Ukraine: The necessity of dialogue

By Francesca Sabatinelli

A thousand days is a length of time that gives one pause for thought, that tells a story of incredible suffering.

Andrea Riccardi, an Italian historian and founder of the Community of Sant'Egidio, speaks to Vatican News about the sad anniversary of a conflict that, two years and nine months later, has not yet given way to peace.

Vatican News: Professor, recalling the Pope’s words in Luxembourg, it seems no one has yet taken steps toward “honorable compromises” to build security and peace…

Andrea Riccardi: We’ve grown accustomed to the daily news, resigning ourselves to the continuation of this war. A thousand days is a span that makes one pause. Let me remind you that for Italy, World War I lasted 1,261 days, and it’s called the Great War; for the world, it lasted 1,568 days. A thousand days isn’t the story of a small conflict but of one that, on one hand, has devastated an entire country, Ukraine, and on the other, has changed the world. And this is because, as the Pope rightly says, we are in a state of quasi-global war, shadowed by the nuclear threat.

We have resurrected a culture of war and banished peace and dialogue from the lexicon of international relations. Today, the discourse revolves around weapons, geostrategies, and military operations, with little thought for looking beyond. Dialogue as a method is dismissed, and the pursuit of peace is abandoned. Even the word "peace" is shunned.

The Pope’s words stem from the grim realization that these thousand days have served no purpose but to exact a terrible toll on Ukraine. This war, with Russia’s violent aggression against a free nation like Ukraine, has inflicted enormous suffering on the Ukrainians themselves. From the very start, I’ve spoken of peace and negotiation. Every time I hear the Pope’s words, I feel comforted. I speak of peace not from a pro-Russian stance but out of love for the Ukrainian people, who have been ravaged by war. There are 14 million vulnerable individuals in need of aid, 6–7 million refugees abroad, and nearly 4 million internally displaced persons.

I’ve been to Ukraine and witnessed sights I hadn’t seen since childhood after World War II: so many war amputees on the streets. Consider also the mental anguish among civilians and soldiers, the plight of the elderly. It’s a society overwhelmed and impoverished, reduced by 10 million people. Why must they bear this price? They were attacked, resisted, and responded to aggression. But can’t another path be found?

Many argue it’s impossible or not the right time. They say speaking of this amounts to selling out Ukraine. No one wants that. We want Ukraine to thrive, which is why negotiation and peace are imperative. It’s not an impossibility; reclaiming the audacity of negotiation is a necessity.

Diplomacy must be practiced, contacts pursued, and efforts made to break the chains of war. Among world leaders, I find the Pope’s stance the most forward-looking. He’s denounced war as evil, championed negotiation, and, through Cardinal Zuppi’s mission, kept channels open with all parties and beyond. Through humanitarian and diplomatic contacts, a roadmap has been outlined: keep talking. Yet diplomatic channels are entirely severed—a tragedy, as rebuilding bridges once they’re broken is arduous.

VN: It seems the international community, over the course of these thousand days, has done more to support the war than to oppose it, as harsh as that may sound…

AR: Let’s not say "international community," because the community we once referred to no longer exists. Let’s speak of the West—NATO, Europe—which increasingly appear to be the same entity. They’ve been caught up in the euphoria of war and victory following Ukraine’s courageous resistance, risking an indirect war fought by Ukrainians but supported by the West.

The international community as we knew it is gone. Consider the emergence of widespread criticism of the conflict, particularly in the Global South. Russia’s alignment with China is another grave issue. Historical ties between Russia and Europe have, unsurprisingly, collapsed.

In the wake of Russia’s invasion, a militaristic fervor took hold. While I’m not an expert on military affairs, I’ve never believed that Russia could be defeated through sanctions or militarily. Not that Russia hasn’t suffered in this war, but its vast human and economic resources enable it to endure. Ukraine, however, is far less resilient and has been painfully weakened by relentless Russian bombardment.

VN: If thus far leaders have spoken only of arms and war, is it time, as you suggest, to propose creative diplomatic and negotiation strategies? On what foundations, given today’s situation?

AR: Peace is more urgent than ever, especially as winter looms. Sixty-five percent of Ukraine’s electricity production capacity has been targeted by missile strikes. This winter could bring death to many Ukrainians. Peace is needed, and quickly.

There’s no magic formula. We must begin by talking, by sitting at the same table. But this is complex; it requires establishing diplomatic channels. I believe negotiation is possible. Just two months after the war began, an agreement was close—until some Western countries advised Ukraine against it.

We should start now with humanitarian issues: reuniting families, exchanging prisoners and the bodies of fallen soldiers. Contacts must be sought at all levels because the walls of hatred and war propaganda are towering. Ukraine must not be sold out at the peace table. Everything must be negotiated.

Then there’s the immense task of Ukraine’s reconstruction—a monumental effort requiring significant steps and meetings. Every possible bridge must be opened, and quickly.

For us believers, there remains the “weak force” of prayer, imploring peace from the One who can grant it despite the "lords of war." I am astonished that, in Sunday Masses, prayers are offered for many intentions but rarely for peace. Prayer is our protest against war and the wellspring of hope, which animates dialogue.