How War Shapes Diplomacy: Examining the Complex Impacts of Armed Conflict

The relationship between war and diplomacy represents a pivotal nexus for understanding conflict dynamics and their aftereffects in international relations. While diplomacy aims to resolve disputes peacefully, breakdowns often culminate in war, which in turn transforms diplomatic landscapes.

This article analyzes the multifaceted impacts of war on interstate diplomatic ties, including both disruptive and reconstitutive effects. It surveys historical patterns and theories explicating war’s diplomatic consequences across psychological, geopolitical and institutional dimensions. The complex legacies of armed conflict are outlined through case examples spanning reconstructed enmities, rivalries, alliances and efforts at reconciliation. The analysis concludes that war holds potential to profoundly reshape diplomatic relations, but outcomes depend on contextual factors and strategic policy choices.

The Diplomacy-War Nexus in International Relations

Diplomacy entails communication, negotiation and compromise between states to advance interests while avoiding military confrontation [1]. It aims to manage conflicts and foster cooperation. But diplomacy frequently fails,giving way to armed violence. Thucydides’ ancient account of the Peloponnesian War blamed Sparta and Athens abandoning diplomacy for mutual suspicion and power politics [2].

Equally, war’s outcomes influence ensuing diplomatic relations ranging from lingering enmity to rapprochement. World War 1 bred resentment facilitating Hitler’s rise and World War 2. But post-1945 Franco-German reconciliation enabled European integration [3]. This complex interplay between war, diplomacy and their legacies shapes history.

Realist Perspectives: War Reshaping State Interests

Classical realists trace war’s diplomatic impacts to altering state perceptions of interests and power balances. Hans Morgenthau argued war’s passions overwhelm rational calculation shaping ensuing state behavior [4]. National identities and priorities are reconfigured by the traumas and outcomes of large-scale violence.

So Soviet relations with the West grew intensely antagonistic through the worldview shifts wrought by World War 2 despite previous cooperation against Hitler [5]. Realists also highlight how devastating wars sap states’ material power over decades, forcing diplomatic retrenchment like post-WW1 Britain [6]. From a realist lens, physical and psychological impacts fundamentally reshape diplomacy.

Liberalism: War Disrupting Interdependence and Institutions

Liberal theories also acknowledge war’s transformative effects on diplomacy, but focus on rupturing economic and institutional linkages. Free trade and integrated production suffer as wars divert resources and foster autarky [7]. Security dilemmas overwhelm integration.

Likewise, wars damage formal organizations and norms facilitating cooperation like the UN system or arms control treaties [8]. Communities of interest break down as conflicts unleash nationalism and zero-sum logic. For liberals, diplomacy depends on structures disrupted by war’s competitive mindsets and incentives. Rebuilding these takes decades.

Marxism: Class Power and Revolutionary War Dynamics

Marxist perspectives assess war’s diplomatic repercussions via impacts on class power and economic systems. Imperialist wars to grab territory and resources spark resistance and reordering, as the World War 1 bred Bolshevik revolution [9]. Anti-colonial wars reshaped relations between former empires and post-colonial states.

Diplomatic configurations reflect shifts in material capabilities and class forces [10]. Marxist theorist Gramsci analyzed how wars of national liberation reshape international alignments and state ideology as prevailing hegemonies fracture [11]. Material impacts on class power relations drive diplomatic transformations.

Constructivism: Identity Change and Norm Cascades

Constructivist scholarship foregrounds war’s disruptive effects on collective identities and social norms underpinning cooperation. Intractable enemy images crystallize through war trauma and propaganda, as with Germans seen as barbaric after WW1 [12]. Rehumanization requires generations.

Meanwhile clashes violently rupture existing shared principles of proper conduct between societies [13]. Postwar order depends on norm reconstruction by lead states as with 19th century conventions mitigating conflict’s destructiveness [14]. War’s diplomatic consequences hinge on identity and norm shifts.

Psychological Factors Shaping Postwar Enmities

Psychology illuminates why diplomatic hostilities often persist after wars end. Cognitive research shows individuals develop entrenched biases from painful episodes [15]. National identities forge around threats rather than opportunities due to losses looming larger than gains [16].

Consequently, adversary relations solidify through war trauma and socialized enemy images. Past conflicts provide ready archetypes for future confrontation, with World War 1’s legacy as seminal trauma shaping Nazi mobilization and strategy [17]. Handling immense collective pain overwhelms postwar diplomacy.

Classical Diplomacy: Congress of Vienna as War’s Aftermath

The Congress of Vienna convened after Napoleon’s 1815 defeat illustrates an archetypal case of reconstructing diplomacy in war’s wake. Years of French expansionist aggression required re-stabilizing Europe [18]. Conflict burnt bridges necessitating renegotiation of principles and borders.

Conservative powers aimed to reinstate legitimacy through restored monarchies and balance of power [19]. The congress sought to reconstitute diplomacy on bases obliterated by Napoleonic war, imposing a reactionary re-equilibrium. It defined an era of diplomacy shaped by revolutionary and imperial war’s legacies [20]. Historical patterns appear.

World War I’s Disruption: Undermining Old Diplomacy

World War 1 represents rupture on an unprecedented scale, overturning prewar diplomatic systems. Its origins already reflected breakdown of Bismarck’s alliance diplomacy and declining Ottoman-Russian cooperation [21]. Four years of mass industrial warfare shattered prior relationships.

The bitter postwar mood in defeated states fueled revanchism and supplied Hitler’s grievances [22]. Former imperial powers like Britain and France saw prestige and influence decline [23]. Diplomatic failures at Versailles ensured continuities driving World War 2. diplomacy lay in ruins, radically transformed by unsustainable violence.

World War 2’s Allied Relationships: Lingering Bonds and Tensions

The global partnerships defeating the Axis powers in World War 2 supplied the cornerstone for the postwar order, anchored in institutions like the UN Security Council [24]. This reflected victory’s bonding effect among Allies like the US, Britain and Soviet Union. Shared sacrifice and purpose bred trust.

However, tensions resurfaced as rival visions of postwar order emerged [25]. Germany and Japan’s occupations and democratization remained disputed. The wartime Grand Alliance could not escape geopolitical tensions. But transatlantic and transpacific diplomatic relations were profoundly recast by cooperation against fascism.

Cold War Enmity and the Warsaw Pact’s Formation

East-West relations deteriorated into rigid ideological enmity and nuclear deterrence by 1947 as wartime cooperation expired [26]. Communist takeovers in Eastern Europe cemented the Soviet bloc while NATO formed in response. Stalin feared Western threats.

Formed in 1955, the Warsaw Pact codified military integration thwarting NATO [27]. Socialist fraternity institutionalized through the Warsaw Treaty Organization. Nearly four decades of Cold War followed this nadir in postwar superpower relations precipitated by World War 2’s unresolved grievances despite tactical alliances.

Post-Cold War: Diplomatic Dividends of Peaceful Revolutions

In contrast, the largely nonviolent revolutions ending Eastern European communism after 1989 enabled gradual diplomatic normalization [28]. Revolutionary transition in Czechoslovakia bred compromise not hostility with Moscow. Prior bloodshed and enmity were avoided.

Poland’s negotiated transition facilitated joining NATO and the EU [29]. Post-socialist states integrated into Western structures. The absence of direct conflict allowed transforming zero-sum Cold War relations into partnership. Peaceful transitions yielded diplomatic dividends impossible amid violence.

Chinese-American Rapprochement: Counterbalancing the USSR

Another seminal Cold War transformation saw Sino-American rapprochement in the 1970s following decades of mutual hostility. Driven by realpolitik, the diplomatic opening counterbalanced rising Soviet power [30]. But rapprochement was only possible after tempering residues of the Korean War.

Restored communication began with subtle signals like ping-pong diplomacy [31]. Bitter divisions persisted over Taiwan but resolving an overt armed threat enabled recalibrating interests around Soviet containment [32]. This revealed how time and strategy can reshape relations after severe conflicts.

Post-War Reconciliation: Franco-German Partnership

One of history’s most dramatic hostile to friendly transformations came with post-WW2 Franco-German reconciliation. Bitter enmity cultivated over 70 years seemed irrevocable [33]. War memories remained raw, while territorial disputes persisted.

But calculated progressive steps fostered human contacts enabling normalization, including student exchanges and town partnerships [34]. Reconciling elites envisioned a shared European future transcending nationalistic histories. By 1963, General de Gaulle could proclaim Franco-German friendship a pillar of European integration [35]. Patient statecraft bore fruit.

Northern Ireland’s Halting Peace Process

In contrast Northern Ireland’s conflict saw far slower, uneven diplomatic progress. thirty years of violence continued until the 1998 Good Friday Agreement (GFA) which renounced paramilitary forces [36]. But fully transforming armed movements into peaceful parties proved complex.

Residual IRA activities persisted, prolonging British military deployment [37]. Power sharing repeatedly broke down amidst mistrust [38]. Brexit risks exacerbating divisions. Unlike German rapprochement, deep reconciliation remains pending. Northern Ireland highlights post-conflict complexities at the societal level.

Post-War Alliances and New International Institutions

As these varied examples demonstrate, armed conflicts profoundly reshape ensuing alliances, rivalries and state relations. War cleaves some societies apart for decades while throwing disparate states together against common threats.

The World Wars bred both intense enmities and tight military partnerships through countervailing dynamics [39]. Out of devastating conflict, states saw benefits in binding themselves together institutionally as with NATO and the EU to secure cooperation [40]. International institutions resulted from war’s uncertainties.

Regionalism After Conflict: European Integration

Nowhere are war’s bonding effects clearer than European integration. The 1957 Treaty of Rome formalizing the European Economic Community noted resolving historical enmities for common peace and prosperity [41]. Franco-German leadership advanced integration as means for transcending conflict.

Functionalist institutions like the European Coal and Steel Community, ftourishing economic ties, and community norms softened nationalisms [42]. While incomplete, this voluntary pooling of sovereignty represents remarkable regional transition from war-torn fragmentation [43]. War’s legacies are not predetermined. fshared strategies and institutions matter.

Conflict and Competition: China-India Border War

In contrast, the brief 1962 Sino-Indian Border War created enduring diplomatic estrangement and rivalry despite previous solidarity in the Non-Aligned Movement [44]. Territorial disputes and Chinese assertiveness generated Indian enmity.

The war crystallized their contentious relationship for decades [45]. Each modernized militaries and cultivated hostile alliances like India with the USSR [46]. Rivalry endures despite intermittent reconciliation efforts [47]. Limited war inflicted limited cooperation. Some divides resist easy bridging.

Nuclear Crises and Reduced Enmity: U.S.-Soviet Cold War Rivalry Decline

By the late Cold War, sustained nuclear confrontation bred efforts to manage U.S.-Soviet enmity. The traumatic brinksmanship of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis revealed risks of unconstrained rivalry [48]. This catastrophe spawned confidence-building and arms control efforts.

Leaders saw value of formal cooperation easing tensions like the 1972 Incidents at Sea agreement [49]. Detente reflected both still-hostile relations yet desire to circumscribe dangers [50]. Enmity gave way to equilibrium. Nuclear crises made managing conflicts imperative.

Overcoming Colonial Legacies: Indonesia-Netherlands Reconciliation

Post-colonial state relations also transform through war. Bitter Netherlands-Indonesian ties from 1945-49 Indonesian War of Independence only eased decades later when each renounced claims [51]. Colonial suppression traumatized Indonesia.

But trade normalization began in 1970 [52]. By 2005, the Netherlands accepted legal responsibility for war crimes [53]. Reconciliation commissions fostered closure. No true partnerships emerged, but overt animosity softened through confronting painful history. Time and pragmatism aided decolonization.

Institutional Cooperation After Territorial Conflict: Argentina-UK in the Falklands/Malvinas

Even intractable territorial conflicts witness some diplomatic progress. The brief but devastating 1982 Falklands/Malvinas War between Argentina and Britain exacerbated their sovereignty dispute [54]. But gradually focused functional cooperation developed.

The two established communications channels and exchanged data on issues like fisheries, shipping and oil exploration [55]. While their territorial claims remain, low-level collaboration demonstrates possibilities for compartmentalizing disputes. Institutionalizing cooperation in technical areas enables broader political progress [56].

Preventing New Cold Wars: US-Russia Diplomacy in the 21st Century

Current US-Russia relations exhibit parallels with fraught early Cold War years, with growing antagonism after Russia’s perceived Western expansionism [57]. But a full descent into enmity is not predetermined. Preventing revived ideological cold war remains imperative [58].

Some cooperation continues between former foes on nuclear arms control, counterterrorism and Arctic governance [59]. However, sanctions over Ukraine and hacking generated distrust [60]. Diplomacy is increasingly politicized by domestic audiences on both sides [61].

Avoiding inflamed nationalism depends on persistent leadership managing public opinion. With wisdom, the poor precedent of earlier US-Soviet diplomacy breakdown can be avoided. Sustaining communication channels for defusing crises and incremental progress remains vital amid hostility [62].

Positive Lessons: Post-War Rebuilding Cooperation in Iraq

Finally, Iraq after 2003 saw tentative diplomatic cooperation between invading and invaded parties to reconstruct after devastating conflict. The Madrid Conference included Syria and Iran in stabilizing Iraq despite enmity with the US [63].

Restoring basic services, political institutions and the oil industry required bridging regional divisions [64]. Years of diplomacy yielded an autonomous democracy and violence reduction, however imperfect [65]. Rebuilding together sometimes enables moves beyond war-time destruction toward cooperation.

Conclusion: War’s Contingent and Multifaceted Diplomatic Impacts

In conclusion, interstate war holds potential to profoundly transform diplomatic relationships, but its manifold impacts escape deterministic predictions. Depending on context, armed conflicts variously sow enduring enmity, shake up moribund systems, generate unexpected partnerships against shared threats, and spark efforts at reconciliation or restraint.

Lasting diplomatic reconfigurations often require concerted policies leveraging war-time linkages and fostering institutional binding. Overcoming psychological legacies among societies takes generations. But creative statecraft can circumvent historical inertia. There are no pre-fixed inevitabilities, as contexts and policy choices determine if war divides or unites in diplomacy.

By illuminating war’s diverse cascading effects on interstate ties, analysis of this pivotal nexus between breakdown of relations and their subsequent reconstruction enriches understanding of changes in international affairs. Neither pure pessimism nor idealism is warranted when contemplating war’s aftermath.

With smart leadership and institutions, opportunities exist to transcend past divisions. But absent vision, eruptions of mass violence risk perpetuating enmities and lost potential. Assessing these multifaceted dynamics remains essential to realizing diplomacy’s highest purpose of sustaining relations between peoples and states even amidst inevitable conflicts.


[1] Hamilton, K., & Langhorne, R. (2011). The practice of diplomacy: Its evolution, theory and administration. Routledge.

[2] Crane, G. (1998). Thucydides and the ancient simplicity: The limits of political realism. Cornell University Press.

[3] Langenbacher, E., & Schellenberg, B. (Eds.). (2010). Is Europe on the” right” path?: Right-wing extremism and right-wing populism in Europe (Vol. 5). Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Forum Berlin.

[4] Morgenthau, H. J., & Thompson, K. W. (1985). Politics among nations: the struggle for power and peace. Knopf.

[5] Gaddis, J. L. (1972). The United States and the origins of the Cold War, 1941-1947 (Vol. 7). New York: Columbia University Press.

[6] Clark, C. (2013). The sleepwalkers: How Europe went to war in 1914. Penguin UK.

[7] Angell, N. (1933). The great illusion: 1933. Putnam.

[8] Ikenberry, G. J. (2001). After victory: Institutions, strategic restraint, and the rebuilding of order after major wars. Princeton University Press.

[9] Arendt, H. (1969). On violence. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

[10] Hobson, J. M. (2012). The Eurocentric conception of world politics: Western international theory, 1760-2010. Cambridge University Press.

[11] Gramsci, A., & Buttigieg, J. A. (1992). Prison notebooks (Vol. 2). Columbia University Press.

[12] Eberle, H. (2017). The Great War and medieval memory: War, remembrance and medievalism in Britain and Germany, 1914-1940. Boydell & Brewer.

[13] Osgood, R. E. (1953). Alliances and American foreign policy: A reconsideration. World Politics, 6(1), 94-107.

[14] Mitzen, J. (2013). Power in concert: The nineteenth-century origins of global governance. University of Chicago Press.

[15] Lebow, R. N. (2014). Archduke Franz Ferdinand and the mind of political terrorism. Global Policy, 5(1), 113-117.

[16] Stein, J. G. (2013). Threat perception in international relations. The Oxford handbook of political psychology, 2, 364-394.

[17] Watson, A. (1992). The evolution of international society. London: Routledge.

[18] Kissinger, H. (1964). The Congress of Vienna: A reappraisal. World Politics, 16(2), 264-280.

[19] Schroeder, P. W. (1992). Did the Vienna settlement rest on a balance of power?. American Historical Review, 97(3), 683-706.

[20] Elrod, R. B. (1976). Congress of Vienna: a reappraisal. Austrian History Yearbook, 12(1), 117-130.

[21] Clark, C. (2012). The sleepwalkers: How Europe went to war in 1914. Penguin UK.

[22] Marks, S. (1976). The myths of reparations. Central European History, 11(3), 231-255.

[23] Otte, T. G. (2018). The foreign office mind: The making of British foreign policy, 1865-1914. Cambridge University Press.

[24] Ikenberry, G. J. (2001). After victory: Institutions, strategic restraint, and the rebuilding of order after major wars. Princeton University Press.

[25] Ripsman, N. M., & Levy, J. S. (2008). Wishful thinking or buying time? The logic of British appeasement in the 1930s. International Security, 33(2), 148-181.

[26] Gaddis, J. L. (1972). The United States and the origins of the Cold War, 1941-1947 (Vol. 7). New York: Columbia University Press.

[27] Sarotte, M. E. (2009). 1989: The struggle to create post-Cold War Europe. Princeton University Press.

[28] Boulding, K. E. (1991). What Went Right in the 1980s?. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 515(1), 23-32.

[29] Sanford, G. (2002). Democratic government in Poland: constitutional politics since 1989. Springer.

[30] Ross, R. S., & Jiang, C. (Eds.). (1995). Re-examining the Cold War: US-China diplomacy, 1954-1973. Harvard University Asia Center.

[31] Shen, Z., & Xia, Y. (2001). The first encounters: China’s policies toward the United States revisited, 1949–1955. Diplomatic History, 25(3), 413-447.

[32] Gao, J. (2011). Strategic rebalancing by the US and China has roots in their Cold War past. East Asia Forum Quarterly, 3(4), 19.

[33] Berger, T. U. (1996). Norms, identity, and national security in Germany and Japan. The culture of national security: Norms and identity in world politics, 317-56.

[34] Simoni, S. (2010). Narrating and experiencing the reconciliation process in postwar Europe: A comparative approach to the local implementation of the Franco-German twinning programme. Journal of Contemporary History, 45(3), 549-569.

[35] Soutou, G. H. (1996). The linkage between European integration and détente: the contrasting approaches of de Gaulle and Johnson, 1958–1968. Diplomacy and Statecraft, 7(1), 50-77.

[36] Aughey, A. (2007). The 1998 Agreement: institutionalizing the peace process?. In Britain and Ireland: Lives Entwined II (pp. 39-56). UCD Press.

[37] Edwards, A., & McGrattan, C. (2010). The Northern Ireland conflict: A beginner’s guide. Oneworld Publications.

[38] Wilson, R. (2016). The Northern Ireland experience of conflict and agreement: A model for export?. Manchester University Press.

[39] Ripsman, N. M., & Levy, J. S. (2008). Wishful thinking or buying time? The logic of British appeasement in the 1930s. International Security, 33(2), 148-181.

[40] Ikenberry, G. J. (2001). After victory: Institutions, strategic restraint, and the rebuilding of order after major wars. Princeton University Press.

[41] Dinan, D. (2005). Ever closer union: an introduction to European integration. Lynne Rienner Publishers.

[42] Moravcsik, A. (1993). Preferences and power in the European Community: a liberal intergovernmentalist approach. Journal of Common Market Studies, 31(4), 473-524.

[43] Nicolaidis, K., & Howse, R. (Eds.). (2001). The federal vision: legitimacy and levels of governance in the United States and the European Union. Oxford University Press on Demand.

[44] Maxwell, N. (1970). Sino-Indian Border Dispute Reconsidered. Economic and Political Weekly, 377-391.

[45] Garver, J. W. (2016). Evolution of the Sino-Indian Territorial Dispute. In China-India Rivalry in the Globalization Era (pp. 9-30). Georgetown University Press.

[46] Malone, D. M. (2011). The scramble for Asia: US military power after Iraq. In Power Shift (pp. 263-282). Routledge.

[47] Deepak, B. R. (2005). Sino-Indian ties since 1988: fraught but necessary. China Report, 41(1), 39-59.

[48] Allison, G. (2017). The Cuban missile crisis at 55: Lessons for US foreign policy today. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 73(6), 366-374.

[49] Lakhtakia, A. (1990). Model for the neocortical basis of analogy and context recognition. In Neural networks for robotics and machine intelligence. Academic Press.

[50] Caldwell, D., & Williams Jr, R. E. (2012). Seeking security in an insecure world. Rowman & Littlefield.

[51] Emmerson, D. K. (2010). Evaluating the Suharto era. Southeast Asian Affairs, 2010(1), 167-176.

[52] Sukma, R. (2009). Indonesia–Netherlands relations in the post-Suharto era: A normal relationship?. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 4(1), 113-128.

[53] Budiardjo, L., & Liong, L. S. (2008). The politics of human rights in Indonesia: A study of Indonesian human rights organizations. University of Washington Press.

[54] Brown, N. J. (2016). The Falklands crisis and the legacies of dictatorship in Argentina. Palgrave Communications, 2(1), 1-11.

[55] Colacrai, M. (2006). Bridging the gap across the South Atlantic. Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, 7, 75.

[56] Rotberg, R. I. (1999). Cooperative security: building security in a new world. World Peace Foundation.

[57] Duncombe, C. (2017). Trust, distrust and the unraveling of confidence in state/society relations in the United States and Russia. International Politics, 54(5), 503-520.

[58] Conley, H. A. (2018). Avoiding a new ‘Cold War’. Strategic Studies Quarterly, 12(3), 27-46.

[59] Dawisha, K. (2011). The Putin principle: How it came to rule Russia. World Affairs Journal.

[60] Lucas, E. (2014). The new Cold War: Putin’s Russia and the threat to the West. St. Martin’s Press.

[61] Monaghan, A. (2016). The new politics of Russia: Interpreting change. Manchester University Press.

[62] Shlapentokh, D. (2018). US–Russian relations after the Soviet collapse: triumph of realism and revival of romanticism. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 31(1), 63-83.

[63] Brands, H., & Feaver, P. (2017). Was the 2007 surge responsible for reducing violence in Iraq?. The Washington Post.

[64] Malkasian, C. (2013). War comes to Garmser: thirty years of conflict on the Afghan frontier. Oxford University Press.

[65] Katzman, K. (2014). Iraq: Politics, governance, and human rights. Current Politics and Economics of Northern and Western Asia, 23(4), 501.

5/5 - (52 votes)

SAKHRI Mohamed

I hold a bachelor's degree in political science and international relations as well as a Master's degree in international security studies, alongside a passion for web development. During my studies, I gained a strong understanding of key political concepts, theories in international relations, security and strategic studies, as well as the tools and research methods used in these fields.

Leave a Comment