The Triple-Tier Victory: Why Modern Wars Are Won Before the First Shot

Contemporary diplomacy is not passive or symbolic. It is competitive and strategic, designed to shift incentives so that continued conflict becomes increasingly costly for all parties involved. Effective diplomacy transforms narratives into frameworks for negotiation and resolution.

By Timothy Enongene, Guest Editor-in-Chief, The Independentist News, On Special Assignment, in Washington, D.C.

In the strategic landscape of the present era, warfare is no longer defined solely by firepower or territorial gains. Victory today is increasingly determined by whether political objectives are achieved through a disciplined sequence of engagement. In an age of volatile geopolitics and instantaneous information, the most effective path to success begins with communication, is shaped through diplomacy, and—only when unavoidable—is enforced by force.

These three elements are not sequential silos or competing options. They form an interdependent system. Communication shapes perception, diplomacy structures outcomes, and force establishes consequences. When any one element is absent or misused, the entire strategy weakens.

The Primary Instrument: Strategic Communication

In the modern era, the battlefield extends well beyond physical terrain into the cognitive and informational space. Strategic communication has become central to contemporary conflict, aligning actions, images, and words to influence beliefs, expectations, and behavior.

History offers a clear precedent. During the Second World War, Allied success was not driven by military operations alone. Information campaigns that bypassed enemy censorship and countered propaganda played a decisive role in weakening morale and sustaining legitimacy. This demonstrated that credibility and narrative coherence could shape outcomes long before decisive battles occurred.

The Ambazonia War of Independence reflects this reality. The struggle for narrative clarity—especially at the international level—has proven as consequential as developments on the ground. Where communication fails to translate local realities into understandable political claims, military advances struggle to convert into diplomatic progress.

This aligns with an enduring strategic insight: the most durable victories are achieved when resistance collapses psychologically before it does militarily. In the modern era, this is accomplished through sustained narrative engagement rather than shock and awe.

The Secondary Mechanism: Strategic Diplomacy

If communication prepares the environment, diplomacy provides the means to address the underlying political conflict without perpetual escalation.

Contemporary diplomacy is not passive or symbolic. It is competitive and strategic, designed to shift incentives so that continued conflict becomes increasingly costly for all parties involved. Effective diplomacy transforms narratives into frameworks for negotiation and resolution.

The Ambazonia conflict illustrates the limits of communication when it lacks diplomatic pathways. Without sustained diplomatic engagement, even the most compelling narratives risk stagnation, contributing to prolonged conflict rather than resolution. Diplomacy gives political expression to communication and channels it toward concrete outcomes.

Importantly, diplomatic engagement also reinforces legitimacy. In the present international environment, conflicts conducted without visible diplomatic effort are often viewed with skepticism by the global community. Negotiation—even when inconclusive—signals political responsibility and preserves external support.

The Final Measure: Kinetic Force

Military action remains a reality of modern conflict, but it is increasingly understood as the most costly and least flexible tool. In today’s strategic environment, force is often employed to support political and informational objectives rather than replace them.

Armed action is most effective when it reinforces outcomes already shaped by communication and diplomacy. Military success without narrative coherence or diplomatic intent frequently produces unstable or ungovernable post-conflict conditions.

Strategic assessments consistently show that prolonged warfare erodes not only the defeated party but also the victor. Economic pressure, legal action, and cyber operations increasingly achieve long-term objectives more effectively than sustained conventional fighting.

The Ambazonia experience underscores this dynamic. Where force lacks a clear diplomatic horizon, humanitarian consequences multiply while political resolution recedes. Force succeeds only when it is carefully calibrated to compel renewed political engagement.

Conclusion

The strategic hierarchy of the modern era is increasingly evident. Communicate to shape understanding. Negotiate to secure legitimacy and peace. Fight only to reinforce outcomes already defined by the first two.

These are not competing strategies but complementary pillars of a single, coherent approach to contemporary conflict. Wars today are rarely won by force alone—and are often lost when force is applied without clarity of purpose, legitimacy of process, or credibility of narrative.

Timothy Enongene, Guest Editor-in-Chief