The danger of drawing red lines…
German Foreign Minister Steinmeier has done it. While visiting Washington D.C. and talking to foreign politics experts at the Centre for Strategic International Studies he has answered one of the questions the world is awaiting with bated breath. The moment the strategy of Minsk fail is – according to him – the moment the separatists successfully take Mariupol. He claims that the pivotal moment would be if the strategic city in Eastern Ukraine cannot be held, as patience may then be at an end. Now the political elites in Europe ask themselves – has he done them a favour with this statement or did he put his head above the parapet? Obviously, the Foreign Minister is far away from advertising a new hot Cold War with Russia. He still opposes weapon and arms deliveries to Ukraine. For him, “It is even more likely that any path other than a diplomatic one will also fail.” However, his statement regarding the fall of Mariupol is tinctured with a sense that a red line has been found. The only question remaining what would be the consequences apart from a failed peace process? How would Germany and France, who brokered the Minsk deal, react? Or NATO, the European Union and the United States? Did he really draw the red line or was it just an observation?
Clearly, everyone remembers President Obama stating that the use of chemical weapons in Syria would be the final straw and crossing that red line would lead to actions being taken. However, when their use was indeed proven, hardly any different actions were actually taken. It is dangerous to announce a red line after all. By formulating certain circumstances that will have significant consequences (although these are often not described in more detail) the audience of the statement expects actions being taken as soon as that formulated red line is crossed. Furthermore, if more and more conditions are voiced but the defined situation arrives and passes without any consequences being taken, the credibility tumbles. Therefore, picturing the scenario in which the separatists do manage to successfully take Mariupol under their control, where the only consequence is a statement that the Minsk deal failed, the separatists would have gained a free ride and green light for further actions. Yet, one can be assured that it would have other consequences. The only question remaining is which ones.
Over the past year, the search has been on for possible solutions; the many talks and phone calls between head of states, numerous summits on the topic of the Ukraine crisis, the energy invested into diplomatic talks have shown how much it is that is at stake. The European countries are trying to secure future relations with Russia as a neighbour and not a pictured ‘other’ across the ocean, as often seen in the States. At the same time, they condemn the developments in Ukraine and seek to mobilise all its efforts in finding satisfying solutions for all sides. The Minsk process was portrayed as the first important step into the right direction. Unfortunately, the spoiling process was not far from coming.
And now the statement: ‘The end of patience in the case Mariupol falls.’ But what does this end of patience imply?
That is the dangerous part about ‘red lines’. By creating a situation that according to its formulation will have consequences, yet not clarifying specific consequences they will have, actors can almost get away without penalty, and the credibility of politicians are in question.
Photo Credit: pixabay
