Why Active Negotiations Don’t Always Lower the Index — and Sometimes Even Raise It

Diplomacy is often viewed as the natural path toward de-escalation. When headlines mention talks, ceasefire proposals, or shuttle diplomacy, most observers expect the situation to calm down. Yet in many conflicts, the Tension and War Index (TWI) does not immediately decline when negotiations take place. In some cases, it even rises.

This is not a contradiction — it reflects how real geopolitical systems behave. Negotiations may improve long-term prospects, but in the short term they can increase volatility, strategic maneuvering, and uncertainty.

Below are the key reasons why the index may resist falling during active diplomacy.

1. Negotiations Often Reflect Rising Tension, Not Falling Tension

High-level talks typically begin because the situation has reached a more dangerous phase.The fact that negotiations are underway can indicate:

• previous agreements have broken down,

• military pressure is intensifying,

• key actors believe escalation is becoming riskier.

This phenomenon is visible in conflicts like Russia–Ukraine, where diplomatic outreach frequently happens during or after major escalatory events, not before them.

Thus, the index reflects the underlying reality — not the optimistic tone of headlines.

2. Talks Can Fail — and That Risk Itself Raises the Index

Diplomacy introduces a period of uncertainty. Before outcomes are known, the system sits in a high-volatility state, where:

• success leads to stabilization,

• failure can accelerate confrontation.

Because breakdowns of negotiations are historically common, the potential downside often weighs heavier than the potential upside — especially in entrenched conflicts.

3. Diplomacy Is Sometimes Used as a Tactical Instrument

Not all negotiations are aimed at durable peace.

In practice, talks may be used to:

• buy time for troop rotation or regrouping,

• test an opponent’s red lines,

• soften external pressure before planned operations,

• influence international perception.

When diplomacy is used tactically, the underlying drivers of tension remain intact — sometimes becoming even more pronounced.

4. Escalatory Events Often Continue in Parallel

Negotiations rarely pause the conflict environment. At the same time, there may be:

• drone or missile activity,

• shifting frontline conditions,

• mobilization or conscription measures,

• new military aid packages,

• hardline statements by political leaders.

In the Russia–Ukraine conflict, for example, diplomatic signals often coexist with long-range strikes, cross-border attacks, or new military commitments.These parallel actions often outweigh the de-escalatory potential of talks.

5. Mistrust Limits the Immediate Impact of Dialogue

Where deep mistrust exists, negotiations have limited short-term influence.Actors may doubt each other’s intentions, commitment, or ability to enforce agreements.

High mistrust means:

• verification demands rise,

• agreements become harder to reach,

• the risk of breakdown remains high.

The index accounts for this structural instability.

6. Internal Political Dynamics Can Increase Tension During Talks

Diplomacy can trigger internal pressures within governments or military institutions:

• hawkish factions may oppose concessions,

• leaders may escalate rhetoric to maintain domestic support,

• armed forces may accelerate operations before potential restrictions.

These internal dynamics can temporarily increase instability — nudging the index upward even as negotiations proceed.

7. The Index Reacts to Material Change, Not Intentions

Meaningful de-escalation typically requires:

• reduced military activity,

• repositioning or withdrawal of forces,

• verified agreements,

• changes in strategic objectives.

Announcements of talks alone do not alter the structural landscape of the conflict.The index responds to actions, not aspirations.

Conclusion

Diplomacy is vital for reducing long-term risk, but its immediate effects are often counterintuitive.Negotiations can increase uncertainty, trigger strategic signaling, and coexist with parallel escalatory events.

This is why the Tension and War Index may remain elevated — or even rise — during periods of active diplomacy, including in conflicts such as Russia–Ukraine, where the gap between political messaging and material realities can be significant.

The index aims to reflect the actual dynamics of the conflict environment, not the expectations surrounding it.