How do you advocate for peace in a world where conflict, defence spending and bellicose rhetoric are all on the rise? That’s a question that we at the CMI – Martti Ahtisaari Peace Foundation ask ourselves almost daily. The answer begins with a healthy dose of realism. Geopolitical fragmentation is intensifying and the norms, institutions and power relationships of the post-Cold War era are being challenged. Unencumbered by such norms, many countries are pursuing transactional foreign policies that favour bilateral over multilateral approaches, focus on short-term wins and espouse a zero-sum worldview. Instability and distrust are growing, world military expenditure has hit a record high – reaching $2.5trn (€2.3trn) in 2024 – and there are now more global armed conflicts than ever since the end of the Second World War. Polarisation has closed many of the traditional avenues for diplomacy, while advances in technology mean that hybrid warfare is being waged across the globe.  

Wars today are less about internal strife and more about either foreign-influenced civil wars or direct wars between states. In the years after the Cold War most conflicts were fought within countries, often between government forces and rebel groups. Now civil wars can quickly become internationalised, with foreign powers backing different sides, as seen in Syria and Yemen. At the same time, there is an uptick in traditional land-based warfare, such as in Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The CMI and other independent mediators, including The Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue, The Berghof Foundation and Inter Mediate, still promote peace and try to usher in civilian governments in war-torn contexts. This is how we worked 20 years ago in Aceh, where the mediation of our founder – former Finnish president Martti Ahtisaari – paved the way for stability in the Indonesian province. A contemporary case in point is our work on the conflict in Sudan. The country remains embroiled in a civil war that began in April 2023 between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces. CMI has since pushed for an inclusive political process among the Sudanese, for example by applying tools such as artificial intelligence to capture the perspectives of women and young people.

State-to-state conflicts also play out in international organisations, such as at the UN, the Organisation of European Co-operation and Security (OSCE) and the Economic Community of West African States (Ecowas). These now serve more as platforms for fighting than vessels of peace: political point scoring takes precedence over conflict resolution at the Security Council. Even if private diplomatic mediators, such as the CMI, can provide fresh ideas, this is rarely enough to end a state-to-state war. Independent actors can make a significant contribution but any peace agreement typically requires robust guarantees to prevent the conflict from flaring up again. These types of assurances are only available from major powers or from well-functioning international organisations. The point is well illustrated in the discussion on ending the war in Ukraine. Setting up firm guarantees that prevent Russia from launching another invasion is a keystone of any accord.

In a world of disorder, discussions around ending a conflict can easily morph into an intractable jumble of issues. Ukraine talks are case in point, which concern relations between the US and Russia; the EU, Nato and Russia; the EU, Nato and Ukraine; and the US and Ukraine. To achieve a ceasefire, strong guarantees against renewed aggression by Russia must be implemented. And, to achieve a long-term peace, subcontracting topics to different fora would be required; for example, using the OSCE to discuss European security architecture. 

In a world where quick ceasefires are becoming more prevalent, we should not lose sight of long-term peace. We have seen that deals among warlords do not bring lasting harmony and we need to involve civil society in negotiations, particularly women and young people. We also need to change the mindset that military means are a good and efficient way of resolving conflicts. There will never be peace as long as war makes more sense than talking. If Ukraine, Gaza and Sudan can teach us one lesson, let it be that war is always the worst option. Lasting order requires more than just a ceasefire.

Janne Taalas has served as CEO of CMI – Martti Ahtisaari Peace Foundation since May 2021. Before that he worked for 25 years in the Finnish foreign ministry, including as the country’s ambassador to Rome.

As told to Petri Burtsoff