The aim of this essay is to examine which of the two approaches within the field of conflicts that best explains the conflict between Georgia and Russia using negotiations, dialogue and conciliation. According to the first approach negotiations are used to handle a conflict, according to the second approach negotiations are used to solve a problem.  The focus will be on how the two states acted and how the dialogue from the European Union as a conciliator was brought before the war escalated in 2008. The EU is today an important actor within the international politics and has established close relations to the two states. The conflict goes back in history and is still not solved.   In the fields of international studies, there is a realistic view that claims the international politics to be shaped by suspicions between states as main actors. War is never far away, what is claimed to be solved through diplomacy. Within this field there are two approaches that explain conflicts. In order to conduct the survey I have chosen to use the qualitative analytic method and apply it on statements and reports from the three actors. The result is that neither of the both approaches gives a good explanation of the conflict, while they both have gaps and the actors did not always act as they were supposed to.