Assessment Overview
The announcement of a “Board of Peace” at the World Economic Forum reflects an important shift in how major actors conceptualise conflict and stability. Peace is increasingly treated not as a post-conflict condition but as a strategic capability: the ability to shape escalation dynamics, control negotiation frameworks, and influence post-conflict political orders.
From a strategic assessment perspective, this development exposes a critical weakness in Europe’s geopolitical posture. While other major powers integrate peace processes into broader security and influence strategies, the European Union remains constrained by internal fragmentation, limiting its ability to act decisively in an increasingly competitive security environment.
Peace as a Tool of Strategic Influence
In the current international system, marked by prolonged confrontation and regionalised conflict, peace processes have become instruments of power. Control over mediation formats, ceasefire mechanisms, and post-conflict arrangements enables actors to shape security architectures and political trajectories without sustained military engagement.
The strategic logic behind initiatives such as the Board of Peace aligns with this reality. By prioritising early engagement, institutional continuity, and cross-domain coordination, such initiatives aim to influence conflicts before they crystallise into irreversible security dilemmas. This reflects a broader trend in which stability management is treated as a component of strategic competition.
Comparative Strategic Positions
A comparison with other major actors highlights Europe’s relative disadvantage.
The United States embeds peace processes within its alliance system and deterrence posture. Whether through NATO, bilateral security guarantees, or diplomatic pressure, Washington shapes the strategic boundaries of conflict resolution, even when not acting as a formal mediator. Institutional cohesion enables strategic continuity.
China has selectively expanded its engagement in mediation and peace facilitation, using these efforts to reinforce its long-term influence, particularly in regions where Western security credibility is contested. Peace initiatives align closely with economic and political objectives.
Russia treats peace processes as coercive instruments. Through ceasefires, frozen conflicts, and controlled negotiations, Moscow leverages its capacity to escalate or de-escalate violence to secure strategic depth and political leverage, particularly along its periphery.
In contrast, Europe lacks a comparable ability to integrate peace processes into a coherent security strategy.
Europe’s Internal Fragmentation as a Security Constraint
Europe’s limitations are structural rather than declaratory. Four factors are particularly relevant from a strategic assessment perspective:
- Divergent threat prioritisation: Member states assess security risks differently: eastern states emphasise territorial defence and deterrence; southern states focus on instability in North Africa and the Sahel; others prioritise economic security or normative concerns. This prevents convergence on strategic objectives.
- Decision-making constraints: Unanimity requirements and dispersed authority across EU institutions and national governments inhibit rapid or anticipatory action. Peace-related initiatives default to lowest common-denominator outcomes.
- Doctrinal ambiguity: There is no shared European doctrine that treats peace processes as instruments of power. As a result, mediation and conflict prevention are disconnected from defence planning and strategic foresight.
- Temporal misalignment: Peace governance requires sustained engagement over extended periods, whereas European political systems remain oriented towards short-term crisis management.
These factors combine to limit Europe’s capacity to shape conflict environments proactively, even in regions of direct strategic interest.
Strategic Implications
From a security perspective, Europe’s fragmented approach carries several implications:
- Reduced strategic autonomy, with continued dependence on US-led frameworks for security outcomes in Europe’s neighbourhood.
- Diminished influence in conflict mediation, particularly in Africa and the Middle East, where other actors increasingly determine negotiation formats.
- Erosion of deterrence credibility, as the inability to shape peace frameworks weakens Europe’s leverage in managing escalation and de-escalation dynamics.
In a security environment characterised by persistent instability rather than clear end states, the inability to act coherently in peace governance constitutes a strategic liability.
Key Judgments
- Peace processes have become integral to strategic competition, not peripheral diplomatic activities.• Major powers increasingly treat mediation and conflict management as security tools.
- Europe’s primary constraint is internal fragmentation, not a capability shortfall.
- Without doctrinal and institutional adaptation, Europe will remain reactive rather than strategic in managing conflict and stability
Conclusion
The emergence of initiatives such as the Board of Peace signals a broader transformation in international security: the management of peace is becoming a core dimension of power. For Europe, the challenge is not a lack of commitment to peace but the absence of strategic coherence. Unless peace governance is integrated into security planning and aligned across member states, the European Union will remain a secondary actor in shaping the future conflict environment.