Breaking the Ice in Alaska: Why Diplomacy Still Matters
All of my op-eds are freely available, thanks to the generous support of readers like you. Nonetheless, independent journalism takes time, research, and resources. If you find value in this piece or others I’ve published, please consider sharing it or becoming a paid subscriber. Your support, whether big or small, truly matters and helps keep this work going.
The Alaska summit between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin was never going to please the usual suspects. The war hawks in Washington, London, and their loyal stenographers in the mainstream press had sharpened their knives long before the meeting even began. For them, diplomacy is weakness, dialogue is treason, and peace is always suspicious. Yet for all their noise, the very fact that the U.S. and Russia sat down to talk is of historic importance—and a step that no amount of scaremongering can erase.
From the beginning, the Atlantic establishment mocked the very idea of dialogue with Moscow. They repeated their tired mantra: Russia is “isolated,” Russia must be “contained,” Russia should be “punished.” But as
rightly pointed out during our Cold 2.0 conversation, Russia has never been isolated—except in the fever dreams of Western editorial boards. It is integrated into the world, it has options, and it has a professional diplomatic corps that runs circles around its Western counterparts.The real absurdity is that some critics, even among multipolarists, argued that Russia should have boycotted the summit—that engaging with Washington is a trap, that agreements will only be broken, that the American “blob” never changes course. Of course, the caution is justified: America is unreliable, aggressive, and deeply arrogant. But the conclusion is wrong. Diplomacy is not about naivety. It is about leveraging one’s strength. And Russia today, unlike in the 1990s, is not a supplicant. It can negotiate from a position of power.
This is what the hawks cannot stand: that Russia walked into the room with Trump as an equal, and walked out with its position strengthened. That reality alone triggered the predictable chorus of whining from the likes of John Bolton—who begrudgingly admitted that “Putin clearly won.” Well, if even the mustached high priest of regime change says it, perhaps we should take note.
Meanwhile, Britain’s Telegraph solemnly declared that Ukraine has lost the war but that Britain must “prepare for Russia’s next onslaught.” These are the same people whose government cannot even keep its nuclear submarines from rusting in Scottish ports. Perhaps Whitehall should focus less on imaginary Russian invasions and more on fixing the crumbling infrastructure at home. But then again, blaming Russia is so much easier than admitting neoliberal Britain has sabotaged daily life all by itself.
The mainstream press, too, embarrassed itself. Journalists shouted at Putin about “killing civilians”—but I have yet to see the same bravery directed at Benjamin Netanyahu as he presides over the ruins of Gaza. The double standards are glaring, the hypocrisy suffocating. As I said during the show, neoliberal rot has sabotaged daily life in Britain and America far more effectively than any Russian plot ever could. But instead of confronting their own failures, the West’s talking heads project blame outward and cling to the fantasy of a “rules-based international order” that exists only on paper.
Let us be clear: breaking the ice between Washington and Moscow is not a concession to empire. It is a recognition that wars end not with hashtags or think tank white papers, but at the negotiating table. Trump’s shift toward demanding a peace deal—not just a ceasefire—mirrors Russia’s own position and marks a fundamental break from the stale Western script. If he sticks to it, this could be a turning point.
Of course, the hawks will howl. They always do. But history will not remember their op-eds. It will remember whether statesmen had the courage to talk instead of continuing to fight, to compromise instead of escalating, to think beyond the next election cycle or arms shipment.
The Alaska summit was not about personal chemistry between leaders. It was about something much bigger: the possibility of reversing a dangerous spiral. The war hawks may laugh, but in a world teetering on the edge, diplomacy is no joke.
—Kevork Almassian is a Syrian geopolitical analyst and the founder of Syriana Analysis.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten