Have wars ever truly ended or de-escalated because someone (e.g., the Pope, the UN Secretary-General) called on the combatants to 'show restraint'? Laurence Whitside, via email
Send new questions to nq@theguardian.com.
Pope Leo I convinced Attila to withdraw from Rome in 452. redleader
Once the war dogs start salivating, no amount of appeals for restraint can stop them from pursuing death and destruction (also known as personal gain). Mark_Gorman
"Honestly peace" is what adversaries seek, so anyone who achieves it can claim credit for ending the war. RPOrlando, via email
People really do fight well and maintain victim narratives, so many conflicts never end without one side or the other being deemed the 'winner'. Open conflicts start for many reasons, and therefore strategic goals related to starting a war are important to consider when asking such a question. After half a century, can we give a reasonable answer to the question of whether Turkey or Cyprus won the Turkish invasion of 1974?
However, ceasefires and truces are plentiful and relatively easy to find. For example, the 1969 Soccer War between Honduras and El Salvador was ended by the intervention of the Organization of American States. At this exact point, though, there were wobbly outcomes for both sides in the years that followed.
Perhaps one of the clearest examples of a war being resolved, at least nominally, is quite surprising: the Wagner Group's abortive invasion of Russia in 2023 was quashed by Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko's mediation between Yevgeny Prigozhin and Vladimir Putin. One might blame someone for not necessarily wanting to take a lesson from this negotiation on conflict resolution, even though the rebellion lasted only a day. Dorkalicious
Thucydides wrote that the Spartans called off several campaigns during the Peloponnesian War after their priests gave bad omens. Machiavelli would be skeptical of any divine intervention, but I wonder what might have happened. Likely, authoritative figures were involved and the result was restraint. SleepyDog
With a similar sentiment, why are war crimes called 'crimes' when nobody seems to be prosecuted for them? There is no international policeman, so the world's militaries just keep committing these war crimes. UKClimber
You are prosecuted if you are a member of the losing side. Lieutenant William Lawrence Calley Jr. was the only person prosecuted for any of the crimes committed in the My Lai massacre (22 murder charges, also assault with intent to kill). More than 500 men, women, and children were killed, many women and children also raped. He spent about three years in house arrest back home. He died at home in 2024. Of course, the US lost that, but good luck for the Vietnamese to put US military on trial. getomov
As an authority, God has been invoked so many times to justify war that it is a recognized problem. It's odd that God is invoked by people whose interest is in pursuing and continuing war. "With God on our side, we can't lose" is the sentiment behind every enthusiast manipulating others with the prospect of God's favor, shown by winning the conflict. I'm glad to hear Pope Leo XIV speak against war, which confirms the idea that war is not holy; it seems to be the least he can do. Teagail
One that many point to might be the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. UN Secretary-General U Thant helped defuse the threat of a quick escalation. The influence of the UN likely affected other conflicts as well, but without extensive reporting. leadballoon
On Christmas Day 1914, German and British troops on the Western Front laid down their weapons, took up a football, and exchanged gifts. There was no authoritative figure involved, but senior officers eventually ended the fraternization. This shows that, generally, authoritative figures are the driving force behind conflict, while those who do the dirty work just want to interact with each other. Dr. Blam0
