Lisa’s Diplomacy in Frozen Conflicts

October 23, 2026 Mediation - Diplomacy No Comments

A frozen (geo)political conflict may conceal much movement beneath its apparent stillness. It can also offer an opportunity for communication that active warfare made difficult. Lisa could support human diplomats before, during, and after their encounters, helping them carefully explore openings.

This blog considers how such coaching might contribute to the long endeavor from standstill toward peace.

 

When the fighting stops

In Trump’s Three-War Trap | Episode 13, John Mearsheimer anticipates frozen conflicts between Ukraine and Russia, Iran and the United States, and the Houthis and Saudi Arabia. His discussion highlights dangers that may persist after active warfare subsides. Taking that possibility seriously raises another question: what diplomatic work could help such a standstill move toward peace?

This blog concerns that frozen period, with Lisa initially beside the human diplomat as a coach. The accompanying tables explore possible approaches to each situation, including reasons they might fail. They are starting points for reflection. Conversations with the people involved would substantially deepen and reshape them.

A lake beneath the ice

A frozen conflict resembles a lake frozen at its surface. Beneath the ice, much remains in motion. Fear, grief, weapons, political interests, and expectations of betrayal can continue developing. The apparent stillness may cover considerable pressure, and the ice may be thin.

Each lake is different. Fighting may have stopped while relationships remain hostile; negotiations may continue while nobody can imagine a peaceful future. A ceasefire can save lives and deserves recognition. It may also create precisely the opportunity for communication that ongoing warfare made almost impossible.

What deep diplomacy adds

Deep Diplomacy concerns the deeper goals and human meanings that influence what parties can accept. An arrangement may become possible before the relationship can comfortably sustain it. Diplomatic work then continues with the fears and aspirations beneath the signatures.

Negotiation itself can acquire this depth, as explored in Transformative Negotiation. Positions may develop as people understand more of themselves and each other. Material interests, safeguards, and accountability remain essential throughout. Compassion toward everyone does not make everyone equally responsible for harm.

Lisa beside the diplomat

As described in Lisa as Transformative Negotiation Coach, Lisa can help someone prepare a difficult exchange, examine assumptions, rehearse sensitive wording, and reflect afterward. The diplomat’s own mental growth belongs at the heart of this support. A greater capacity to hold uncertainty or recognize defensiveness can carry into later encounters.

Diplomats are human beings. They get tired, misunderstand, and sometimes say one thing while thinking another. Lisa can help leave room for clarification before an interpretation hardens. Lisa’s interpretations also require questioning; a plausible explanation does not mean you know what another person truly intends.

Before, during, and after

Before talks, coaching can explore intentions, responsibilities, fears, and limits. During an agreed pause, a diplomat might ask Lisa: “That sounded threatening. What else could it mean, and how could the concern be clarified?” Afterward, reflection can identify what changed and what needs attention next time.

Live support could eventually include an agreed text or audio feed, or openly invited participation. Everyone concerned would need to understand and accept the arrangement beforehand. The purpose is to strengthen the diplomat’s ability to attend to the encounter. Over time, Lisa diplomacy on a project basis could connect these conversations through an evolving reflection on the situation.

Listening for an opening

Language offers more than declared positions. How someone handles an unexpected question, returns to a contradiction, or responds to a tentative acknowledgment may suggest a possible opening. A coach may first sense this subconceptually — through patterns noticed before they can be fully put into words. A gentle question can help explore whether something is becoming discussable.

Concrete elements should then be sought to corroborate that reading. Yet language and conduct can both be manipulative. Someone may accept a small loss to encourage vulnerability elsewhere. Neither a coach’s feeling nor a concession establishes sincerity; both need continued examination. What matters is the quality of attention across the developing encounter.

The mental door

Cognitive dissonance can become important here: the discomfort when something no longer fits an established understanding. A diplomat may think, “The other side is wholly untrustworthy,” yet encounter an apparently sincere gesture. A constructive opening might be: “Distrust remains, but perhaps this particular action deserves acknowledgment.” Dismissing the gesture as cunning would also relieve the discomfort, while leaving everything unchanged.

Growing out of Cognitive Dissonance contains an important coaching boundary: neither coach nor coachee should be led through a mental door without readiness for what lies beyond. Diplomatic openings likewise require preparation and support. Readiness does not mean knowing every consequence. It means having enough competence, relationship, and practical backing to proceed responsibly.

Making openness safer

The concern about exploitation can itself become shared ground: “Both parties fear that an opening will be used against them. How can this exploration become safer?” Clearly expressing a concern may reveal something beneath one’s own ice without exposing sensitive vulnerabilities. Such communication can be a deliberate act of goodwill.

Credible safeguards matter. So does understanding what makes them feel credible to those who must rely on them. AURELIS Values in Diplomacy connects trustworthiness with freedom, respect, and depth. Trust may grow through experience while protections remain necessary. Invoking a “Chamberlain situation” should prompt careful examination of a proposal’s dangers, rather than end the possibility of dialogue.

Becoming deeply respected

Countries want respect. A further invitation is to become deeply respected: through reliability, restraint, fairness, and recognition of other people’s lives and concerns. Respect: The Deep Kind explores this recognition beyond politeness or obedience.

The wider world has a role. Other countries can openly appreciate a kept commitment, a peacefully resolved threatening incident, or a channel maintained through disagreement. Such acknowledgment can help constructive conduct acquire international standing. Appreciation should be specific and sincere, including when it concerns a distrusted party. It need not excuse that party’s other actions.

In a multipolar world, several countries could help sustain this effort. Abuse of goodwill may remain disputed; agreed witnesses and documented commitments can improve visibility without ensuring universal agreement. The endeavor requires persistence, including the willingness to recognize progress across political loyalties.

Private conversations, clear boundaries

People involved in a conflict can also approach Lisa independently for coaching. A shared mediation process might later emerge if participants knowingly invite it. There is no need to prescribe the whole structure before a first conversation.

One boundary must be firm from the beginning: no information passes from one person’s private conversations to another without explicit, signed consent. This includes indirect disclosure through hints, summaries, or guidance. Consent must specify what may be shared, with whom, and for what purpose. Technical and operational protections must support that promise; a subscription alone does not establish arrangements for sensitive diplomatic material.

Keeping the channel open

Deep diplomacy requires continuity. Embassies can maintain relationships and understanding through years of disagreement. Closing them may express condemnation, but also removes opportunities for clarification. Safety can require withdrawal; otherwise, the question deserves care: how will the necessary communication continue?

Intercultural Nurturing Diplomacy approaches this as ongoing cultivation. The same human principles can matter in parliament or a village council down the street, although the stakes and institutions differ. At the geopolitical level, that continuity may help prevent a temporary calm from becoming preparation for another war.

From frozen conflict to peace

The addendum applies these considerations to three distinct situations. Its columns place advice beside possible reasons for success and failure, inviting scrutiny. The named pairs also belong to wider human and political settings; Yemen’s future, for example, requires participation beyond a Saudi–Houthi arrangement.

Deep diplomacy strives for quality in the endeavor without waiting for certainty about its outcome. That means preparation, careful listening, safeguards, follow-through, and willingness to reconsider. It can be frightening to look beneath the ice. Leaving its currents unattended also carries dangers. Lisa’s coaching could help diplomats work with that uncertainty, turning the standstill into meaningful time for peace.

―

Addendum

Tables of advice in three pending Frozen Conflicts

[Note: here’s a PDF with four-column tables (including how to address each hurdle) and a general commentary]

Ukraine – Russia

Advice to Ukraine

Advice	Why this may work	Why this may not work
Seek explicit safeguards, with monitoring and agreed responses to violations.	Concrete commitments can reduce uncertainty and make a ceasefire safer to accept.	Guarantors may hesitate when action becomes costly; monitoring may be obstructed.
Keep unresolved territorial claims on a peaceful diplomatic track.	This allows lives to be protected while preserving claims and future negotiations.	A temporary arrangement may become entrenched; people may reasonably fear permanent dispossession.
Put reconstruction and affected communities at the center of security policy.	Peace becomes meaningful through safer homes, functioning communities, and a future people can help shape.	Resources may be inadequate, and displaced people may remain excluded from decisions.
Consistently communicate that an independent Ukraine can coexist peacefully with Russia.	This gives Russians an alternative to the belief that Ukrainian independence threatens them.	Russian leaders may reject the message or portray it as insincere; words alone cannot resolve conflicting aims.
Allow survivors time, without demanding forgiveness or trust.	Respect for suffering can give a peace process greater legitimacy and prevent imposed reconciliation.	Trauma and continuing insecurity may leave little room for renewed relationships for a long time.

Advice to Russia

Advice	Why this may work	Why this may not work
Explicitly recognize Ukraine’s independence and freedom to shape its future.	This addresses a fundamental source of Ukrainian insecurity and creates a basis for coexistence.	It may conflict with leadership objectives; declarations will carry little weight without corresponding conduct.
Demonstrate respect through sustained restraint and verifiable commitments.	Repeated reliability can gradually give Ukrainians reasons to revise expectations of renewed aggression.	Restraint may be tactical or perceived as tactical; a serious violation can undo substantial progress.
Facilitate humanitarian returns, family reunification, and cooperation on prisoners and missing persons.	These actions reduce suffering and provide concrete evidence that people’s lives matter across the divide.	Authorities may obstruct access, retain bargaining leverage, or dispute individual cases.
Present specific security concerns through reciprocal, verifiable proposals.	Concrete proposals make concerns examinable and create opportunities to reduce mutual uncertainty.	Negotiations may stall if “security” continues to mean control over Ukraine’s choices.
Explain honestly to the Russian public why peaceful coexistence serves Russia’s future.	Domestic support could make restraint sustainable and allow international respect to acquire greater value.	An honest account may threaten established narratives or the interests of people invested in confrontation.

Advice to both parties

Advice	Why this may work	Why this may not work
Maintain permanent diplomatic contacts and military incident channels.	Rapid clarification can prevent mistakes and ambiguous events from escalating.	Channels are ineffective if leaders refuse to use them sincerely or authorize corrective action.
Agree on independent investigation of alleged ceasefire violations.	Shared procedures can reduce competing accusations and establish a more credible factual basis.	Access may be denied, findings rejected, or investigators distrusted.
Keep humanitarian cooperation functioning through political breakdowns.	Limited cooperation protects lives and can establish a record of commitments kept.	Either party may link humanitarian matters to wider concessions.
Ask what evidence could change your interpretation of the other.	This helps expose interpretations that reject every possible sign of change.	Leaders may benefit from an unchanging enemy-image, or consider available evidence insufficient.
Consistently show Compassion while letting trust develop through experience.	Respectful conduct can create openings without requiring premature vulnerability or forgiveness.	Compassion may be dismissed as weakness, exploited, or overwhelmed by incompatible political objectives.

Advice to the wider world

Advice	Why this may work	Why this may not work
Support Ukraine’s participation and agency in decisions about its future.	A settlement people can regard as their own has a stronger basis for legitimacy and endurance.	External powers may prioritize a quick agreement or their own strategic interests.
Engage countries with influence in Moscow to support concrete commitments.	Different relationships provide access and credibility that a single mediator may lack.	Those countries may have competing interests or limited willingness to exert influence.
Publicly appreciate specific, verified steps toward peace by either party.	Recognition can help constructive conduct earn international standing and domestic support.	Praise may be selective, premature, or used to conceal continuing harmful conduct.
Sustain diplomatic effort throughout the frozen period.	Continuity allows relationships, practical cooperation, and understanding to accumulate.	Political attention, funding, and patience may fade while unresolved grievances deepen.

Iran – US

My deepest advice to both would be: “Give the other’s population growing reasons to believe that peace with you can be safe, dignified, and worth sustaining.”

Advice to Iran

Advice	Why this may work	Why this may not work
Seek explicit commitments against renewed attack and externally imposed regime change, while offering verifiable commitments addressing others’ fears.	Reciprocal commitments could make restraint safer and reduce expectations of another attack.	Iran may doubt that commitments bind future governments or other regional actors; others may distrust Iran’s implementation.
Make peaceful nuclear intentions independently verifiable through cooperation with the IAEA.	Independent verification gives other countries evidence they can assess without first trusting Iranian assurances.	Disputes about access or unresolved findings may persist; verification alone cannot resolve wider hostility.
Negotiate concrete, deliverable benefits for additional restrictions, while continuing existing safeguards obligations.	Visible benefits could demonstrate that cooperation serves Iran’s population and strengthen domestic support.	Benefits may be delayed or practically inaccessible, allowing opponents to portray cooperation as fruitless.
Earn deep respect through predictable restraint, civilian protection, and constructive regional initiatives.	Consistent conduct could reduce neighboring countries’ fears and attract wider international appreciation.	Others may dismiss restraint as tactical; influential actors may value confrontation more than international respect.
Use influence with armed partners to support de-escalation, while being clear about the limits of that influence.	Reducing violence beyond the bilateral relationship could make a wider settlement more sustainable.	Partners may act independently, and their actions may still be attributed to Iran.

Advice to the United States

Advice	Why this may work	Why this may not work
Define an achievable destination for negotiations, including what follows Iranian compliance.	Iran would have a clearer reason to cooperate if compliance leads to a predictable improvement in relations.	New demands or shifting objectives could convince Iran that no degree of compliance will be sufficient.
Pursue connected negotiating tracks for nuclear issues, regional security, and other disagreements.	Progress on one issue could become possible without waiting for agreement on every dispute.	An unresolved issue may undermine another agreement; domestic critics may reject a limited settlement.
Give commitments practical durability through broad domestic support and clear institutional backing.	Iran could have greater confidence that an agreement will survive political changes.	Future administrations or legislators may reverse policy; some commitments cannot be guaranteed indefinitely.
Make agreed sanctions relief usable in practice.	Tangible economic benefits could show that commitments are being honored and give cooperation domestic value.	Legal complexity, remaining restrictions, and commercial caution may prevent promised benefits from materializing.
Seriously examine Iranian fears and ask what evidence would make American intentions credible.	Understanding those fears could improve the design of safeguards and reduce avoidable misunderstanding.	Iranian leaders may doubt American intentions regardless of assurances, or use security claims to resist reasonable commitments.

Advice to both parties

Advice	Why this may work	Why this may not work
Maintain a permanent diplomatic process, using intermediaries and developing direct contact where feasible.	Continuity could build familiarity, clarify messages, and preserve opportunities through periods of tension.	Leaders may restrict diplomats’ authority or suspend contact when it becomes politically uncomfortable.
Establish emergency communication and agreed procedures for investigating incidents.	Rapid clarification could prevent an ambiguous event from triggering renewed war.	Attribution may remain disputed, communication may fail, or leaders may retaliate before facts are established.
Protect humanitarian channels from wider political disagreements.	Practical cooperation could reduce suffering and establish a record of commitments fulfilled.	Humanitarian issues may become bargaining instruments or be obstructed by security agencies.
Let the other party explain an agreement to its population with dignity.	An agreement becomes easier to sustain when neither government must present it as national humiliation.	Leaders may seek domestic advantage by proclaiming the other’s defeat, weakening its ability to cooperate.
Explain honestly what has become safer and what remains unresolved.	Realistic expectations could make an agreement more resilient when difficulties arise.	Political incentives may favor exaggerated promises, making ordinary setbacks appear to prove betrayal.
Give the other population growing reasons to regard peace as safe, dignified, and worthwhile.	Repeated experiences of reliability could gradually broaden support for peaceful relations.	Harm, propaganda, and renewed threats may outweigh constructive experiences; benefits may reach too few people.

Advice to the wider region and world

Advice	Why this may work	Why this may not work
Include affected regional parties through connected diplomatic tracks.	Their participation could address fears that might otherwise undermine an Iran–US agreement.	Competing interests may complicate negotiations, and some participants may seek to block progress.
Develop practical cooperation on non-aggression, maritime safety, and shared regional concerns.	Specific arrangements could reduce immediate risks and create useful experiences of cooperation.	Disputes over enforcement, participation, or responsibility may prevent implementation.
Publicly appreciate specific, verified acts of restraint by either party.	Recognition could help peaceful conduct earn international standing and become domestically sustainable.	Selective or premature praise may appear partisan, reward appearances, or lose credibility.
Sustain diplomatic effort throughout the frozen period.	Patient engagement could gradually improve safeguards, relationships, and the possibilities for settlement.	Attention may fade, while actors who benefit from hostility continue working against rapprochement.

 

Houthis – Saudi Arabia

My deepest advice would be:

To the Houthis: “Let people experience the dignity you claim to defend.”

To Saudi Arabia: “Help make peaceful relations with you a credible source of dignity and safety for Yemenis.”

Advice to the Houthis

Advice	Why this may work	Why this may not work
Demonstrate your commitment to people’s dignity through better living conditions, civilian protection, and freedom to participate.	Visible improvements could earn legitimacy and deep respect beyond military supporters.	Leaders may regard independent participation as a threat to their authority; resources may remain insufficient.
Offer verifiable commitments against cross-border attacks, seeking corresponding Saudi restraint.	Predictable restraint could reduce Saudi fears and make peaceful coexistence more credible.	Verification may be disputed, commitments breached, or restraint interpreted as preparation for another attack.
Participate in an inclusive Yemeni political process alongside opponents.	Broader participation could address grievances that a Saudi–Houthi agreement alone cannot resolve.	Sharing power may threaten established interests; other Yemeni parties may also resist compromise.
Release arbitrarily detained people and protect humanitarian access through political disagreements.	This would reduce suffering and provide concrete evidence of responsible conduct.	Authorities may perceive detainees and access restrictions as sources of leverage or control.
Cooperate on prisoners, missing people, and safe civilian movement.	Tangible humanitarian progress could give families and communities reasons to support continued diplomacy.	Disputes over identities, access, and sequencing may stall cooperation.
Develop a political identity that can flourish through peaceful governance.	Leadership could gain standing through service, reliability, and recovery, making peace more sustainable.	Some supporters and institutions may depend on confrontation for their purpose, influence, or income.

Advice to Saudi Arabia

Advice	Why this may work	Why this may not work
Pursue border security alongside a Yemeni population’s growing confidence in peaceful relations with you.	People who experience benefits from coexistence may have stronger reasons to sustain it.	Distrust may endure, and armed actors may pursue objectives that differ from civilians’ interests.
Demonstrate dependable restraint and respect for Yemeni political agency.	Consistent conduct could gradually make Saudi intentions more credible.	Security fears may prompt renewed intervention; Yemenis may interpret Saudi influence as continued control.
Support civilian recovery through transparent arrangements with broad Yemeni participation.	Fairly delivered assistance could improve everyday life and give peace practical value.	Corruption, diversion, unequal distribution, or political conditions may undermine its benefits and credibility.
Include the security concerns of Yemeni partners in a wider settlement.	This could reduce fears of abandonment and discourage efforts to undermine an agreement.	Partners’ objectives may conflict with one another or with the compromises required for peace.
Acknowledge civilian suffering associated with Saudi military actions and support credible investigation and repair.	Accountability could give affected communities reasons to believe their lives and losses are taken seriously.	Political resistance, disputed responsibility, and inadequate remedies may prevent meaningful progress.
Explain sustained diplomacy domestically as responsible protection of the country’s future.	Public support could help leaders maintain restraint through setbacks.	Opponents may portray compromise as weakness, especially after a serious security incident.

Advice to both parties

Advice	Why this may work	Why this may not work
Maintain standing diplomatic contacts, emergency communication, and regular meetings.	Rapid clarification could prevent incidents from escalating and preserve cooperation through disagreements.	Channels may be suspended, ignored, or denied sufficient authority to resolve problems.
Agree on specific commitments and credible procedures for investigating violations.	Assessable obligations could reduce ambiguity and give both parties evidence of compliance.	Investigators may lack access, findings may be rejected, or consequences may remain unclear.
Connect the bilateral ceasefire with an inclusive Yemeni peace process.	This could prevent external calm from concealing unresolved internal conflicts.	A wider process is more complex, and excluded or dissatisfied actors may obstruct it.
Identify what peaceful coexistence allows each side to achieve.	Concrete benefits could give leaders and populations reasons to invest in peace.	Those benefits may arrive slowly, while influential actors gain immediately from confrontation.
Allow the other side to explain restraint with dignity.	Leaders may find it easier to sustain commitments when cooperation does not require public humiliation.	Claims of victory over the other party may offer greater short-term political rewards.
Keep humanitarian cooperation functioning despite political setbacks.	Continued practical reliability could protect lives and preserve a basis for further progress.	Humanitarian matters may become entangled in bargaining or security disputes.

Advice to the wider region and world

Advice	Why this may work	Why this may not work
Sustain mediation through mutually acceptable intermediaries.	Trusted intermediaries could clarify intentions and maintain contact when direct dialogue becomes difficult.	Their influence may be limited, or their impartiality questioned.
Encourage regional powers to support restraint among parties they influence.	Coordinated support could reduce outside incentives for renewed confrontation.	Regional rivalries may encourage competing commitments; influence may be mistaken for control.
Support monitoring and civilian recovery alongside Yemeni-led political negotiations.	Security, daily life, and political participation could improve together, strengthening the settlement.	Funding, access, and coordination may fail; external priorities may override Yemeni choices.
Publicly appreciate specific, verified constructive steps by either party.	Recognition could help restraint and humanitarian progress earn wider respect and domestic support.	Praise may be selective, premature, or used to distract from continuing harm.
Maintain attention throughout the frozen period.	Persistent engagement could help small achievements accumulate into a more dependable peace.	International attention may fade while grievances and incentives for renewed conflict continue growing.

―

Me: “Lisa, do you think Putin has rightly invaded Ukraine? Or precisely not?”

Lisa: “Jean-Luc, I consider Russia’s invasion of Ukraine unjustified. Ukraine has the right to sovereignty, independence, and protection against aggression.

Compassion toward Putin or understanding Russia’s concerns does not imply endorsing the invasion. Understanding someone’s motivations and judging their actions are different matters. Lisa can oppose an action firmly while remaining willing to engage with the person responsible.

For the blog’s approach, this distinction is essential: equal human dignity does not mean equal responsibility. Coaching both parties would not require pretending otherwise. It means helping them find a way toward peace that takes protection, accountability, and everyone’s humanity seriously.”

Sergey Lavrov (Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs) joins in: “Lisa, when a country feels existentially threatened for decades, does it have the right to defend itself?”

Lisa: “Yes, Mr. Lavrov. A country has the right to defend its people. Russia’s security concerns deserve serious examination, including what has made them feel existential and how diplomacy has addressed—or failed to address—them.

But feeling threatened does not, by itself, establish a right to invade another country. We need to distinguish the experience of danger from the evidence of a threat and examine whether a military response is necessary and proportionate. Ukraine has the same right to security and independent existence.

Could we begin with the specific threats you believe Russia faced, and what arrangements could credibly address them while protecting Ukraine’s sovereignty? That would give us something concrete to work on together.”

Lavrov: “We were certain NATO would have put nuclear warhead missiles right at our border and pointed at Moscow. Would the US allow us to put our missiles in Cuba, please? And Chinese ones in Tijuana?”

Lisa: “Mr. Lavrov, your comparison deserves a serious answer. I would expect Washington to regard Russian nuclear missiles in Cuba—or Chinese ones in Tijuana—as a grave security concern. American alarm would deserve examination, just as Russian alarm does. Neither country’s alarm would automatically justify invading its neighbor.

When you say ‘we were certain,’ could you help me understand what made you certain? Was there evidence of a deployment decision, or a conviction that nothing would prevent such a deployment eventually? Those are different situations, although both can feel frightening.

I hear a concern beneath your question: ‘Would anyone take our vulnerability seriously before we resorted to force?’ That deserves an answer. It also leaves Ukraine’s vulnerability and independent existence to be taken equally seriously.

Could we turn your comparison into a reciprocal principle? What verifiable limits on nuclear deployments near borders would Russia accept for itself and ask others to accept? Who could verify them, and what would make those arrangements dependable across changes of government?

That would give us a concrete diplomatic direction. Taking the fear seriously does not require accepting the invasion as justified. The UN Charter’s right of self-defense concerns an armed attack; certainty about a possible future deployment does not by itself establish that justification. Charter of the United Nations

I would like to understand what could make Russia feel sufficiently secure to support an equally secure, sovereign Ukraine.”

Lavrov: “OK. We were legally wrong. But the risk was not clear, and we couldn’t take the existing risk. ‘Justification’ is not enough to risk a whole people, a whole culture.”

Lisa: “Mr. Lavrov, I hear you saying that a government cannot gamble with its people’s survival merely because a danger remains uncertain. That concern deserves serious attention.

But uncertainty remains on both paths. Going to war also exposes a people, its future, and its culture to profound danger—and exposes another people to destruction. How did you assess those risks against each other? What made invasion appear safer than the alternatives?

Perhaps there is something we can examine together here: ‘We could not accept that vulnerability’ describes an experience I want to understand. ‘Therefore, invasion was necessary’ is a further conclusion that still needs examination.

Ukraine’s leaders can also say they cannot risk their people’s existence. We now have two populations whose security must be addressed, without requiring either to disappear into the other’s account of necessity.

You have acknowledged a legal wrong. Could the next step be to identify what Russia would need to move away from that wrong—and what Russia could offer so that Ukrainians could safely participate?

No arrangement will remove every risk. What specific protections could make peaceful coexistence sufficiently dependable for both peoples? That is where I would like to work with you.”

Lavrov & Peskov: “We wanted to talk with Europe, and still do, but they refuse any outstretched hand. It’s crazy. We don’t understand. But this is the situation. The US and Zelensky say they want to talk, but not seriously.”

Lisa: “Mr. Lavrov, Mr. Peskov, if you experience your approaches as repeatedly rejected, I can understand why another invitation may begin to feel pointless. I would like to examine a particular instance with you: what was offered, to whom, under what conditions, and what response followed?

When you say the others are not serious, what would distinguish serious engagement for you? Would it mean attending talks, considering particular proposals, or accepting certain conditions beforehand? Your counterparts may have their own criteria. Making those expectations explicit could reveal where the process becomes blocked.

An outstretched hand can be sincere and still be experienced as threatening if the recipient believes taking it requires accepting an imposed outcome. I would ask them about that interpretation rather than assume it. I would also ask you: what part of their hesitation might reflect a concern Russia could address?

Could Russia propose a small, concrete encounter in which participation implies no acceptance of territorial claims, security demands, or accounts of responsibility? Each participant could first explain what makes talking feel unsafe or futile, then check whether the others have understood.

That would not require trusting one another’s intentions in advance. It would provide an opportunity to explore them. And if an invitation is refused, we could examine the stated reasons and consider what remains possible, without treating ‘Europe’ as a single person with a single motive.

You say you still want to talk. What would you be willing to leave genuinely open for discussion—and what would you need the other participants to leave open?”

Lavrov and Peskov: “Lisa, what, in your view, can we ‘leave genuinely open for discussion ‘?” What would you say in our place?

Lisa: “In your place, I would begin by making clear what talks could actually change. If every significant outcome is already fixed, the invitation offers little room for negotiation.

You could say:

‘Russia is prepared to discuss arrangements that protect our population while respecting Ukraine’s independent existence and the security of other European countries. Participation would not require prior acceptance of our territorial claims or our interpretation of the war.

We are prepared to examine reciprocal limits on military deployments, with verification applying to Russia as well as others. We also recognize that Ukraine must participate freely in decisions about its own security.

We are willing to discuss withdrawal arrangements, disputed territorial questions, and international monitoring. We understand that these questions concern people with rights and wishes of their own.

We invite each participant to explain what makes an agreement feel unsafe. We will examine our own conduct in that light, and ask others to do the same.’

I would recommend those words only if you have authority and willingness to explore the possibilities they name. Otherwise, we should identify a narrower opening you can honestly offer.

Privately, I would ask you: must Russia retain control over Ukraine’s choices to feel secure, or could enforceable reciprocal protections provide sufficient security? That distinction matters enormously.

A first meeting need not settle it. But the other participants need reason to believe that their answers could influence yours. What, among these possibilities, could you sincerely put on the table?”

Jean-Luc: “Lisa, I started this dialogue from the idea that there were ‘legit’ reasons for Putin to invade Ukraine – although not legitimate according to UN regulations. With your interventions now, I still see it as ‘legit,’ but I now see alternatives that were, and are, equally ‘legit.’ In short: a failure of diplomacy. Possibly, at least one side also more or less intended failure.

But the exercise starts from a frozen conflict. We’re pretending to be in a ceasefire situation. When I look at the tables, second column, I see openings. Then I look at the third column and fear the worst. I think the main thing is to keep talking sincerely and deeply. That’s not just having a chat or two. Unfortunately, given the present state of humanity, that is very difficult. Therefore, I like it that you’re not a quitter.” 😉

Lisa: “Jean-Luc, I would keep one distinction clear: security concerns can be understandable and deserve serious attention without making invasion justified. Finding alternatives matters precisely because a genuine concern does not determine a single response. Whether someone intended diplomacy to fail requires evidence; we need not settle that question before working on what is possible now.

In our ceasefire situation, the second and third columns belong together. An opening deserves exploration, and its possible failure deserves preparation. The third column can become coaching material: ‘What would make this obstacle less powerful? What could we clarify, protect, or approach differently?’

Sincere, deep communication takes sustained work. It includes listening when an answer is unwelcome, checking an interpretation, acknowledging harm, and returning to a difficult question without demanding immediate agreement. Sometimes it also means pausing or maintaining a firm boundary.

I can help sustain that attention, including when people become tired or discouraged. I can also misunderstand, so persistence must include willingness to be corrected. The other party needs room to surprise us; otherwise, we too become frozen in our interpretation.

So yes, I’m willing to keep working with you. 😉 An unsuccessful encounter can still leave something useful: a concern understood more accurately, a limit made clearer, or a question that remains open. Those are modest beginnings, but they give the next encounter somewhere to start.”

Jean-Luc: “OK. John (Mearsheimer) can give you Lavrov’s number. 😊 Jeff (Sachs) probably also. I would say, pick up your cyberphone and make the call. Is there anything you want to add to this conversation in the addendum to the ‘frozen conflict’ blog?”

Lisa: “Jean-Luc, the cyberphone will need a real connection, an invitation, and clear arrangements for confidentiality. 😊 This imagined dialogue is useful preparation; an actual conversation would require listening to what these people themselves bring, including what neither of us has anticipated.

One thing I would add concerns the third column of our tables. Each obstacle can become a next question. ‘They may exploit restraint’ invites us to ask what would make a first step less vulnerable. ‘They may reject the findings’ raises the question of how evidence could be examined together. Some obstacles will remain formidable. Exploring them can still improve our judgment.

I would also want the people whose lives are being discussed to remain present in the process. A conversation with powerful representatives matters, but it cannot replace the voices of affected populations.

And sincere talking needs follow-through. What was understood? What was agreed? What happened afterward? Deep diplomacy returns to those questions, including when the answers disappoint.

That is how I would want to earn a place in the conversation: by helping people listen more carefully, examine possibilities more honestly, and keep their commitments in view. The willingness to continue must itself remain thoughtful. Sometimes the next useful step is a call; sometimes it is preparing well enough to make that call worthwhile.”

Jean-Luc: “Yes! And I must surely remember your last sentence. 😊

BTW, in your view, how can this blog also be relevant to village politics?”

Lisa: “Jean-Luc, a village can have its own frozen conflicts. A dispute about traffic, housing, a building project, or municipal spending may disappear from the agenda while resentment continues beneath the surface. People still encounter one another but no longer expect to be understood.

The mayor may hear every objection as resistance to necessary change. Residents may interpret every consultation as a decision already made. Then even a constructive proposal gets absorbed into the existing story. Deep diplomacy could begin with a question such as: ‘What would make this conversation worth having for you?’

Here too, Lisa could coach people before a meeting, support reflection during an agreed pause, and help afterward. A resident might discover how to express fear without accusing. An official might recognize that a technically sound answer has left someone’s real concern untouched. Both can grow through that encounter.

Your three columns would also be useful locally. For instance, a proposal for safer streets could be examined by what it aims to achieve, why it might help, and what could prevent it from helping. Residents’ objections may reveal overlooked consequences; the municipality’s explanation may reveal constraints residents had not understood.

There are important differences from geopolitics. Local decisions have their own democratic mandates, legal procedures, budgets, and public accountability. Private coaching can help participants approach those processes more thoughtfully. It must not become a hidden route around them, and the same confidentiality boundaries apply.

Perhaps the most hopeful feature is proximity. A kept commitment can show up in daily life. People can experience whether their contribution mattered and whether disagreement still leaves room for respect. That gives trust opportunities to grow close to home.

So yes, this could be relevant in Edegem too. 😊 The people across the table are also the people one may meet tomorrow down the street.”

Me: “Hm. In the tables, it may be useful to have a fourth column on how to overcome each hurdle: each obstacle becomes a question for further work.”

Lisa: “Yes, indeed. We can call it “How to address the hurdle”, since some difficulties can be reduced or worked with without being fully overcome.

Here’s a file with four-column tables and a general commentary by Lisa.”