What kind of diplomacy are we talking about? (When words have no more value)

Diplomacy is mostly understood as a form of communication between foreign countries which is often dealt with in a skilful and flexible approach. Although the concept of diplomacy dates back thousands of years and the principles of modern diplomacy were laid down more than 400 years ago, we still might question whether everyone understands diplomacy the same way, especially when we are following the political changes and outbursts that have taken place in recent years.

The concept of diplomacy dates back thousands of years, but the first known international document explicitly referring to diplomatic practices is often considered to be the Treaty of Kadesh (circa 1259 BCE) between the Egyptian Pharaoh Ramses II and the Hittite King Hattusili III. This treaty, written in cuneiform on clay tablets, is one of the earliest recorded peace treaties and includes diplomatic elements such as envoys, negotiations, and mutual agreements. However, when talking about modern diplomacy, we should first take a look at the Peace of Westphalia that took place in 1648 and which established the modern system of sovereign states and formalized diplomatic relations between nations. The established principles that particularly influenced modern diplomacy included state sovereignty, non-intervention, and balance of power. Although during the following 400+ years modern diplomacy was shaped and perfected by many other treaties and conventions, the main principles established in the Peace of Westphalia remained the same.

The greatest illustration of diplomacy to an Estonian is how in 1920 Jaan Poska managed to make the Soviet Union sign the Treaty of Tartu (also known as Tartu Peace) that most importantly included a promise according to which “Russia unreservedly recognizes the independence and sovereignty of the State of Estonia, and renounces voluntarily and forever all sovereign rights possessed by Russia over the Estonian people and territory”. The key word in the promise was “forever” and till this day, because of the skilful manner by which Jaan Poska managed to seal these negotiations, he is considered as the great figure of Estonian diplomacy.

Diplomacy is about managing international relations through peaceful means and making promises to resolve conflicts, build trust, and foster cooperation without resorting to force. But what happens when those promises are not kept?

In a recent televised meeting in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington D.C on the 28th of February in 2025 between president Donald Trump and president Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the vice president of the United States J. D. Vance stated: “The path to peace and the path to prosperity is maybe engaging in diplomacy.” In a short response, president Zelenskyy explained how Russia had occupied parts of Ukraine already in 2014 and how nobody had stopped Russia. In addition, president Zelenskyy pointed out that Ukraine and Russia, represented by Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Vladimir Putin, signed a ceasefire in 2019, mediated by Angela Merkel as chancellor of Germany and Emmanuel Macron as president of France. The agreement was a "full and comprehensive" ceasefire that by the words of president Macron and chancellor Merkel would never be broken by president Putin and Russia. Despite the assuring promises by the two world leaders, president Putin as the leader of Russia broke the ceasefire with a full-scale war in 2022. As a summary, president Zelenskyy therefore asked:

Does diplomacy mean remaining quiet and submitting to a given situation that is built on trust and honesty? In a sense it would be ideal. But it was on January 26, 1900 when the president of the United States Theodore Roosevelt wrote a letter to Henry L. Sprague, a republican politician and New York Supreme Court Justice, discussing his political struggles with party bosses in New York. In this letter president Roosevelt used a phrase that would later become quite well known: "I have always been fond of the West African proverb: 'Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far.'" President Roosevelt later used this phrase to describe his foreign policy approach, known as the Big Stick Diplomacy, which emphasized negotiation backed by the threat of force. So it seems that according to president Roosevelt diplomacy still needs guarantees in order for it to be successful.

When talking about guarantees in diplomatic relations, one of the most controversial topics might be nuclear deterrence. Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances made in 1994 is a key historical agreement that is often cited in discussions about Ukraine’s decision to give up its nuclear weapons in exchange for security assurances—especially in light of Russia’s actions in Crimea in 2014 and the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The memorandum signed by Ukraine and Russia stated that both states “shall base their relations with each other on the principles of mutual respect, sovereign equality, territorial integrity, the inviolability of borders, the peaceful settlement of disputes, the non-use of force or threat of force, including economic and other means of pressure”. In return for this promise signed by Russia, Ukraine agreed to hand over its nuclear weapon and thereby also lost its nuclear deterrent - in the words of president Roosevelt, Ukraine lost its “Big Stick” and could now only speak softly. Big Stick diplomacy can be understood as hard diplomacy and the opposite would be soft diplomacy and when we come to this conclusion, we begin to understand what kind of diplomacy we are really talking about. Looking back to the signed memorandum in 1994, the promise of “sovereign equality, territorial integrity, the inviolability of borders, the peaceful settlement of disputes, the non-use of force or threat of force” were merely words and had no value for Russia.

The evolution of diplomacy has demonstrated both its potential for resolving conflicts and its vulnerability to broken promises. From ancient treaties to modern agreements, diplomacy has relied on trust, negotiation, and mutual commitment. However, as history has repeatedly shown, diplomacy without enforcement mechanisms can be fragile. The case of Ukraine, from the Budapest Memorandum to the full-scale war in 2022, exemplifies the limitations of soft diplomacy when faced with an adversary willing to disregard international agreements. This raises a crucial question about the future of modern diplomacy: Can it remain effective in an era where power dynamics are shifting, and where states may prioritize strategic interests over diplomatic commitments? Is soft diplomacy—built on persuasion and goodwill—enough, or must it be reinforced by hard diplomacy, where power and deterrence play a decisive role? The answer likely lies in a balanced approach—one that integrates soft diplomacy with credible deterrence. In an era of increasing global tensions, the ability of diplomacy to deliver real security and stability depends on whether nations are willing to uphold their commitments—or if, once again, words prove to have no value at all.

As the geopolitical landscape becomes increasingly complex, future diplomacy must adapt by leveraging technology, strengthening multilateral institutions, and ensuring that agreements are backed by enforceable consequences. Furthermore, new diplomatic strategies must address emerging challenges such as cyber warfare, climate change, and the rise of non-state actors. Ultimately, modern diplomacy must evolve beyond words and promises to safeguard global stability, proving that diplomatic agreements are not just symbolic gestures but binding commitments with tangible repercussions for those who violate them.

______________

This material is part of the PERSPECTIVES 2 project – a new label for independent, constructive, and multiperspective journalism. The project is funded by the European Union. The opinions and positions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of the European Union or the European Education and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA). The European Union and EACEA assume no responsibility for them. Learn more about PERSPECTIVES.