Of course diplomacy is a valid tool in the international relations kit, no matter how eroded it may seem now. It is not just for the Russian - Ukrainian war, but seems to be a worlwide pattern. Conflict resolution in these days seems to rely more on the use of force than on negotiation through diplomatic means. The case in the immediate aftermath of the Cold War was exactly the opposite. However, even at the very end of the most bittered war there was a diplomatic end: now we are using a legal term "war", a situation that was declared beginning and ending. Diplomacy sure played a role in Japan´s terms for total surrender. Total? Actually not. There was one condition upon which the Japanese government succeeded in negotiate after two nuclear bombs and the USSR entering the war: the Emperor had to remain. Once agreed this condition, the war between Japan and the rest was "ripe" for diplomacy to make peace.

I must confess that I am not acquainted with this concept of "ripeness" in conflict resolution, but I know there is a complete school of thought about it. Thus, I do not really know if the example I just used matches the exactly the definition, but I find it sound.

Now, is the "war" between Russia and Ukraine ripe for resolution? It does not seem so. War as such has not been declared, and part of the Russian narrative relies on internal Ukrainian matters, such as the will to secede in various sectors of the population. Both Russia and Ukraine seem to be willing to keep fighting. Being tired of conflict plays a role in being "ripe" for resolution. It happened 30 years ago in Central America, where different parties to different conflicts (the Sandinista government of Nicaragua and the US backed Contras; the government of El Salvador and the FMLN) came to the conclusion that the best they could get through armed conflict was a draw, that they could noy overcome the enemy, and that the only way forward was through diplomatic negotiation. And the enemy became the political adversary, within legal rules and a greatly reduced violence.

Last, diplomacy plays a role in freezing conflicts as well, as it happened when a cease fire hold, roughly between 1992 and mid 1995, in Croatia, between the Croatian government and the breakaway Serbian held Krajina. But for diplomacy to be useful needs a political will behind as strong as the one required to keep fighting. This is what lacks nowadays.

Sorry for the very long answer.

Dear Pa Ousman Njie,

I would answer in the affirmative that diplomacy does work. All conflicts have to end in a mediated settlement. It is almost impossible to achieve absolute military victory on the battlefields of the 21St century. This is because many dynamics, interests, and actors are at play at regional and international levels. Some of these interests could be economic or parochial (tribe, religion, communal interests). These interests will be keen to ensure that they can maintain a level of influence in a region and support groups that are either aligned to their short-term or long-term interests. The interest will make it difficult for one side to win, calling for a negotiated settlement through diplomacy. In the event one party achieves military victory, the terms of post-conflict arrangements will still need to be negotiated and managed with the local stakeholders. We have examples of these scenarios playing out in past conflicts during the Cold War as well as in the current conflicts in Africa, the Middle East, Asia and Europe. There is also a need for bilateral relations between states for economic, trade, cultural, development and security needs. The multilateral organisations like the United Nations, African Union, ASEAN, and the European and regional economic communities (RECs) are there to ensure peaceful coexistence in a bipolar global world order. The Bretton Woods Institutions (IMF and World Bank), Africa Development Bank and China Export-Import Bank are now global financial institutions involved in economic diplomacy and development support.

Diplomacy can therefore be applied to the current conflict between Russia and Ukraine. There are diplomatic efforts that have already been attempted. I believe the diplomatic engagements are still ongoing.

I wish you all the best in your research.

Daniel Deng Malok.

Diplomacy is typically

the art of speaking in the interest of one’s country or community….

but being diplomatic means also to not reject to not push back someone .

whatever - talking , listening , trying to understand and being able to communicate meaningfully is always relevant , intimes of crises it is critical -

at the very least it helps to keep the channels of communication open and helps to avoid misunderstandings….

(in)famously 1871 the diplomatic interactions between France & Germany stoped - the begun only in the armistice talks after World War One

some 40 years later ….

so

diplomac Is importan - always

Diplomacy is an indispensable veritable vessel in international relations - relationships among nations, in times of peace and in times of conflict/war. In the words of Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus, a Roman General, ''if you want to make peace, prepare for war''. The situation can also be in reverse context - prepare for peace in conflict/war situation; through diplomacy . The Russia/ Ukraine conflict has high profile multinational strategic national interests of powerful nations of the world. However, while the conflict is ongoing, diplomacy is also ongoing; just like in other conflict/war situations across the world, including the current Isreali/Palestinian - Hamas conflict.

Pa Ousman Njie Conversely, in point of view I think diplomacy is a possible mechanism that can be a way forward to solve conflicts especially in the case of Russia and Ukraine. In other words, states can built or use mechanism that can influence decisions and behaviors of foreign government and people with the use of dialogue and negation as a tools to promote peace and stability between states in a compromse way. in addition, diplomacy is a key factor in settling conflicts between states by ensuring that there is foster understanding facilitating dialogue, and cooperation about consequences involve in conflicts. Diplomacy is a tool that can remedy or mitigate conflict. Although it is always challenging and difficult to achieved especially conflict resolution as a result in some cases "conflict of interest" and states involve do not want to cooperate in a comprise way.

The link below highlights about the concept of diplomacy you can get more details about diplomacy

https://www.britannica.com/topic/diplomacy