The conclusion of the article is flawed.

The article could have been a nice recollection of a battle with a wonderful, long-lasting effect, yet unknown to most people - generally speaking, I mean... you'll surely have studied it if you grow up in the countries around the Alps.

But the conclusion is useless and wrong:

> the international order that diplomats have painstakingly built

Diplomats did not build anything, apart for those cases where the peoples had already decided they didn't want to go to war with one another.

In every other situation, it was the military R&D that shaped the current world order. Putin, Jong-un, and Khamenei still ruling their countries, while Gaddafi and Saddam are no more, does not let any chance of being misinterpreted: is you have nuclear weapons, you can be an a**; if you don't have them, you can only choose between complying with civil manners or being obliterated.

Khamenei doesn't have nukes as far as we know, although they've tried a bit.

And I don't think the relative peace in Europe since WW2 has been down to military R&D. (I'm excluding Russia attacking Ukraine from that.)