Painful Words: The Effect of Battlefield Activity on Conflict Negotiation Behavior

Abstract

How does battlefield activity affect belligerents’ behavior during wartime negotiations? While scholars have studied when and why warring parties choose to negotiate, few insights explain what negotiators do once seated at the table. I argue that actors engage in obstinate negotiation behavior to signal resolve when undergoing contentious and indeterminate hostilities. I explore this claim by analyzing all negotiation transcripts and associated daily military operations reports from the Korean War. Using text-based, machine learning, and statistical methods, I show that high levels of movement or casualties in isolation produce clear information on future trends, thus yielding more substantive negotiations, while more turbulent activity featuring high movement and casualties in tandem produces cynical negotiations. Moving past contemporary literature, this study explores micro-level dynamics of conflict and diplomacy, builds a theoretical bridge between two perennial views of negotiation, and provides a framework for studying war by applying computational methods to archival documents.

Putin’s “Ukraine”. A Brief History of a Disastrous Obsession

“…And Putin's coveted brainchild -the 'Russian World' -shattered, since not only did Ukrainians overwhelmingly recognized Russia as their greatest enemy 15 but even the Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine distanced itself decisively from the pro-Kremlin Moscow patriarchate. 16 Ukraine as a nation-state appears to be incompatible with imperial Russia for both historical and political (epistemic) reasons. Historically, Muscovites developed an identity that appropriated Ukrainians and Belarusians as its integral parts, and left no room for their existence as separate nationalities.…”

“…These sources are subject to varying degrees of strategic manipulation and may provide conflicting information 15 . In contrast to non-manipulable results on the battlefield, "wartime diplomacy is a dynamic and strategic exercise, which serves to interpret, clarify, or even amplify uncertainty, depending on what information the battlefield has just revealed" 16 . Thirdly, it explores how activity on the battlefield affects the behavior of belligerents at the negotiation table.…”

“…Substantive behavior reflects the actor's willingness to discuss meaningful issues of the conflict that are relevant to the goal of an overall settlement. This, however, does not necessarily mean reaching an agreement or offering a concession 17 . Cynical negotiation behavior includes refusing to discuss or propose, showing one's position, and using hostile or propagandistic language that is incompatible with reaching a compromise.…”

The Russian invasion of Ukraine 2022: Discussions and Perceptions inside Academia

“…Besides, there are a lot of works on the spirit of the so-called 'pragmatic approach'. For ex., David Chandler insists that "the internationalisation of the conflict can be destabilizing …if a peace agreement is becoming viable, it also seems that the terms of non-membership of NATO and the European Union and recognition of a Russian sphere of influence in the south and the east could have been agreed much earlier and with much less loss of life" 16 . Helga Zepp-LaRouche asks rhetorically: "What do we do now?…”

“…The model for this is the Peace of Westphalia Treaty of 1648. Because any continuation of geopolitics of the so-called "enemy image" of one or the other, can only lead to a catastrophe; it will be the end of humanity" 17 . Lorenzo Kamel also tries to convince us: "a starting point would be for France, Germany and Italy -which, in contrast to the U.S., have much to lose from the current crisis -proposing a 'security dialogue' which…”