A very good article with (in my opinion) a completely quixotic goal – advising an administration long-steeped in an illusion of its own omnipotence to change its way. To act flexibly, make deals where it can, on what issues it can. Offer concessions to get concessions. Ignore ideological differences and democratic deficits to achieve common tangible goals.

A cynic might argue that had Washington been capable of implementing such an approach, we wouldn’t be in this crisis to begin with.

​

US Diplomacy after the Russo-Ukrainian War

by Kelly McFarland, Chester Crocker and Ryan Conner

– The new strategic environment is defined by a global diffusion of power, where the agency and importance of middle powers have risen in tandem.

– The new assertiveness from the BRICS, coming on the heels of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, demonstrates the changing global landscape in which the United States is now competing.

– Emerging dynamics fall into three broad categories:

1. Previously known but have now been cast in sharper focus, like the rise of a new non-aligned movement, the limits of Western sanctions, economic regionalization, and an increase in cross-border challenges such as food insecurity.

2. The trends that revealed Russia’s aggression and the world’s reaction – the collective investment in security organizations such as NATO and Russia’s slipping grasp on its traditional area of influence

3. Black swan events.

– Middle powers and regional groupings have bucked U.S. or Russian attempts to win over their exclusive support, instead forging their own paths. India is a clear example.

– Security-wise, India is closely aligned with the West. Yet India refuses to align with the USA over the war in Ukraine.

– African countries have become stronger independent players in the international system and, as a result, few have aligned with the West on the war in Ukraine.

– Middle powers are not a homogenous grouping of necessarily like-minded states. These nations and blocs use different tools and levers of power to exercise their own agency.

– The linchpin of any successful US diplomatic strategy moving forward will be a special emphasis on multilateral diplomacy. The USA should not seek explicit commitments to stand by the US, but should show flexibility.

– Assembling a plurality of powers will require the difficult work of coalition building with the emerging middle powers and their divergent interests.

– First, the State Department should focus more on training multilateral diplomats. U.S. diplomats at all levels should be familiar with multilateral, consensus-driven negotiations and understand their nuanced dynamics. [in other words, the State Department should somehow produce the one set of skills that the US diplomacy never, ever had in its long history].

– Second, the United States should continue to support U.N. Security Council reform.

– Finally, the United States should embrace variable geometry in its coalition building efforts. In practice, this would involve working within existing institutions and forming ad hoc coalitions to corral states with a shared interest without necessarily requiring agreement on other core issues.

​

Kelly M. McFarland is a U.S. diplomatic historian and the director of programs and research at Georgetown University’s Institute for the Study of Diplomacy. He also hosts the institute’s Diplomatic Immunity podcast. Prior to Georgetown, he served in the U.S. Department of State as an intelligence analyst.

Chester A. Crocker is professor emeritus of Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service and distinguished fellow at its Institute for the Study of Diplomacy. A former assistant secretary of state for African affairs, he subsequently served as chairman and board member at the U.S. Institute of Peace for 20 years.

Ryan Conner is a research and communications associate at Georgetown University’s Institute for the Study of Diplomacy. He recently completed an MA in European Studies in the School of Foreign Service.

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

​

Please do:

​

* Be curious not judgmental,

* Be polite and civil,

* Use the original title of the work you are linking to,

* Use capitalization,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Make it clear what is your opinion and from what the source actually says. Please minimize editorializing, please make your opinions clearly distinct from the content of the article or source, please do not cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Contribute to the forum by finding and submitting your own credible articles,

​

Please do not:

​

* Use memes, emojis or swears excessively,

* Use foul imagery,

* Use acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF, /s, etc. excessively,

* Start fights with other commenters,

* Make it personal,

* Try to out someone,

* Try to push narratives, or fight for a cause in the comment section, or try to ‘win the war,’

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself ‘How likely is this thing to occur.’ Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

​

Please read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules.

Also please use the report feature if you want a comment to be reviewed faster. Don’t abuse it though! If something is not obviously against the rules but you still feel that it should be reviewed, leave a short but descriptive comment while filing the report.