Written by Rashane Jude Pintoe (Student of MSc Peace-building, Security and Diplomacy)

At a time when international politics is increasingly framed through rivalry, distrust, and transactional alliances, the idea of friendship between states can sound naïve or even misplaced. However, it was precisely this assumption that Dr. Felix Berenskötter set out to challenge in his recent lecture at Loughborough University. Titled ‘Theorising the Formation and Dissolution of International Friendship’, the lecture was a compelling argument for taking international friendship seriously – not as rhetoric or sentiment, but as a meaningful political relationship with real consequences. A political scientist, Dr. Berenskötter is a Reader in International Relations at the Department of War Studies, King’s College London. 

Dr. Berenskötter’s research sits at the intersection of International Relations theory, political language, and identity, with a long-standing focus on concepts such as power, security, anxiety, and trust. He has worked on it since his doctoral thesis and will be published a forthcoming book on how international friendships emerge, endure, and unravel. From the outset, it was clear that this was not an attempt to offer a neat or closed ‘theory of friendship’, but rather to open a conceptual space that existing theories struggle to capture. 

One of the most striking arguments of the lecture was that dominant IR theories leave important aspects of political relationships unexplained. Concepts such as solidarity, favouritism, backstage access, and the willingness to openly criticise another state are difficult to account for within realist or liberal frameworks. He also shed light on the fact that usually, states refrain from calling out other states unless something they deeply share is threatened. This sort of critique is something people usually associate with friendship – which he placed as an element in his theory. For students of diplomacy, this reframing was particularly thought-provoking as it makes us reconsider behaviours that we often take for granted as purely strategic. 

A key distinction running through the lecture was between alliances and friendship. Alliances, Dr. Berenskötter argued, usually emerge in response to a shared threat and tend to dissolve once that threat disappears. Friendship, by contrast, does not originate from a security problem. This distinction felt especially relevant in a contemporary context where shifting alliances are often mistaken for deeper political bonds. Friendship, in this sense, becomes most visible when the stakes are high – during wars, moments of disappointment, or experiences of perceived betrayal – when expectations rooted in trust are either upheld or shattered. 

Central to Dr. Berenskötter’s argument is the idea that friendship places trust at the centre of political analysis. Whereas realism assumes distrust and liberalism explains limited trust through institutions, friendship begins from the expectation of trust and mutual commitment. This focus on trust led to a deeper discussion of ontological security – the security of a political community’s sense of self and identity. Friendship, he suggested, can be one of the most important relationships through which political communities secure a stable sense of who they are. 

Dr. Berenskötter conceptualised friendship not as a role that states perform, nor merely as language, but as a relationship defined by intertwinedness and a shared being in time. Drawing on biographical narratives, he then argued that friendships – both interpersonal and political – are shaped not only by a shared past, but by commitment to a shared future. He made a particularly vivid illustration whereby he likened friendship to standing in the rain, trusting that the bus will arrive in ten minutes rather than the next day. That simple illustration captured the element and degree of trust required to invest in this shared future even amid uncertainty. 

The formation and breakdown of this friendship was also explored. Dr. Berenskötter delved into how interaction, positive or negative shared experiences, attraction to a shared future, and ultimately political choice and commitment are required for the formation of the relationship. Drawing on Aristotle’s distinction between friendships of utility, pleasure, and virtue, he further suggested that many political relationships remain stuck at the level of usefulness, never developing into something deeper. On the other hand, he theorised that breakdown of the friendship occurs through processes of estrangement, including changing perception of the counterparty, shifting material circumstances, leadership change, or the inability to recalibrate expectations after conflict. He argued that what matters most is not that friends fight, but how, or whether, they manage to move forward afterwards. 

The discussion that followed extended these ideas into contemporary cases. The audience had questions about changes in leadership, differences in power, and the kind of government in place, prompting particularly engaging responses. Dr. Berenskötter further noted that friendship is one of the few relationships capable of bridging significant power differences, which is precisely why it has been viewed as politically dangerous by some philosophers. In the Q&A session, he spoke on German–Israeli relations – arguing that a shared past without meaningful investment in a shared future does not constitute friendship under this theory. Likewise, he suggested that Russia’s response to Ukraine can be partly understood through a ‘friendship lens’ by the former forcing the latter to remain in the friendship. This demonstrated the analytical reach of the framework. 

For those in attendance, the lecture offered more than a new concept – it provided a different way of seeing international politics. By taking friendship seriously, Dr. Berenskötter challenged us to rethink how political communities relate to one another, how trust is built or broken, and why the language of friendship continues to matter in moments of crisis. For students and scholars at Loughborough, it was a timely reminder that some of the most powerful forces in world politics are not always the most obvious ones. 

The Institute for Diplomacy and International Affairs (IDIA) offers master’s and doctoral programmes designed to meet the evolving demands of today’s world. At IDIA, we work alongside our students to provide them with the essential tools to comprehend these global realities, preparing them for diverse careers in both public and private sectors across the globe. Check out our programmes and apply to study with us here.