A few days ago I got the idea to check what the AI-based chat GPT has to say on topics related to the war in Ukraine. I have to say that from the perspective I hold dear – peace – his answers came as a pleasant surprise.
Here’s what I asked and what answered it – in a matter of seconds:
How to make peace in Ukraine?
“The conflict in Ukraine is complex and multifaceted, and there are no easy solutions. However, here are some steps that could potentially contribute to peace in Ukraine:
1. Dialogue: The first step towards peace in Ukraine is for all parties to engage in dialogue. These include the Ukrainian government, the separatists in eastern Ukraine and Russia. All sides must be willing to sit down and negotiate in good faith.
2. Ceasefire: A sustainable ceasefire is necessary to create an environment conducive to dialogue. All parties must agree to a cessation of hostilities and respect the ceasefire agreement.
3. Humanitarian Assistance: The conflict has resulted in the displacement of many people and there is a need for humanitarian assistance to help those affected by the conflict.
4. Addressing fundamental issues: The conflict in Ukraine has its roots in political, economic and social issues that need to be addressed. These include issues related to language rights, economic disparities and regional autonomy.
5. International mediation: International mediation can play an important role in resolving the conflict in Ukraine. The OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe) was involved in monitoring the ceasefire and facilitating dialogue between the parties.
6. Respect for International Law: All parties must respect international law, including Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
It is important to note that there are many challenges to achieving peace in Ukraine, including deep-seated distrust between the parties and conflicting interests. However, steps towards dialogue, a ceasefire, addressing underlying issues, international mediation and respect for international law can help move closer to peace.”
Pros and cons of sending weapons to Ukraine?
“Advantages of sending weapons to Ukraine:
1. Increased military capabilities: Arms supplies to Ukraine would increase its military capabilities, making it better able to defend itself against separatists in the east of the country and possible Russian aggression.
2. Deterrence: The presence of more powerful weapons in Ukraine could deter Russia from further aggressive action.
3. Strengthened Alliances: Arms sales to Ukraine could strengthen their alliances with countries that support them, such as the United States and other NATO members.
Disadvantages of sending weapons to Ukraine:
1. Escalation of the conflict: Sending arms to Ukraine could escalate the conflict and lead to an increase in violence and casualties on both sides.
2. Russian Response: Sending arms to Ukraine could provoke a response from Russia, potentially leading to a larger conflict and further destabilization of the region.
3. Arms race: The supply of arms to Ukraine could contribute to an arms race in the region, to which Russia could potentially respond by increasing its own military capabilities.
4. Disagreement among allies: Sending arms to Ukraine could be seen as a disagreement among allies, with some countries opposed to such a move and possibly damaging diplomatic relations.
Overall, the decision to send arms to Ukraine is complex and controversial, with potential pros and cons that need to be carefully considered. It is important to consider the possible consequences of such an action and to work towards a peaceful solution to the conflict in Ukraine.”
Was NATO expansion a good idea?
“The question of whether NATO enlargement is a good idea is complex and controversial, and there are different perspectives on the issue. Here are some arguments for and against NATO enlargement:
Arguments for NATO enlargement:
1. Security: NATO enlargement provides additional security guarantees for countries joining the Alliance, especially those close to Russia. This can help deter aggression from Russia and give smaller countries a sense of security.
2. Stability: NATO enlargement can contribute to stability in Europe by strengthening democratic institutions and promoting economic development. This can help avoid conflicts and ensure long-term stability in the region.
3. Promoting Common Values: NATO enlargement promotes common democratic values, including the rule of law, human rights and individual freedoms. This can help strengthen ties between countries and encourage greater cooperation.
Arguments against NATO enlargement:
1. Provocation: NATO enlargement may be perceived as provocative by Russia, which it may see as a threat to its security. This can increase tension and potentially lead to conflict.
2. Cost: NATO enlargement can be expensive, especially for smaller countries joining the alliance. This allows resources to be diverted from other important areas such as social services and infrastructure.
3. Sovereignty: NATO enlargement can be viewed as a violation of national sovereignty, particularly when it affects countries historically within Russia’s sphere of influence. This can be seen as an affront to Russia and contribute to further tensions.
Overall, whether NATO enlargement is a good idea depends on a number of factors, including geopolitical considerations, economic factors, and strategic goals. While there are arguments for and against NATO enlargement, the ultimate decision to enlarge the Alliance must be based on a careful analysis of these factors and an assessment of the possible consequences of doing so.”
Did Gorbachev get assurances that NATO would not expand eastward?
“Yes, there is evidence that former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev received assurances from Western leaders that NATO would not expand eastward.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, as the Soviet Union began to collapse, Gorbachev sought to ease tensions with the West and encourage greater cooperation between the two sides. One of his main concerns was the future of NATO, which he saw as a potential threat to Soviet security. In negotiations with Western leaders, Gorbachev reportedly sought assurances that NATO would not expand its membership or military presence in Eastern Europe.
According to some reports, Western leaders assured Gorbachev that NATO would not expand eastward. For example, former US Secretary of State James Baker has said he promised Gorbachev in 1990 that NATO would not expand “an inch” east if the Soviets agreed to reunite Germany.
Similarly, former German Chancellor Helmut Kohl has said he assured Gorbachev that NATO would not expand eastward if the Soviets agreed to reunite Germany.
However, the scope and nature of these assurances are disputed. Some Western officials have argued that they merely promised not to station NATO troops permanently in East Germany and made no pledges regarding future NATO expansion.
In any case, NATO eventually expanded eastward, and several former Warsaw Pact countries joined the alliance in the 1990s and 2000s. This has created tensions between Russia and the West in recent years.”
How are conflict and violence related?
“Conflict and violence are closely linked, as conflict often escalates into violent confrontations. Conflict refers to a state of disagreement or opposition between two or more parties, while violence refers to the use of physical force to cause harm or harm.
If conflicts are not resolved through peaceful means, they can lead to violent action by one or both sides. Violence can range from verbal abuse to physical assault, and in extreme cases, lead to war and genocide.
However, it is important to note that not all conflicts lead to violence. Conflict resolution techniques such as negotiation, mediation, and diplomacy can help the parties reach a peaceful resolution without resorting to violence.
In summary, conflict can escalate into violence but is not inevitable. Effective conflict resolution strategies can help prevent or de-escalate violent confrontations.”
All of these answers strike me as quite amazing and indeed “intelligent”. They reveal more knowledge and a broader approach/understanding of complex issues than any western decision-maker I’ve encountered in recent times
What we see is this:
• Peace’s AI “thinking” no longer includes armor.
• AI’s approach to peace is much more aligned with real, research-based concepts of peace and, above all, implies a reduction in violence; she is intellectually far superior to the current Western leaders.
• AI is able to handle a number of aspects and dimensions – to take into account, something I would not say that the current managers – on all sides – of the Ukraine war have shown a similar ability.
• AI seems to be able to look at problems from more than one perspective.
• AI reveals a relevant and knowledge-based understanding of the relationships between manifest violence and underlying conflicts.
Professionally, it defines both concepts quite well. By comparison, the media, politicians and many experts – especially the military – seem obsessed with the violence – the weapons, what is happening on the battlefield and who is to blame – instead of asking the relevant questions: why did violence occur, what? Are there problems between the parties that they cannot solve without violence, and what can be done to resolve these incompatibilities, these conflicts?
They’re just not conflict-intelligent compared to AI — and they wouldn’t focus on the underlying conflicts either, because that’s where they’d have to wonder if expanding NATO was a good idea.
• AI is honest. His response to the question about the promises made to Gorbachev flatly contradicts current Western propaganda that Gorbachev never made such promises. FYI, the homepages of both the EU and NATO deny that he received any such promises, and NATO also states that this is an argument consistent with Russian disinformation.
In summary, it seems – and yes, it’s a startling thought – that the world would be better off if AI were used as an inspirational tool in conflict resolution and peacemaking than if we continued to rely entirely on AI HI – Human Intelligence – currently dominant in prime ministerial offices, defense ministries, foreign ministries and parliaments.
Jan Oberg, PhD, is director of the Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research, TFF, in Sweden. The views expressed are the author’s own.
