Q: Your Eminence, it is clear that the Pope is calling for negotiation rather than surrender. But why address only one of the two parties, Ukraine, and not Russia? And isn’t there a risk that invoking the "defeat" of the aggressed party as motivation for negotiation is counterproductive?
As the director of the Holy See Press Office said, citing the Holy Father’s words on February 25 of last year, the Pope's appeal is that “conditions be created for a diplomatic solution in the pursuit of a just and lasting peace.”
It is obvious that responsibility for the creation of such conditions does not fall solely on one of the parties but on both, and the first condition seems to me to be precisely putting an end to the aggression.
One must never forget context, which in this case is a question that was addressed to the Pope. He, in response, spoke of negotiation and, in particular, the courage to negotiate, which is never a surrender.
The Holy See pursues this line and continues to call for a ceasefire—and it should be the aggressors who cease fire first—and then the opening of negotiations. The Holy Father explains that negotiating is not weakness but strength. It is not surrender, but courage.
And he tells us that we must have greater consideration for human life, for the hundreds of thousands of human lives that have been sacrificed in this war in the heart of Europe. These are words that apply to Ukraine as well as to the Holy Land and to the other conflicts that afflict the world.
Q: Is a diplomatic solution still a possibility?
Since these are decisions that depend on human will, there always remains the possibility of reaching a diplomatic solution.
The war unleashed against Ukraine is not the result of an uncontrollable natural disaster but solely of human freedom. The same human free will that caused this tragedy also has the possibility and the responsibility to take steps to end it, and pave the way for a diplomatic solution.
Q: Is the Holy See concerned about escalation? This is something you yourself have mentioned, saying that "the hypothesis of involvement of Western countries" is a frightening one.
The Holy See is concerned about the risk of a widening of the war. The escalation of the conflict, the outbreak of new armed clashes, and the arms race are dramatic and disturbing signs in this regard.
The widening of the war would mean new suffering, new mourning, new victims, and new destruction, adding to what the Ukrainian people, especially children, women, the elderly, and civilians, are now experiencing firsthand, paying the all-too-high price of this unjust war.
Q: Pope Francis has also spoken about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, evoking the "responsibility" of both parties. What do these two situations have in common?
The two situations certainly have in common the fact that they have dangerously widened beyond any acceptable limit, that they cannot be resolved, that they have repercussions in different countries, and that no solution can be found without serious negotiation.
I am concerned about the hatred they are generating. When will wounds this deep ever be healed?
Q: On the subject of escalation, the Pope has spoken several times about the danger of a nuclear conflict, saying, "All it takes is one incident.” Is this the Holy See’s underlying fear? An "incident" like in Sarajevo in 1914?
The risk of a fatal ‘drift’ towards nuclear war is a real one. Just look at how regularly certain government representatives resort to this sort of threat. I can only hope that this is strategic propaganda rather than a 'warning' of something truly possible.
As for the "underlying fear" of the Holy See, I believe it is more that the various actors in this tragic situation may become even more entrenched in their own interests, not doing what they can to achieve a just and stable peace.