From the outset of Russia’s comprehensive assault on Ukraine, there has been much speculation from politicians, historians, and commentators about the potential conclusion of the conflict. This curiosity inspired journalists Jérôme Gautheret and Thomas Wieder from Le Monde newspaper to compose a range of articles, later published in a book titled ‘Making Peace from Waterloo to Bosnia: Six Ways to End a War’.
During a recent debate on war and peace attended by Le Monde readers, Gautheret expressed the observation that common literature aims to explain the origins of war rather than their resolution. For instance, the acclaimed 2012 work by Christopher Clark, ‘Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914’, explores how the war begun. Likewise, in her 2023 book, Sylvia Kauffmann, another Le Monde columnist, analyses Europe’s incapacity to deter Putin’s Ukraine invasion, highlighting Berlin and Paris’s role in paving the way for Russia’s advance in ‘Blindsided: How Berlin and Paris Cleared the Way for Russia’.
Gautheret notes, “Every war births a newfound context that was unthinkable before.” His participation in the bicentenary reenactment of the Battle of Waterloo in June 2015 led him to observe that after centuries of conflicts, the UK and France have managed to halt fighting against each other post-Napoleon. Similarly, he adds, maintaining nearly eight decades of peace stands as the greatest achievement of France and Germany.
Approximately 2.5 million lives were claimed in the wars initiated by Napoleon, including over a million French. The clever French diplomat Talleyrand manipulated the disagreements between eminent powers to enforce his vanquished nation’s determination at the 1814-15 Vienna Congress. Charles de Gaulle mirrored this accomplishment by securing France’s place on the UN Security Council following the Second World War.
Reflecting on the Franco-Prussian war that erupted in 1870, Wieder mentioned that “everyone presumed that Napoleon III’s France would rapidly overpower Prussia”, drawing parallels to the prevailing belief that Ukraine would capitulate swiftly following Russia’s full-scale invasion.
Pierre Buhler, an ex-French ambassador with diplomatic experience in Moscow, Warsaw, and Washington, addressed an audience at Le Monde’s gathering as a guest. Currently instructing at the Institut des Sciences Politiques, he discussed the historical approach of leading nations towards maintaining global peace. In his talk, Buhler noted that during the 1919 Paris Peace Conference in Versailles, Woodrow Wilson, the then President of the United States, held hope that war could be abolished. Buhler quoted him as saying that with 99% assurance, the establishment of the League of Nations could prevent future conflicts, only to encounter the 1% probability, resulting in wars after all.
It was during the subsequent World War that leaders like Churchill and Roosevelt strategised to uphold peace more prudently, through the formation of the United Nations, Buhler pointed out. According to UN Charter’s Article Two, seeking peaceful solutions for international disagreements and refraining from threats or force against another nation’s territorial sovereignty or political autonomy is explicit.
Buhler critiqued that the UN’s resolution was truly operational solely during the expulsion of Saddam Hussein’s troops from Kuwait in 1991 with the Security Council’s approval. He criticised Israel for consistently infringing the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions, which bear international legal implications.
Buhler, who managed an online publication of his journal documenting the Dayton peace talks which terminated the Bosnian war of 1992-1995, drew similarities between the Bosnian and Ukrainian conflicts. He compared the behaviours of nationalists like Slobodan Milosevic and Putin, both unwilling to accept historical changes, such as Yugoslavia’s dissolution and the fall of the Soviet Union. Buhler also mentioned Putin’s role in instigating the separatist movements in Crimea and Donbas akin to Milosevic’s incitement in Bosnia and Croatia.
Reflecting upon the US involvement in the early 1990s, Buhler shared that Washington, enamoured with post-Soviet Russia and Iraq, overlooked Bosnia, considering it a minor scuffle to be handled by Europe. However, pressure from Senator Robert Dole and subsequent political repercussions led to President Bill Clinton mediating a brittle resolution at Dayton.
The conflict in Ukraine has now taken a pivotal role in American politics, with Republicans notably supporting the aggressor by delaying the distribution of $60 billion (€55 billion) in military support to Ukraine for six months. While a no-fly zone was implemented by the US to safeguard the innocent in Bosnia, a similar move hasn’t been executed in Ukraine.
There is a palpable apprehension amongst Europeans that the US might sideline them from forthcoming talks between Russia and Ukraine, only to later involve them in managing the post-conflict circumstances, as stated by Buhler. It shouldn’t be assumed, however, that the re-election of Trump would necessarily mean disaster for Ukraine. “The upcoming Trump election is not certain. Multiple outcomes remain viable. It’s plausible that he could be convinced that allowing Russia to score such a victory would be a tremendous mistake for the US. Trump’s mentality aligns more with a negotiator…
Buhler continued by stating, “Wars typically reach conclusion due to depletion,” “The fighting parties agree upon an ‘unending peace’ that sustains for a couple or few decades…Fernand Braudel, the French historian, perceived that warfare is a permanent fixture of humanity, and peace is not the default state.”
Buhler referred to the theories of Charles Tilly, an American sociologist and political scientist who concluded from studying nine centuries of European history that a dangerous loop exists where “wars give birth to states and conversely states give birth to wars.” Rather than international law, democracy is more conducive to peace, concluded Buhler. Out of the 33 liberal democracies globally, 26 are situated within Europe. Due to its recent veto of EU military support to Ukraine, Hungary is no longer recognised as a liberal democracy.