnation of Russia's

actions in Ukraine and aim to deter further destabilization in the region.

In addition to economic sanctions, several countries have provided military

support to Ukraine in its conflict against Russia. The United States has sent

military advisors, as well as weapons and equipment, to help in Ukraine's

defence efforts (Emmons, 2022). The European Union has also committed to

providing military aid, including personnel and logistics support, to strengthen

Ukraine's defense capabilities (European Union Commits to Help Ukraine

Militarily, 2022). Furthermore, the crisis has led to diplomatic efforts aimed at

resolving the conflict through negotiations. The United Nations, for instance,

has called for an immediate ceasefire and a peaceful resolution to the crisis.

Several diplomatic meetings, such as the Normandy Format talks, have been
held to facilitate negotiations between the parties involved (United Nations

Calls for Ukraine Ceasefire, 2022). The international response to the Russia-

Ukraine crisis has been multifaceted, with a combination of economic, military,

and diplomatic actions. While economic sanctions have aimed to put pressure

on Russia, military support has been provided to strengthen Ukraine's defense

capabilities. Diplomatic efforts have focused on facilitating negotiations and

promoting a peaceful resolution to the conflict.

4.4. Analysis of Diplomatic Negotiations

The Russia-Ukraine crisis, which began in 2014, has been marked by ongoing

diplomatic negotiations between the countries involved, particularly Russia,

Ukraine, and Western powers. These negotiations have aimed to find a peaceful

resolution to the conflict and address the core issues at stake.

4.4.1. The Minsk II Agreement

One important set of negotiations took place in February 2015, in the form of

the Minsk Agreements. The talks, facilitated by France and Germany, resulted

in a ceasefire agreement between Russia and Ukraine. The Minsk II agreement,

as it became known, emphasized a range of key issues, including the restoration

of Ukrainian sovereignty over the unrecognized separatist regions of Donetsk

and Luhansk, as well as the withdrawal of heavy weaponry from the conflict

zone (BBC, 2016). The Minsk II agreement, signed in February 2015, aimed to
bring an end to the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine. The

implementation of this agreement has had a significant impact on various

aspects of the crisis, including the reduction of violence, the political situation,

and the relations between Russia and Ukraine.

Firstly, the Minsk II agreement has led to a decrease in the level of violence in

the conflict. The agreement established a ceasefire and called for the withdrawal

of heavy weapons from the front lines. According to a report by the

Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), there has been a

reduction in the number of ceasefire violations after the agreement came into

effect (OSCE, 2015). The decrease in violence has brought some stability to the

region and allowed for the delivery of humanitarian aid to the affected areas.

Moreover, the Minsk II agreement has had a significant impact on the political

situation in Ukraine. The agreement called for the constitutional reform in

Ukraine, including decentralization and the granting of special status to certain

regions in eastern Ukraine. These measures were aimed at addressing the

concerns of the pro-Russian separatists and creating a path for reconciliation.

The Ukrainian government passed a law on decentralization, which was seen as

a step towards implementing the provisions of the Minsk II agreement

(Whitehead, 2018). The political dialogue between the conflicting parties has

been revived, albeit with challenges, and efforts are being made to find a

peaceful resolution to the conflict.

Furthermore, the Minsk II agreement has had consequences for the relations

between Russia and Ukraine. The agreement reaffirmed Ukraine's sovereignty

and territorial integrity, while also recognizing the special circumstances in the

affected areas (OSCE, 2015). The agreement highlighted the need for a peaceful

resolution and diplomatic efforts to resolve the crisis. However, the

implementation of the agreement has been challenging, and there have been

various allegations of non-compliance from both sides. In conclusion, the Minsk

II agreement has had a significant impact on the Russia-Ukraine crisis. It has

contributed to the reduction of violence, revived the political dialogue, and put

forward a framework for resolving the conflict. However, challenges remain in

terms of full implementation, and further efforts are needed to achieve a lasting

and peaceful solution. Despite the Minsk Agreements, the diplomatic

negotiations have faced major challenges and setbacks. Implementation of the

agreements has been marred by continuous ceasefire violations, particularly

from the separatist forces backed by Russia. The situation has been further

complicated by the lack of trust between the parties involved, with each

accusing the other of violating the agreements (BBC, 2021).

4.4.2. Normandy Format Talks

Efforts to advance the negotiations, including the Normandy Format talks, have

faced difficulties in reaching a comprehensive and lasting solution. The

Normandy Format, which involves the leaders of France, Germany, Russia, and
Ukraine, has produced some positive results, such as the exchange of prisoners

and the disengagement of forces from certain areas. However, deeper issues,

such as the status of Crimea and the controversial topic of federalization in

Ukraine, remain unresolved (Council on Foreign Relations, 2019).

The Normandy Format talks have played a crucial role in attempts to resolve the

ongoing Russia-Ukraine crisis. The format, which consists of Ukraine, Russia,

Germany, and France, was established in 2014 with the aim of finding a

peaceful solution to the conflict in Eastern Ukraine (European External Action

Service, 2022). The talks have been named after the location of the initial

meeting, which took place in Normandy, France. The Normandy Format talks

have provided a platform for negotiation and dialogue between the parties

involved, allowing for direct discussions and the exchange of ideas. The talks

have focused on key issues of concern, including the implementation of the

Minsk Agreements, the establishment of a ceasefire, and the withdrawal of

heavy weapons from the conflict zone (European External Action Service,

2022).

One of the most significant achievements of the Normandy Format talks has

been the establishment of several ceasefire agreements. These agreements,

although fragile and often violated, have partially reduced the levels of violence

in Eastern Ukraine (EUISS, 2021). Moreover, the talks have also facilitated

important prisoner exchanges between Ukraine and Russia, further contributing

to a temporary de-escalation of the crisis (EUISS, 2021). However, despite

some progress, the Normandy Format talks have not yet led to a comprehensive

resolution of the Russia-Ukraine crisis. The discussions have faced numerous

challenges, including disagreements regarding the interpretation and

implementation of the Minsk Agreements (Allison, 2021). Furthermore, the

talks have often been stalled by ongoing clashes and military escalations in

Eastern Ukraine, which have hindered the negotiation process (European

External Action Service, 2022).

Despite these difficulties, the Normandy Format talks remain an important tool

for managing the Russia-Ukraine crisis. The format provides a diplomatic

channel for dialogue and negotiations, allowing the parties involved to discuss

their concerns and seek potential solutions. As such, it is vital that the

Normandy Format talks continue to be supported and utilized in order to

promote peace, stability, and a lasting resolution in the region.

4.4.3. The Trilateral Contact Group

In recent years, diplomatic negotiations have focused on finding ways to de-

escalate tensions and reduce violence in the conflict zone. The Trilateral

Contact Group, consisting of representatives from Ukraine, Russia, and the

Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), has played a key

role in facilitating these negotiations. Talks have centred on issues such as

prisoner exchanges, ceasefire arrangements, and humanitarian aid delivery

(OSCE, 2021).
The Trilateral Contact Group (TCG) is a diplomatic initiative aimed at resolving

the ongoing Russia-Ukraine crisis, which began in 2014. It comprises

representatives from Ukraine, Russia, and the Organization for Security and Co-

operation in Europe (OSCE). The TCG was established in June 2014 with the

goal of facilitating a peaceful resolution to the conflict in eastern Ukraine,

specifically in the regions of Donetsk and Luhansk (Aras, 2019).

The TCG serves as a platform for negotiations, discussions, and decision-

making regarding the implementation of the Minsk agreements, a set of

ceasefire and peace agreements signed in September 2014 and February 2015.

These agreements outlined a roadmap for resolving the conflict, including

provisions for a comprehensive ceasefire, the withdrawal of heavy weapons, the

restoration of Ukrainian control over its borders, and the holding of local

elections in Donetsk and Luhansk (Organization for Security and Co-operation

in Europe, n.d.).

The TCG has been actively involved in negotiating and monitoring the

implementation of the Minsk agreements. It has held numerous meetings, both

in person and virtually, to address various issues related to the conflict. The

group has worked towards the establishment of a lasting ceasefire, the release of

prisoners, the provision of humanitarian assistance to the affected population,

and the restoration of infrastructure and basic services in the conflict-affected

areas RIA Novosti, 2021). The TCG has faced several challenges in its efforts

to resolve the Russia-Ukraine crisis. One of the main challenges is the lack of
trust and adherence to the agreed-upon commitments by all parties involved.

Ceasefire violations, tensions at the contact line, and disagreements over the

sequence of steps for the implementation of the Minsk agreements have

hindered progress towards a sustainable resolution.

Despite these challenges, the TCG has been instrumental in keeping the

channels of communication open between Ukraine and Russia and in facilitating

dialogue between the conflicting parties. Its engagement with the OSCE has

provided an avenue for monitoring and reporting on the situation on the ground,

thereby contributing to efforts to reduce violence and protect civilians. The

group has also created sub-working groups to focus on specific issues, such as

security, political, humanitarian, and economic aspects of the conflict, allowing

for a comprehensive approach to the resolution process. The Trilateral Contact

Group has played a crucial role in the Russia-Ukraine crisis, providing a

platform for negotiations and facilitating the implementation of the Minsk

agreements. However, its efforts have faced challenges due to the lack of trust

and adherence by all parties involved. Nevertheless, the TCG remains an

essential mechanism for peaceful conflict resolution in the region. In

conclusion, the Russia-Ukraine crisis has witnessed a series of diplomatic

negotiations aimed at finding a peaceful resolution to the conflict. The Minsk

Agreements, the Normandy Format talks, and the Trilateral Contact Group have

all played significant roles in these negotiations. However, challenges persist,

highlighting the complexity of resolving the conflict through diplomatic means.

4.4.4. Success and Failures

The Russia-Ukraine crisis, which began in 2014 when Russia annexed Crimea

and supported separatist movements in eastern Ukraine, has been marked by a

series of diplomatic efforts to resolve the conflict. While there have been some

successes in the diplomatic sphere, there have also been notable failures.

One of the successes of diplomatic efforts in the Russia-Ukraine crisis was the

negotiation and signing of the Minsk agreements. The Minsk Protocol, signed in

September 2014, and the Minsk II agreement, signed in February 2015, brought

together the leaders of Ukraine, Russia, France, and Germany to discuss a

ceasefire and a peaceful resolution to the conflict. The agreements included

provisions for a comprehensive ceasefire, the withdrawal of heavy weapons,

exchanges of prisoners, and political reforms in Ukraine. These agreements

were seen as a diplomatic success as they led to a decrease in violence and the

establishment of a ceasefire in many parts of eastern Ukraine (Lo, 2016).

Another success in the diplomatic efforts was the implementation of the

Normandy format, which comprises Ukraine, Russia, Germany, and France.

This format facilitated direct negotiations among the leaders of these countries

and aimed to find a peaceful resolution to the conflict. The Normandy format

meetings have played a crucial role in maintaining dialogue and de-escalating

tensions between Ukraine and Russia. For instance, the Normandy format talks
in 2019 led to a prisoner exchange between Ukraine and Russia, demonstrating

the effectiveness of diplomatic efforts in resolving specific issues (Shymanska,

2020).

However, diplomatic efforts in the Russia-Ukraine crisis have also witnessed

failures. The failure of the Minsk agreements to fully establish a lasting

ceasefire and resolve the conflict has been a significant setback. Despite the

agreements, the conflict persists, and violations of the ceasefire continue to

occur. The failure to fully implement the provisions of the Minsk agreements

highlights the challenges of ensuring compliance and trust among the parties

involved (Bartuzi, 2021). Furthermore, diplomatic efforts have been hindered

by the lack of consensus among international actors. The crisis has led to a

deepening divide between Russia and Western countries, particularly the United

States and the European Union. Disagreements over the interpretation of events,

differing geopolitical interests, and mutual suspicions have hampered unified

and effective diplomatic action. The failure to achieve international consensus

and coordination has limited the effectiveness of diplomatic efforts in resolving

the Russia-Ukraine crisis (Rand Corporation, 2022).

The war in Ukraine is still ongoing, and it is too early to say who will ultimately

be victorious. However, it is clear that both sides have paid a heavy price for

this conflict.
In addition to the military and human costs, the war has also had a significant

impact on the global economy. The price of oiol and gas has risen sharply, and

there are concerns about a global food shortage. The war has also shaken the

foundations European security, and it is unclear what the long-term

consequences will be.

In conclusion, diplomatic efforts in the Russia-Ukraine crisis have had both

successes and failures. The Minsk agreements and the Normandy format have

been successful in reducing violence and facilitating direct negotiations.

However, the failure to fully implement the agreements and the lack of

international consensus pose significant challenges. Resolving the crisis

requires continued diplomatic engagement, effective implementation of

agreements, and greater international cooperation.

CHAPTER FIVE SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND
RECOMMENDATION

5. 0 INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents the summary of the research work, conclusion, and
the recommendation. It likely delves into diplomatic efforts, negotiations,
and strategies employed to de-escalate tensions between the two countries.
The study highlighted the challenges, successes, and lessons learned from
this specific conflict, shedding light on the broader significance of
diplomacy in conflict resolution.

5.1 SUMMARY

The crisis is an international crisis majorly involving Russia and Ukraine

over the Crimea peninsula. Crimea is populated by an ethnic Russian
majority and a minority of both ethnic Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars.
Russia, trying to salvage its lost influence in Ukraine after the fall of the
Soviet Union, invaded and annexed Crimea. In April 2014, pro-Russia
separatist rebels began seizing territory in eastern Ukraine. As a result of
this, the Ukraine crisis escalated into an internationally recognized crisis.
The study considered the role of diplomacy in resolving violent conflicts : a
case study of the Russia-Ukraine crisis. The work examined the historical
relevance of diplomacy in resolving violent conflict, as well as identified
the roles and significance of diplomats in the Russia-Ukraine crisis and to
assess the effects and impacts of diplomacy in the Russia-Ukraine crisis.
The data were sourced through secondary method of data collection. The
secondary data involved the use of relevant text books, learned journals,
documentaries, internet materials and other print Medias. The data selected
were analyzed extensively by examining the roles of diplomacy in the
Russia-Ukraine crisis using the roles of: The Soiet Union in 1991, the
Minisk II agreement, NATO and The impact of Organization of security
and cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in the Russia- Ukraine as case study.

5.2 CONCLUSION

The role of diplomacy in resolving violent conflicts, such as the Russia-

Ukraine conflict, is crucial. Diplomacy provides a platform for dialogue,
negotiation, and finding peaceful solutions. It allows nations to address
grievances, seek compromises, and work towards de-escalation. However,
success depends on the willingness of parties to engage and make
concessions. Long-term resolution requires sustained diplomatic efforts,
international cooperation, and addressing underlying issues.

Based on the findings of the study, it can be concluded that diplomacy has a
great influence on conflict management. It is evident largely that diplomacy
has both positive impacts as well as negative impacts in conflict
management. Diplomacy to a large extend serves as a check to the actions
of states within the international system as well as helps to cub the excesses
of conflicting parties. Diplomacy could also have negative impacts in
conflict situations when either of the parties perceives the act of diplomacy
the wrong way or see the act of diplomacy as a threat to it. It could be seen
from this research in the case of the Russia-Ukraine crisis that diplomacy
impacts positively more than negatively in conflict management.
5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recommendations are made about the Russia-Ukraine crisis.

They include: The role of diplomats should be improved upon in conflict
management and diplomacy More career diplomats should be recruited into
the diplomatic corps in place of non-career diplomats. Effective sanctions
should be given to any state that violates international laws. Diplomatic
measures should be employed often in conflict management. International
mediators should be involved to foster impartial negotiations and ensure
both parties’ interests are addressed. There should be focus on delivering
humanitarian aid to affected regions to alleviate the suffering of civilians
and build goodwill between parties. More so, international pressures is to
be coordinated on conflicting parties to engage in meanful negotiation and
adhere to international norms. Finally, developed economic incentives
should be encouraged, cooperation such as trade agreements, investment
opportunities and joint development projects.

5.4 REFERENCES

Aja Akpuru-Aja (2007): Basic concepts,issue and strategies of peace and

conflict resolution.

Ambassador Heidi Tagliavini (2015, Febuary 12). Package of measures for

the implementation of the Minsk agreement. Retrieved 19th May,2015 from
council on foreign relations: [Link]
Anthony Faiola (2014,March 4). Europe divided over Russia as NATO
meets on Ukraine crisis. Retrieved 17th May, 2015, from “The
Washington‟s post”: [Link]

Christian Nünlist and David Svarin 2014: “Overcoming the East-West

divide: The perspectives of the OSCE in the Ukraine crisis” swiss, centre
for Security Studies (CSS), ETH Zurich and foraus.
Christopher Amacker 2011: “The functions of diplomacy”.New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Co.,1983. Crc@[Link]

Dmitiri Trenin 2014: “The Ukraine crisis and the resumption of great power
rivalry” Tverskaya, Carnegie Moscow Center, Moscow Russia.

Dmitiri Trenin 2014: “The Ukraine crisis and the resumption of great power
rivalry” Tverskaya, Carnegie Moscow Center, Moscow Russia.

Eugene Rumer, Andrew S. Weiss, Ulrich Speck, Lina Khatib, George

Perkovich, Douglas H. Paal 2014: “what are the global implications for the
Russia-Ukraine crisis” Washington DC.

Eugene Rumer, Andrew S. Wiess, Ulrich Speck, Lina Khatib, George

Perkovich, Douglas H. Paal 2014: “what are the global implications for the
Russia-Ukraine crisis”. Retrieved June 19,2015, from
[Link] European Union Press (2015, April 2nd).

EU sanctions against Russia over Ukraine crisis. Retrieved May 17th, 2015,
from European Union Newsroom: [Link]
F Steven Larrabee, Peter A Wilson and John Gordon IV 2014: “The
Ukrainian Crisis and European security” RAND Corporation, Santa
Monica, Calif.

F Steven Larrabee, Peter A Wilson and John Gordon IV 2014: “The

Ukrainian Crisis and European security” Retrieved June 11, 2015, from
RAND Corporation: [Link]

INTERNATIONAL SECURITY ADVISORY BOARD Report on U.S.-

Russia Relations (2014) Retrieved June 11, 2015, from [Link]

Jeffery Mankoff and Andrew Kuchins 2015:”Russia Ukraine, and U.S.

Policy Options: A Briefing Memo” Rhode island avenue,Washington Dc.

Jeffery Mankoff and Andrew Kuchins 2015:”Russia Ukraine, and U.S.

Policy Options: A Briefing Memo” Rhode island avenue,Washington Dc.

Jeffrey Mankoff and Andrew Kuchins 2014: Russia, Ukraine, and

[Link] Options: A Briefing Memo. Retrieved June 11, 2015, from
[Link]

Joerg Forbrig 2015: “Central Euopean responses to the Russia Joerg

Forbrig 2015: “Central Euopean responses to the Russia-Ukraine
crisis”,Washington Dc, The German Marshall Fund of the United States.
Joshua S. Goldstein, John C Pevehouse (2010): “International relations
(ninth edition)” Kendall, B.(2014): “ New head of Ukraine‟s navy defects
in Crimea”

Lamberto Zannier, Thomas Greminger, Christian Nünlist, Pál Dunay,

David Svarin( 2014, December). Overcoming the East-West divide: The
perspectives of the OSCE in the Ukraine crisis. Retrieved 19th May, 2015,
from Swiss centre for Security Studies (CSS): [Link]

Manojlovic,M. and C.H. Thorheim 2007: “Crossroads of Diplomacy:New

Challenges, New Solutions” The Hague, Clingendael Diplomacy Papers

Manojlovic,M. and C.H. Thorheim 2007: “Crossroads of Diplomacy:New

Challenges, New Solutions” Retrieved 19th May, 2015 from
[Link]

Nigerian journal of international affairs: G.O Olusanya, R.A Akindele

Oleksandr Sushko (2004): “The International Implications of Ukraine‟s

Orange oliver Ramsbotham, Tom Woodhouse and Huge Miall (2012):

“Contemporary conflict resolution (third edition)”

Olusola Ojo, Amadu Sesay (1988): “Concepts in International Relations”

Peter Coy, Carol Matlak and Henry Meyer (2014).

“The New Great Game:why Ukraine matters to so many other nations”.

Retrieved June 11, 2015, from [Link] Rapoport (1960):
“Multiple paths to knowledge in international relations”
 Revolution” Russsia, PONARS Policy Memo 356 Shedrack Gaya Best:
“Peace and conflict studies in West Africa” Ring road, Ibadan Spectrum
Books Limited.
Stephanie Johnson(2014, November 28) A pivotal crisis: Understanding
Ukraine‟s economic free-fall. Retrieved June 11,2015, from
[Link].

The Historical foundations of world order: The Tower and the Arena The
Journal of International Social Research volume 4, issue 18.

Traynor, Ian (2014). "Western nations scramble to contain fallout from

Ukraine crisis".

The Guardian. Richard Galpin (2014). "BBC News - Ukraine crisis: Russia
isolated in UN Crimea vote". [Link]. Retrieved june 20, 2014. Ukraine
crisis”,

Washington Dc, The German Marshall Fund of the United States.

Uluslararası Sosyal Arastırmalar Dergisi http//[Link]
http//[Link]
AFP. (2021, April 12). Ukraine, Russia Hold First Talks in Paris Since 2019:
French Diplomacy. France 24. Retrieved from
[Link]
since-2019-french-diplomacy
Allison, R. J. (2021). Normandy format: A critical review and its potential
future. Ukrainian Policy Paper Series, No. 6. European Institute for
Security Studies (EUISS). Retrieved from
[Link]
Balmaceda, M. (2014). Ukraine and Russia: People, politics, propaganda, and
perspectives. Eurasian Geography and Economics, 55(4), 437-455.
Balmaceda, M. (2016). Ukraine and Russia: From civilizational to geopolitical
divide. Foreign Affairs, 95(1), 83-90.
Bartuzi, M. (2021). The Minsk Agreements and the Crisis in the Donbas: A
Failure of Agreements or Implementation?. Przegląd Organizacji
Międzynarodowych, 52(2), 176-193.
BBC. (2016, February 12). Minsk agreement: Key points. BBC News.
[Link]
BBC. (2021, February 3). Ukraine conflict: Timeline of key events. BBC News.
[Link]
Bremmer, I. (2014). Russia sanctions have been an own-goal for the West. The
Financial Times. Retrieved from [Link]
938c-00144feabdc0
Chivvis, C. S. (2015). The Russia-Ukraine Conflict: Security implications for
NATO and the European Union. Strategic Studies Quarterly, 9(4), 37-
65.
Collinson, S. (2021, May 20). Blinken heads to Ukraine in show of support
following Russian military buildup. CNN.
[Link]
Cook, L., Dennis, P., & Klatt, M. (2018). Sanctions, economic statecraft, and
the Russian Federation. In K. Kinder‐Kurlanda & K. Juncos (Eds.),
Research handbook on EU sanctions law and policy (pp. 181-201).
Edward Elgar Publishing.
Council on Foreign Relations. (2019, December 4). The conflict in Ukraine.
Council on Foreign Relations. [Link]
Crisis in Ukraine. (2022). Council on Foreign Relations. Retrieved from
[Link]
Crowley, M., & Smith, A. (2021, March 8). Blinken moves to strengthen ties in
Europe that were weakened under Trump. CNN.
[Link]
[Link]
Dawsey, J., Panetta, L., & Nakamura, D. (2014). Putin takes harder line on
Ukraine, mulls response to U.S., European sanctions. The Washington
Post. Retrieved from [Link]
line-on-ukraine-mulls-response-to-us-european-sanctions/2014/07/22/7239259c-11f0-11e4-
8936-26932bcfd6ed_story.html
Emmons, A.M. (2022). Biden Approves Lethal Aid for Ukraine As Russian
Invasion Intensifies. The New York Times. Retrieved from
[Link]
European Council. (2021, March 2). EU Imposes Sanctions on Individuals
Responsible for Navalny’s Conviction and Unsafe Blak Sea Incident.
Retrieved from [Link]
eu-imposes-sanctions-on-individuals-responsible-for-navalny-s-conviction-and-unsafe-
black-sea-incident/
European External Action Service. (2022). Normandy Format. Retrieved from
[Link]
European External Action Service. (2022, February 28). EU sanctions against
Russia - Council exercises powers. Retrieved from
[Link]
exercises-powers_en