Crisis Negotiation Lessons: The U.S.-Russia Prisoner Swap

On August 1, 2024, a complex prisoner swap negotiated between the United States and Russia successfully unfolded on a tarmac in Ankara, Turkey. Fifteen people imprisoned by Russia, including Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich, and one held by Belarus were traded for eight people held in Western countries, most notably convicted Russian assassin Vadim Krasikov. Several crisis negotiation lessons emerge from the highly intricate deal.

1. Embrace Complexity

The U.S. government had been eager to secure Gershkovich’s freedom ever since Russia arrested him on false espionage charges in March 2023. Securing the release of another American held on trumped-up spying charges, security contractor Paul Whelan, was also a top priority.

Russian president Vladimir Putin, meanwhile, was keen to negotiate the release of Krasikov from Germany, where he had been convicted of killing a Chechen leader in 2019. But the German government was loathe to release a known assassin who could strike again.

Two U.S. State Department officials involved in the efforts, special envoy James P. Rubin and chief hostage negotiator Roger D. Carstens, came to recognize that a small deal involving a prisoner or two from each side didn’t stand a chance, the New York Times reports. They devised a more ambitious strategy, dubbed “enlarging the problem,” that brought many prisoners and multiple governments into the discussion.

Russia rejected several U.S.-proposed swaps. And talks had to be reformulated after Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny, who had been included in the plans, died in a Russian prison.

But when the United States included other dissidents held in Russian prisons in the deal, German chancellor Olaf Scholz decided that a sufficient moral imperative existed to justify Krasikov’s release. And Russia approved an agreement that included the release of Russian spies being held in Slovenia.

In crisis negotiation, we tend to assume that simple and straightforward dealmaking will yield the best results. In fact, adding complexity—in the form of multiple issues or parties—can create new opportunities for both sides to get what they want. Harvard Business School professor James Sebenius offers advice on how to carry out such a negotiation campaign.

2. Carefully Weigh Whether to Negotiate

Many of us resist negotiating with someone we consider to be untrustworthy, unethical, or downright evil. We also avoid deals that would violate our ethics or set a bad precedent. Indeed, for decades, the U.S. government had a “no concessions” policy that kept it from negotiating with hostage takers because of the risk of incentivizing further kidnappings.

In a New York Times op-ed, Russia expert M. Gessen asked whether the 2024 prisoner swap means that “all Western countries — their citizens and the hundreds of thousands of Russians living in exile — are now at greater risk?”

“Refusing to negotiate or ‘make concessions’ will not cause hostage-taking to disappear and will only lead to the suffering of those held hostage,” Joel Simon, director of the Journalism Protection Initiative at the City University of New York, told Gessen. “A good deal is the best outcome one can hope for in a really bad situation.”

But investigative journalist Christo Grozev was less sure. He had helped authorities identify Krasikov and testified against him. Then, targeted by Russian assassins, he fled Europe for the United States. In January 2022, Grozev brainstormed the idea of a complex prisoner swap with the goal of freeing Navalny. But, he told Gessen, “I don’t know how I feel about Krasikov being free. He stared at me in court.”

Choosing to engage in a crisis negotiation creates great risks—but not negotiating can be even riskier. In his book Bargaining with the Devil: When to Negotiate, When to Fight, Harvard Law School professor emeritus Robert Mnookin advises thoroughly weighing the costs and benefits of negotiating rather than making snap decisions based on emotion.

3. Consider the Pros and Cons of Going Public

Gershkovich’s mother, Ella Milman, was a tireless behind-the-scenes negotiator and advocate for her son during his imprisonment. She nurtured contacts throughout the U.S. government. She traveled to Russia for her son’s appeal hearing and, to attest to his good character, subjected herself to a four-hour interrogation by his captors. She approached both Biden and Scholz at public events and begged them to help free Gershkovich.

But by November 2023, Milman was losing patience, unimpressed by the U.S. proposals being offered to Russia. She opted to go on Fox News and “throw a hand grenade,” the Wall Street Journal reports. “It’s been 250 days and Evan is not here, and the effort to do whatever it takes hasn’t been done,” she said on TV.

In response, a State Department spokesperson told reporters that Russia had rejected multiple proposals that would have freed Gershkovich. The Russians, who had insisted on strict secrecy for the talks, were displeased. “The U.S. government has literally turned on a kind of megaphone,” complained the Foreign Ministry. “The U.S. campaign in support of Gershkovich is literally drowning and discrediting him.”

Fearing she had tanked the negotiations, Milman returned to privately putting on the pressure. In January 2024, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, she urged Scholz’s chief of staff to make her case to the chancellor. Soon after, Scholz told Biden that he was willing to release Krasikov as part of a broader swap that would include Gershkovich and Whelan.

When a crisis negotiation stalls, it’s tempting to try to force a counterpart’s hand by taking your concerns public, but doing so risks irritating the other party, violating their trust, and blowing up a potential deal.

What lessons have you learned from a recent crisis negotiation?