Both America’s deepening commitment to Ukraine and its widening dispute with China could escalate into a nuclear war. With such high stakes, understanding and resurrecting the successful strategies that forestalled similar disasters during the Cold War could reduce the risk of catastrophe. Today, American diplomat George F. Kennan is best known for being an architect of the policy of containment — the policy that aimed to limit the Soviet Union’s influence and block the expansion of communism in the late 1940s. However, Kennan’s most passionate advocacy was actually for a certain type of hardheaded, discerning diplomacy — a strategy that proved instrumental in helping defuse some of the Cold War’s most tense moments and could prove beneficial to easing such tense political situations again today.
In 1951, the United States was mired in a proxy war with the Soviet Union in Korea. With the Soviets fuming at the presence of foreign troops close to their frontier and the United States frustrated with the stalemated conflict, a direct confrontation between the superpowers loomed. Into the breach stepped Kennan, who after intensive study and several diplomatic postings in Russia, understood the Soviets better than anyone in the U.S. government.
To defuse the budding tensions over Korea, Kennan contacted the Soviet ambassador to the United Nations. In low-key talks behind closed doors, he assured his Russian counterpart that while Washington disputed Moscow’s arguments, the United States could understand why the Russians thought what they did. Kennan knew that negotiators, no matter how frostily professional they appeared, remained human beings subject to emotions and influenced by culture. Extending respect to a negotiating partner could soften resistance, whereas brusque talk and attempts to inflict humiliation invariably hardened opposition.
This formula worked for Kennan and his Soviet counterpart, who, acting with the approval of their respective governments, reached an understanding about limiting the conflict in Korea. Putting a lid on each side’s military commitment to its proxy spurred further talks that eventually led to an armistice in 1953. That prevented the Cold War from inadvertently becoming hot — something neither side wanted.
Kennan’s critical insight was that despite the policy chasms that separated the two sides, and the ruptured trust, neither sought a world war. He recognized the value of back-channel, informal, personal diplomacy in bridging divides. Such talks could also create opportunities to find common ground on other vital issues.