New research, published at a very symbolic time, suggests that presenting conflicting groups with non-violent alternatives can help reduce aggression between them, and ultimately resolve disputes.
The study, conducted by psychologist Lennart Redman as part of a doctoral thesis at Leiden University in the Netherlands, analyzed laboratory experiments demonstrating asymmetric collisions to reveal approaches to effectively ending real-world battles.
We will elaborate on the conclusions, which seem so disconnected from the bloody reality here in Israel, with the help of Claude.
Redman explains that parties usually attack only when resources are scarce and violence seems to them the only way to profit or security.
Prolonged battles are a waste of precious assets for minimal gain.
Introducing peaceful ways out, such as concessions or joint investments, can shift the cost-benefit analysis to cooperation.
The experiments digitally simulated the roles of attack and defense, using real financial incentives to increase the risk.
The results showed that both sides took advantage and benefited from peace proposals, which eased the enmity.
However, the attacking group reaps a relatively high reward from such solutions, due to greater flexibility in allocating freed resources.
Redman links this to the power asymmetry in Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
As the aggressor, Russia can better juggle both economic production and warfare, while Ukraine is entirely focused on survival.
Hence Russia gains more from hypothetical ceasefire deals.
In the end, according to Lennart, although not 'egalitarian', diplomatic solutions are still a better alternative than endless violence.
Were we wrong?
We will fix it!
If you found an error in the article, we would appreciate it if you shared it with us