Keywords
international negotiations
political conflicts
diplomatic influence
diplomatic network
digital communications
How to Cite
Abstract
The Relevance of the Study is driven by the growing role of digital technologies in international relations and the transformation of traditional diplomatic mechanisms toward digitalization. The purpose of the study is to assess the role of digital diplomacy in the resolution of political conflicts based on a systemic analysis of key indicators of states’ diplomatic activity. In the course of the research, comparative analysis, index method, cluster approach, and generalization method were applied, which made it possible to systematize data and identify patterns in the development of digital diplomacy. The information base of the study consists of data from international analytical centers, including the Lowy Institute, Global Diplomacy Index, Digital Diplomacy Index, Global Soft Power Index, and Freedom House. For a comprehensive assessment, a system of indicators was developed, including diplomatic influence, diplomatic network, digital activity, level of soft power, and information freedom. The results of the study show that the diplomatic influence of leading countries remains the basis of their negotiation power, with China demonstrating growth of the indicator to 97.7, while the United States shows certain volatility (82.7 in 2025). A developed diplomatic network ensures the institutional presence of states in the global environment, with China and the United States having the largest number of diplomatic missions (274 and 271, respectively). At the same time, digital diplomacy acts as a key instrument of informational influence, which is confirmed by high indicators of the United States (8.61) and India (10.00 in terms of digital outreach). It is proven that the level of soft power is a determining factor of trust, with the United States (79.5) and China (+1.6) demonstrating a strengthening of reputational influence. It is determined that the effectiveness of diplomacy depends on the integrated interaction of institutional, network, digital, and image components. The practical significance of the obtained results lies in the possibility of using the proposed model for developing digital diplomacy strategies, enhancing the effectiveness of international negotiations, and forming a positive image of the state in the global information environment.
References
1. Abrantes, M., Lacerda, L., & Mauduit, J.-C. (2025). The science diplomacy digital index: New ways of measuring science diplomacy – The Lisbon study case in the year of 2021. Frontiers in Political Science, (7), 1597142. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2025.1597142
2. Ahmad, M., Ashirova, A., & Eshchanov, T. (2026). The techno-geopolitical turn: AI, big data and the new diplomacy. In Diplomacy in the Age of Artificial Intelligence (pp. 235–260). IGI Global Scientific Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3373-4937-4.ch010
3. Banchuk-Petrosova, O., & Sulym, B. (2026). Tsyfrova dyplomatiia: vplyv shtuchnoho intelektu ta velykykh danykh na transformatsiiu dyplomatychnoi praktyky [Digital diplomacy: The impact of artificial intelligence and big data on the transformation of diplomatic practice]. Empirio, 3(1), 49–58. https://doi.org/10.18523/3041-1718.2026.3.1.49-58 (in Ukrainian)
4. Burenkov, V. (2025). Tsyfrova dyplomatiia ukrainskoi diaspory v umovakh povnomasshtabnoho vtorhnennia RF v Ukrainu 2022–2025 [Digital diplomacy of the Ukrainian diaspora in the conditions of the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine 2022–2025]. Aktualni pytannia humanitarnykh nauk – Current issues of the humanities, 91(1), 12–22. https://doi.org/10.24919/2308-4863/91-1-2 (in Ukrainian)
5. Digital Diplomacy Index. (n.d.). Digital diplomacy index. https://digital-diplomacy-index.com/index/
6. Digital Diplomacy Index. (n.d.). Digital diplomacy index. https://digital-diplomacy-index.com/index/
7. Heldt, E. C., Mello, P. A., Novoselova, A., & Oswald, O. R. S. (2022). Persistence against the odds: How entrepreneurial agents helped the UN Joint Inspection Unit to prevail. Global Policy, 13(2), 235–246. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.13048
8. Kantsedal, N., Chernenko, K., Dugar, T., Leha, O., Yaloveha, L., & Priydak, T. (2023). Impacto de la invasión rusa a Ucrania en las finanzas mundiales. Cuestiones Políticas, 41(78), 662–677. https://doi.org/10.46398/cuestpol.4178.45
9. Kononenko, V., & Komarova, T. (2024). Tsyfrova dyplomatiia yak zasib stratehichnoi komunikatsii derzhavy [Digital diplomacy as a means of state strategic communication]. Visnyk Kharkivskoho natsionalnoho universytetu imeni V. N. Karazina. Seriia “Pytannia politolohii” – The Journal of V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University. Series “Political science issues”, (45), 15–20. https://doi.org/10.26565/2220-8089-2024-45-02 (in Ukrainian)
10. Lowy Institute. (n.d.). Asia power index: Diplomatic influence data. https://power.lowyinstitute.org/data/diplomatic-influence/
11. Lowy Institute. (n.d.). Global diplomacy index: Country comparison. https://globaldiplomacyindex.lowyinstitute.org/country_comparison
12. Mekhovych, S. A., & Laushkin, A. M. (2025). Tsyfrovi platformy – novyi instrument ekonomichnoi dyplomatii u mizhnarodnykh ekonomichnykh vidnosynakh [Digital platforms as a new instrument of economic diplomacy in international economic relations]. Enerhozberezhennia. Enerhetyka. Enerhoaudyt – Energy saving. Power engineering. Energy audit, 3(206), 109–126. https://doi.org/10.20998/2313-8890.2025.03.08 (in Ukrainian)
13. Mkhuriro, O. T., & Vorobiov, S. V. (2025). Kontseptualni zasady modernizatsii publichnoi dyplomatii v umovakh tsyfrovoi transformatsii mizhnarodnykh vidnosyn [Conceptual foundations of modernization of public diplomacy in the conditions of digital transformation of international relations]. Visnyk pisliadyplomnoi osvity – Postgraduate education bulletin, 33(62), 308–325. https://doi.org/10.58442/3041-1858-2025-33(62)-308-325 (in Ukrainian)
14. Mkhuriro, O. T., & Vorobiov, S. V. (2025). Kontseptualni zasady modernizatsii publichnoi dyplomatii v umovakh tsyfrovoi transformatsii mizhnarodnykh vidnosyn [Conceptual foundations of modernization of public diplomacy in the conditions of digital transformation of international relations]. Visnyk pisliadyplomnoi osvity – Postgraduate education bulletin, 33(62), 308–325. https://doi.org/10.58442/3041-1858-2025-33(62)-308-325 (in Ukrainian)
15. Öztay, O. H., & Yurdakul, H. (2026). AI in digital communication practices: The reconstruction of symbolic capital within digital diplomacy. In Diplomacy in the Age of Artificial Intelligence (pp. 155–184). IGI Global Scientific Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3373-4937-4.ch007
16. Petrov, P., & Hrushka, V. (2025). Heohrafiia tsyfrovoho vplyvu: tekhnolohichna transformatsiia demokratii i zovnishnoi polityky [Geography of digital influence: Technological transformation of democracy and foreign policy]. Publichne upravlinnia i polityka – Public administration and policy, 4(8). https://doi.org/10.70651/3041-2498/2025.4.13 (in Ukrainian)
17. Poliakova, Y. V., & Shaida, O. Ye. (2025). Publichna dyplomatiia yak suchasnyi instrument stratehichnoi komunikatsii mizh derzhavamy [Public diplomacy as a modern instrument of strategic communication between states]. Pratsi Naukovoho tovarystva im. Shevchenka. Ekonomichnyi zbirnyk – Proceedings of the Shevchenko Scientific Society. Economic collection, 5, 121–131. https://doi.org/10.32782/1563-3950-2025-5-7 (in Ukrainian)
18. Rifki, L. M. (2025). Digital diplomacy: What role in resolving international conflicts. Revue Internationale du Chercheur, 6(1). https://www.revuechercheur.com/index.php/home/article/view/1255
19. Singh, H. (2026). Digital inclusion and AI diplomacy: Addressing inequality through multilateral forums. In Diplomacy in the Age of Artificial Intelligence (pp. 185–210). IGI Global Scientific Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3373-4937-4.ch008
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2026 Liudmyla Novoskoltseva, Olena Mezhenska, Denys Demidov