Turning point - also for mediation?

What does the turning point triggered by Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine mean for mediation and for us conflict counsellors and mediators?

Possible effects lie on several levels (which, of course, can only be clearly separated in theory, but hardly in concrete cases):

On the Level of the participantsClients and mediators may approach conflicts differently or be more or less open to certain forms of conflict resolution.

On the Level of mediation eventsOther topics could take centre stage as a result. For example, cases that are directly related to disputes between members of the warring parties in the broadest sense (i.e. not just Russia or Ukraine) could come to mediation more frequently.

On the Level of social handling of conflictswhich may change as a result of the aforementioned turning point, which in turn may have an impact on both mediators and clients.

On the Level of the legal frameworkthat could change as a result of the turning point.

What is certain (as we know from the experience of past wars) is that armed conflicts have an impact on the way people think, feel, perceive and act. affected People.

This includes in different forms: Fundamental values and maxims (survival!) are becoming more important. Ambiguity is perceived less, unambiguity is favoured. Nuances play a lesser role, as do more distant goals. Emotions tend to be suppressed as they are often perceived as threatening. Guilt and shame play an enormous role, depending on the ultimate resolution of the conflict (think of the generations of perpetrators and victims of Nazi rule in Germany). And last but not least, violence becomes more acceptable as a means of conflict resolution.

I cannot say whether and to what extent this will also play a role in mediation processes in Germany. Certainly for processes involving people who have had direct experience of war (whether as direct victims or as relatives of perpetrators or victims). Especially when relatives of both warring parties are sitting at the table.

But I want to be honest: I simply don't know whether and in what way the aforementioned turning point will have an impact on mediation, mediators or clients. I wish I could write something more enlightening or at least thought-provoking at this point, but I cannot. At least not as long as this war is still a current, oppressive reality for me.

Where there is war, there is also peace. I am experiencing that the view of world events - triggered by the war in Ukraine - is further heightening awareness of conflict and peace.on the one hand, I am experiencing an increase in enquiries and, on the other, I am experiencing an increase in emotional stress among my mediants (especially in the healthcare sector). Thin-skinnedness, irritability and even resignation and frustration have become everyday companions, and this change in times both promotes and challenges mediation. In discussions about times of crisis, for example, mediation is given great importance and can therefore be promoted. Mediation is being called upon to focus less on activating problems and more on activating resources.

One thing mediators sometimes do is reframing. Or in this case, more precisely, to problematise the hypotheses that are necessarily behind every question. And that is also my concern when I hear this question:

"Russia's war of aggression": I don't want to attribute this war of aggression to Russia, but to Putin and his subsystem. In a recent Spiegel podcast, a military expert even spoke of "the Russians". I don't want to attribute the war ordered by an authoritarian (albeit majority-elected) leader to the entire country with all its people, culture, etc. And certainly not to "the Russian". And certainly not "the Russian" per se - a formulation that shows and promotes compartmentalised thinking, and therefore also war.

"Turning point in time": I still don't understand it. Why is this year's 16th global war, Putin's - according to one count - 4th war of aggression, this particular war of all wars a turning point? On the other hand, it seems to me that Scholz's decision to carry out a huge reshuffle in the federal budget, which none of the parties involved in the government had announced beforehand and which was therefore not authorised by any of the voters, has indeed ushered in a new era. As understandable as this fear reaction is psychologically, and no matter how nonsensical it seems to me in terms of military strategy when it comes to defence readiness against nuclear-armed states, it is remarkable that this sum was determined without any democratic participation. Now that's a turning point!

I also recognise a turning point in the cohesion of many parts of the world and many parts of our society in expressions of solidarity with and practical support for Ukrainians, and in the relatively strong determination to impose financial and economic sanctions. If this works - and it seems that at least some oligarchs are using this economic pressure on Putin and Zelensky to limit the war - what a success that would be, what a model for non-military defence against wars of aggression! That would be a turning point that I would hardly have dared to dream of.

It is a huge challenge for mediators to remain fundamentally cooperative in this social environment, to differentiate between actions and people, to recognise their own fear, but not to be guided by it, and to continue to work for peace between people and between countries. 

I think Friedrich Glasl said everything about what needs to be done in detail in the big Trigon interview.

"Life is lived forwards and understood backwards" Sören Kierkegaard (1813-1855)

How do I deal with it?

In times of disorientation, it helps me to feel inside myself and to observe. That's why I concentrate on my perception and summarise what I see, hear and read in the here and now. On social media, in addition to the numerous offers of help and support, I am now noticing more and more posts in which we mediators contradict each other more sharply than usual when it comes to Russia's war against Ukraine. I read that we reproach each other when we comment on the content of our political dealings with Russia. What I think I'm observing is a general struggle among us mediators to find the "right" stance in the face of this war.

And I ask myself: are we already in a parallel process? 

In view of the fact that we mediators seem to have already started talking about "right" and "wrong", I draw the conclusion for myself that I wish for two things.

Firstly, role clarity. Am I speaking as a mediator from my professional role or am I making statements as a private person, taking into account my individual biographical view of things?

Secondly, I would like to see mediation and us mediators return to our core competences. And our core competence is differentiated thinking and conflict work. We can and may position ourselves in this war and always (!) in favour of conflict resolution. What view we take, what exactly this conflict work should look like, is up to us and varies from mediator to mediator.

In my view, the questions we are therefore facing in Europe today include the following:

- How can we bring more mediation expertise into the world in future?

- How do we find a suitable political actor on the international stage who can act as a mediator?

- How do we accompany social conflicts triggered by war on our doorstep?

- How do we create space for dialogue to talk about the war so that reconciliation emerges from the conversations?

- How do we gain clarity about which (social) battles we want to fight as people and as mediators?

And quite pragmatically: How do we ensure a practice of self-empathy and self-care in our (Central European) everyday lives so that we continue to fulfil our mission as mediators well and are not infected by the conflict energy that is in the air?

• The long period of peace in Europe is over. The period of the past 30 years, in which mediation was able to arrive and grow in Germany, is finally over. Europe will be – militarily rearmed, especially in the east –. We will have a new, much more extensive wall – and this time in Germany everyone will live and work together to the west of it. This should set the scene for the future of mediation in Germany.
• Paradoxically, there may even be positive developments for mediation. It seems necessary to me that we mediators sometimes have to recognise and (then!) transform serious offences. The juridification and legalisation of mediation (2012) already outraged and disillusioned quite a few mediators, but in 2017, with the evaluation report, which found hardly any mediation activities worth mentioning, large parts of the scene retreated to „methodological inadequacies“ – knowing full well that the core of the data material could hardly be dismissed out of hand. However, a completely different dimension of offence and mental irritation was caused by the Russian war of aggression on the whole of Ukraine, a war that broke out in Eastern Europe by Russia of all countries, which peace-loving Germany had made such an effort to address with mediative ideas and cooperative negotiation approaches (far beyond the level of tolerable security risk!).
• The debate on this has barely begun among mediators. Lines of conflict are likely to emerge here that would shake up and update the generally accepted concept of mediation: What does the freedom and self-responsibility of conflicting parties count for if an aggressor cannot be brought to reason with the means of law and hope? How far does the concept that true interests and actual needs can always be brought to peaceful coexistence – in the face of imperialist interests hold up in reality? Does the mediative view of humanity correspond to reality? Or, in a nutshell: Is mediation an alternative to the law or is it perhaps more of a The flower of lived law?
• It is possible that the mediation movement will emerge from this with a higher profile, stronger and more self-confident. To achieve this, it seems necessary to shed the „faith element“ within the mediation movement in order to be able to live out its context-bound strengths.
• We can only hope that this turning point will not result in a technical debate on suitability 2.0.

Two aspects come to mind:

1. mediation comes too late -> preventive mediation needs to become much more widely recognised and take effect much earlier. In many cases, we mediators are only called in when the conflict dynamics are already so far advanced that mediation can hardly achieve anything. The basic ideas and prerequisites of mediation must therefore be anchored much more deeply and broadly in social awareness and, above all, in everyday communication. Recognising and addressing conflicts in the first place „ is still not a particularly widespread skill, but it is the basic prerequisite for constructive conflict resolution. At the same time, the limits of mediation need to be pointed out and emphasised more strongly. As in other counselling formats (coaching, supervision, etc.), the steps must be taken by the mediator. If this willingness or ability to do so is not present, mediation must (be able to) withdraw and thus make it clear that the responsibility for dealing with the conflict lies with the conflict parties. Wanting mediation without doing anything about it is also a decision, but should not be supported by the mediator.

2. the Ukraine war as a topic in daily counselling: After years of the subjectively experienced accumulation of disasters, restrictions, wars, pandemics, etc., the resulting stress is much more likely to be a topic in counselling situations (coaching, organisational development, mediation). Managers complain about employees who are affected, employees feel even more alone than usual and even if they are not directly affected by the war in Ukraine, for example, everyone knows someone who is. After two years of the pandemic, many people have exhausted their personal resources and are barely able to cope with further stress – e.g. from a war of aggression on European soil –. In everyday life, this can be seen in many facets – ultimately, these developments have also contributed to the fact that it is becoming increasingly difficult to get an appointment with a psychotherapist. As mediators, we have a responsibility to treat these people with sensitivity and empathy and to organise the process and setting for mediation in such a way that it is not perceived as an additional burden. Rather, mediation can already have a relieving effect here and thus contribute to the subjectively perceived well-being.