Personally I'd think that in more modern times, as close as we've been to wars (e.g cold war times, which I'll admit predates me), there are probably countless times where frantic phone calls and backroom diplomacy (importantly, that you do not see) have saved everybody's skin from war (or nuclear war).
I'll admit, this is speculation, but I'd be seriously blown away if not true.
But yes, sometimes nations just have to battle it out. I'm just not one of those people.
Both of the instances you mention would almost certainly rely or result on, and from, what intelligence might be shared or derived from having that frantic phone call or backroom diplomacy.
It's not just who you know, but what intel you can share to strengthen an alliance that matters the most.
What troubles me about this article is the after effect on those who might be employed by nation states who seek to better understand our intelligence mechanism, and while I realize that every actor in the schema is a cog in a very complex machine, it stands to reason that if tons of people are leaving public service for the private sector, there is a vast amount of leaky intel out there for the having.
I don't think there is anything wrong with consolidation, necessarily, but we need to have stopgaps in place to quell the unwanted outflow of personnel from what is essentially a defense-centered brain trust because of how much we as a public have invested in their training and relied on them to help us stay out of harm's way. I'm especially worried about the younger set (not to foment discrimination, per se, but maturity does shape one's thinking) who may more easily be duped by some seemingly friendly industry that is a shell company for nefarious activity.
I'll admit, this is speculation, but I'd be seriously blown away if not true.
But yes, sometimes nations just have to battle it out. I'm just not one of those people.