Summary
Following up on the panel discussion, the reflection group meeting intended to explore in more depth what we actually mean by diplomacy, what limitations it faces in the current world order, what difficulties affect dialogue during an ongoing war, and what role academia, education, and civil/citizen diplomacy can play in this context.
 |
 |
Participants mentioned as a central concern whether existing diplomatic frameworks designed for a different geopolitical era remain adequate for managing contemporary conflicts. On one hand, there is continuity: classical diplomatic instruments still play a role in de-escalation, negotiation remains essential even in high-intensity conflict; on the other, there are shifts toward leader-centric “personal” diplomacy, growing role of informal actors and non-state participants, the erosion of formal protocols established after World War II and the emergence of new mediators, particularly from the Global South.
We witness a broader transition from a rules-based, institutional order to a more fluid and personalized diplomatic environment and the undergoing profound transformation of the structure and practice of diplomacy. Global governance systems are increasingly perceived as instruments of power rather than neutral frameworks. The participants identified declining trust in institutions, weakening multilateralism and increasing reliance on transactional, power-based approaches as structural crisis of the liberal peace framework. That results in eroding trust in diplomacy and expertise.
Diplomacy itself was examined critically: it can prevent conflict, but it may also contribute to escalation if it misreads intentions or obscures realities. It was highlighted that the very concept of diplomacy is ambivalent: it can mean dishonest “lying” on behalf of the state, conciliatory behavior aimed at smoothing over conflicts, or “organized hypocrisy” when actors search for compromise formulations that are “good enough” for everyone.
The discussion reaffirmed the relevance of multi-level diplomacy conducted by political leadership, institutional and administrative actors, and civil society. While this model functions relatively well in democratic contexts, it faces structural limitations in authoritarian systems due to weak or non-existent feedback loops and minimal influence of grassroots initiatives on centralized decision-making. Its consequence is the fundamental constraint: diplomacy cannot rely on bottom-up processes where political systems structurally block them.
Some participants stressed the significance of Grassroots Initiatives, such as youth dialogue programs (e.g., the “Barcelona model”) which illustrate the role of micro-diplomacy as an experimental space for long-term peacebuilding and the possibility for fostering coexistence.
One of the participants analyzed war as a self-reinforcing economic system which generates profits for elites, creates financial incentives for participation and can function as a mechanism of upward wealth redistribution. That leads to a structural conclusion that as long as war remains economically viable, it will persist. In that context, it was highlighted the transformative role of artificial intelligence and technological change that increase concentration of wealth and deepen global inequality. Without systemic redesign, these trends may reinforce the conditions that make conflict more likely.
A central question of the discussion was the role and possibilities of diplomacy in the context of the Russian–Ukrainian war. A key point was that the current war was not inevitable. As main reasons of failure it was mentioned the insufficient and inconsistent international response to both the tendency of authoritarian leaderships to test and expand limits incrementally and the annexation of the Crimea in 2014. From this perspective, the failure was not only diplomatic but also strategic and political, where the actors missed the opportunities for deterrence. It was underlined, that needs to be acknowledged honestly today; otherwise, any talk about the “failure of diplomacy” remains purely abstract.
A recurring analytical error identified by some participants was the tendency to interpret non-democratic systems through democratic assumptions, that leads to miscalculation. That fact makes “multi‑level diplomacy” asymmetric: on one side there is a functioning society, on the other a centralized decision‑making structure tied to Putin.
A debate developed on how the responsibility for the war should be understood. One position rejected the simplification of the conflict as merely “Putin’s war”. It argued that it was a Russian war against Ukraine, since part of the Russian society actively produces weapons, educates in a militaristic spirit and participates in the aggression. Countering that argument it was stressed there is no genuine civil society and democracy in Russia and not “the entire Russian society” is collectively and uniformly pro‑war; in that view, the share of people directly involved in the war is much smaller, and many remain silent out of fear. The debate concluded that the assessment of responsibility requires a nuanced approach that avoids both oversimplification and collective blame.
A strong, emotionally charged debate emerged on the question “who should speak?” There was criticism of the practice of not citing Russian sources, not inviting Russian scholars and silencing Russian participants automatically (“be quiet because you are Russian”), even when they themselves are subject to persecution, exile and the label of “foreign agent”. As a form of “epistemic injustice” their voices are excluded not on the basis of content, but identity or origin. This exclusion is often justified as a moral necessity to center Ukrainian voices. It was also emphasized that a blanket isolation may silence those best positioned to challenge official narratives and it would limit access to internal perspectives and undermine long-term understanding.
From the other side it was argued that victims (Ukrainians) must be given space to speak first, and that it is understandable that from the frontline there is little patience for nuanced analysis. Moral responsibility and existential threat are not symmetric.
The discussion emphasized the importance of distinguishing between active supporters of the regime, passive participants and silenced or dissenting individuals.
A participant revealed that the conflict is equally a struggle in the information and ideological domain. A key strategic development is the use of narratives framing Russia as an “anti-colonial” force, which has gained traction in Africa, Latin America and parts of the Global South. That expands the geopolitical scope of the conflict and challenges Western interpretative dominance.
Some participants noted as significant failure to effectively counter these narratives. At the same time, there is a growing concern about the renewed appeal of force, driven by the perception that military action can produce faster and more decisive outcomes than diplomacy.
One of the participants recalled that historically, academic cooperation functioned as a communication channel during geopolitical tension (e.g., the Cold War). Nowadays, this channel is fragmented, politically and ethically constrained and burdened by serious security risks. At the same time, it was raised that the launch of “academic diplomacy” might contribute to better exploring the reasons leading to the war and the possibilities for its settlement. Countering the relevance of discussions between academicians, one of the participants underlined Russian academia is heavily influenced by state propaganda, making meaningful dialogue and cooperation problematic.
The discussion broadened the concept of education beyond formal systems. One of the participants highlighted that diplomacy starts from the level of citizens. In that view, diplomacy is not only the business of foreign ministers, but also a question of “mindset” and education, in which adult education and dialogue‑based training have an important role. Traditional education systems were described as insufficient for addressing deep societal and ideological divides. Positive reference was made to Transformative Models, such as “The Nordic Bildung” / Folk High School model, which are focused on values, responsibility and community‑oriented thinking. All that can, in the long term, contribute more to peace than traditional, formal education.
The discussion highlighted a fundamental emotional asymmetry: some participants can engage analytically, while others experience the conflict as a matter of daily life and survival. This creates moral tension, sets communication barriers and generates challenges to design and implement dialogue. It was stressed that recognizing and addressing this asymmetry is essential for any meaningful future engagement.
Towards the end of the discussion a certain consensus emerged that:
- key concepts (diplomacy, dialogue, citizen diplomacy, expert/academic diplomacy) must be clarified more consciously;
- separate space should be allocated to concrete, practical questions (for example whom to engage and through which channels within and outside Russia today);
- the line of multi‑level diplomacy and dialogue‑based education (“Bildung”, adult education, youth projects) should be continued in an experimental way, as these can contribute to peacebuilding in the long term.
For the future, these reflection sessions were described as “laboratories”: experiments on how to conduct honest, conflict‑laden yet still structured dialogue during war – and how to learn from this in order to design more appropriate formats and protocols later on.
The discussion closed on the recognition that while rapid transformation is unlikely, maintaining analytical nuance, openness to dialogue, and differentiation within societies remains essential for any future reconstruction of peace.
Conclusion
The meeting of the Reflection Group revealed a persistent dilemma: how to sustain meaningful dialogue in a context where legitimacy, representation, and trust are fundamentally contested.
There were explored deep structural tensions between:
- Continuity and transformation in diplomacy
- Moral clarity and analytical complexity
- Isolation and engagement
The participants highlighted
- The limits of promoting cooperation in existing diplomatic and academic frameworks
- The central role of narratives and systemic incentives
- The fragility of trust in global governance
- The need for new content and formats in education