In his seminal work On War, Carl von Clausewitz suggests that war is not an end in itself but a rational instrument of statecraft used to achieve political goals when traditional diplomatic dialogue fails.
War is diplomacy by other means
Force used to extract political concessions. Eg-Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to block NATO expansion.
War alters facts on ground to strengthen bargaining position. Eg-Control of Crimea and Donbas.
Power signalling to deters rivals. Eg-China’s military exercises near Taiwan.
War reshapes diplomatic alignments. Eg-Pakistan-China ‘all weather friendship’ after 1962 and 1965 wars
Resource diplomacy -Control over energy and minerals via force.
Negotiation through attrition -Prolonged fighting forces compromise. Eg-US withdrawl from Afghanistan
Policy of ‘bait and bloodletting’. Eg- US support to Ukraine to weaken Russia
Peace enforcement. Eg-NATO intervention in Kosovo.
War is used as a tool for regime change. Eg- US intervention in Iraq
Counter-argument- War is not diplomacy but its failure
Humanitarian catastrophe violates utilitarian principle of ‘greatest happiness’. Eg- over 1.4 million Russian deaths in Ukraine war
Rise of Non-State Actors- Groups like ISIS-K dont pursue war for diplomatic aims but for ideological and religious aims.
War used to consolidate domestic political legitimacy rather than national interest. Eg-Wartime nationalism in Pakistan.
Due to ‘complex interdependence’ war as a diplomatic means is not a rational choice. Eg- US-China relations
War leads to breakdown of diplomatic negotiations channels for peaceful resolution. Eg- Security Council paralysis.
While diplomacy is based on reason war is based on passion.
The acute security dilemma and zero-sum mentality fosters diplomatic distrust and reduce possibility of diplomatic cooperation. Eg- India’s suspension of Indus water treaty.
As per Deontological ethics, means of war cant justify any ends. As pointed out by Bertrand Russell, “War does not determine who is right – only who is left.”