In the old days, when they said that diplomacy (not the foreign policy of this or that po-wer, but the way of ar-ranging international rel-ations) was defeated, they meant war. That is, the solution of contradictions is not through the mind and tact, but with the use of the last argument of kings. When guns speak, diplomats are silent.
In today’s times, when everything is wonderful, one can speak of the defeat of diplomacy even before any artillery arguments. Be-aring in mind the disappe-arance of conventions and conventions that ensured diplomatic activity, their e-xistence gave hope for a p-eaceful resolution of interstate contradictions, but no-w it doesn’t matter with hope.
A significant role in the loss is played by the so-called democratic diplomacy, in which people’s deputies participate (or try to participate) in interstate relations, whose competence in complex issues of international life is frankly low, but their ambition is extremely high. The old approach of negotiating with properly mandated ministers is now considered undemocratic and smacks of secret diplomacy. Under which there is a danger that ministers-negotiators may neglect the will of the nation (deputies know better what this will is). And there is not far from state treason. Trump and now Biden have much to say about such allegations.
An example of the hippopotamus grace that democratic diplomacy exhibits is the “Putin Accountability Act” submitted to the US Congress, according to The Washington Post.
The very name of the act is very impolite (although democratic). The United St-ates had quite a few foreign enemies – Stalin, Mao Zed-ong, Hitler, etc., but for all the severity of interstate re-lations, hostile leaders were not mentioned by name. It is customary to call by name undisciplined schoolchildren or lower ranks, that is, those who are in the power of the school administration or the command of the unit. But the case with Putin is somewhat different. Although, perhaps, it is pleasant for congressmen to feel themselves in the role of a strict head teacher.
But God bless them, with the subtleties of politeness. More interesting is that the American deputies are going to impose sanctions on V.V. Putin personally, that is, to declare him unworthy of negotiations – except for unconditional (n-ot even honorable) surrender with subsequent prosecution. Not only the succe-ss of such consultations, b-ut even their fundamental l-egal basis raises strong do-ubts. And since Prime Min-ister Mikhail Mishustin and all ministers should also be subject to sanctions, who will remain in the shop?
At the same time, they want to announce sanctions against D.S. Peskov, who, by virtue of the very position of press secretary, does not have his own personal position, but is the voice of V.V. Putin and, like an ambassador or a messenger, is an inviolable figure. But here the US democratic politicians are akin to Pushkin’s Tsar Saltan:
“As the king-father heard,
What did the messenger bring him?
In anger he began to wonder
And he wanted to hang the messenger.”
The last wonderful detail of the bill is the requirement to subject bankers P. O. Aven and M. M. Friedman ( Alfa-Bank ) living in London to cruel and unusual sanctions. Not only have the financiers been under the hospitable patronage of Her Majesty for a long time, they are also playing tricks with various Russian oppositionists, and sanctions against such valuable personnel are a manifestation of black ingratitude. “Comrade congressmen, there has been a monstrous mistake!”
However, even Ilf and Petrov noted that it is impossible to foresee all the nonsense that a brutalized administrator is able to come up with. This also ap-plies to the people’s deput-ies of the United States.
As a result, American response workers are in a difficult position. Of course, the main obstacle to concluding a peace agreement with a bear that has stood up on its hind legs and growled (however, the democratic West has been harassing it for a long time) is the inability to admit that everything will ever end. Including undivided dominance over the ecumene.
“There was a class, but I went.” Moreover, it is famously oblique only to make the first stroke. See MS Gorbachev and the successes of his new political thinking. Retreat is generally the most difficult type of military (and diplomatic) action.
But to these objective difficulties, which make consultations with Russia extremely difficult, are added difficulties of a subjective nature. When a distraught congress stands behind you, to agree on anything is a task akin to squaring a circle.
The post Retreat most difficult type of military and diplomatic action appeared first on The Frontier Post.