Even though we know that the negotiations are important at a national level, we rarely find specialists on the issue who know how to deal with a crisis as it occurs.
Yet, especially during the conferences which lead to agreements or contracts, this management should also be strategic.
The reason is quite simple, as time is not linear, and the dynamics are not smooth.
Therefore, there are events which affect the foreseeable future, even though they don’t belong to the recent past.
In other words, a negotiation has not only a tail as a consequence, but a head as well, which may not be necessarily obvious on the main body of the crisis.
In actual fact this means that the subject of a negotiation has a prehistory, which is in itself a history.
In fact this is not a unique case.
Therefore, apart from the Markov’s chain mental scheme, the negotiations should obtain strategic knowledge.
The problem is that the diplomatic body pursues smooth dynamics, which doesn’t allow it to be adjustable at the time of a crisis.
The historical analysis of treaties indicates that, there is rarely a knowledge which is decisive, whereas, when there is, it may radically change the data, even in the case that the negotiation is the initiative of the country which has been defeated in a war or in a battle.
This is resulting from the fact that the negotiation itself is a battle, and its outcome may affect the conclusion that others considered definitive.
Consequently, history has to be coordinated with strategy as well, and not exclusively with diplomacy, because that alone is not capable of negating strong data, whereas strategy can.