The article doesn't even attempt to show a causal connection; it just assumes that because a treaty was signed, and then things changed, the treaty must have ca

The article doesn't even attempt to show a causal connection; it just assumes that because a treaty was signed, and then things changed, the treaty must have caused it. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. I'd rather point to the massive geopolitical differences that occurred during that time period. The Cold War, decolonization (mostly due to the world wars), the growth of the EU and of the USSR (both of which had no internal wars) all greatly reduced conquests.