A review of the Lecture: Peacemaking in Modern History on 27 March 2025 at the Café Ministerium

(Photos © Wolfgang Geissler)

By Wolfgang Geissler

Introduction by our President Prof. Dr. Kurt Tiroch

The event opened with a thoughtful address by the President, who placed the evening’s topic in the context of today’s global challenges – from war and instability to shifting geopolitical alliances. He referred in particular to the ongoing war in Ukraine and the widespread failure of expert predictions surrounding its course. The President noted that even seasoned analysts had forecast its end by spring 2023 – a stark contrast to the present reality. Against this background, he welcomed Prof. (ret.) Dr. Lothar Höbelt, a distinguished historian, to explore the conditions under which peace has historically succeeded or failed.

Lecture by Prof. Dr. Lothar Höbelt

In a world increasingly defined by geopolitical tensions, proxy wars and ideological polarisation, the following lecture by Prof. Dr. Lothar Höbelt provided a refreshing – and at times provocative – historical perspective on war, peace and the elusive art of peacemaking. Invited to speak on Peacemaking in Modern History, Prof. Höbelt offered not a blueprint for conflict resolution, but a compelling exploration of the dynamics that have historically shaped peace agreements and their failures.

Prof. Höbelt, a long-standing Professor of Modern History at the University of Vienna, is known for his sharp intellect, encyclopaedic command of European history and unapologetically realist analysis. Drawing on case studies from the Thirty Years’ War to the Cold War, and from the Napoleonic campaigns to the present war in Ukraine, he led his audience on a wide-ranging tour of the contingencies, paradoxes and personalities that lie behind war and peace.

At the heart of his lecture was a simple but powerful idea: timing is everything. “Peace and war,” he reminded us, “are not absolutes, but relative states. Any war will end sometime, and a new one will begin. The question is: when is the right time for either?” Successful peace, he argued, rarely stems from idealism or morality – it is born of exhaustion, calculation, or opportunity. Wars often end either when one side wins outright, or when both sides realise that continuing would lead to worse outcomes than settling.

A key theme Höbelt returned to repeatedly was the role of third parties – mediators, power brokers, or rising threats – in bringing conflicts to a close. In his signature style, both dry and incisive, he recalled historical moments where mediation succeeded only because the mediator had the leverage to bribe, blackmail or pressure both sides into submission – such as Henry Kissinger’s back-channel diplomacy during the 1973 Yom Kippur War. “You negotiate throughout the war,” he noted, “but you don’t do it in front of the cameras. You sign the treaty, then hold the press conference – not the other way round.”

This insight led into one of the more controversial but consistent threads in his argument: modern democracies, for all their virtues, often struggle to end wars. Bound by public opinion, electoral politics and their own declared values, democratic leaders can become trapped by their rhetoric. Monarchs of earlier centuries, by contrast, might fight a battle and negotiate peace on the same day – quietly, and with flexibility. Today’s media spectacle of diplomacy, he warned, can become a hindrance rather than a help.

Turning to the present war in Ukraine, Höbelt resisted the temptation to predict outcomes, instead stressing how little we can truly know in real time. “Ask me again in 2056,” he quipped, “when the archives are open.” Nonetheless, he made several pointed observations. He was sceptical of Europe’s ability to play a decisive role in Ukraine’s defence, arguing that American power remains the ultimate guarantee. He questioned both the moral absolutism of Western leaders and the strategic coherence of Russian policy. Above all, he challenged the notion that values alone can serve as a foundation for foreign policy: “You don’t fight for values. You fight for interests – and values must be paid for.”

Questions and Answers

The discussion section focused primarily on the war in Ukraine. Here, Prof. Höbelt made it clear that any predictions about the outcome were speculative at best. He questioned the strategic logic behind some of Russia’s actions, but also doubted Europe’s capacity to mount a meaningful deterrent without American backing.

He repeatedly called for a realist approach to geopolitics – one rooted not in values but in hard interests. For Höbelt, abstract ideals such as „Western values“ or „the defence of democracy“ should not substitute for sober strategic analysis. He challenged the moral absolutism of Western responses, arguing that idealism must be underwritten by real commitments – financial, military, and political.

Audience members pressed him further – some expressing dismay at the idea of accommodating authoritarian leaders like Putin or Trump. Others raised the spectre of 1938 and the dangers of appeasement, Putin’s denial of Ukraine’s legitimacy, and the moral obligation of the West to support Ukraine. Höbelt responded in kind, always quick to return to historical parallels, often drawing on obscure but telling examples: the Austrian role in the Balkan Wars, Prussia’s strategic restraint, or even the British government’s motivations during Suez. His breadth of reference was remarkable – and so was his refusal to pander to politically correct orthodoxies. Höbelt acknowledged these concerns but pointed out that appeasement, historically, was not always a mistake – it was often a calculated gamble based on available options and capabilities at the time. “The question is not what is right in principle,” he stated, “but what is possible in practice.”

His remarks sparked sharp but civil debate. While some found his realism sobering, others viewed it as overly cynical. Either way, his command of history and ability to challenge prevailing assumptions left a strong impression.

Closing Words by the President

In his concluding remarks, the President thanked Prof. Höbelt for his insightful and unflinching contribution. He acknowledged the wide range of opinions expressed during the discussion and underlined the importance of hosting events that encourage such diversity of thought. With a light but by now traditional note about “the cooling soup and warming wine”, he invited all guests to continue the conversation informally over dinner. The evening concluded with a sense of unresolved but productive tension. In the end, perhaps that was the most appropriate outcome: no final answers, but plenty to reflect upon.

Prof. Höbelt’s lecture did not offer comfort – nor was it meant to. It was a reminder that peace is rarely the triumph of righteousness over evil, but often the result of exhaustion, compromise, and cold calculation. His message, while unsettling to some, was deeply rooted in historical experience: wars end not when they become morally indefensible, but when they are no longer strategically viable.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with his conclusions, the evening succeeded in its true aim: to make people think, question their assumptions, and view the present through the long lens of history.

***