Is their any chance of closing all types of diplomatic relations between Russia and West

 The idea of a complete closure of diplomatic relations between Russia and the West after the Ukraine war, while a dramatic prospect, faces significant practical and historical hurdles, making it an unlikely, though not entirely impossible, scenario. While relations are currently at an unprecedented low, with deep mistrust and widespread sanctions, a full severance of diplomatic ties would represent a catastrophic breakdown with far-reaching consequences for global stability.

Firstly, it's crucial to understand what "closing diplomatic relations" truly entails. It means the withdrawal of ambassadors, the closure of embassies and consulates, and the cessation of all official communication channels between states. Historically, such extreme measures are usually reserved for declarations of war or situations of absolute diplomatic impasse where even minimal communication is deemed impossible or counterproductive. Even during the height of the Cold War, a period characterized by intense ideological animosity and proxy conflicts, the United States and the Soviet Union maintained diplomatic relations, recognizing the necessity of communication, even if adversarial, to manage crises and prevent outright conflict. For instance, the Cuban Missile Crisis, a moment of extreme tension, was ultimately defused through back-channel diplomacy and direct communication between leaders, highlighting the critical role of maintaining ties even in dire circumstances.

The ongoing Ukraine war has undeniably strained Russia-West relations to their breaking point. Many Western nations have expelled Russian diplomats, imposed extensive sanctions, and publicly condemned Russia's actions. Russia, in turn, has labeled numerous Western countries as "unfriendly" and implemented retaliatory measures. However, despite this deterioration, formal diplomatic relations, albeit severely curtailed, largely persist. Embassies remain open, albeit with reduced staff, and some level of communication, however limited, still occurs. This continuation, even symbolically, underscores a fundamental principle of international relations: that maintaining some form of diplomatic channel, even with adversaries, is often seen as a less dangerous alternative than complete isolation, which can breed miscalculation and escalate tensions unchecked.

The consequences of a complete diplomatic closure would be severe. It would eliminate direct lines of communication, making it significantly harder to de-escalate potential crises, manage humanitarian issues, or even discuss prisoner exchanges. Without diplomatic missions, intelligence gathering would become more challenging, increasing the risk of misinterpretations and unintended confrontations. Furthermore, it would effectively signal a complete breakdown of any hope for future resolution of the Ukraine conflict through diplomatic means, pushing all interactions into purely confrontational spheres. The international community, already grappling with multiple complex challenges, would be further destabilized by such a dramatic rupture between major global powers.

Moreover, the interconnectedness of the modern world, even amidst geopolitical fragmentation, makes a complete severing of ties exceptionally difficult. There are still shared interests, however minimal, that necessitate some form of interaction. These can range from nuclear non-proliferation and climate change to global health security and counter-terrorism efforts. While cooperation in these areas has been severely hampered, the complete absence of any dialogue would make addressing these transnational issues virtually impossible, potentially creating new global risks.

From the perspective of both Russia and Western nations, maintaining a semblance of diplomatic presence offers residual benefits. For Russia, it allows them to continue to present their narrative, however unconvincing to the West, and maintain a degree of international legitimacy, particularly with countries in the "Global South" with whom they are actively seeking to strengthen ties. For Western nations, it provides a window, however small, into Russian thinking and a potential avenue for future engagement should circumstances change. It also allows for the protection of their citizens who may still be in Russia.

In conclusion, while the Ukraine war has profoundly damaged relations between Russia and the West, leading to unprecedented levels of distrust and animosity, a complete closure of diplomatic relations remains a low-probability event. The historical precedent, the inherent risks of complete isolation, and the enduring need for some level of communication, even with adversaries, suggest that a full diplomatic rupture would be a last resort, likely only considered in the event of an even more dramatic escalation of the conflict. The current state is one of severely strained relations, characterized by minimal engagement and maximal pressure, but not yet one of complete diplomatic abandonment. The focus for many nations remains on finding an eventual path to de-escalation and resolution, however distant that may seem, and such a path would inevitably require the existence of diplomatic channels.