Arguments of Power or the Power of Arguments: Why Dictators Fear Discussion

True civilization is built on the recognition of the power of arguments, not the arguments of power.

Arguments of Power or the Power of Arguments: Why Dictators Fear Discussion

The question of civilizational values and diplomacy in the context of global politics has gained particular relevance in an era when war has lost even its formal legitimacy as a tool for resolving international conflicts. Historically, wars were an extension of diplomacy, serving as a means of achieving political goals and, in a certain sense, functioning as an instrument of argumentation in its most radical form. However, the modern paradigm of the civilized world rejects this notion. On the contrary, in the 21st century, war is increasingly recognized as an admission of an aggressor’s intellectual and moral bankruptcy—an inability to justify its claims and positions within the framework of discourse.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 vividly illustrates this point. The Kremlin, lacking both convincing arguments and a coherent position capable of influencing the opinions of Ukrainian citizens, the international community, and even its own population, resorted to brute force. This, in essence, demonstrates the weakness of its arguments rather than its military strength or power, as is often assumed. The inability to justify its actions within a rational discourse exposes the fundamental injustice of its claims.

If diplomacy is the art of persuasion, then war is its surrender—the admission of weak positions and the failure to achieve understanding through available arguments. In this sense, war is a symptom of an aggressor’s civilizational degradation, a reflection of its inability to adapt to the norms of global interaction.

A similar principle applies in the narrower realm of rhetoric and diplomacy—within negotiations and public discourse. When one party excludes its opponent from dialogue, refusing to engage in an argument-based discussion, it signals its own inability to maintain intellectual and rhetorical superiority. The exclusion of a more persuasive opponent from the negotiation process is not a demonstration of strength but an acknowledgment of intellectual defeat.

This perspective is particularly relevant when analyzing Donald Trump’s public rhetoric. His refusal to engage in substantive discussions, his tendency toward ultimatum-driven communication, and his inability to sustain an argument-based counter-discussion closely align his rhetorical strategy with the methods of authoritarian leaders such as Vladimir Putin. The astonishment expressed over Ukraine’s refusal to surrender only reinforces their incapacity for genuine diplomacy. After all, diplomacy is not about coercion or imposition but about dialogue, compromise, and mutually beneficial solutions. Their failure to grasp that Ukraine and its leadership will not capitulate highlights their fundamental misunderstanding of negotiations as a tool for reaching agreements that benefit all parties.

Thus, in the modern civilized world, true power is not found in the ability to wage war or to silence opponents in negotiations but in the ability to argue, persuade, and reach consensus. The less convincing a party is, the more aggressive its methods become—whether through war or repressive rhetoric. True civilization is built on the recognition of the power of arguments, not the arguments of power.