Mindfulness Approach and the Redefined Analysis Model of Conflict the Case Study of the Ukraine Conflict

Abstract

To address the gaps in previous studies, this paper explores the integration of mindfulness approaches in understanding and tackling the Ukraine conflict. While existing research has predominantly focused on traditional theoretical frameworks like constructivism, neoliberalism, and realism, the potential insights offered by a mindfulness approach remain largely unexplored. This study aims to elucidate how mindfulness principles such as compassion, empathy, and non-judgmental awareness can offer valuable perspectives and effective strategies for resolving conflict and fostering peace in Ukraine. By critically analysing the complexities and dynamics of the conflict, the paper transforms the traditional ABC triangle of conflict into an expanded ABCM diamond of conflict, incorporating a mindfulness approach. Through expert interviews and an analysis of secondary data sources, the paper contributes to a deeper understanding of conflict resolution techniques and offers novel approaches to addressing contemporary geopolitical challenges such as the Ukraine conflict.

1. Introduction

The Ukraine conflict has been ongoing since Putin declared an attack on Ukraine by the full-scale invasion of the country by land, sea, and air throughout Ukraine. Global peace and sustainable development are totally impacted by this conflict, including political, economic, and social life. Major states adopt stances that influence international security and diplomacy, which strains relations between them politically (CFS (Council on Foreign Relations) n.d.). Disruptions in energy markets and trade routes have an economic impact on global markets, hence affecting supply chains and prices. Socially, the fighting intensifies humanitarian crises, resulting in displaced people, violations of human rights, and instability in the area. The conflict has global impact beyond Ukraine, threatening global peace, stability, and sustainable development.

Using the mindfulness approach, this paper redefines the analysis model of conflict to analyse the Ukraine conflict. The mindfulness approach includes the principles of compassion, empathy, and non-judgmental awareness, instead of the self-interest behaviours of the related stakeholders. Through the incorporation of a mindfulness approach into our analysis model of conflict, this paper suggests relevant solutions for all impacted parties and advances non-violent communication and long-term solutions. This multidisciplinary approach provides a better way to deal with difficult geopolitical issues with empathy, discernment, and a dedication to building peace and development.

The approach of mindfulness helps to fill the gap in the previous theories such as the constructivist, neoliberal, and realist frameworks for understanding the causes and consequences of the conflicts better. The previous studies face two gaps. First, while the mindfulness approach for peace has been widely accepted, no studies have applied this approach to analyse the Ukraine conflict. Second, conventional theories like constructivism, neoliberalism, and realism cannot help to deal with the Ukraine conflict. However, their assumption of self-interest in international politics is the main cause for the global conflict.

This paper employs a qualitative approach by applying both historical analysis, interpretivism, case studies, and critical approaches to understand the Ukraine conflict better. It also explores basic presumptions, evaluating subjective meanings and looking at the historical context of this conflict in order to create long-term peace and sustainable development. This mindfulness viewpoint is more relevant to understanding the interconnection of all parties involved and encouraging better mutual communication and understanding.

This paper makes the case that a mindfulness method can offer an alternative and somewhat relevant perspective on the origins of and solutions for the Ukraine conflict, thereby bridging the gap left by earlier research. This paper address the question: How might the mindfulness approach help to address the Ukraine conflict?

Apart from the introduction, this paper is divided into five sections. Section 2 analyses study methodology. Section 3 is a literature review. Section 4 focuses on a case study of the Ukraine conflict and a realist approach. Section 5 discusses the mindfulness approach in combination with the ABC triangle approach to the Ukraine conflict. Section 6 concludes and provides theoretical and policy implications.

2. Study Methodologies and Data Collection

This paper combines both case study and historical approaches to clarify the case of the Ukraine conflict. First, the paper provides a critical analysis of constructivism, neo-liberalism, and realism as theoretical stances. The paper clarifies the inability of these theories to understand the Ukraine conflict. Second, the paper analyses different aspects of the conflict in Ukraine by examining the involved parties in this conflict and their motivation within the conflict. It also provides some critical analysis of these approaches in resolving the causes of the Ukraine conflict. Finally, this paper includes the mindfulness approach to redefine the analysis model of conflict for the case study of the Ukraine conflict. The purpose of the case study design in this context is to make theoretical and policy contributions to the ABC triangle of conflict, rather than theory testing or quantitative methodology (Ridder 2017).

The historical approach to the Ukraine conflict must look at the historical and geopolitical processes of Ukraine’s identity and its connections with Russia, shaped by periods of independence and foreign control. In particular, the effects of Soviet control could create the inherent conflict between Russia and Ukraine, further exacerbated by past territory disputes and ethnic differences. The historical legacy is an important factor to forge a road towards the future.

This paper also uses interpretism to clarify the influence of Russia, the USA, and the European Union’s distinct positions on the Ukraine conflict through an analysis of their language, rhetoric, and discourses. This paper involves qualitative research which uses both secondary and primary data analysis, including discourse analysis or interviews with important experts and well as the conflicting interests and narratives that sustain it.

The previous theories (realism, constructivism, and liberalism) consider nation-states as the primary actors but overlook the fact that states are made up of individuals, including leaders and decision-makers. These actors can shape decisions on conflict or peace. Therefore, this paper appropriately assumes that the key actors as the decision-makers within the US, NATO, Ukraine, and Russia (the leadership), who are driven by self-interests and face their internal, subconscious conflicts. The paper argues that a mindfulness approach could help these actors to change themselves first and offer a pathway toward more peaceful decisions. In the context of the Ukraine conflict, this paper clarifies the state level of analysis, where USA, Russia, and EU are the key players in this conflict. Their strategic foreign policy interests will be analysed, where the larger geopolitical environment of the US–Russia rivalry could be investigated. However, the paper makes clear that the decision-makers, as key actors, need to change themselves to find peaceful solutions to the conflict as suggested by the mindfulness approach.

This paper focuses on the conflict phase after February 2022, since Russia invaded Ukraine. This phase reflects both the conflict dynamics and its global implications during this time. By concentrating on this later phase, the paper can clarify the evolving strategies, geopolitical responses, and broader consequences that have emerged as the conflict continues.

The data collection for this paper includes expert interviews and secondary sources which are combined to understand both quantitative and qualitative impacts of the Ukraine conflict. Expert interviews with advisers on foreign policies of the conflict provide an in-depth comprehension of the complexity of the Ukraine conflict by both secondary data and expert reviews, which help to redefine the analysis model of conflict from the case study of the Ukraine conflict.

3. Literature Review

3.1. Empirical Review

Most of the previous studies use a realism approach to analyse the motivations of countries that are either directly or indirectly involved in the Ukraine conflict. From a realist perspective, the Russia–Ukraine conflict is considered to be a result of Russia’s pursuit of global power and security in the international system. It is suggested that Russia attempted to protect its strategic interests, counter increasingly Western influence, and sustain its sphere of influence in the region, such as national security and geopolitical considerations. Realism emphasises state interests, power relations, and geopolitical calculations by examining territorial growth, strategic advantage, and regional influence to explain why states intervene or resort to conflict.

Indeed, the international community has grave concerns about Russia’s participation in Ukraine on 24 February 2022. In particular, the once regional confrontation between Russian and Ukraine has spread to encompass all major nations and their alliance systems. Primarily, this dispute has turned into an examination of the global economic and security framework, questioning the long-standing supremacy of the transatlantic alliance system and its “rules-based international order”. We examine how the 2022 intervention represents a test of resolve for Russia as the intervenor and the West as the supporter of Kyiv in order to address the topic and contributions of this special issue. Next, we present the arguments for and against the kinetic intervention’s causes. Lastly, we look at the diverse responses throughout the world to Russia’s invasion (Belo and Rodríguez 2023).

In recent years, the majority of Western analyses of Ukraine have attributed the nation’s crisis to Russia. But as John Mearsheimer (2021) has noted, the West bears a major portion of the blame for Ukraine’s predicament. On the surface, the Ukraine conflict is caused by the expansion of the European Union and NATO, the West’s “democracy” project inside Ukraine, the failure of leading Western nations to take into account Russian strategic interests, and the imprudence of prominent Western figures who have not anticipated the repercussions of their actions (Peng 2017).

Dunford (2023) explains two interrelated elements which are essentially the case of the military war between Russia and Ukraine, which is also a struggle between Russian and the United States and its NATO allies (Dunford 2023). First, the NATO expansion puts Russia’s security at risk of its indivisible national security and the promises made during Germany’s reunification. Subsequent governments and external parties failed or refused to address the second issue, which is the deeply ingrained internal divisions in Ukraine caused by different ethnic nationalism. These divisions resulted in demands for a certain amount of regional autonomy and a civil war. During these years, Ukraine was a tool in American policy to counter a strategic adversary, stop Eurasian integration, and maintain the unipolar order that resulted from the fall of the Soviet Union. Germany, Europe, and Ukraine as it existed until February 2022 will lose out if current trends continue; nevertheless, depending on the outcome, it might also hasten the shift to a new multipolar world order.

Villasmil-Espinoza et al. (2022) consider that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine jeopardises Western Europe’s security and undermines the principles of international law that govern, at least nominally, relations between civilised nations (Villasmil-Espinoza et al. 2022). This may possibly put NATO and Russia in direct confrontation. It is also considered as a clash between opposing political models, such as the militaristic and neo-conservative authoritarianism of Russia in contrast with the liberal democracies of the West that uphold human rights, and international law’s fundamentals of national sovereignty, the freedom of speech, and international mobility (Villasmil-Espinoza et al. 2022).

Abualkanam (2023) analyses the devastating effects of the Ukraine conflict on people all around the world. This study attempted to identify the causes, consequences, and potential remedies for the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. Large-scale civilian and military deaths, food shortages, and a global economic slowdown, are just a few further consequences of the conflict. Thus, it is necessary to maintain the diplomatic measures as well as territory negotiations for this conflict (Abualkanam 2023).

The prolonged conflict between Russia and Ukraine is causing great suffering and casting doubt on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) despite the Agenda’s universal commitment to preserve the lives of vulnerable populations, as embodied in the pledge to “leave no one behind”. The goal of this research is to present a comprehensive knowledge of how the Russia–Ukraine war has affected the global advancement of the SDGs as emphasized by Bin-Nashwan, Hassan, and Muneeza (Bin-Nashwan et al. 2022).

Given that the Russia–Ukraine conflict is one of the bloodiest wars to have broken out in Europe since World War II, research on the tactics employed by the opposing forces is extremely important. This conflict might contribute to our understanding of the origins and effects of the conflict. It raises additional research inquiry for security, peace, and stability not just in Ukraine and Europe but globally (Bahinskyi and Zaiets 2023).

3.2. Theoretical Review

In terms of theoretical perspectives, there are three schools of international relations theory to explain how and why international conflicts can be resolved. The main school of thought in international relations is liberalism, which rejects realism and the idea that power struggles and politics could result in state-to-state conflict. Rather, peace and development result from state-to-state interdependence, international cooperation, and mutual benefits. The expense and economic benefit of war deters states from engaging in hostilities. Furthermore, through cultural, diplomatic, educational, and economic interconnectedness, states can be influenced in their preferences and policy decisions to resolve crises and maintain world peace through the significant roles that international organisations, the private sector, and nongovernmental players play. Liberalism therefore suggests that nations can cooperate to maximise their interests (Ferguson 2023).

The other studies focus on constructivism and neoliberalism, as well as trade agreements and international organisations like the UN Security Council, to terminate the Ukraine conflict. From the perspectives of constructivism, norms, identities, and shared values in forming international relations play important roles, while neoliberalism places more emphasis on economic interest and interdependence through international trade and investment. However, the Ukraine conflict continues to exist and to reflect the ineffective approaches of constructivism and neoliberalism. It requests us to make a critical analysis of their methods, while addressing the conflict’s underlying causes.

Realism, on the other hand, holds that world politics will always be anarchic, with each nation seeking to preserve its own existence at all costs and to bolster its hegemony and authority wherever it can. As a result, they either gain or believe they gain more material power. Because of the region’s ongoing disequilibrium and strategic competitiveness, conflict may therefore be unavoidable, and hegemony may result in deadly confrontation with rivals (Mearsheimer 1990, 2017, 2021).

Another school of thinking in international relations is constructivism, which holds that “a complex and specific mix of history, ideas, norms, and beliefs” “creates” state behaviour. Constructivism emphasises how ideas and conceptions can influence state behaviour as well as the importance of social interactions, connections, state identities, and interests (Wendt 1987, 1992, 1999). For policymakers to evaluate the value of concepts, a common identity, and socialisation in fostering collaboration, regional institutions are crucial. Constructivism can therefore provide realism a theoretical and methodological substitute.

Although constructivism provides valuable insights into the ways in which ideas and identities influence international relations, it is not a panacea for the Ukraine crisis, especially in light of Russia’s continued defiance of United Nation (UN) resolutions. Even with constructivist principles stressing the value of norms and mutual understandings, the resolution of the conflict is hampered by entrenched power dynamics and competing interests among important individuals. UN resolutions that are ineffectual highlight how difficult it is to translate rules into practical results. Constructivism might not be able to handle such harsh power realities on its own. Nevertheless, even in the face of extremely difficult obstacles, it can support communication, trust-building, and the discovery of win–win solutions when paired with practical strategies and diplomatic endeavours (Erameh et al. 2023).

In addition to the economic benefits emphasized by liberalism, the Russian invasion of Ukraine underscores the primacy of security and strategic interests for Russia. While liberalism posits that economic interdependence and cooperation can mitigate conflicts, the Ukraine situation reveals that Russia prioritizes its security concerns over economic gains. Despite potential economic repercussions, Russia’s perceived strategic imperatives, such as maintaining influence in its neighbouring regions or safeguarding its military assets, take precedence. It reflects the complex interplay between economic incentives and geopolitical calculations in international relations, where the economic factors have some influence on the state policy choices, but security considerations and perceived strategic interests are the more decisive factors.

As a result, the realist explanation of the Ukraine conflict can help to clarify how great power relationships and their national interest are considered. In this logic, Russia’s actions are considered as a planned strategy to deal with challenges from NATO and its alliance. The realism approach can provide the relevant perspectives on causes and dynamics behind the Ukraine conflict.

According to the balance of power argument by realism, a counterbalancing coalition forms to lessen the influence of a developing power when it reaches a point where it can challenge other powerful states. In a system of a balance of power, countries might gain influence by strengthening their armed forces internally or by joining alliances that combine their individual members’ economic and military might outside. Two presumptions form the basis of this argument. First, the lack of a global government or authority to impose international institutions makes the international system appear anarchic. In order to confront war and external threats from other nations, states must enhance their relative capabilities through internal or external initiatives (Waltz 1979). Second, states are the main actors in the international system. With this logic, Ukraine needs to apply the balance of power approach to deal with the aggression of Russia for its peace and development. The importance of security and identity requirements in interstate conflicts and damaging identity conflicts can be explained by the human needs theory. One difficulty for peace psychologists is to come up with non-violent ways for people to satiate their identity and security needs because these needs are ingrained in the organism. Structural violence, as opposed to direct violence, happens when political and economic systems consistently deny some groups within society their basic needs. Economic deprivation leads to deficits in human growth and development because it does not satisfy the demand for well-being. Politically, the systematic denial of the right to self-determination is a result of structural violence (Nan and Greiff 2013).

However, while realism effectively explains the motivations behind the conflict, this paper argues that this perspective is insufficient for addressing the role of individual actors as decision-makers in each country. It highlights that a mindfulness approach is needed for these leaders to transform themselves and seek peaceful solutions to the Ukraine conflict, offering a more comprehensive outlook beyond realism.

3.3. The Gap of the Previous Studies

Prior research on the situation in Ukraine has mostly relied on realism analysis, ignoring the ABC conflict triangle model. The realist approach ignores the complex interactions between attitudes, behaviours, and underlying tensions in favour of concentrating on power dynamics, state objectives, and geopolitical strategy. These studies fall short of understanding the intricacies of the conflict, including social views, the diversity of actor behaviours, and ingrained tensions, because they ignore the ABC model. The ABC triangle model’s integration would provide a more thorough knowledge of the war in Ukraine, allowing scholars to investigate a variety of facets and develop more all-encompassing methods to conflict settlement.

The original meaning of mindfulness is derived from the Buddhist idea of “Sati”, which is defined as the “awareness of present events moment by moment”. Scholars believe that Siddhartha Gautama, widely known as Buddha, founded Buddhism around the fifth century BCE. Although a mindfulness approach has been applied widely in the East, it was not until the 1970s that it started widely spreading to the Western countries (Sujato 2012).

The mindfulness approach aims to develop self-awareness and inner peace, where the interdependence of all creatures exists, and exhibiting empathy and comprehension in our interrelations plays an important role for individual and community peace. We cannot have external peace before internal peace is created. With mindfulness, we can deal with conflict better. We can foster constructive diplomacy and discourse, and positively contribute to peaceful settlements when we face the external conflict. The conflict among nations comes from the internal conflict of each individual involved in the global communities. Therefore, personal peace can be considered as a catalyst for more significant social changes, opening the door for enduring harmonious and peaceful relations in the world (Hanh 2005). The mindfulness approach has been widely adopted across various fields of modern psychology. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) has the potential to enhance the well-being of individuals with chronic conditions and psychological distress, but high dropout rates hinder its effectiveness. MBCT could become a viable treatment option for this population if adherence challenges are addressed. This review examines the existing literature on the barriers and facilitators to MBCT adherence in individuals with chronic conditions. The findings suggest potential adaptations in implementation, such as providing a clear treatment rationale, matching preferences, and addressing individual concerns or limiting assumptions, which could help overcome barriers and leverage facilitators. This review offers a deeper understanding of factors that influence adherence to MBCT, with implications for its future application in research and practice. Future studies should prioritize an open exploration of these barriers and facilitators (Marks et al. 2023).

In addition, Chan et al. (2021) examine the effects of a structured eight-week Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) program on counselling self-efficacy in counselling trainees. Their findings suggest that mindfulness training can lead to significant positive changes in empathy, self-compassion, stress reduction, and counselling self-efficacy, supported by both psychological and neurophysiological evidence. However, these differences between the experimental and control groups largely diminished after a crossover, where a carry-over effect and significant improvements were observed in both groups. According to regression models, mindfulness emerged as the most significant factor contributing to counselling self-efficacy, followed by reductions in psychological distress and increased self-compassion (Chan et al. 2021). Recently, Lubbers et al. (2024) explores the effectiveness of Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) in reducing both recurrent and current depressive symptoms in individuals with major depressive disorder (MDD). To better understand how MBCT works and for whom it is most effective, a person-centred approach that focuses on distinct mindfulness profiles can be valuable. Four mindfulness profiles, each associated with varying mental health outcomes, have been previously identified. However, no prior research has investigated whether these profiles change following MBCT and how these changes relate to treatment outcomes. The study findings suggest that shifts in mindfulness profiles after MBCT are differentially linked to clinical improvement. These results from a person-centred perspective provide fresh insights into the mechanisms of MBCT and offer potential avenues to enhance its efficacy (Lubbers et al. 2024).

It is essential to abolish violence within one’s family, community, and self in order to attain true peace. This calls for self-reflection, compassion, and a dedication to peaceful dispute settlement. Through the resolution of personal problems and the development of compassion, people can promote harmonious connections in their communities and families. This knock-on effect transcends interpersonal boundaries and promotes a cooperative and peaceful society more broadly. We build a world where understanding, forgiveness, and communal well-being take the place of violence by placing a high priority on empathy, communication, and respect for one another (Hanh 2004).

Furthermore, it is noteworthy that a mindfulness approach is not included in the analysis of the Ukraine crisis, given that all conflicts first arise in the subconscious mind. By focusing on present-moment awareness and accepting situations without passing judgement, mindfulness can shed light on the underlying psychological and emotional causes of conflict. Researchers can investigate how prejudices, anxieties, and emotional responses impact the attitudes and actions of disputing parties by using mindfulness activities. Through the promotion of empathy, communication, and positive involvement, this method provides a distinctive viewpoint on conflict resolution. Ignoring mindfulness is a critical component of conflict analysis that limits our ability to understand people’s interior processes and prevents us from developing comprehensive peace-building methods in the context of the conflict in Ukraine.

Realism can be applied to understand the seeds of international conflicts, but it is insufficient to find the individual causes of these conflicts and to find out relevant resolutions to international conflict. The key problem of realism is that it ignores the attitude and behaviours of countries involved in the conflict to analyse the underlying causes, drawing on knowledge from sociology, psychology, and other academic fields. Policy-makers can create more complex plans for resolving conflicts, fostering reconciliation, and establishing enduring peace by taking into account a range of viewpoints and underlying grievances.

Because conflicts like the one in Ukraine are complex and varied, realism’s emphasis on state interests alone is insufficient to address them. As a result, to fill the gap of the previous studies, while applying the ABC triangle of conflict, this study also converts it into the ABCM diamond of conflict, which is then used to discuss the situation in Ukraine. Through the addition of mindfulness (M) as a new component to the paradigm, the analysis provides insights into the emotional and psychological causes of conflict and goes deeper into its subconscious origins. In the context of the Ukraine conflict, this improved framework permits a more thorough knowledge of the dynamics of the conflict, making it easier to pinpoint the underlying causes and create a more potent resolution.

4. Case Study of Ukraine Conflict

During the Cold War, Ukraine was the second most populous and powerful among the fifteen Soviet republics, where Ukraine maintained the defence industries, military, and agricultural output with the Black Sea Fleet and nuclear weapons. However, Ukraine’s decision was to be independent in 1991, which is considered as the key evidence of the faltering superpower of Russia. Throughout its three decades of independence, Ukraine attempted to join the EU and NATO, while accommodating Russia. But, it is challenging for Ukraine to balance the powers between NATO and Russia, as well as between its foreign policy and its severe internal conflicts. While the majority Russian-speaking population in the east attempted to strengthen foreign relations with Russia, the more nationalist, Ukrainian-speaking population in the country’s west mainly desired to integrate into Europe. It began with the Maidan Revolution, referred to as the Maidan coup, in Ukraine between 2013 and 2014. In this process, protests against President Yanukovych’s decision to reject an EU trade agreement quickly led to a broader movement for democratic reforms and a fight against government corruption. The uprising caused Yanukovych’s ousting and significant political changes in Ukraine. In response, Russia annexed Crimea in 2014 and endorsed separatist movements in Eastern Ukraine, marking its direct military involvement in the region.

In 2014 Russia annexed Crimea and supported separatists in the south-east of the country in the Donbas region, starting the critical point of Ukraine conflict. Between 2014 and 2021, the conflict in the Donbas region caused the death of almost 14,000 individuals. Russia under Putin is considered as a revanchist state that is eager to take back its previous power. The ultimate goal of Russia is to restore the power of the former Soviet Union (Jonathan Masters 2023).

Vladimir Putin, the president of Russia, declared on 21 February 2022, that his country recognised the independence of the rebellious Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics (DPR and LPR). Putin attacked Ukraine militarily three days later, and attempted to protect Donbas citizens from the Ukrainian government.

Meanwhile, the US attempted to support Ukraine’s independence and to prevent Russia’s aggression as the backbone of US strategy. The US has three different approaches to Ukraine. These include the preservation of Ukraine’s integrity and sovereignty by supporting Ukraine’s NATO membership, and aiding Ukraine in reducing its dependence on Russian energy and economy. The US strategy towards Ukraine is in contradiction with Russian policy. Therefore, the Ukraine conflict reflects the conflict of strategic will between the two great powers (Chetveryk 2019).

With Ukraine serving as a focal point, the European Union’s (EU) and Russia’s rivalry for control of the European political, economic, and security order has become more intense on occasion since 2004. Previously, the EU’s primary strategy for mitigating this competition was denial; however, after Russia invaded Ukraine on a large scale in 2022, this method was no longer viable. Therefore, the EU entered the race as a newly emerging geopolitical actor in three key areas: fighting for the European order, using its (very limited) physical power, and expanding its boundaries. Most significantly, in light of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, the EU is aggressively working to influence the course of the European order. However, the EU mostly uses civilian means to achieve its goals (Raik et al. 2024).

The US viewpoint on Europe, in light of the Russia–Ukraine war and the expanding influence of a “Russia-friendly” China in shaping Europe’s “strategic autonomy” conundrum, heavily influences transatlantic ties. Even while the war in Ukraine has resulted in a high degree of strategic reconciliation between the USA and Europe, America’s approach to the EU and its particular relationships with the major players in Europe have now become more nuanced, taking into account not just the influence of China but also the Russian component. China’s “pro-Russian neutrality” has also made Europe’s strategic decision concerning the United States and China much more difficult. Additionally, it has established new guidelines for US policy’s European vector (Kozyrev 2024).

These practical distinctions are demonstrated by an examination of Russia’s evolving geostrategic approach towards Europe. Russian geoeconomics has successfully divided the EU for a long time as a “wedge strategy”. Consequently, the EU’s policies towards Russia have been inconsistent and underbalanced. The observed trends in 2014–15 towards a more cohesive European approach can be attributed to Russia’s shifting geostrategic priorities. Russia’s shift towards geopolitics causes a relative increase in EU unity through a centripetal effect. The talk of energy unity, the imposition of economic penalties, and the emergence of German leadership in EU foreign policy are all examples of centripetal tendencies brought on by heightened threat perception. More focus should be placed on how strategic decisions, such as which to prioritise between geopolitics and geoeconomics, impact the coherence of alliance patterns and threatened states. Russia has remained a potential threat to US revisionist power despite America’s obvious military and economic dominance, particularly with Putin’s ascent to power. According to this viewpoint, the country’s challenging circumstances during its transition from independence to the current crisis are to blame. The analysis then shifts to looking at the crisis’ causes in light of the three objectives of US foreign policy in post-communist Europe—the advancement of democracy, the enlargement of the EU, and NATO (Pisciotta 2018). The Ukraine aims to join NATO for strengthening its military power and to gain its support to balance against Russia. However, the threat of the use of nuclear weapons by Russia helps to deter NATO from strong military intervention, although NATO continues to provide military support to Ukraine (Vajriyati et al. 2022).

It is true that major actors like the US, the EU, and Russia have conflicting interests, which exacerbates the current war in Ukraine. Numerous people caught in the crossfire of this geopolitical turmoil have suffered. But diplomatic attempts to address the fundamental problems that are driving this violence have not been successful thus far. Finding a long-term solution is difficult since deep-seated differences continue despite multiple peace meetings and negotiations. The diplomatic impasse is a result of the situation’s complexity, which includes historical, economic, and strategic elements. Finding a resolution to the conflict becomes more difficult, when Russia has strong nuclear weapon capabilities. Nuclear exchange can be a deadly danger to global peace and civilisation. Self-serving political leaders seem to put their own goals at the expense of the public interest. The global community can suffer from the terrible effects of this conflict. This suggests how urgent and important diplomatic solutions and international cooperation are for global peace and prosperity.

Russia has 5900 nuclear warheads in 2023, while the US possesses 5240 warheads. China has the third-largest nuclear power of 410 warheads, compared to the United States and Russia. The potential for a nuclear conflict between the United States and Russia will be disastrous for the whole world. Unprecedented destruction effects can destroy entire cities, regions, and ecosystems due to this conflict. The employment of nuclear weapons would pose existential risks to human survival due to the massive death toll, widespread radioactive poisoning, and long-term environmental harm. In addition, the socio-economic foundation of societies would crumble, causing a great deal of pain, uprooting, and mayhem on a worldwide scale. The aftermath of a nuclear war would echo beyond boundaries, escalating humanitarian crises and destabilising international relations for future generations given the interconnection of nations and the global economy. It is critical to avert such a situation for the sake of humankind’s future and civilisation (see Figure 1) (Dyvik 2023).

The Doomsday Clock on the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (BAS) was adjusted closer to midnight in January 2018, and it currently reads 11:58. The last time the minute hand approached the hour of Armageddon this closely was in 1953, just after both the US and the USSR conducted thermonuclear bomb tests. Every year thereafter, the stylised clock has continued to tick forward and backwards, symbolically marking civilization’s impending doom. The group has issued a warning in January, saying that “to call the world’s nuclear situation dire is to understate the danger—and its immediacy” (Heefner 2019).

As of 15 February 2024, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) confirmed that 30,457 civilian deaths occurred during Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. A total of 19,875 civilians were said to have suffered injuries. The OHCHR did note that the actual figures might be higher. Civilians in Ukraine are suffering greatly as a result of the conflict, and the number of deaths from violence, displacement, and humanitarian crises is rising. Nevertheless, there are conflicting accounts and difficulties in obtaining precise data in the heat of fighting, making it difficult to determine the precise number of deaths among the armies of both the Ukrainian and enemy forces. In spite of the emphasis on the suffering of civilians, the cost of the conflict to military personnel shows how vast and complex it is, underscoring the pressing need for diplomatic efforts and humanitarian aid to resolve the situation and reduce the number of casualties (see Figure 2) (Statista 2024).

As of December 2023, there had been almost 30 million border crossings from Ukraine to other nations since Russia began its invasion of that country on 24 February 2022 (Figure 3). Poland was the destination of most of the migrants. As of 28 December 2023, the number of documented refugees from Ukraine in Europe exceeded 6.3 million. After the Russian Federation invaded Ukraine on 24 February 2022, a full-scale conflict broke out there. Heavy shelling and warfare have caused an estimated 3.7 million people to be internally displaced from their homes, while nearly 6.5 million people have crossed into neighbouring countries such as Poland, Hungary, Moldova, or other countries worldwide. Poland is the country that has taken in the most Ukrainian refugees; nearly 60% of all refugees from Ukraine are currently living there.

Attacks with missiles and rockets have left many people dead, destroyed houses and businesses, and seriously damaged Ukraine’s energy infrastructure. Public access to heating, water, power, healthcare, education, and social protection is being hampered by the energy crisis. Numerous Ukrainians reside in homes that are damaged or destroyed (UNHCR 2024).

Therefore, the realism approach to the Ukraine conflict places a premium on power dynamics and national self-interest. This viewpoint, which is held by political leaders across the globe, frequently results in decisions and acts that heighten tensions and raise the possibility of disaster. In the meantime, citizens’ genuine goals of sustainable development, wealth, freedom, and peace are marginalised. Realist policies ignore more general human concerns in favour of narrow political calculations, which prolongs misery and instability. Rather, a more comprehensive strategy that prioritises people’s goals and well-being is necessary. Setting aside power battles in favour of negotiation, cooperation, and compromise can open the door to a settlement that is advantageous to all parties and guarantees future peace and advancement for those impacted by the conflict.

5. Mindfulness Approach: ABC Triangle into ABCM Diamond of Conflict in Dealing with the Ukraine Conflict

5.1. ABC Model of Conflict Towards the Ukraine Conflict

According to neoliberalism, the opposing or conflicting interests brought on by scarcity are acknowledged by neo-classical economic theory. However, this broad hostility or antagonism must be separated from conflictual activity that involves the deployment of resources (including time) to settle disputes between competing interests. The core tenet of neo-classical economics is that economic problems are settled by agreements that are either freely followed or that can be enforced without incurring any fees for the parties involved. By offering them something in exchange for their agreement, those who stand to gain from the activity win over those who do not. We want to emphasise in particular that the disagreement can be resolved by effectively changing it from a political issue to an economic deal. This is a political issue that has been resolved by trade (Vahabi 2009).

In the framework of conflict theory, we can use Johan Galtung’s ABC conflict triangle to identify the causes of overt acts of direct violence in society. The triangle can also be used to investigate if the violence is a result of interpersonal conflict (a crime that affects one person directly or is limited to two or more people) or if it has something to do with the social structures and cultural norms of the community (Galtung 2007).

Galtung considered conflict as a “triadic construct”, including attitudes, behaviours, and contradictions. Behaviour (B) can be violent or non-violent, which reflects how people consciously act to face contradictions and hostile attitudes. Both Attitudes (A) and Contradiction (B) refer to the underlying, subconscious level of conflict (Galtung 1996).

Contradiction indicates the incompatibility of the goals of the conflicting parties. It could include a territorial conflict between two or more parties over a particular area of land (Gause and Coholic 2010).

According to the ABC conflict triangle (Figure 4), all conflicts begin as contradictory attitudes and feelings that exist in the subconscious before intensifying into open conflict or violence. This subconscious level includes ingrained prejudices, anxieties, and ideas that may not be visible at first yet cause conflict and friction. These opposing factors eventually erupt as overt conflicts when particular situations or events set them off. They are currently simmering under the surface. Preventing and resolving conflicts before they grow into larger-scale confrontations requires an understanding of and attention to these underlying subconscious elements.

We are discussing a symmetrical conflict when Russia and Ukraine have a similar or equal position and they get into a conflict because of their divergent goals. Asymmetric conflict occurs when one side (Russia) in a connection between the two countries is obviously in a better position than the other, for example Ukraine (there is a clear situation of inequality between the two sides). Prior to the conflict, Russia’s subliminal views towards Ukraine were contradicted (C) by the perceived dangers posed by Ukraine’s possible membership in NATO and the European Union (EU). Russia saw these actions as clear risks to its security, going against its regional interests and stability. Further jeopardising Russia’s stability and influence was the fear that Ukraine’s allegiance to the West may spark colour revolutions or other destabilising movements planned by Western powers. This paradox contributed significantly to the escalation of tensions that led to the conflict by fuelling Russia’s resistance to Ukraine’s pro-Western goals.

Thus, Russia’s attitudes (A) includes the combination of historical links and perceived threats to its interests which characterise Russia’s position. On the one hand, because of shared history and the Soviet Union’s legacy, there was a sense of cultural affinity and a historical link between the two countries. However, below all of this was a conflict stemming from Russia’s desire to keep control and influence over its neighbour, seeing Ukraine’s aspirations and NATO expansion to develop stronger links with the West as a threat to its sphere of influence. These subliminal attitudes of rivalry and affiliation created the conditions for the tensions that finally burst into violence.

5.2. Mindfulness Approach: Redefined Analysis Model of Conflict, from the ABC Triangle of Conflict into the ABCM Diamond of Conflict

Although mindfulness-based practices have their roots in a holistic approach and history, many researchers and practitioners have operationalized and adapted them as a cognitive behavioural intervention. This approach has shown promise for a wide range of individuals and issues. Concerns about this approach and the detachment of mindfulness from its holistic foundations are voiced by certain scholars and practitioners, nevertheless. Our article explores these issues and highlights the distinctions between mindfulness practices that are supported as cognitive–behavioural interventions and those that are comprehensive. We talk about examples from our personal research and facilitation of mindfulness. Generally speaking, a creative, adaptable, and holistic approach to mindfulness may be tailored to each individual’s requirements and objectives. Additionally, it promotes spiritually sensitive conversation, which will be significant to individuals as their spirituality (Gause and Coholic 2010).

In the mindfulness approach, the concepts of mindfulness and no-self are closely related to each other. This is due to the Buddhist approach’s view that practicing mindfulness causes one to realise one is not a self. In modern psychology, the no-self idea has not been as central to the concept of mindfulness. An overview of the Buddhist approach is provided, demonstrating how human suffering is rooted in the “root delusion” of having a self and how, with the right application of mindfulness, one can overcome this misconception and attain psychological well-being. This is not to argue that mindfulness-based therapies do not contribute to the reduction of suffering. It also does not mean that those who work in these fields should not apply mindfulness in their own unique ways (Giles 2019).

According to the mindfulness approach, conflict arises from antagonism connected to identity. Since there are mental triggers for violence, a strategy that challenges one’s typical ways of processing and responding to the object(s) of consciousness must be introduced. Defensiveness and misunderstandings are the root causes of conflict, so it is crucial to comprehend how the concept of “I” or “self” is formed. A major shift in perception is one of the goals of mindfulness, which results in the “de-automatization” of mental processes and suspends the identification with the sensory and mental experiences that a person refers to as a distinct “I” (Zalta 2016).

Therefore, the starting point for conflict resolution is the root cause of the conflict, where we need to change the mindset of the involved conflict partners, especially the leadership of each country in the Ukraine conflict. We can redefine the ABC triangle of conflict as the ABCM diamond of conflict as follows:

The mindfulness approach in the ABCM diamond of conflict can help the leaders of each nation embroiled in conflict to change their mindsets and contradictions towards collaboration and diplomacy by implementing mindfulness practices (Figure 5). Leaders who practice mindfulness are more likely to handle issues with clarity, empathy, and an eye towards the long term rather than the short term. This change may result in productive discussion, compromise, and the search for win–win solutions. In the end, leaders may help their own nations as well as contribute to regional stability and global peace by cultivating a culture of mindfulness, making the globe a more peaceful and linked place.

In contrast, nations can suffer greatly and find it difficult to achieve development, peace, prosperity, and sustainable growth when they allow the non-mindfulness approaches or forces of greed, rage, and ignorance to rule them. Greedy leaders and people put their own interests ahead of the welfare of their country and its people, which breeds inequity, exploitation, and corruption. Anger and doubt can destroy diplomatic attempts, leading to hostile cycles of conflict, aggressiveness, and violence. Ignorance includes misunderstanding the interests of others as well as the needs for internal peace and can stifle peaceful solutions as well as creating prejudice and narrow-minded ideas. It can obstruct regional and international cooperation, impeding a more peaceful and prosperous world.

A mindfulness approach is based on the cultivation of empathy, compassion, non-violent resolution, and mutual understanding by focusing on identifying the underlying reasons and encouraging communication and healing between parties. The realist perspective, in contrast, uses the balance of power to deal with conflicts, but the power competition can intensify the conflict. It emphasizes the roles of military prowess and state sovereignty, frequently supporting military intervention measures to ensure national interests. Thus, the realist approach to the Ukraine conflict can raise a higher possibility of dire repercussions and military escalation between superpowers, or a third world war or nuclear war with disastrous effects on the globe.

Russia becomes a serious threat to international peace, with the support of China and the other BRICS countries. Its tremendous military might ensure that Russia cannot lose the conflict game against the EU and NATIO. The EU has imposed sanctions against Russia, but it does not prevent Russia from intensive military intervention. To protect regional stability and lessen the likelihood of a worldwide catastrophe, the EU needs to apply diplomatic measures in this case.

We can formulate mathematical models to clarify the above points as follows. We consider the impact of mindfulness as M on attitudes A and contradictions C. It is represented mathematically as follows:

A_t represent the attitudes at time t

C_t are considered as the contradictions at time t

M_t reflects the level of mindfulness at time t

B_t reflects the contradictions at time t

The equations can be clarified as follows:

B_t = f (A_t, C_t).

(1)

The mindfulness of the involved parties has a certain level of influence on both A (attitudes) and C (contradictions) in the following equations:

A_t+ t = g(A_t, M_t).

(2)

C_t + t = h(C_t, M_t).

(3)

where f is a function which reflects how attitudes A and contradictions C cause the behaviour B (violence or non-violence). This function is dependent on various complex factors such as historical context, societal dynamics, and geopolitical influences.

Functions g and h represent how the mindfulness M of the involved parties has an influence on attitudes and contradictions, respectively. These functions capture the key factors of mindfulness practices (promoting empathy, understanding, and internal harmony, which can change both attitudes and contradictions of the involved parties).

These mathematical and logical frameworks provide us with an understanding of the causes and process of conflict transformation, where mindfulness interventions can reduce negative attitudes and contradictions, and subsequently, the violent behaviour of the involved parties. It can be applied in the case of the Ukraine conflict as follows:

First, by building structural awareness of all parties, Russia and Ukraine are promoted to understand a cause and effect interaction in which the violent attitudes and contradictions and military behaviours can lead to the suffering of all parties. These consequences can be removed by each of the involved parties and individuals in the Ukraine conflict (Arai 2017).

Second, resolving or minimizing conflicts should be a part of problem solving. This is due to the fact that all aspects—such as the rule of law, human rights, freedoms, equality, ethics, and sentiments of all parties involved—are balanced. But first, the Buddhist approach to conflict resolution must analyse the underlying causes of the dispute, which are (a) Tạṇhā (Passion), (b) Māna (Ego), and (c) Thit̩ṭ̄hi (Viewpoint). (2) Internal conflict and external conflict are the two types of conflict analyses. (3) Guidelines for using Buddhist leadership ideas to resolve disputes involve the following: (a) Information conflicts cannot involve false information that could lead to uncertainty. (b) In order to distribute the parties’ interests, conflicts of interest must be managed. (c) Buddhist principles, namely Sangkhahawatthu 4 (virtues for group integration and leadership) and Saraniyadhamma 6 (virtues for brotherly living), require that relationship conflicts be built upon the empathy of the conflict partner. (d) Structural disputes must lessen social inequality and enhance the political system to better reflect modern lifestyles. (e) Finally, appropriate values must be created in society at large through values or value conflicts (Tavachalee et al. 2021).

Third, while reconciliation aims to achieve a compromise, which is limited to specific goals, harmony has a wider scope than reconciliation and reconciliation alone will not suffice to end the conflict. Non-attachment is the prerequisite for harmony, much as forgiveness is the basis for justice. It is possible to practice non-attachment and forgiveness, which are essential to long-lasting harmony (Srivichai 2017).

Fourth, as a scholar, peace activist, and Zen monk, Thich Nhat Hanh taught and practised Right Mindfulness. He developed the idea of Engaged Buddhism, or “mindfulness-based non-violence”, a non-violent approach to promoting global peace. This approach makes the case that MBN can not only bring peace but also stop the cycle of hatred and retaliation that often follows conflict and war. Using mindfulness could be a non-violent and practical way to promote long-term peace and well-being on a personal and global level (Fukuoka 2023). There are two types of peace in Buddhism: inner peace and outer peace. How to coexist peacefully in society with others is the focus of external peace. In light of this, the five precepts—which are widely regarded by Buddhists as a moral code—are essentially applied as strict social norms that members of the community must abide by. In terms of inner peace, mind training is unavoidably necessary. Since hatred breeds violence, Buddhism uses the discipline of patience to stop the unfavourable circumstances that lead to violence. In addition to patience, loving-kindness discipline is necessary to stifle strong emotions and quiet racing thoughts. Patience and loving-kindness discipline are considered the disciplines of mind training (Nataraju et al. 2017).

Fifth, mindfulness is the practice of disciplining our minds by focusing on a single subject of thought, letting go of all other ideas and feelings, and then observing whatever comes to mind. We can learn to become moment-to-moment aware of our internal states, including feelings, emotions, thoughts, and attitudes, by practicing mindfulness, so that we cultivate compassion and wisdom, rather than anger, greed, and ignorance (Tanabe 2016). Mindfulness enables people to recognise and accept the historical background of the situation in Ukraine without passing judgement. People are better able to comprehend the underlying reasons of the conflict when they have a more sophisticated understanding of historical events, cultural dynamics, and historical grievances.

Finally, the mindfulness approach also fosters an attitude of compassion and the right view towards other conflicting parties, including citizens, troops, and leaders, by engaging in compassionate enquiry. Mindfulness empowers people to deal with their internal conflict in a compassionate and non-violent manner. People can reduce the hatred and the wrong views of communities in the Ukraine, Russia, the EU, and the USA to reduce tensions and to promote enduring peace and to advocate for non-violent conflict resolution techniques.

6. Conclusions and Theoretical and Policy Implications

In summary, a mindfulness approach can provide a new perspective for the analysis model of conflict, to understand the Ukraine conflict better. This paper helps to fill the gap of the previous studies, where the benefits of mindfulness have not yet been fully realized in the international relations theories such as constructivism, neoliberalism, and realism. This paper argues that the standard ABC triangle of conflict can be transformed into the ABCM diamond of conflict, where the mindfulness practices (M) can change attitudes (A) and contradictions (C) in a positive direction, which in turn can transform violent behaviours (B) into non-violent ones.

The mindfulness approach includes the practices of compassion, empathy, and non-judgemental awareness, which can be used for all involved conflicting parties, where they need to recognize the consequences of conflict, like the Ukraine conflict, as the dead end of civilization, such as nuclear war.

Furthermore, this paper clarifies the constraints of neoliberalism and constructivism in dealing with the conflict, where the economic interests and international institutions are not able to provide resolutions to the Ukraine conflict. Both constructivism and neoliberalism share common ideas of the economic interdependence and international institutional factors, but they do not address the nature of conflict which comes from internal conflict. On the other hand, realism might help to explain the importance of conflicting security interests as the main causes of the Ukraine conflict.

The paper also proposes a mathematical and logical framework to understand the fundamental causes of conflicts. This model helps to understand various factors which influence violent or non-violent behaviours. A mindfulness can transform attitudes and contradictions at the subconscious conflict level, so that the violent behaviour cannot exist without the deep causes at the subconscious level. The mindfulness practices include meditation, emotional control, and self-awareness, which may exclude prejudice and hatred, and improve empathy between conflicting parties.

The mindfulness approach put forward solutions for internal conflict transformation in the Ukraine conflict by transforming anger, greed, and ignorance and cultivating a non-attachment awareness of the politicians and leaders of each party. Sustainable peace can be obtained by integrating mindfulness principles into efforts to resolve conflicts by non-violent means. Therefore, it is relevant that the mindfulness approach, which originally came from Diamond Sutra, can pave the way to transform greed, anger, and ignorance into internal peace, and happiness into external peace and prosperity in ourselves and the world.