The world is entering a perilous new phase. From the missile-laden skies over South Asia to the drone-filled nights of the Middle East and the grinding war in Ukraine, the past months have seen a cascade of military escalations that would have been unthinkable just a decade ago. Peter Apps’ recent Reuters column reads like a dispatch from the edge of a new global order—one where the old rules of deterrence and restraint are fraying, and the risk of miscalculation is higher than at any time since the Cold War.
This is not just a warning for policymakers or generals. It is a call to all of us—citizens, business leaders, and advocates—to demand a renewed commitment to diplomacy, dialogue, and de-escalation.
The World on a Knife-Edge
Consider the events of just the past few weeks. India and Pakistan, both nuclear-armed, fought what is now being called “the four-day war,” a conflict marked by missiles and drones and ended only after direct U.S. intervention. The Indian defense chief’s blunt message—expect more of the same—should chill anyone who remembers how close these two countries have come to nuclear war in the past.
Meanwhile, Iran and Israel have crossed new lines with direct strikes on each other’s territory, and the United States has launched airstrikes on Iran’s underground nuclear facilities. The U.S. Secretary of State and President have been forced to intervene repeatedly, their actions watched closely by Russia and China, who are themselves engaged in their own high-stakes confrontations.
In Ukraine, the war has escalated to include drone attacks deep inside Russian territory, targeting bases housing nuclear-capable bombers. The normalization of such attacks—once considered unthinkable—signals a dangerous new threshold in global conflict.
The Erosion of Old Restraints
During the original Cold War, the world lived with the constant threat of nuclear escalation, but there was also a widespread belief that any direct conflict between major powers would spiral out of control and thus must be avoided at all costs. Today, that restraint is eroding. Limited missile and drone exchanges between nuclear powers are becoming “the new normal,” creating a false sense of control over the escalation ladder.
The risk is not just in the weapons themselves, but in the psychology of decision-makers. As one Pakistani general warned, “you cannot dismiss the possibility of a strategic miscalculation at any moment.” Every new round of escalation increases the odds that someone, somewhere, will misread the signals and take a step too far.
The Shadow of Great Power Rivalry
Looming over all these regional conflicts is the specter of U.S.-China confrontation over Taiwan. U.S. officials openly state that Beijing has directed its military to be ready to act against Taiwan by 2027. The recent U.S. show of force—B-2 bombers striking Iran’s most fortified sites—was as much a message to Beijing and Moscow as to Tehran.
China’s efforts to build its own stealth bombers and Russia’s continued nuclear saber-rattling show that the arms race is alive and well. Yet, as Apps notes, neither China nor Russia currently possesses the ability to match the U.S. in certain domains, making their reliance on missiles and other potentially escalatory tools more dangerous.
The Dangers of Normalizing Escalation
What is perhaps most alarming is how quickly the world seems to be adapting to this new reality. Drone strikes, missile exchanges, and even limited airstrikes on nuclear facilities are becoming routine. The “new arena for conventional operations,” as India’s defense chief put it, is now the standard.
But normalization is not the same as stability. Each act of escalation creates new precedents, erodes old taboos, and makes the next step up the ladder more likely. The spread of advanced drone technology, the willingness to strike deep into adversary territory, and the blurring of lines between conventional and nuclear forces all make the risk of catastrophic miscalculation greater than ever.
Why Diplomacy Must Return to Center Stage
Against this backdrop, calls for diplomacy can sound naïve or even irrelevant. But the alternative—an unchecked spiral of escalation—should be unacceptable to anyone who cares about the future of humanity.
Diplomacy is not weakness; it is the only way to break the cycle of retaliation and create space for de-escalation. The recent U.S.-brokered ceasefires, the ongoing (if halting) peace talks between Russia and Ukraine, and the G7’s draft statements urging restraint in the Middle East all show that dialogue is possible, even in the darkest moments.
Yet, too often, diplomacy is treated as an afterthought—something to try after the bombs have fallen and the missiles have flown. This must change. We need leaders who are willing to take risks for peace, to engage with adversaries, and to recognize that military “victories” are often pyrrhic and temporary.
Lessons from History—and a Plea for the Future
History is full of moments when the world stood on the brink and pulled back: the Cuban Missile Crisis, the end of the Cold War, the nuclear arms control treaties of the late 20th century. These were not accidents. They were the result of courageous diplomacy, creative problem-solving, and a recognition that no one wins in a nuclear war.
Today, we need that spirit more than ever. The tools of war are more advanced, the lines between peace and conflict more blurred, and the stakes—human lives, global stability, even the survival of our planet—higher than ever.
What Can We Do?
· Demand Diplomacy: Citizens must hold their leaders accountable for pursuing diplomatic solutions, not just military ones. Public opinion still matters, and leaders will listen if enough voices are raised.
· Support Institutions: International organizations, from the United Nations to regional forums, need resources and legitimacy to mediate and de-escalate conflicts.
· Promote Dialogue: Civil society, business leaders, and even ordinary citizens can foster dialogue across borders and cultures. People-to-people connections are a powerful antidote to the dehumanization that fuels conflict.
· Resist Normalization: We must not accept the escalation of violence as inevitable or routine. Every new “normal” in warfare brings us closer to disaster.
A Final Word: The Urgency of Now
Peter Apps’ article is a wake-up call. The world is not sleepwalking into a new era of escalation—it is racing toward it. But the future is not yet written. We can choose a different path, one where diplomacy, restraint, and common humanity are valued above shows of force.
As we face this new era, let us remember the wisdom of those who came before us: “Jaw-jaw is always better than war-war.” The time for diplomacy is now—before the next miscalculation becomes the last.
