(7 April 2026)
Executive Summary
The discussion challenged the premise that diplomacy itself is failing, arguing instead that its perceived weakness reflects deeper structural problems in global politics, governance, and society. Diplomacy was widely described as a tool or service function, whose effectiveness depends on political will, power dynamics, and the broader international environment.
 |
 |
Participants highlighted a growing structural imbalance between diplomacy and militarism. Diplomacy is constrained by its long-term, trust-based nature, while militarism benefits from immediacy, clarity, and domestic political appeal. In fast-paced and polarized political environments, this asymmetry systematically disadvantages diplomacy.
At the same time, the discussion pointed to a fragmentation of the global order, weakening multilateral institutions, declining trust among major actors, and increasing divergence between Western and Global South perspectives. Diplomacy has become increasingly reactive, replacing preventive engagement with crisis management.
The war in Ukraine was presented as a cumulative failure of political and diplomatic engagement, rather than a sudden breakdown, illustrating how neglected risks, weakened institutions, and lack of an inclusive security framework can lead to escalation.
Participants concluded that diplomacy cannot compensate for deeper systemic issues, including democratic deficits, elite disconnection, and insufficient societal engagement. Revitalizing diplomacy therefore requires broader reforms: reforming international institutions and developing a more inclusive and balanced international order—what some described as “Diplomacy 2.0.”, rebuilding trust, investing in education, and strengthening democratic systems.
Key Discussion Points
1. Diplomacy as a Tool in a Structurally Disadvantaged Position
A central conclusion was that diplomacy is not inherently failing; rather, it is operating under structurally unfavorable conditions. Diplomacy was described as a service function, comparable to a tool whose effectiveness depends on how it is used. Failures attributed to diplomacy often reflect failures of political leadership, governance, and societal structures.
Participants stressed that diplomacy is frequently judged against unrealistic expectations, particularly the demand for rapid results. As noted during the discussion, “Diplomacy is expected to deliver immediate results in situations where only long-term engagement can succeed.” Diplomacy cannot resolve all conflicts, and expecting it to do so contributes to its perceived inefficiency.
At the same time, diplomacy depends fundamentally on trust and credible commitments. The erosion of trust—particularly between Russia and Western actors—has rendered many diplomatic processes ineffective or symbolic. Without the expectation that agreements will be honored, diplomacy loses its foundation.
2. The Structural Imbalance Between Diplomacy and Militarism
The discussion underscored a fundamental asymmetry between diplomacy and militarism in terms of logic, timeframes, and political incentives.
- Diplomacy is gradual, process-oriented, and dependent on compromise and mutual restraint.
- Militarism offers speed, clarity, and visible action.
In contemporary political environments—characterized by electoral pressures, media acceleration, and polarization—militarism is often more politically rewarding. As one participant observed, “Diplomacy asks for patience in systems that reward speed; militarism delivers speed even when it undermines long-term stability.”
Militarized approaches also serve domestic political functions:
- simplify complex realities into clear narratives
- mobilize public support
- signal decisiveness and strength
By contrast, diplomacy often appears ambiguous or weak until it succeeds. This creates a reinforcing cycle in which policymakers default to security-first approaches, contributing to the normalization of militarized thinking.
3. From Preventive Diplomacy to Crisis Management
Participants identified a significant shift from preventive diplomacy to reactive crisis management. Diplomatic engagement has become increasingly episodic, often activated only after escalation has occurred.
As noted during the panel, “We no longer practice diplomacy to avoid war—we practice it to limit the damage once war begins.” This shift has reduced diplomacy’s ability to shape outcomes and maintain strategic initiative.
The weakening or politicization of communication channels has further reduced opportunities for early de-escalation.
4. Structural Drivers: Global Disorder and Institutional Decline
A recurring theme was the fragmentation of the global order, driven in part by political instability within leading and wealthy countries. “On the turn of the century, the most powerful was the lest constrained. The new world order should put some constraints on the most powerful”, said one of the panelists. Another one added that “politicians who start wars should pay a price”.
Furthermore, participants noted:
- Declining commitment to international institutions built over decades
- Increasing dysfunction of multilateral frameworks
- Growing disregard for rules-based governance
Politicians do not take seriously the institutions set up and invested in for long decades. Institutions such as the United Nations were described as increasingly ineffective, dysfunctional, constrained by:
- Consensus-based decision-making leading to paralysis “We got to get rid of the consensus rule.”
- Weak enforcement mechanisms
- Politicization of processes
As a result, states are increasingly relying on ad hoc coalitions and bilateral arrangements, further weakening the multilateral system.
5. Power Asymmetry and Changing Forms of Diplomacy
Power—both real and perceived—plays a decisive role in diplomatic outcomes. Large asymmetries reduce incentives for negotiation and reinforce unilateral approaches.
At the same time, diplomacy itself is evolving:
- From bureaucratic, institutional diplomacy (Cold War era)
- Toward more personalized, leader-driven, and transactional forms
This includes:
- The use of personal envoys
- Blurring of personal and national interests
- The rise of populist or “champion-style” diplomacy
These changes raise questions about professionalism, accountability, and the role of expertise.
6. Democracy, Elites, and Public Disconnection
Participants emphasized that the crisis of democracy directly affects diplomacy. A widening gap between political elites and broader society has led to:
- Insular elite decision-making
- Failure to deliver public goods
- Increasing reliance on scapegoating (e.g., migrants)
- Declining public trust
Revitalizing democracy—making it more inclusive and responsive—was seen as a precondition for effective diplomacy. “Democracy needs to be revitalized for revitalization of diplomacy.” We also need to revitalize the tools we deploy in diplomacy.
7. Trust, Communication, and Societal Engagement
The erosion of trust, dialogue, and communication—both between states and within societies—has undermined diplomacy.
Participants highlighted the need for:
- Continuous engagement rather than crisis-driven interaction
- Broader societal participation (“people’s diplomacy”)
- Stronger reliance on expertise and informed policymaking
At the same time, diplomacy continues to produce results in specific areas, such as prisoner exchanges, demonstrating that it remains functional under certain conditions.
We need to start discussion on the root causes not on the side effects only. Conflict roots in history but very simple analysis of past will not help give the right answer. Everything we discuss are context-dependent things.
Weak reactions of churches to the war were also noted and pointed to the Orthodox churches which prove weak to show any public resistance to war.
8. The Global South and the Need for a New International Order
The discussion highlighted increasing divergence between Western and Global South perspectives. Many Global South countries prioritize:
- Sovereignty
- Non-alignment
- Pragmatic engagement
This complicates coalition-building and reflects broader fragmentation in the international system.
Participants called for a more inclusive international order, emphasizing:
- Greater representation of the Global South
- Reform rather than total replacement of existing institutions
- Exploration of alternatives to consensus-based decision-making
9. The Russia–Ukraine War as a Case Study
The war in Ukraine was presented as a cumulative failure of political and diplomatic engagement, not a sudden breakdown.
Participants pointed to:
- Years of neglected risks and missed opportunities
- The erosion of dialogue mechanisms
- The absence of an inclusive European security framework
As one formulation captured it, “Diplomacy did not fail in a single moment—it eroded over years of neglect, until only military options remained visible.”
The war has reinforced militarized approaches across Europe, including increased defense spending and deterrence-based strategies. At the same time, participants warned that a ceasefire without a broader framework is unstable: “A ceasefire without a framework is not peace—it is a pause between wars.” Sustainable peace requires embedding any settlement within a comprehensive political framework.
10. Toward “Diplomacy 2.0”
The discussion concluded with a call to rethink and modernize, “recalibrate” diplomacy in response to changing global conditions.
Key directions include:
- Expanding people’s diplomacy and societal engagement
- Strengthening the role of expertise and knowledge-based policymaking
- Clarifying desired diplomatic outcomes
- Improving education and public awareness
- Developing new formats and tools for dialogue
A future international order should both:
- Include a broader range of actors, and
- Constrain the most powerful states through shared rules and interdependence
Diplomacy must adapt to new realities while recognizing its limits: it cannot resolve problems rooted in deeper political and societal dynamics on its own.
Conclusion
The discussion reframed the central question: diplomacy has not failed in isolation. Its limitations reflect deeper failures in political leadership, institutional design, and societal cohesion.
Diplomacy remains essential—but structurally constrained. Its revitalization depends on:
- Rebuilding trust and communication
- Reforming multilateral institutions
- Addressing democratic deficits
- Investing in education and societal engagement
- Creating a more inclusive and balanced international order
Without these broader changes, diplomacy will continue to be overshadowed by militarized approaches, regardless of how its tools evolve.