From Diplomacy to Spectacle: The Decline of the Multilateral Order in the Ukraine War and the Strategic Turn of Global Powers
The war in Ukraine has accelerated the fragmentation of the multilateral system established in the aftermath of the Cold War. Traditional diplomatic processes have been sidelined by unilateral decisions, media-driven foreign policy, and the rise of personalized leadership styles.
Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 marked a turning point not only for European security but also for the global diplomatic system. While military alliances, particularly NATO, were reinforced, diplomatic fora such as the OSCE and the UN Security Council appeared increasingly marginal. The prevailing dynamic has shifted from structured, multilateral negotiations to unilateral actions and public spectacle.
Following the Helsinki Final Act of 1975, Europe established a delicate but functional diplomatic order, which included mechanisms for negotiation and crisis prevention. However, NATO’s eastward expansion (1997, 2004), unilateral military interventions (Iraq 2003, Libya 2011), and the exclusion of Russia from the G8 in 2014 after the annexation of Crimea gradually eroded the trust that had underpinned this architecture (Starace, 2025).
The war in Ukraine is not an isolated failure but rather the culmination of two decades of declining multilateralism and the resurgence of power politics.
We now live in a world where statecraft has been overtaken by social media messaging, populist rhetoric, and emotionally charged, rapid decision-making. This phenomenon is evident not only in authoritarian states like Russia and China but also in Western democracies, where political leaders increasingly bypass diplomatic institutions in favor of direct public engagement. Foreign policy is increasingly conducted through photo opportunities, executive order signings, and viral statements.
Autocrats like Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping carefully script their public communications, while Western leaders adopt similar tactics under the guise of democratic responsiveness. further blurring the line between governance and spectacle.
War has become a systemic instrument. In democracies, it justifies economic hardship and increased militarization. In autocracies, it consolidates internal control and suppresses dissent. This war economy benefits security lobbies, industrial complexes, and political elites across regime types. Armed conflict is no longer a contingency; it is becoming a structural feature of governance.
Despite its geographic and economic stakes in the conflict, the European Union has struggled to assert a diplomatic identity independent of the United States. High Representative Josep Borrell has led efforts in sanctions and military support to Ukraine but has offered no credible framework for negotiation (Borrell, 2023). EU capitals have failed to formulate or promote alternative strategies, thereby relinquishing any potential role as a mediator between the United States, Russia, and China(Starace, 2025).
Recent months have nonetheless witnessed modest but noteworthy attempts to revive diplomacy. Pope Francis sent Cardinal Matteo Zuppi as a peace envoy to both Kyiv and Moscow. Following his re-election, Donald Trump appointed General Keith Kellogg as his special envoy for Ukraine, with Kellogg making visits to key European and Eurasian capitals. After a prolonged silence, French President Emmanuel Macron reopened direct channels with both Putin and Zelensky.
Though embryonic, these efforts may signal a tentative shift away from the zero-sum logic that has dominated international responses over the past three years.
The war in Ukraine lays bare the erosion of diplomatic culture and the triumph of power-centered, media-driven communication. While the battlefield continues to dominate headlines, meaningful conflict resolution depends on the revival of structured diplomacy and genuine multilateral engagement. The European Union must overcome its strategic inertia and redefine itself not merely as a provider of sanctions or military aid, but as a legitimate platform for negotiation and de-escalation.
Diplomacy, even when slow and imperfect, remains the only sustainable path to peace in an era of systemic fragmentation.
Pasquale Preziosa joined the Italian Air Force in 1971 and qualified as a pilot. From August 2003 to September 2006 he served as the Defense Attaché at the Embassy of Italy, Washington, D.C., and Chief of the Cabinet of the Minister of Defence from December 2011 to February 2013. He was appointed Chief of the Air Force in 2013.
During his time as Air Force Chief, Preziosa was notably involved in Italy’s F-35 Lightning II program. On Dec. 3, Lt. Gen. Pasquale Preziosa, Chief of the Italian Air Force, welcomed the first Italian F-35A at the F-35 Final Assembly and Check Out (FACO) facility at Cameri which was significant as it was the first F-35 delivered outside the United States.
He is well known for his strategic thinking about modern airpower and coalition operations, emphasizing the importance of international partnerships in addressing evolving security challenges. He has continued to work on European defense and security issues and technology and is a prolific writer on the Italian and European scene.
The Way Ahead for European Defense: An Interview with General Pasquale Preziosa
The Risks for European Cohesion in the Russian-Ukrainian crisis