Rumblings of imminent war in Europe grow louder every day. The United States has warned that Russia may invade Ukraine any time. The signs are bad. Russia has been amassing troops around Ukraine.

The Americans and their European allies have been pouring weapons into Ukraine.

The Europeans are worried. It seems Europe is sliding back to a time when every dispute was resolved by war or the threat of it. And so their leaders have been scrambling to try to prevent war on their continent. Diplomacy, they hope, can help avert it.

It always happens this way. Signs that war may break out soon lead to urgent diplomatic activity to prevent it. Or where diplomacy fails, the result may be war. There is thus a very interesting relationship between war and diplomacy. They exist side by side and often feed off or into each other.

The threat of war usually aims to achieve certain objectives: concessions, compromise or some other form of settlement, or outright capitulation.

When none of that is achieved, then war actually breaks out and what could have been gained through dialogue is forcibly grabbed.

Europeans are no strangers to war. They have fought many among themselves and even contrived to involve the rest of the world in two of them.  They probably even invented it, at least in its modern and most vicious form. But the likelihood of its breaking out there had increasingly become remote.

And so the ongoing threat of a Russian invasion of Ukraine goes against the general thinking of the last several decades. Experts in European strategic and security relations have been making the argument that there would never be another war between European nations; that that phase had been passed.

This thinking is based on extensive globalisation and inextricably intertwined interests. It is also informed by evidence from recent wars elsewhere, which are never really won and only increase instability and insecurity.

The experts may yet be proved right. European countries have so far shown little inclination for active involvement in war in Ukraine.  Which means Russia may get what it wants either way – through war or concessions.

But all that is happening in distant Europe, in a country few of us know or care about, and of little interest to us. What does it have to do with us? Well, a lot actually. We have learnt that Europe is not that far away and wars there affect the rest of the world.

Besides that, in our region, too, war drums have been sounding for a long time, sometimes with a sustained loud and menacing roll, other times with a subdued beat, but never at any time silent.

We hear bellicose statements of instigation to violence a lot and see provocative, aggressive actions nearly all the time. The word itself is mentioned many times. So far, it has remained at this level; outright war has not broken out, not yet.

Why would countries in our region go to war when they have much in common and stand to lose a lot together? The usual answer is that it is for the same reason they do so elsewhere – the national interest.  That may be so in some cases.

Less mentioned, but equally valid is the behaviour of some of the leaders. Some do not even pretend they are defending the national interest. They behave simply like common bullies imposing their will on others.

And so in trying to understand why some of them like to foment trouble and fuel conflict in other countries, and even want war, one cannot help comparing them to village or schoolyard bullies.

Many of you have some experience of bullies – in the village or housing estate, school or playground, factory floor or other work place. They behave in predictable ways and may be classified in several types.

There are those who crave power. They think they are superior and stronger and want to show how powerful they are and demand that everyone recognises that claim.

Another kind stake out territory and want to control everyone in it, or force others into it for the same reason.

Some are egged on by those who hang around them and gain from the bullying especially if they fear they may lose those benefits. Or they are goaded into increased bullying by perceived rivals to their authority and influence and so act to pre-empt any such challenge.

Others think they are strong but feel they are ignored. They want to prove they are still powerful and relevant and so want to assert their power.

Common to all these types is the desire to control and dominate, usually by force, seeing things only from their perspective, and refusal to accept responsibility for their actions. But also beneath all that show of strength, there is a feeling of inadequacy and insecurity.

I am sure you have met one or several of these types of bullies and can recognise some in their midst even today. They may rule the neighbourhood for a while, but eventually a plucky fellow comes along and challenges them and then you find they are not all that powerful.

Literature from around the world, including sacred literature, is full of such stories, of little guys who face stronger bullies and fell them. Our own folklore has delightful stories of the eternal conflict between brain and brawn, with the former always winning. And so it will continue.

And so it seems to me that the real world of politics and power, even in this region, is not very different from boys’ playground bullying. Some of the actors have not outgrown this stage.