by Kostas Papachristodoulou, Commodore (ret) HN, head of Risk & Intelligence at SEA GUARDIAN SG Ltd
The articles on www.allaboutahipping.co.uk titled “The Death of Diplomacy” made me think about the impact of broken or absent diplomatic channels. They also highlight the disconnect between geo-policy, geo-strategy, and geo-economy. Diplomacy is still a fundamental key tool for applying geo-political policies. In theory, both diplomacy and geo-policy aim to manage national interests without quickly resorting to conflict and represent a neutral profile, that is their mature and the context of their meaning. However, in today’s world, words often lose their meaning. Diplomatic efforts frequently do not align with strategy or economic policy or economic aims circumventing all the others.
Hooliganism trend by officials in International Relations
What we see on the global stage resembles “hooliganism.” This refers to reactive, uncoordinated, and self-serving actions instead of humanely organized international behavior. For instance, the Trump administration imposed unilateral tariffs and made transactional agreements with various resource-rich nations to boost the U.S.A’s economy with not caring for the possible creation of instabilities in certain regions. While these actions may have seemed good for the U.S.A, they undermined international norms and relations. This approach has paved the way for unlawful responses, such as shadow fleets, indirect oil exports through third-party nations, and grey-zone economic tactics.
This situation leads to various tensions. Country A may gain by having called to align with the U.S.A, while its neighbor, Country B, may feel ignored or threatened having aborted for the new upcoming settlement. The policy seems to aim at establishing global points of influence to support a “sea power” doctrine. However, we must consider the “heartland” doctrine, which pushes the other super-power (for example Russia) to respond aggressively in case of its “living space” (the neighboring neutral zone around its territories) is destroyed. This prime example is the Russia–Ukraine war, which partly arose from NATO expansionism and Ukraine’s shift toward Western alignment.
One must question whether the U.S.A or any regular power can maintain such widespread influence, economically and politically. History shows that strategic overreach can be dangerous. A case in point is the Greek campaign in Asia Minor (1918–22), aimed at liberating Greek populations but devolved into a failed military effort against the Ottomans due to poor planning and overreach. The only leader who truly grasped the risks of overextension was Alexander the Great, a military genius who also acted as a statesman and empire-builder.
The Failure of Diplomacy: Israel–Gaza
Another significant example is the Israel–Gaza conflict. The complete lack of diplomacy is clear in the brutal realities on the ground. Negotiations, when they occur, happen under the threat of military force, and strategic goals are pursued without neutral diplomatic processes. This approach eliminates dialogue and positions violence as the only way to communicate.
The Danger of Ad-Hoc Reforms and Abandoned States
When governance systems undergo reform, the changes are usually gradual and focus on fixing inefficiencies through structured processes. This is similar to auditing and redesigning a business management system. In geopolitics, however, when reform happens through war or unilateral action, the outcome isn’t merely functional change—it can leave whole states abandoned and vulnerable.
This creates adversaries. States or groups that can’t fight conventionally may turn to terrorism and asymmetric warfare. With rapid technological advancements—especially in inexpensive offensive tools like drones and airborne munitions—the risk rises. We could soon face transnational terrorist networks that aren’t linked to specific countries or ideologies, but rather motivated purely by revenge against dominant global powers. Unlike 9/11, which was followed by a targeted response against a specific nation (Afghanistan), future attacks might lack a clear source, causing chaotic and unfocused response efforts.
Would these attacks lead to wars against entire regions? Would Western powers retaliate indiscriminately against the Arab world or Northeast Asia if no single government is to blame? The danger is that without a defined enemy, broad and unjustified conflicts could arise. For instance, if a foreign national with political or financial power in France were implicated, would the state itself be targeted?
The Rise of Opportunistic States
This trend of “state hooliganism” is fueled by a new leading-class dominating the states to act like traders. These states engage in risky actions for short-term gains without a moral or long-term strategy. They don’t behave as responsible geopolitical actors but as opportunists seeking to disrupt systems and profit from instability. This benefits dominant powers short-term, giving them more influence with little risk. In contrast, weaker states have no option but to “knock on the doors” of more powerful nations, seeking favors.
This is not geo-policy. It is the misuse of geo-strategy and a geo-economy that is disconnected from geopolitical realities. Even if the world is moving into a multipolar era, this approach is flawed. Yet, it is the strategy currently being pursued.
Conclusion
To sum up, the death of diplomacy leads to a vacuum filled with force, opportunism, and uneven retaliation jeopardizing the norm of Geo-policy. Unlike effective management reforms, upheaval in international relations doesn’t just discard processes; it discards entire nations. These countries, unable to compete fairly, may resort to terrorism and asymmetric warfare, exacerbated by technology and the absence of rules. We risk a future where states act without a moral compass, diplomacy is pushed aside, and violence becomes a tool for negotiation. The end result isn’t a balanced multipolar system, but a chaotic environment where power overtakes principle, making everyone, including powerful nations, less secure.
