The Dance of Diplomacy: Same Old Steps, Different War
When the US suddenly decides to pick up the phone after nearly five years of 'no comment,' one might wonder why the sudden shift. It’s almost as if maintaining a frosty silence only works for so long before practicalities — or perhaps, alternative agendas — assert themselves. This isn't groundbreaking diplomacy; it's a predictable pivot. FIRST INSTANCE: The 'Red Line' Charade (2013-2015) After the
alleged chemical attacks in Syria in August 2013, the US government threatened military intervention, drawing a 'red line.' High-level diplomatic lines with Russia, particularly regarding Syria, became decidedly tense. However, in September 2013, Secretary of State John Kerry quickly found himself negotiating with Russia's Sergei Lavrov on the removal of chemical weapons, proving that even the
most dramatic pronouncements often lead back to the conference table (Associated Press, 2013). The 'suspension' of deeper dialogue was performative, lasting only as long as it took to establish a new talking point. REPETITIONS: The 'Rogue State' Recalibration (2014 & 2017) Following the 2014 annexation of Crimea, many bilateral military engagements between the US and Russia were 'suspended' or
downgraded. Yet, intelligence channels, particularly those related to anti-terrorism and air safety over Syria, never truly ceased (RAND Corporation, 2017). Curiously, despite vocal condemnations, the US continued to engage Russia on specific tactical issues, demonstrating a clear double standard: public outrage for the masses, quiet pragmatism for the elites. This pattern repeated in 2017 when