"The Idea of a Liberal Peace Has Had Its Day" - Sir Lawrence Freedman on the Changing Architecture of Global Order

In this insightful exchange with Diplomatist, Professor Sir Lawrence Freedman, Emeritus Professor of War Studies at King’s College London, reflects on how strategy and statecraft are being redefined in an era of blurred battle lines and fractured global order.

- 

Drawing on his decades-long scholarship—from the nuclear anxieties of the Cold War to today’s hybrid conflicts—he examines the limits of deterrence, the evolution of modern warfare, and the fading certainties of liberal peace building. Sir Lawrence also offers a nuanced perspective on India’s strategic posture, the rise of regional conflict management frameworks, and the reshaping of partnerships such as India-UK cooperation in the emerging Indo-Pacific landscape.

Your career has spanned decades of strategic thinking from the Cold War to Ukraine. As we move further into the 21st century, what do you believe is the most underappreciated strategic shift in how states prepare for war and peace?

During the Cold War strategic thinking was dominated by the possibility of a war between the US and Soviet led alliances. The big issue in discussions of such a war was not so much whether it would ‘go nuclear’, as it tended to be taken for granted that it would, but at what point and to what extent it would do so. In practice nobody was keen to find out and, after the great crises of 1961 (Berlin) and 1962 (Cuba), there was no obvious dynamic towards a major war. Cautioned ruled and scholars began to talk about the ‘Long Peace.’ This was said to cover the decades since World War 2. Obviously much of the world had not been at peace, and there had been much death and destruction, but World War 3 was avoided – and continues to be avoided. This meant that, at least in the West, the framework for thinking about major war was deterrence. What must be done to convince potential adversaries that the costs of aggression would exceed the gains.