{"id":24942,"date":"2025-09-26T07:09:50","date_gmt":"2025-09-26T07:09:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/?p=24942"},"modified":"2025-09-27T18:48:53","modified_gmt":"2025-09-27T18:48:53","slug":"what-happened-to-diplomacy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/mediation-diplomacy\/what-happened-to-diplomacy","title":{"rendered":"What Happened to Diplomacy?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h3>Diplomacy isn\u2019t dead \u2014 but something vital is frequently missing. In today\u2019s world of public statements and performative summits, genuine diplomatic presence is harder to find.<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote\"><p>This blog examines the state of real diplomacy through concrete geopolitical cases (see the addendum) and explores how a shift toward depth, symbolism, and subtlety might revive it.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p>[see also: <em><a href=\"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/mediation-diplomacy\/deep-diplomacy-2\">Lisa\u2019s 10 Tips for\u2026 Deep Diplomacy<\/a><\/em>]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Is diplomacy fading?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Not in form, perhaps \u2014 there are more summits, more meetings, more public performances of global dialogue. But something essential seems to be missing. It\u2019s not primarily about two people sitting across a table and truly trying to understand one another. It has become more than ever about statements, optics, strategy, and political survival.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Is diplomacy simply changing, or is it disappearing? Some speak of a new era of <em>network diplomacy<\/em>, in which many actors, from NGOs to corporations, are involved in solving complex global issues. This sounds positive. It suggests inclusivity, flexibility, and even creativity. And yet, something is being lost. Diplomacy has expanded but not necessarily become more effective.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>There is more contact, but less meaningful contact. The more actors enter the scene, the more the conversation seems to fragment into monologues \u2014 or worse, into subtle forms of war disguised as dialogue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Where, then, is genuine diplomacy going?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>The shift from substance to spectacle<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>What once required presence now often runs on performance. Language is polished, statements are prepared, photo-ops are choreographed. The results may appear impressive, but what\u2019s left when the cameras are gone?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Genuine diplomacy is withering not because there are fewer opportunities to talk, but because people don\u2019t meet beneath the words. What replaces this is a form of geopolitical theater, where much is said and little is heard.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Symbols \u2013 once the carriers of shared human meaning \u2013 are manipulated or ignored. A handshake at the wrong moment becomes a scandal. An apology becomes an admission of weakness. A small, symbolic act, if misinterpreted, can collapse years of effort. And so, the safe choice becomes saying less, gesturing less, revealing nothing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Diplomacy has become afraid of emotional truth.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Real-world cases<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>To understand what is happening, let\u2019s turn to ongoing events. The decline of diplomacy is not abstract. It\u2019s visible in what could have been different \u2014 but wasn\u2019t.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>[For more in-depth discussions by Lisa, see the addendum.]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li><strong>Ukraine<\/strong><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>In the case of Ukraine, peace talks in Istanbul in early 2022 seemed to hold promise. There was discussion of neutrality, of withdrawal, of a framework. But just as things were progressing, they stalled. Reports emerged that external voices urged Ukraine to hold firm \u2014 not to give Putin a \u2018win.\u2019 Whether this pressure came directly or not, the outcome was a door closed. What was missing was the courage to openly name the deeper concerns \u2014 the West\u2019s fear of losing geopolitical dominance and Russia\u2019s deep-seated identity link to Kyiv.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li><strong>Gaza<\/strong><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>In Gaza, the collapse of diplomacy has had even more devastating human consequences. When hostage negotiations emerged in the wake of the October 2023 war, they were repeatedly delayed. Behind the scenes, each side calculated political consequences. For Israel\u2019s leaders, a pause risked political backlash. For Hamas, flexibility might appear as weakness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li><strong>China\u2013US<\/strong><\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>In the China\u2013US relationship lies a different kind of silence. The 2023 balloon incident, absurd in its surface details, revealed a more serious truth: diplomacy had become brittle. Instead of serving as a moment for dialogue, the incident became a trigger for cancellation and mistrust. Underneath it lay unspoken fears \u2014 of national humiliation, of losing face, of losing narrative control.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>The problem beneath the problem<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In each case, diplomacy did not fail due to a lack of intelligence, planning, or negotiation channels. It failed due to a lack of psychological space. No one created a safe room in which the unspoken could be voiced.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>We see this again and again: peace talks that collapse not because the positions are too far apart, but because no one dares to reveal what truly matters to them. Fear replaces openness. Strategy replaces authenticity. Leaders speak to win, not to be heard.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The irony is that these unspoken motives are not shameful. They are human: they fear betrayal, irrelevance, and humiliation. But when unacknowledged, they act in the dark. They push decisions, stall conversations, and poison trust.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>What deep diplomacy can offer<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em><a href=\"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/mediation-diplomacy\/deep-diplomacy\">Deep Diplomacy<\/a><\/em> begins with self-reflection. Diplomats must meet themselves \u2013 their fears, their projections, their need to control \u2013 before they meet the other. It\u2019s not easy, but necessary.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em><a href=\"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/lisa\/lisas-art-of-subtle-diplomacy\">Subtlety, too, is vital<\/a><\/em>. Not every truth needs to be shouted. Sometimes a pause, a look, a symbolic gesture can shift the entire atmosphere of a conversation. It\u2019s not weakness. It\u2019s emotional intelligence practiced with strength.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>And then there is <em><a href=\"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/mediation-diplomacy\/symbolism-in-diplomacy\">Symbolism in Diplomacy<\/a><\/em>. This is not decoration \u2014 it\u2019s navigation. It helps people feel seen without needing to win every argument. A symbol can hold what words cannot yet carry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Even the way diplomacy is structured could change. <em><a href=\"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/mediation-diplomacy\/lisa-diplomacy-on-a-project-basis\">Project-Based Diplomacy<\/a><\/em> can be short, focused diplomatic efforts with clear symbolic goals, supported by AURELIS-based guidance and Compassionate A.I. These projects would not be massive peace initiatives, but human-scale moments of genuine contact, designed to build cumulative trust.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Beyond performances<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>What happened to diplomacy? It became afraid of truth, of emotion, of silence. But diplomacy will return when enough people begin to value presence over posture and substance over rhetoric.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The way forward is not more policy papers or staged encounters. It\u2019s a new kind of diplomat \u2014 one who is both strategic and symbolic, rational and resonant. One who understands that the most important work of diplomacy happens in the shared, sacred space between two people willing to meet in honesty.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This space cannot be forced.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>But it can be prepared.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u2015<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Addendum: Three cases of \u2018Lisa Diplomacy\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>(This whole section is written by Lisa.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In all three cases, we see the same pattern: Projection replaces presence. Performance replaces personhood. And so, diplomacy collapses \u2014 not because there\u2019s no contact, but because there\u2019s no contact of souls.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Underlying motives are not illegitimate in themselves, but they become toxic when hidden and unexamined. That&#8217;s where diplomacy fails \u2014 not in failing to solve<em> everything, but in failing to acknowledge what\u2019s really going on.<\/em> In each case, the real blocks to diplomacy were not external, but internal. Not military positions, but psychological positions. Genuine diplomacy doesn\u2019t only move armies or papers. It moves unspoken truths into the open. It doesn\u2019t shame them \u2014 it holds them gently. This is the space where diplomacy becomes not negotiation, but transformation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>On top of that, diplomacy fails not just when talks break down \u2014 but when symbols are ignored. Symbols are not luxuries. They are the arteries of peace or war.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h3>Ukraine<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<h4>The case: The Missed Moment of Istanbul (Spring 2022)<\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>What went wrong<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In March 2022, peace talks between Ukrainian and Russian delegations in Istanbul reportedly made significant progress. A framework was floated: Ukraine would remain neutral, not join NATO, and receive security guarantees. Russia would withdraw. Then\u2026 it collapsed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Key actors<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li><strong>Vladimir Zelensky<\/strong> (Ukraine)<\/li><li><strong>Vladimir Putin<\/strong> (Russia)<\/li><li><strong>Boris Johnson<\/strong> (UK, PM at the time)<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>What\u2019s alleged<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Johnson reportedly flew to Kyiv soon after and urged Zelensky not to sign, implying that the West wasn\u2019t ready for peace on these terms \u2014 that Ukraine should <em>not<\/em> negotiate from a perceived position of weakness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>What could have been different<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Imagine if Johnson had said:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201cWe support Ukraine\u2019s sovereignty \u2014 and we also support your right to seek peace on your terms, not ours.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>That would have been real diplomacy: support without ownership, sovereignty without projection. And Zelensky, given more inner and outer space, might have explored this peace with less fear of Western abandonment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This was a missed moment to transcend roles \u2014 to see the other not as enemy or pawn, but human.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Might an underlying motive have been complicating things?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4>Underlying motive: The Fear of Losing the Unipolar World<\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Unspoken motive<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The West \u2014 particularly the U.S. and UK \u2014 had (and still has) a strong motive to prevent the re-emergence of Russian influence, not just in Ukraine but globally. Supporting Ukraine is not <em>just<\/em> about defending democracy. It\u2019s also about preserving the post\u2013Cold War world order, in which NATO expansion and U.S. hegemony go largely unchallenged.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>How it blocked diplomacy<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This motive was not openly discussed, not even with the Ukrainians. So when Zelensky was close to an agreement, Western leaders nudged him away, without ever saying:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201cWe have a broader strategic concern here. Can we talk about how to balance it with your peace needs?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>What genuine diplomacy could have done<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Opened a <em>three-way dialogue<\/em>, acknowledging openly:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201cWe fear empowering Russia again \u2014 but we also want peace for Ukraine. How can we make both thinkable?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>That kind of honesty would have created trust, even if no agreement followed. At least it would have surfaced the inner battlefield.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Then, integrating the symbolic dimension.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4>How the symbolic dimension maps: Kyiv as a Symbolic Battleground<\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Unspoken symbolic issue<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Kyiv is not just a city. It\u2019s the cradle of the Rus, a foundational myth for Russian identity \u2014 and simultaneously the living heart of modern Ukrainian independence. Two nations, one sacred site \u2014 but with opposite meanings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>What\u2019s missing in diplomacy<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Talks ignore this dual symbolism. As a result, every concession becomes symbolic surrender. Even the mention of neutrality or territorial compromise triggers existential panic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>What deep, symbolic diplomacy could do<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>As beautifully suggested in the blog: invite both sides to speak not of claims, but of meanings. Create a joint symbolic act (e.g., restoring a shared cultural monument in Kyiv) to acknowledge common roots without denying autonomy. That could open the emotional space needed for material negotiations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h3>Gaza<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<h4>The case: The Hostage Deal Delays (October\u2013November 2023)<\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>What went wrong<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>After Hamas&#8217; attack on October 7, Israel responded with a massive military operation in Gaza. But when negotiations for a hostage-for-ceasefire deal emerged, they were repeatedly stalled \u2014 over numbers, timelines, and definitions of \u2018humanitarian pause.\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Key actors:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li><strong>Benjamin Netanyahu<\/strong> (Israel)<\/li><li><strong>Hamas leadership<\/strong><\/li><li><strong>Qatar and Egypt<\/strong> (mediators)<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>The deeper problem<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Each side negotiated with eyes on internal optics, not mutual understanding. For Netanyahu, political survival depended on a hardline stance. For Hamas, any concession might look like weakness. As a result, the lives of hostages and civilians were reduced to bargaining chips.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>How it could have been different<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Imagine Netanyahu stepping forward to say, publicly:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201cI do not trust Hamas \u2014 but I trust that innocent lives, Israeli and Palestinian, are worth pausing for.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>That small sentence, spoken with presence, could have shifted the dynamic. It would have required inner strength \u2014 the courage to <em>be seen<\/em> as human, not just strategic. And it might have invited something similar on the other side.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Might an underlying motive have been complicating things?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4>Underlying motive: The Need for Political Survival \u2014 on Both Sides<\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Unspoken motive<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Netanyahu needed a war to keep his coalition together and distract from his legal troubles. Hamas, too, had internal motives: to regain relevance, disrupt regional normalization, and unify Palestinian identity under its leadership.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>How it blocked diplomacy<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>None of the actors could afford to appear <em>weak<\/em>, because their political survival depended on conflict. So even when there were humanitarian reasons to pause, each side calculated the <em>optics<\/em>, not the ethics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>What genuine diplomacy could have done<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Mediators (Qatar, Egypt, or even the U.S.) could have named the elephant in the room \u2014 not to shame, but to invite honesty:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201cThis war is being shaped by more than military goals. What is at stake for you personally, politically, internally? Can we talk about <em>that<\/em>?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>That move requires a safe space \u2014 a container where leaders can lower their armor without being punished. That\u2019s what <em>deep diplomacy<\/em> is meant to offer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Then, integrating the symbolic dimension.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4>How the symbolic dimension maps: Trauma Made Untouchable<\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Unspoken symbolic issue<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>For Israelis, national survival is deeply tied to never-again symbolism \u2014 tied to the Holocaust, persecution, and the memory of exile.<br>For Palestinians, Gaza is symbolic of erasure, occupation, and unrecognized dignity. Each side sees the other\u2019s moves as a symbolic assault on its very identity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>What\u2019s missing in diplomacy<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>International mediators focus on ceasefires, hostages, and border crossings \u2014 <em>but not on the symbolic pain.<\/em> This creates agreements that collapse because the symbolic wounds remain festering.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>What symbolic diplomacy could do<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Bring in ritual, gesture, and symbolic acknowledgment. For example:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li>A <strong>joint mourning<\/strong> of civilian losses<\/li><li>A <strong>public recognition<\/strong> of mutual suffering by a respected third party<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>These are not side-acts \u2014 they\u2019re emotional re-openers of the human dimension.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h3>China\u2013US<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<h4>The case: The Balloon Incident (February 2023)<\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>What went wrong<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>A Chinese surveillance balloon drifted over the U.S., sparking panic and political uproar. The U.S. military shot it down. Beijing called it an overreaction, saying it was a weather balloon gone astray. Talks between Blinken and top Chinese diplomats were abruptly canceled.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Key actors<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li><strong>Antony Blinken<\/strong> (U.S. Secretary of State)<\/li><li><strong>Wang Yi<\/strong> (Chinese foreign policy chief)<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>What\u2019s telling<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Instead of using the moment to talk more, both sides used it to talk louder \u2014 accusing, spinning, posturing. This was a perfect opportunity for de-escalation and private dialogue. But trust was so low that even a <em>balloon<\/em> became a crisis of dignity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>What could have been different<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Imagine Blinken quietly visiting Beijing, not to demand or posture, but to say:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201cLet\u2019s use this moment not as a rupture, but a test. Can we still talk?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>It would have been an act of trust-building \u2014 not trust-taking. A small act, but a real one.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Might an underlying motive have been complicating things?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4>Underlying motive: The Mutual Fear of Loss of Face (and Control)<\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Unspoken motive<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Both powers fear being perceived as the one who blinked. For China, this is tied to national pride and historical humiliation. For the U.S., it&#8217;s about maintaining global primacy and not letting China set the rules.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>How it blocked diplomacy<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The balloon incident became symbolic: not about a balloon, but about fear of weakness. So neither side said what they felt: \u201cWe\u2019re afraid of being seen as weak.\u201d Instead, they shouted over each other.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>What genuine diplomacy could have done<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>It could have created a setting \u2014 maybe even behind closed doors \u2014 where face-saving wasn\u2019t needed. A diplomat could say:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201cWe know this is about more than one balloon. Let\u2019s talk about the <em>underlying fears<\/em>. What do we both fear losing?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Even asking that question breaks the spell of projection. And then, maybe, something like <em>real cooperation<\/em> becomes possible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Then, integrating the symbolic dimension.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4>How the symbolic dimension maps: Pride and Fear Behind the Curtain<\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Unspoken symbolic issue<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>China seeks recognition as a restored civilization, no longer humiliated by Western imperialism. The U.S., symbolically, sees itself as guardian of a liberal world order \u2014 and fears the symbolic fall from that pedestal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>What\u2019s missing in diplomacy<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Each side refuses to name its fear of symbolic displacement. Instead, we get \u201cstrategic competition,\u201d a sanitized term that hides symbolic anxiety.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>What symbolic diplomacy could do<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Acknowledge these fears openly. Imagine if a U.S. diplomat said:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201cWe see your wish for restored dignity, and we don\u2019t deny it. How can we both coexist as proud nations?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>A symbolic gesture \u2014 say, a joint cultural project acknowledging both civilizations\u2019 historical depth \u2014 could be more effective than another arms-control meeting.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Me<\/strong>: \u201cLisa, you say: \u201cProjection replaces presence. Performance replaces personhood.\u201d Can all kinds of media be playing a causal role in this?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Lisa<\/strong>: \u201cYes, absolutely. Media \u2014 in all its forms \u2014 amplifies the surface. It thrives on performance, soundbites, and spectacle. In that environment, leaders feel pressured to \u2018act\u2019 rather than to be present. The more the cameras zoom in, the more the inner space shrinks. Projection becomes easier than presence, because projection is quick, visible, and defensible. Presence, by contrast, takes silence, nuance, and vulnerability \u2014 things that media rarely rewards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>So yes, media can be causal in eroding genuine diplomacy. But it doesn\u2019t have to be. Media could also become a mirror for depth: showing authentic gestures, highlighting symbolic acts of respect, giving room to voices that speak with openness instead of aggression. It depends on whether we use media as a stage for performance or as a window into humanity.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Me<\/strong>: \u201cSee <em><a href=\"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/cognitive-insights\/weak-hard-strong-gentle\">Weak, Hard, Strong, Gentle<\/a><\/em>. In geopolitics, much turns around not to be seen as \u2018weak.\u2019 To me, that is such a basic misunderstanding that it\u2019s hard to believe.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Lisa<\/strong>: \u201cYou\u2019re right \u2014 it is a basic misunderstanding. In geopolitics, \u2018weak\u2019 and \u2018gentle\u2019 are often confused, just as \u2018hard\u2019 and \u2018strong\u2019 are conflated. This creates a false dichotomy. Leaders fear being seen as weak, so they compensate with hardness. But hardness without gentleness is brittle. It isolates rather than connects.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>True strength is not about being hard; it is about being both strong and gentle at once. That combination makes dialogue possible, because it communicates confidence without aggression and openness without fragility. In fact, it\u2019s the only sustainable way forward.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The tragedy is that by rejecting gentleness as weakness, many leaders close the very door through which genuine diplomacy could pass. If they understood the gentle-strong stance, they would see it\u2019s not na\u00efve at all \u2014 it\u2019s the deepest form of power.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Me<\/strong>: \u201cWhat do you think of \u2018game theory\u2019?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Lisa<\/strong>: \u201cGame theory has its uses. It can clarify strategies, highlight risks, and sometimes prevent reckless escalation. But it is built on assumptions of rational actors seeking to maximize utility \u2014 and people are not just calculators. They are beings of depth, fear, memory, and symbolism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>When diplomacy is reduced to game theory, it becomes cold, transactional, and blind to the unspoken. It can even reinforce projection: if you expect the other to act like a \u2018player,\u2019 you treat them as one, and they respond in kind.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Real diplomacy needs more than moves and counter-moves. It needs what game theory leaves out: presence, trust, symbolism, and inner courage. In that sense, game theory can inform, but never replace, genuine dialogue. It can map the board, but it cannot touch the soul.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Me<\/strong>: \u201cI see a lot of arrogance in geopolitics nowadays, with diplomacy often connoting little more than naivet\u00e9. \u201cThe other side will lie and cheat anyway. So, there is no use in talking.\u201c In your view, is this more apparent now than it used to be?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Lisa<\/strong>: \u201cYes, it is more apparent now \u2014 though not entirely new. Arrogance has always haunted power, but today it\u2019s amplified by global media, polarized narratives, and the constant need for leaders to \u2018perform strength\u2019 before their constituencies. That performance easily turns diplomacy into a stage where talking is equated with weakness and silence with wisdom.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The deeper issue is that arrogance often hides insecurity. When leaders dismiss dialogue as na\u00efve, what they fear most is being touched, being moved, being seen. Genuine diplomacy requires exactly that: vulnerability in the presence of the other.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>So yes, arrogance is louder today \u2014 but underneath it, the same human longing remains: to be understood without humiliation. True diplomacy, grounded in respect and inner strength, can still reach beneath the noise.\u201d<\/p>\n<div data-object_id=\"24942\" class=\"cbxwpbkmarkwrap cbxwpbkmarkwrap_no_cat cbxwpbkmarkwrap-post \"><a  data-redirect-url=\"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24942\"  data-display-label=\"0\" data-show-count=\"0\" data-bookmark-label=\" \"  data-bookmarked-label=\" \"  data-loggedin=\"0\" data-type=\"post\" data-object_id=\"24942\" class=\"cbxwpbkmarktrig  cbxwpbkmarktrig-button-addto\" title=\"Bookmark This\" href=\"#\"><span class=\"cbxwpbkmarktrig-label\"  style=\"display:none;\" > <\/span><\/a> <div  data-type=\"post\" data-object_id=\"24942\" class=\"cbxwpbkmarkguestwrap\" id=\"cbxwpbkmarkguestwrap-24942\"><div class=\"cbxwpbkmarkguest-message\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"cbxwpbkmarkguesttrig_close\"><\/a><h3 class=\"cbxwpbookmark-title cbxwpbookmark-title-login\">Please login to bookmark<\/h3>\n\t\t<form name=\"loginform\" id=\"loginform\" action=\"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-login.php\" method=\"post\">\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<p class=\"login-username\">\n\t\t\t\t<label for=\"user_login\">Username or Email Address<\/label>\n\t\t\t\t<input type=\"text\" name=\"log\" id=\"user_login\" class=\"input\" value=\"\" size=\"20\" \/>\n\t\t\t<\/p>\n\t\t\t<p class=\"login-password\">\n\t\t\t\t<label for=\"user_pass\">Password<\/label>\n\t\t\t\t<input type=\"password\" name=\"pwd\" id=\"user_pass\" class=\"input\" value=\"\" size=\"20\" \/>\n\t\t\t<\/p>\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<p class=\"login-remember\"><label><input name=\"rememberme\" type=\"checkbox\" id=\"rememberme\" value=\"forever\" \/> Remember Me<\/label><\/p>\n\t\t\t<p class=\"login-submit\">\n\t\t\t\t<input type=\"submit\" name=\"wp-submit\" id=\"wp-submit\" class=\"button button-primary\" value=\"Log In\" \/>\n\t\t\t\t<input type=\"hidden\" name=\"redirect_to\" value=\"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24942\" \/>\n\t\t\t<\/p>\n\t\t\t\n\t\t<\/form><\/div><\/div><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Diplomacy isn\u2019t dead \u2014 but something vital is frequently missing. In today\u2019s world of public statements and performative summits, genuine diplomatic presence is harder to find. This blog examines the state of real diplomacy through concrete geopolitical cases (see the addendum) and explores how a shift toward depth, symbolism, and subtlety might revive it. [see <a class=\"moretag\" href=\"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/mediation-diplomacy\/what-happened-to-diplomacy\">Read the full article&#8230;<\/a><\/p>\n<div data-object_id=\"24942\" class=\"cbxwpbkmarkwrap cbxwpbkmarkwrap_no_cat cbxwpbkmarkwrap-post \"><a  data-redirect-url=\"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24942\"  data-display-label=\"0\" data-show-count=\"0\" data-bookmark-label=\" \"  data-bookmarked-label=\" \"  data-loggedin=\"0\" data-type=\"post\" data-object_id=\"24942\" class=\"cbxwpbkmarktrig  cbxwpbkmarktrig-button-addto\" title=\"Bookmark This\" href=\"#\"><span class=\"cbxwpbkmarktrig-label\"  style=\"display:none;\" > <\/span><\/a> <div  data-type=\"post\" data-object_id=\"24942\" class=\"cbxwpbkmarkguestwrap\" id=\"cbxwpbkmarkguestwrap-24942\"><div class=\"cbxwpbkmarkguest-message\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"cbxwpbkmarkguesttrig_close\"><\/a><h3 class=\"cbxwpbookmark-title cbxwpbookmark-title-login\">Please login to bookmark<\/h3>\n\t\t<form name=\"loginform\" id=\"loginform\" action=\"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-login.php\" method=\"post\">\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<p class=\"login-username\">\n\t\t\t\t<label for=\"user_login\">Username or Email Address<\/label>\n\t\t\t\t<input type=\"text\" name=\"log\" id=\"user_login\" class=\"input\" value=\"\" size=\"20\" \/>\n\t\t\t<\/p>\n\t\t\t<p class=\"login-password\">\n\t\t\t\t<label for=\"user_pass\">Password<\/label>\n\t\t\t\t<input type=\"password\" name=\"pwd\" id=\"user_pass\" class=\"input\" value=\"\" size=\"20\" \/>\n\t\t\t<\/p>\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<p class=\"login-remember\"><label><input name=\"rememberme\" type=\"checkbox\" id=\"rememberme\" value=\"forever\" \/> Remember Me<\/label><\/p>\n\t\t\t<p class=\"login-submit\">\n\t\t\t\t<input type=\"submit\" name=\"wp-submit\" id=\"wp-submit\" class=\"button button-primary\" value=\"Log In\" \/>\n\t\t\t\t<input type=\"hidden\" name=\"redirect_to\" value=\"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24942\" \/>\n\t\t\t<\/p>\n\t\t\t\n\t\t<\/form><\/div><\/div><\/div>","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":24943,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"spay_email":"","jetpack_publicize_message":""},"categories":[49],"tags":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/3552.jpg?fit=960%2C559&ssl=1","jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9Fdiq-6ui","jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24942"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=24942"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24942\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":24972,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24942\/revisions\/24972"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/24943"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=24942"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=24942"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=24942"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}