Since February 24, 2022, when Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the world has witnessed one of the most significant military conflicts in Europe since World War II. The war has sparked debates about international law, national sovereignty, and the response of global powers to aggression. As Ukraine continues to fight for its sovereignty and territorial integrity, the international community faces the challenge of bringing about a peaceful resolution while navigating the complex geopolitical landscape. The ongoing conflict serves as a stark reminder of the fragility of peace and the dangers of unchecked aggression in the modern world.
Throughout history, diplomacy has often been exalted as the primary means of resolving conflicts and maintaining peace. However, when faced with brutal aggression, diplomacy has frequently proven ineffective. From the catastrophic failures that led to both World Wars, to regional conflicts in the Middle East and Africa, diplomacy has repeatedly faltered in stopping aggressors bent on territorial expansion and domination. The ongoing war in Ukraine is yet another stark reminder that diplomacy alone is not enough to confront aggression. Despite the West’s repeated attempts at diplomacy, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine continues unabated, and the global response, particularly from Western powers, has been marked by a futile reliance on sanctions and negotiations, which have done little to alter the course of the conflict.
The failure of diplomacy to prevent major conflicts is not a new phenomenon. The most glaring example can be found in the lead-up to World War I. In the years before the Great War, European powers engaged in a complex web of alliances, treaties, and diplomatic negotiations. Despite these efforts, the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in 1914 triggered a chain reaction that diplomacy was powerless to stop. Diplomatic talks between Austria-Hungary, Serbia, Russia, and Germany quickly broke down, and within weeks, Europe was plunged into a global conflict that would kill millions. The failure of diplomacy to contain nationalist fervour, militarism, and imperial ambitions led directly to one of the deadliest wars in history.
Similarly, prior to World War II, diplomacy once again failed to prevent aggression. The Munich Agreement of 1938, where British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain famously declared “peace for our time,” is perhaps the most infamous example of diplomacy’s futility in the face of an expansionist power. The Western powers, desperate to avoid another war, chose to appease Adolf Hitler by allowing him to annex the Sudetenland, a region of Czechoslovakia. This act of appeasement only emboldened Hitler, who saw the West’s reluctance to confront him militarily as a green light to continue his aggressive expansion. Just one year later, Germany invaded Poland, and World War II began. Diplomacy, in this case, not only failed but actively paved the way for further aggression.
These historical examples demonstrate that when dealing with aggressive states, diplomacy often serves as a temporary bandage rather than a solution. Aggressors perceive diplomatic overtures as signs of weakness, and unless backed by credible threats or military action, diplomacy alone is unlikely to deter them.
Fast forward to the present day, and the West’s response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine appears to be following a similar pattern of indecision and ineffectiveness. Since the early stages of the conflict, the United States, European Union, and NATO have largely relied on diplomatic measures, economic sanctions, and arms deliveries rather than direct military intervention. While these actions have undoubtedly hurt Russia’s economy and bolstered Ukraine’s defences, they have not stopped the war, nor have they deterred Russian President Vladimir Putin from pursuing his objectives.
In the years leading up to the 2022 invasion, Western leaders repeatedly engaged in diplomatic talks with Putin, hoping to dissuade him from invading Ukraine. These efforts included numerous meetings, phone calls, and public statements, all aimed at emphasising the importance of diplomacy and dialogue. However, these diplomatic overtures were met with little more than deception and delay tactics from Moscow. Putin used the time bought by diplomatic talks to strengthen his military position and prepare for the invasion.
Even after the invasion began, Western leaders continued to emphasise the need for diplomacy, with French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz among those leading efforts to negotiate with Putin. Yet, these diplomatic initiatives have had no tangible effect on the ground. Russian forces remain entrenched in Ukraine, and the war continues to claim lives and destroy cities. The West’s reliance on diplomacy, without a stronger commitment to military deterrence, has proven insufficient in the face of Russian aggression.
History has shown that diplomacy alone is rarely enough to stop aggressive states. One of the clearest examples of this comes from the response to Nazi Germany. It wasn’t until the Allied forces committed to military action that Hitler’s regime was truly confronted. The appeasement policy of the 1930s did nothing but embolden the Nazi regime, and it took a global military effort to finally bring Germany to heel. Similarly, during the Korean War, diplomacy failed to prevent North Korea’s invasion of the South. It was only through direct military intervention by the United Nations, led by the United States, that North Korean forces were pushed back.
In contrast, successful confrontations with aggression have typically involved a credible threat of military force, or the use of force itself. In the Gulf War of 1990-1991, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq invaded Kuwait, prompting international condemnation. Diplomatic efforts to resolve the situation peacefully were exhausted, and it wasn’t until a U.S.-led coalition was deployed to the region that Iraq was forced to withdraw. The swift military response, backed by overwhelming force, showed that aggression could be countered effectively when diplomacy alone fails.
The lesson here is clear: while diplomacy is often the first course of action in conflict resolution, it must be backed by the credible threat of military force to be effective. When aggressors like Hitler, Saddam Hussein, or Putin perceive that diplomatic efforts are not backed by real consequences, they are likely to continue their campaigns of conquest.
The war in Ukraine is a sobering reminder that diplomacy, on its own, is rarely enough to stop a determined aggressor. The West’s reliance on sanctions, negotiations, and diplomatic overtures has so far failed to deter Russia from its invasion of Ukraine. The historical lessons of the 20th century, from the failures of diplomacy before the World Wars to the success of military intervention in the Gulf War, suggest that a stronger, more forceful response is needed to confront aggression successfully. Diplomacy, without the backing of military deterrence, is often seen as weakness by authoritarian aggressors. If the international community hopes to prevent further escalation in Ukraine and deter future acts of aggression, it must be willing to move beyond diplomacy and consider more assertive measures. History has shown us that peace is rarely achieved through diplomacy alone; sometimes, it must be defended with strength.