do you think diplomacy plays from a position of power?

Question

...or is diplomacy only a last resort for those who hold the weaker hand?

put another way: why might someone winning a conflict want to see it put to an end?

Answer 1

Would this be equating diplomacy with compromise? My sense is that they are not quite the same.
Diplomacy from my view, outside of any conflict, is to try and help two sides see things in less black and white and more gray, to be able to soften the edges off issues that are currently razor sharp. And it typically comes from an observer point of view not so much from one of the sides needing diplomatic intervention.

Petitioning for peace should NOT actually come from the weaker side, the "winner" as it were should be gracious enough to allow some negotiations of issues. To let the "loser" regain some of their dignity, to begin to be able to stand again, rising from their knees - instead of being forced to try and crawl up from their bellies.
Once won, there is no need to grind their sense of identity into the ground with the heel of our boot that we used to kick their rear.
If we can be seen as the "winners" it is best to put a diplomatic end to the conflict, and at least create the possibility for a future ally, than to leave SUCH a bad taste in the mouth, that no matter what, they could never willing work with us towards a common goal.

Answer 2

of course the people in power can resolve things their way, they control more people and money and can end anything.