Could people with such knowledge also be people in the middle/organge circle on the layers of persuasion? I mean, people at an organization who don't have the decision power but who you could persuade as a first step to help you persuade the actual decision makers? I guess it could be useful to get such support from someone on the "inside" who know the system, and for instance specifics like "time constraints" which is mentioned below.

I assume this is why Macron said it was important "not to humiliate Russia". It was quite a controversial statement, but in line with this thought to allow Russia to change their position and find a peaceful solution.

Following our latest election for the parliament in Sweden, we now have a Government who wants to reduce our foreign aid. The argument from their side is often very unspecific and not at all based on facts, on the contrary, it seems to be more focused on the emotional persuasion (arguments like us vs. them, and aid is not working anyways). Most who argue agianst this do it using factual evidence. But it seems very hard to counter emotions with facts? How do we handle that in a humanitarian diplomacy situation, let's say a negotiation?