For centuries, diplomacy has been the cornerstone of civilization's survival. It's a sophisticated dance between nations to prevent conflicts and secure peace, both an art and a science. Yet, in a time of global tensions and the looming specter of nuclear annihilation, the United States finds itself neglecting one of its most important tools: dialogue with Russia.
What's the historical significance of diplomacy, ambassadors, and embassies? And what does it matter if Tucker Carlson has to fly to Moscow himself (again!) to keep the peace? This time, he spoke to Sergei Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister and a titan of diplomacy. The interview will air on X tomorrow night.
Then, we'll delve into why the State Department's current approach risks catastrophe in an era when miscommunication or no communication at all could spell global annihilation.
The practice of diplomacy dates back thousands of years. Ancient civilizations, from Mesopotamia and Egypt to China and India, engaged in early forms of diplomacy, exchanging envoys to negotiate peace, trade agreements, and alliances.
The Amarna letters, a treasure trove of diplomatic correspondence between Egyptian pharaohs and neighboring rulers from the 14th century B.C., are some of the earliest records of formalized statecraft.
Diplomacy as we know it began to take shape during the Renaissance. Italian city-states like Venice and Florence established permanent embassies manned by resident ambassadors to foster relations with neighbors and rivals. By the 17th century, the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) had codified many principles of modern diplomacy, including sovereignty.
The 20th century saw the birth of multilateral diplomacy, with the United Nations and other forums serving as international platforms for dialogue. Complaints could be lodged, and nations could negotiate agreements without going to war. The Cold War might have been a lousy time for international relations, but at least it was accompanied by expanding forums for global dialogue.
Ambassadors represent their countries in a formal capacity. They're the faces of their home nations’ policies, interests, and good intentions. These foreign service officers perform much more than a largely ceremonial role. They act as intermediaries, troubleshooters, and negotiators in lands that aren't theirs.
On the other hand, embassies aren't just buildings; they’re sovereign properties that stand as a testament to a nation’s commitment to conversation and goodwill. They’re places of more-than-usual interaction, where diplomats and citizens get a taste of the nation’s culture and society and where the real work of international relations gets done especially when things go sideways, and crisis management becomes job one.
Backchannel negotiations through ambassadors and embassies defused the Cuban Missile Crisis. This kind of communication is vital to keeping a situation from blowing up in your face. During the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union managed to keep the world from ending on several occasions through the simple act of talking sometimes only in the most rudimentary way.
The bond between the U.S. and Russia has plummeted, in recent years, to Cold War lows. The annexation of Crimea has obliterated trust, accusations of election meddling, and, most recently, the Russia-Ukraine War.
Sanctions, expulsions of diplomats, and closures of consulates have further severed ties.
Today, the two largest nuclear powers barely speak to each other. The State Department's refusal to engage with Moscow or maintain consistent diplomatic channels is an unnecessary gamble unless you want war. History teaches us that silence between adversaries is a recipe for disaster.
The specter of nuclear war is clear and present. Both the United States and Russia maintain vast arsenals of atomic weapons, many of which are on high alert. The potential for miscalculation is staggering.
And now that Russia possesses hypersonic missiles capable of wiping out cities without the added radiation, we need to talk more than ever. What is the United States' policy toward such weapons?
I don't know, and I doubt Foggy Bottom has a damn clue, either.
Consider the 1983 Able Archer exercise, a NATO military simulation that Soviet leadership mistook for preparation for a first strike. The misunderstanding brought the world to the brink of nuclear war, a crisis narrowly averted because of backchannel communication and diplomatic intuition.
Imagine a similar scenario today... but without functioning communication channels. Without this release valve, misunderstandings escalate quickly, and every military move and deployment becomes a potential starting gun for war.
Diplomacy isn't just about avoiding war; it's about building a framework for coexistence. Even during the Cold War, the White House and the Kremlin negotiated arms control agreements like SALT and START that imposed limits on their nuclear arsenals.
The absence of dialogue has broader implications beyond the immediate risk of conflict. It emboldens hardliners in both nations, leaving moderate voices sidelined. It also sends a message to allies and adversaries alike that the U.S. would rather fight than negotiate.
It also creates a vacuum that other nations are eager to fill. For example, China has been expanding its diplomatic influence, positioning itself as a potential mediator in global conflicts. The U.S. risks – and has probably already lost – its world leadership role by refusing to engage with Russia.
So, what needs to change? First, the State Department must start communicating with Russia. Foggy Bottom must recognize dialogue is a necessity.
Second, the USG must improve its diplomatic corps. Decades of underfunding have left the U.S. Foreign Service understaffed and ill-prepared for today's challenges. Ambassadors and diplomats must be empowered to do their jobs: to listen, to negotiate, and to build bridges.
Finally, we must resist the temptation to view diplomacy as a weakness. On the contrary, it is a sign of strength and confidence. President John F. Kennedy once said, "Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate."
The whole point of diplomacy is to talk to people you don't like, not to host fancy dinner parties for the people you do like.
Diplomacy's history is a testament to humanity's ability to solve problems through dialogue. It's also a cautionary tale of what happens when we ignore the ringing red phone.
The United States and Russia are in a new kind of (barely) Cold War, one where the risks are even greater and the consequences of failure even more dire. To navigate this dangerous moment, we must remember the lessons of history: the only thing more dangerous than speaking with our enemies is refusing to speak at all.
Let us hope the warmongers at the State Department heed this warning and give Tucker Carlson a well-deserved rest.
The Daily Reckoning