On the Ukraine Issue (Part 6): How reflect on the failure of diplomacy?

Every regional conflict and its evolving form, a major war, is a "diplomatic failure".
Of course, this time Ukraine is no exception. Who failed in diplomacy in this case? The Western powers failed, of course. But who among the Western nations is feeling remorse? I can only think that rather than reflecting on their failures, they are trying to avoid responsibility by hiding their own failures and making the East look bad.

Do we really want "diplomacy" to succeed in the first place?
This is not the first time that a situation of unrepentance for "diplomatic failure" has arisen. It has happened before in every "proxy war" between East and West. To put it bluntly, I can only assume that world leaders are not interested in avoiding or preventing military conflicts. After all, it seems that "diplomacy" is not a process of respecting the other side, reconciling the national interests of one's own country with those of the other, and finding a compromise that is acceptable to both sides. In other words, "diplomacy" seems to mean any political maneuver taken to push one's own interests.
In this way, world leaders are increasingly divided into "honne(true motive/honesty/truth) and tatemae(surface/posturing/hypocrisy)" in the arena of diplomacy. Diplomacy will then become a game of identifying "which is the honne and which is the tatemae".
I am sure you have noticed this by now. We are back to the beginning. In other words, when diplomacy fails, no one is sorry. No one really wants to avoid military conflict.
After all, "diplomacy" has become little more than a "place-holder" from one military conflict to another.

Right now, it seems that "ceasefire negotiations," an imitation of "diplomacy," are being conducted daily on Ukraine issue, but it seems to me that these "negotiations" are just a "cover (surface manipulation)" to prolong the war. In other words, it seems to me that they are deliberately showing continuous failure in negotiations to justify the war. If they keep having "failed negotiations," they can blame the fighting (at least half of it) on the other side.
This is not just a Russia-Ukraine problem.
We need to realize by now that this situation has been repeated everywhere in the world, even in times of peace, in the form of surface diplomacy.

There is no way to negotiate a ceasefire with a gun to the other side's temple. In such negotiations, the only thing that can be done is to "try to turn the war situation around, if at all possible, in order to gain some advantage before negotiations". As a result, the war situation would intensify.
Here, after all, one of the parties has no choice but to put down the guns they have raised. Unfortunately, however, this is an impossible counsel between the parties.
This means that a third party (a third country) will have to step in, but whichever camp plays that role, it will only be persuasive if it starts from a reflection on the "failure of diplomacy. In other words, the person who enters to mediate the fight must begin by bowing his head and saying, "I am sorry, my bad."
This is extremely difficult.
We, those of us on the outside who are not national leaders, are not strangers to the situation. We cannot impose on someone else what we cannot do ourselves.

The basic methodology for achieving this difficulty, I believe, is as follows.
In the relationship between countries and also between individuals, the process remains the same: "division of honne and tatemae → gut feeling → breakdown of negotiations → clash.
It is necessary to replace this process with like one of: "integration of honne and tatemae → respect for the other party's position → finding a compromise → conclusion of negotiations".
If national leaders are unable to do so, we, the private sector, must be the first to set an example.
First of all, let us ourselves be the first to stop thinking in terms of "bipolarity".
In the case of the Ukraine issue, let us consider that the dichotomy of "Putin is a villain and Zelensky is a war hero" is not valid. Nor can the dichotomy of "the West is the sanctioning party and Putin is the sanctioned party" be established. Only from there can the integration of the schizophrenic state take place.

Now, we civilians, for example, need to stop thinking in terms of the dichotomy of "nation and people". Otherwise, there is no way to resolve the conflict between two countries.
Now, you should not blame the country (the world) or anyone else for the difficult situation you find yourself in, but rather, try to look at it as a purely personal matter.
Then, you ask yourself,
"Am I divided between what and what?"
"Have I always emphasized or chosen one or the other between those two divisions?"
"Once again, what would it bring me if I were to focus on the other pole, the one that I have so far neglected or not made a choice?"
"If that is the issue I must address first and foremost..."

It seems unlikely, but if, by any chance, Japan were to become a mediator between Russia and Ukraine in the future, it would need to begin with the following declaration:
"We have been, until now, divided between the United States and Russia. And in the course of that division we have always placed unilateral emphasis on the U.S., or have made the U.S. position our exclusive political and diplomatic option.
On reflection, we will now turn our attention once again to Russia, which we have neglected or never made an option. That is precisely the issue we must address first and foremost."

This is not so much "reflection" as a "course correction". The word "reflection" gives the impression of putting oneself in a disadvantageous position, whereas "course correction" would have the nuance of working together to address common issues. This is the important point of this methodology.

Now, in order to achieve world peace, we were aiming to acquire an "alien's perspective," a bird's-eye view of the world from the outside.
To do so, we need to overcome a big wall. Metaphorically speaking, it is a "stratospheric" wall. More directly, it is a "wall of egos".
Diplomacy fails when egos clash with egos among nations, and that is why a military conflict awaits beyond that point.
Of course, if a third country that is trying to mediate a quarrel between two countries has its ego on full display, it will not be able to play the role of mediator.

No individual or nation can abandon its ego. Nor is it necessary to do so. Transformation in consciousness is the process of expanding what is other than the ego while leaving the ego intact, and becoming self-identified with the "self" as a whole, including both the ego and the expanded part of one's self. For us, what is the identity that we should self-identify with other than the ego?　That is the identity of "we are the cosmic being."
But we cannot easily reach it in a single step. We need to go through several stages.
From the next articles, we will look at each of these stages in detail.