An interview with conflict researcher, mediator, and peace activist Friedrich Glasl about his new book, Die Paradoxie des Wettrüstens [The paradox of the arms race].1 Questions by Wolfgang Held.
What led you to decide to write this book?
Friedrich Glasl I’ve been studying conflicts ever since I was a student over 60 years ago when I majored in international relations, international law, and political science in Vienna. My doctoral dissertation dealt with the issue of sanctions imposed by neutral states within the League of Nations. Austria became a permanent neutral state and member of the United Nations as early as 1955. I took up this topic because my doctoral advisor was the head of the Austrian delegation to the UN and there was controversy over whether neutral states could participate in sanctions.
For the past 20 years, the dominant tone of political discourse has become harsher. Why is that?
Our expectations were too optimistic after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. That event sparked euphoric expectations on all sides. The fundamental problem, even after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, is hegemony—the rivalry among the major powers. That has not gone away.
Was the thaw treading on thin ice?
It was strongly supported by the civil society. That’s what I find so beautiful about it. But at the political level, there was still at that time a spirit of competition—perhaps even more so after the Wall fell. Around that time, the book The End of History by the American political scientist Francis Fukuyama was published: “The class struggle is over; communism has suffered a defeat. Now capitalism and democracy prevail,” even though they are not identical. Hegemony, the question of “Who is stronger, more popular, the leader?”, was actually stoked even further. We remember the humiliating statements made about the former communist countries.
In the first chapter, you write: “Different ideas, insights, ways of working, and interests are actually valuable resources.” Is that what you mean by constructive debate?
Yes, plurality. I mean freedom in spiritual life. There is no single truth that is imposed on others, but rather different approaches to the search for truth, and each has its own perspective. Rudolf Steiner expands on this idea in Human and Cosmic Thought2 through a conversation among twelve perspectives. If culture does not begin to take diversity, plurality, and also inclusivity seriously—not merely tolerating them but actively committing to them—things will not go well.
That seems to also be an inward psychological process. I’m thinking of Friedemann Schulz von Thun’s description of the “inner team.”3
He brought out this inner diversity of the soul beautifully. Plurality and openness to other viewpoints, both internal and external—that’s what I liked. It’s a question of attitude, of disposition. It’s about living this not only on an individual level but also interactively and then within social structures and cultures. Where does one begin? “One has to think in circles,” as I quoted Steiner in our 2022 interview.4 Today, systems theory calls this “circular causality.”
What does that mean?
That my behavior affects the behavior of others, and that, in turn, affects me, and that goes on. Not one-way causality, but two-way causality.
Is that why dealing with differences is so important?
Yes, we should value them as resources and learn to use them constructively. However, this requires effective self-regulation—what is often lost precisely in stressful and conflict-ridden situations. In conflict, so called “affect logic” takes over, such as the fear constantly fueled by scaremongering, etc., as does a competitive mindset.
The concept of the “logic of war” sounds contradictory, since you describe how people act based on their emotions in that context.
That’s why it’s important to understand the difference between affect and feeling. With feeling, I am able to acknowledge the conflict between different emotions. With affect, I am blind to alternatives. It’s all about fear or mistrust, which is the “guiding emotion,” as Luc Ciompi described.5 We are under stress, as described by neuroscientist Joachim Bauer, and so we lose the ability to anticipate consequences, whether desired or undesired. That is why, in war, there is often no perspective on how things will proceed after the fighting ends. It makes me think of what Steiner says about the karma exercises. If we take these exercises seriously and practice them, we develop the ability to see the possible consequences of our own actions in a flash before we act. Unfortunately, we often experience the opposite: No vision, no perspective on what the world order might look like after the end of the war in Ukraine, with Israel, Gaza, and Iran-U.S. relations! That is blocked out. That is the effect of stress.
What is the key? That individual responsibility begins to grow again?
The key is that, after moments of distress or when emotions are high, I take a step back and look at myself. Reflection and taking a retrospective look don’t undo what has happened, but they have an impact on the future. For daily retrospective reflection, it’s recommended to recount your own experiences in the third person, such as, “Friedrich did this and felt that, etc.,” that is, from a mental distance. This allows you to notice things you wouldn’t otherwise perceive when you’re still in the situation directly. What can we do to foster individual mental distance and, with it, the ability to reflect? What questions can we ask people—including politicians?
In war, courage is romanticized. In your book you write that fear is the foundation of the logic of war.
Yes, what one interprets as courage is actually instinctive aggression; it is reckless and should therefore be understood as recklessness rather than courage.
You also describe the stages of conflict escalation that you identified earlier. Like a musical scale, there are nine distinct stages; in this sense, the descent is not a gradual continuum but we are passing thresholds. Is it important to understand this?
Yes. First—the direction of movement. With “escalation,” we often think of upward movement. But conflict leads downward, into the abyss. I’ve outlined this briefly in my book Selbsthilfe in Konflikten [Self-help in conflicts].6 We descend through the nine spheres of subnature. And these spheres pervert the helpful workings of the spirits of supranature—as Steiner called them: the angels, archangels, Archai, Exusiai, Dynamis, Kyriotetes, Thrones, Cherubim, and Seraphim. The spirits of the depths turn the positive into its opposite. Now, in the Age of Michael, it is important to be cosmopolitan—not nationalistic, but rather transnational and supranational. Nationalism has no place anymore, but the perversion of the work of the spirits of the peoples and languages has become an obsession: “We are the best, and we must prevail!” In other words, an egocentric posture on both the individual and collective levels.
It is part of the ambivalence of our times that we are seeing autocratic systems that have been in place for about 20 years and a decline in democracy. At the same time, however, if I look at Brazil, Poland, and Hungary, their societies are breaking free from autocratic shackles again. How is this possible?
I feel vindicated in what I said recently in another interview: Change comes in waves in history. The ‘68 movement [as it is known in Germany] emerged as a reaction to the commercialization of all areas of life. Then, in response to the ‘68 movement, the “Back to Business” movement arose! That, in turn, sparked civil society movements that opposed it. Now the autocrats have apparently overstepped their bounds, and that is reawakening civil society once more. I recently spoke with my American friend Chris Schäfer in an online discussion group. He hopes that civil society in the U.S. is now waking up again, because under Obama it had more or less fallen asleep. There were projections about all the good things Obama was doing, and that lulled civil society into complacency. After all, Obama also waged war. Now we’re seeing that, for instance where ICE is involved in the U.S., prosecutors and judges aren’t letting themselves be intimidated by the autocrats and plutocrats. Something is being awakened, just as we’ve experienced in Hungary. The autocrats are overextending their strategies of corruption, and that—thank God!—backfires on them. It just takes time for things to get back on track.
Hungary isn’t far from you in Austria. Do you have any firsthand impressions of the new prime minister Péter Magyar’s approach?
He knew that the rural population wasn’t quite awake yet. The previous PM, Viktor Orbán, tapped into a certain underlying sentiment with his anti-EU rhetoric and his sympathy for Putin. Because attitudes, dispositions, and ideologies all take shape at local pubs or around the water cooler, so to speak, the opposition leader went to those places and brought about a shift in public opinion.
In your book, the “threat triangle”—consisting of a demand plus the threat of punishment plus sanction-potential to carry out the punishment—plays an important role. In what situations are threats, such as traffic tickets for speeding, helpful as a tool of power to maintain order, and in what situations are they not?
Well, there are threats, and there are warnings of unpleasant consequences that have criminal implications. A warning is not a threat; rather, it makes one conscious of the consequences of one’s actions. For example, “If you do not agree to this contract, our business relationship will end.” This is an indication of possible consequences. Of course, I can turn it into a threat: “If you don’t sign, I will inflict such-and-such harm on you.” A threat, for example, one made by one government against another, involves consequences that do not necessarily stem from international law. So we should distinguish between indicating specific consequences and making a threatening gesture. The American economist Robert Armstrong has used the acronym TACO-Trade (“Trump Always Chickens Out”) to describe president Trump’s recurring behavior. On Fridays, Trump threatens military action, causing oil prices to rise and stock prices to fall due to anticipated difficulties, and on Monday he announces before the stock market opens that he is on the verge of a deal, whereupon oil prices fall and stock prices rise. He’s been playing this game for weeks, reaping billions in profits for the Trump family. These are all instances of insider trading, which are criminal offenses but have gone unpunished.
The irresponsibility of autocrats: How does this egomania, this desire to destroy, fit with your positive view of human nature?
Egomania is the key word! Leading experts in psychiatry and psychology have made clear statements about the narcissism of the two autocrats in Moscow and Washington. The narcissist always needs external validation. Hence, the United States is now co-opting the World Cup, just as Moscow did with the 2014 Sochi Olympics. That is why the stalemate between the warring parties is not enough to prompt negotiations. Only when one or the other loses domestic political support will they proceed. Research indicates that public approval of Putin’s actions has plummeted. The question now is whether these egomaniacs will actually feel the impact of this. There is a major tipping point: Putin dreams of going down in history, like Peter the Great or Catherine the Great, as the great tsar who restores Russia’s global prestige. In other words, he wants to be honored by history. We see something similar with Trump: think of the insulting captions he wrote beneath the portraits of the former presidents. The tide could turn if we can get these autocrats to entertain the idea that future generations might say, “He was crazy! He destroyed us instead of leading us to greatness.” I mentioned this in my book. It’s based on my experiences as a mediator in the Northern Ireland conflict and the Balkan War. If a leader involved in a conflict can accept the concept that he won’t go down in history as a figure of admiration but rather as a destroyer, like Nero in the Roman Empire, then reflection becomes possible, and those driven by their impulses can become mindful of red lines.
Sanctions are supposed to underscore red lines and prompt a change in thinking. What does the research say? Do sanctions work?
I contrast the logic of war with the logic of peace. Using the logic of war, I react impulsively to perceived circumstances; with the logic of peace, the foundation is self-control. Just as one seeks to exert pressure through negative sanctions, one can conversely create a pull through positive sanctions. “Positive sanctions” mean “I promise you something good if you do this or that.” Unfortunately, when it comes to sanctions, autocrats think only of the negative. In my book, I demonstrate that negative sanctions have never led to a change in thinking. A forced change in behavior may succeed in rare cases, but it does not lead to concessions or a change in thinking, and certainly not to sustainable improvements. I elaborated on this in the foreign policy journal Sicherheit und Frieden [Security and peace] when the first sanctions against Russia were adopted in 2014–15. Once sanctions are already in place, then I say, “If you’re willing to do this or that, we’ll lift the sanctions!” That’s exactly how it played out through Turkish mediation in the agreement on the shipment of Ukrainian and Russian grain in the fall of 2022 that allowed Ukraine to export from Odessa and Russia from its Black Sea ports. Unfortunately, it was restricted to a certain time limit, but it serves as an example of a positive sanction. What matters here is not how I can inflict greater harm on the opponent, but rather where there is a benefit for one party that also benefits the other.
Given Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, what could be considered a positive sanction at this point?
The Russian economy has now become a war economy, and it is well known that the sanctions on oil exports are causing Russia enormous financial difficulties. At the same time, the world is thirsting for oil and gas because of the war in Iran. Once the sanctions are lifted in this area, we’ll see if it’s possible to build a certain level of trust. Trust starts with the small things! It’s encouraging that, thanks to Turkish mediation, we’ve managed on several occasions to exchange prisoners. There have also been corridors for humanitarian aid. I describe these as “windows of opportunity.”
The book includes a list of ten such windows, like the Chinese mediation proposal of February 24, 2023.
Yes, there have been opportunities time and again. One must make the effort to identify the overlapping interests. And I want to emphasize this: Once the conflict reaches a certain level of escalation, the parties involved are absolutely incapable of doing this on their own. To think they are able is an illusion, because every word one side says is immediately twisted. The great distorter, Ahriman, is at work! But I ask: Why are the neutral countries staying so quiet? Why don’t Switzerland, Austria, Ireland, Malta, and the Vatican—as neutral states—join forces? Why don’t these countries form an alliance—not a military one, but an alliance for mediation? Surely there must be enough diplomatic creativity! Then we can look for overlapping interests and ask: What do we all want to prevent? What should not be allowed to get any worse? At some point, the soldiers’ mothers in Russia will take to the streets again, just as they did in 1989 over Afghanistan or as Americans did over Vietnam. That made a difference back then!
Your book identifies the “vicious cycle” and the “avalanche of points of contention” as factors driving the escalation of these downward spirals, yes?
These are the circular causal relationships, where we must learn to think in circles, i.e. mutual causality. We have learned this in the field of biology, but not yet when it comes to soul processes. Steiner mentions this new way of thinking in connection with threefolding. In politics, we’re still stuck one-sidedly in linear causality—because it’s so convenient: “You started it, you’re guilty, you’re to blame!” This is an example of linear causality. The fatal flaw in this causality is that it isn’t true.
The highly respected military thinker Carl von Clausewitz once said that planning becomes obsolete on the first day of war because what lies ahead is so unpredictable. Does this also apply to positive sanctions, that their effects are unpredictable?
Yes, the predictability of all social processes is grossly limited. It’s an illusion to think, “I have a strategy, and it will be carried out.” The same goes for positive sanctions. It’s not up to me whether a positive action has also raised consciousness and fostered consideration in my opponent. If we, as citizens, become awake and join forces so that the spark catches on, then something positive is possible; that is what the mobilization of civil society is all about.
In a guest commentary in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung, philosopher Sigbert Gebert writes that violence is attractive because of its simplicity in achieving one’s own will. The most effective means against violence is counter-violence. Invoking the law and international law remain ineffective without sanctions and, ultimately, without counterviolence.7
That’s exactly what the logic of war says! In my book I cite the overthrow of Ferdinand Marcos’s dictatorship in the Philippines as an example. In February 1986, the People Power Revolution, through consistent nonviolent campaigns, brought about the fall of Marcos—something no one had thought possible. There are many examples—for instance, the fact that the Soviet Union was dissolved nonviolently. The GDR [German Democratic Republic (East Germany)] came to an end without violence. It’s just that the campaigns here weren’t as well-organized as those in the Philippines, Madagascar, Argentina, and Colombia. Unfortunately, most people who want to bring about change through nonviolence don’t realize just how effective nonviolence really is. I’d like to quote the verse attributed to Franz Janowitz: “Those in power are not as strong as they seem. Those committed to nonviolence are not as weak as they think.” They are weaker if they approach things the wrong way and confront the police and military first. As I have shown in detail using the example of the Philippines, success was based on an authentic attitude of Christian-based nonviolence. It’s all about attitude and method! I was invited to Vienna by the Austrian peace activist Hildegard Goss-Mayr for her 90th birthday. Together with her husband, Jean Goss, she has practiced, researched, and taught nonviolence her entire life, and they have trained the people in the Philippines. Both emphasize that it’s about an authentic attitude and posture. A mere gesture has no effect. The “how” is decisive. The process of transforming a system determines whether the situation will become peaceful after the end of inhumane rule.
Is that also the explanation for why the efforts toward peace or liberation in Iran ten years ago were unsuccessful? Gestures instead of an attitude and posture?
That’s how I see it. People have to care about the whole! From the outside, some may appear to be doing the same thing, but they don’t have the right attitude. Before flying back to Manila from the U.S., the persecuted Filipino opposition leader Ninoy Aquino said: “If they kill me, a million people will stand at my grave and take up the fight for justice and democracy.” That is exactly what happened—two million people followed the funeral procession after his assassination and the People Power Movement started.
All my work on conflict resolution comes from what I find in Steiner’s Truth-Wrought Words:
Victorious Spirit,
Flame through the powerlessness
of timid souls.
Burn away selfishness,
Ignite compassion,
That selflessness,
Humanity’s stream of life,
May surge as a source
of spiritual rebirth.Sieghafter Geist
Durchflamme die Ohnmacht
Zaghafter Seelen.
Verbrenne die Ichsucht,
Entzünde das Mitleid,
Dass Selbstlosigkeit,
Der Lebensstrom der Menschheit,
Wallt als Quelle
Der geistigen Wiedergeburt.8
That says it all! It addresses people’s sense of powerlessness, their hesitation: “We should, but can we, really?” So flame through the powerlessness of timid souls! The powerful egomaniacs suggest to everyone else that they are powerless. It’s also about overcoming a lack of empathy: “Ignite compassion!” But compassion is more than mere empathy—it is feeling with others. Then: “Burn away selfishness.” We’ve spoken of the egomaniacs. They are everywhere, and a select few hold the levers of political, economic, and military power. Selfishness exists on a small scale, within our souls, as well as on the meso- and macro-social levels. This is the selfishness in the economy as a competitive struggle and, on the macro level, in nationalism, which is indeed spreading again. Selflessness at the supranational level would be necessary. It does cost a lot, but still, if we support the UN specialized agencies, everyone benefits. We save ourselves these absurd costs of armaments. In my book I quote the Swiss peace activist Jean Ziegler, who was the head of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food.
He passed away recently.
Yes. I wanted to meet him years ago when he was invited to Salzburg as a speaker for the opening of the Salzburg Festival. Unfortunately, some people thought he was too revolutionary, so he was uninvited, and our meeting never took place. In 2000, Ziegler had installed a list in the lobby of the UN Security Council as a memorial. At the very top was the amount spent annually on armaments and warfare. Below that were the costs for alternative energy, remediation of environmental damage, desertification, and so on, all the way down to landmine clearance. He arranged this in the shape of a triangle since the amounts for remediation measures on the list became smaller and smaller toward the bottom—a triangle standing on its tip and threatening to tip over. The costs of warfare have continued to rise, and those for remediation measures have now become even higher. According to Jean Ziegler, they stood at $780 billion in 2000 and $2,500 billion in 2024. Remediation measures—including climate protection, denaturation, and social expenditures—would amount to $10,000 billion annually. This makes it all the more urgent to redirect these senseless military expenditures toward global rescue and restoration efforts. Instead, we have the law of the jungle rather than international law, Schadenfreude [malicious glee] rather than compassion. Yes, and all the while, those in political power suggest to us that we are powerless so that people do not take action. And that brings me back to the verse. It’s worth rephrasing it for yourself in a personal way.
You have experienced hundreds of conflicts. You have worked with communities that, after a period of fruitful cooperation, suddenly began to fall apart. Are conflicts dreadful, or is there a capacity for transformation? How melancholic does the abundance of conflicts today make you feel—or how optimistic?
I formulated the answer in the chapter on Northern Ireland in my book. Conflicts, whether small or large, are failed attempts at change. We live in a time when radical changes are needed. Even on a large scale, conflicts are failed attempts at change, often with good intentions, but using the wrong means. Of course, the intention wasn’t always good. I believe that attacking Ukraine or seeking to annex Greenland is, of course, not legitimate. If I say that, nevertheless, conflicts are failed attempts at change, then it’s worth advocating for working together to identify where we have similar—not necessarily identical—but similar or mutually compatible, interests. That is key.
This is in line with the chapter called “It’s Not About Winning a War, but About Winning Peace.”
Yes. This is a matter of mobilizing and engaging not only neutral parties but also what are known as “stakeholders”. In business, we talk about stakeholders. If a factory is located in a city, then the local community is a stakeholder, as are the environment, the labor unions, and interest groups—all of whom have claims and legitimate interests in ensuring that the enterprise does no harm, but instead does something positive. And so all countries are stakeholders; or, to put it dramatically, humanity itself is a stakeholder. What people do to one another in wars affects everyone. It would be a complete illusion to think that wars can be confined to a local area. Not at all!
The same question again: Where does peace work begin within us, within me?
Earlier, I quoted Steiner’s verse “Victorious Spirit.” I meditate on this verse in such a way that I personally address the victorious spirit directly. In doing so, I think of the Archangel Michael:
Victorious Spirit,
Flame through the powerlessness
of timid souls.
Burn away selfishness,
Ignite compassion,
That selflessness,
Humanity’s stream of life,
May surge as a source
of spiritual rebirth.Sieghafter Geist
Durchflamme die Ohnmacht
Zaghafter Seelen.
Verbrenne die Ichsucht,
Entzünde das Mitleid,
Dass Selbstlosigkeit,
Der Lebensstrom der Menschheit,
Wallt als Quelle
Der geistigen Wiedergeburt.
At the same time, I am conscious that the victorious spirit can only work within me and through me if I train myself to do so through practice.
The logic of peace is a way of thinking entirely different from the logic of war. This requires a spiritual rebirth. Just as a transformation in the natural sciences, medicine, economics, and so on requires an inward shift, so too does the field of peace work. If it is about “my” powerlessness, about “my” timidity, and about the presence of the victorious spirit in “my” soul—then we will find peace between us.
Footnotes
- Friedrich Glasl, Die Paradoxie des Wettrüstens: Zum Konfliktmanagement geopolitischer Krisen [The paradox of the arms race: On conflict management in geopolitical crises] (Stuttgart: Verlag Freies Geistesleben, 2026).
- Rudolf Steiner, Human and Cosmic Thought (Forest Row, East Sussex: Rudolf Steiner Press, 2024).
- Friedemann Schulz von Thun, Miteinander reden 3: Das “Innere Team” und situationsgerechte Kommunikation [Talking with each other 3: The “inner team” and situation-appropriate communication] (Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt, 1998).
- Josef Kaltenberger, Dominik Gerber Hostettler, and Friedrich Glasl, “Im Kreise denken müssen,” [We must think in circles], Das Goetheanum, no. 11 (Mar. 16, 2023).
- Luc Ciompi, Affektlogik: Über die Struktur der Psyche und ihre Entwicklung [Affect logic: On the structure of the psyche and its development], 4th thoroughly rev. ed. (Heidelberg: Carl-Auer, 2019); The Psyche and Schizophrenia: The Bond Between Affect and Logic, trans. David L. Schneider (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988), translation of the original 1982 edition.
- Friedrich Glasl, Selbsthilfe in Konflikten: Konzepte – Übungen – Praktische Methoden [Self-help in conflicts: Concepts—Practices—Practical methods], 9th rev. ed. (Stuttgart: Verlag Freies Geistesleben, 2022); Confronting Conflict: A First-Aid Kit for Handling Conflict (Stroud, UK: Hawthorn Press, 1999), translation of the 1997 edition.
- Sigbert Gebert, “Die Attraktivität von Gewalt” [The appeal of violence], Neue Zürcher Zeitung (May 6, 2026): 19.
- Cf. Rudolf Steiner, Mantric Sayings: Meditations 1903–1925, CW 268 (Great Barrington, MA: SteinerBooks, 2015).
