Problems With Western Diplomacy

Of course, the major problem with the diplomacy of the collective West is that virtually all those countries—there are a few exceptions, like Hungary, and even Poland in certain respects—walk in lockstep with US diktats on policy. In no aspect of foreign policy is this more apparent than with regard to Russia. Alex Mercouris has spoken repeatedly of the atmosphere at the February 2022 Munich Security Conference—just before Russia finally responded to Western aggression. The atmosphere, he has said, was almost “euphoric”. The Europeans were elated at the prospect of the US subjugating Russia and sharing with them the Russian resource treasure house. That was then, but count on this: the Russians haven’t forgotten any of that.

Recent events have simply highlighted the problem with Western diplomacy, as well as the fact that the US really doesn’t do diplomacy at all. Instead, US “diplomats” largely stage publicity events with a view to molding public opinion at home, which can then be used to leverage pressure on foreign governments. A good example was discussed briefly this morning by Andrei Martyanov. What he’s talking about here is the meeting of CIA Director William Burns with his Russian counterpart Sergei Naryshkin “three months ago.” This was a typically staged event, in which Burns delivered a stern “warning”, a lecture or dressing down, to Naryshkin that Russia had better behave. Burns then went public with an ad hominem style criticism of the Russian “attitude”. I submit that the purpose of going public in that way had to do with flagging public support in America for our war on Russia. The intent was to gin up increased support against Russia—a nation of bad guys who have the nerve to talk back to us:

But by far more important news is this bit of CIA Director Burns complaining that:

Burns said on CBS that the meeting with Naryshkin was “pretty dispiriting,” describing the Russian as “defiant” and displaying “cockiness.” “There was a very defiant attitude on the part of Mr. Naryshkin,” Burns said. “A sense of cockiness and hubris, in sense reflecting Putin’s own view … that he can make time work for him, that he believes he can grind down Ukrainians, that he can wear down our European allies, that political fatigue will eventually set in.”

Somebody has to explain to Burns that he should be grateful that Naryshkin agreed to meet him at all, especially on the BS occasion of the US "warning" Russia against the use of... nuclear weapons. Naryshkin's attitude is indicative not just of Putin but of the fact that Russian military-political elite views, absolutely correctly, present US Administration as a collection of amateurs, ideologues and fanatics.

Guess what? I think Putin has good reason to believe that time is on his side. But left unsaid in this is the fact that Russia’s nuclear doctrine is well known and, in fact, more restrained than the new US doctrine. The US regime’s narrative that “dictator” Putin may go nuclear at the drop of a hat is false and insulting—it’s not serious diplomacy, it’s simply manipulation of public opinion.

Here’s Putin explaining the suspension of START (not “exit from”) by Russia. Note that his wording is quite logical—while geared toward the Russian public—and devoid of personal insults, no “talking down” in a demeaning way. In other words, his response is diplomatic. One can imagine that Western diplomats could engage in an exchange of views with this man:

Richard @ricwe123

Vladimir Putin explaining Russia's exiting START. US/NATO is acting as an enemy and indirectly involved in a war against Russia. "Why on earth we would let them crawl around our nuclear sites?"

Putin’s reference to the Western desire to cause suffering to the Russian people is, of course, a reference to the “shock and awe” sanctions war, the repeatedly expressed desire to “humiliate” Russia, to bring it to its knees, to reduce the ruble to “rubble”. What a contrast in the language used! It all points to the lack of desire on the part of America to engage in any meaningful dialogue with Russia—in fact, a desire to prevent such dialogue, which might open a door for US vassal states to break lockstep with our foreign policy against Russia.

And so we see this at the recent OSCE PC meeting in Vienna—Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, Permanent Council. Rather than even listening to what the Russian representatives had to say, the representatives of the collective West rudely got up and walked out. Who thought that the purpose of such organizations was to encourage an exchange of views on security matters? Instead, it appears that the purpose is to impose one set of views—the views of the US rules based order. Because who thinks that the European reps would have walked out like that, unless told to do so:

Richard @ricwe123

Western diplomats playing "tough" on Russia. Walking away the moment the Russian delegation expresses their view on the conflict. It is becoming increasingly clear that the West is not willing to any begin for a peaceful solution to the war. Morons! 🥴🥴 (OSCE PC meeting)

Next I’ll embed a really good hour long interview of a Canadian journalist, Trish Wood, with Doug Macgregor. This isn’t at all the typical Macgregor interview, in which he talks about the current military situation in Ukraine, which he repeats to multiple audiences (not a criticism—there’s a need to get that word out). Instead, Wood and Macgregor cover a wide range of cultural, political, military, and—yes—diplomatic topics. Rather than attempt to summarize the entire interview—it’s the kind of thing you have to sit back and listen to patiently, and it’s a true discussion rather than just a collection of monologues—I’ll just list a few examples of what I regarded as highlights.

Macgregor laments the lack of any US allies who are willing any longer to push back against the US steamroller. He cites examples from the past when certain allies refused to walk in lockstep and warned the US against certain actions. In fairness, of course, sometimes those allies were also wrong. But the point that we’re not getting needed feedback and sometimes needed pushback speaks volumes about our lack of diplomacy. Diplomacy should be about give and take—not just giving orders.

He also points out that a recent poll on the top ten issues for Americans resulted in … No mention of Ukraine. It didn’t make the top ten issues for American voters. And yet it’s a really big deal. Macgregor goes on a bit of a rant at that point about the fecklessness of our “elected representatives” and the reality of the “Uniparty” (he uses that term).

While criticizing Trump’s disastrous personnel decisions, Macgregor does also give Trump credit for courage and principle in standing up against the war party that surrounded him. He cites, in that regard, Trump’s refusal to go along with the war party’s planned retaliation against Iran for the Global Hawk shootdown. (The primary reps of that part, at that time, were Pompeo, Haspel, Bolton, and Pence.) Significantly, Macgregor also strongly suggests that this was a setup for war all along—a deliberate move to incite a war, which Trump sniffed out at the last minute.

For her part, Wood cites Hillary as the single person most responsible for the debacle of US diplomacy and foreign policy.

She also says that she interview Trudeau’s brother, who says Trudeau really gets off on rubbing elbows with international bigwigs and “really digs the motorcades.”

And there’s lots more, delving into politics and cultural issues as well as military matters.

Finally, I’ll link to a Youtube interview that I’m only part way through. It features Scott Ritter speaking with a Polish interviewer (as you can tell from the heavy penultimate accent: A-me-RY-ka, rather than A-ME-ri-ca, for example), Towarzysz Michał—Comrade Michael, a Communist of some sort.

An interview with Scott Ritter about Poland's involvement in the war in Ukraine

Warning. Ritter speaks in distinctly undiplomatic language, and yet he is making points about the way America operates. The first question from Towarzysz Michał is: When will America betray Ukraine? Ritter’s response is, They already have! And then he launches into a 6 minute rant on the subject.

Ritter is absolutely correct about that. He doesn’t put it in these terms, but I will. Ukraine had the opportunity to work out a peace with Russia as late as April, 2022. They were on the verge of a deal—they’d gone into the seventh draft of what could be the final document—when the US ordered Ukraine to withdraw from the talks and go to war for good. The first time I heard that the US was telling Zelensky, Hey, we can’t keep supporting you indefinitely, you need to get some victories by summer, I knew the betrayal was a done deal. As Macgregor and Ritter agree, it’s basically all over but for the crying. And that will be done by Ukrainians.

Ritter then goes on to assure the Polish listeners that Poland, too, will be betrayed by America, and riducules the idea that Poland means anything to America. It’s tough talk. Apparently a recent poll in Poland showed that 60% of Poles do not want war with Russia. On the one hand you have to wonder about the other 40%, but it does seem to leave room for a change.