Diplomacy (from the Greek δίπλωμα, "official document conferring a privilege") is the art and practice of conducting negotiations between representatives of states. It usually refers to international diplomacy, the conduct of international relations[2] through the intercession of professional diplomats with regard to issues of peace-making, trade, war,economics, culture, environment, and human rights. International treaties are usually negotiated by diplomats prior to endorsement by national politicians. In an informal or social sense, diplomacy is the employment of tact to gain strategic advantage or to find mutually acceptable solutions to a common challenge, one set of tools being the phrasing of statements in a non-confrontational, or polite manner.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomacy

The overwhelming consensus among American political and national security leaders has held that Putin is a pariah who disregards human rights and has violated international norms in seeking to regain influence and territory in the former Soviet bloc. In 2012, one year before Trump brought his beauty pageant to Moscow, then-Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney called Russia the United States’ top geopolitical threat — an assessment that has only gained currency since then.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-trumps-financial-ties-to-russia-and-his-unusual-flattery-of-vladimir-putin/2016/06/17/dbdcaac8-31a6-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html

As if George W Bush and Obama were not pariahs who disregarded human rights and never violated international norms ! The list of their misdemeanours is long...

--------------

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it — Jo Goebbels

As well the German rightly said of Churchill: The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous.

But we, in victory, are fantastic at polishing historical turds... Weird... Donald Trump is our only protector from another catastrophic war in which the winner might not be who we think...

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier has criticised Nato military exercises in Eastern Europe, accusing the organisation of "warmongering".

Mr Steinmeier said that extensive Nato manoeuvres launched this month were counterproductive to regional security and could enflame tensions with Russia.

He urged the Nato military alliance to replace the exercises with more dialogue and co-operation with Russia.

Nato launched a simulated Russian attack on Poland on 7 June.

The two-week-long drill involves about 31,000 troops, including 14,000 from the US, 12,000 from Poland and 1,000 from the UK.

It will also feature dozens of fighter jets and ships, along with 3,000 vehicles.

"What we shouldn't do now is inflame the situation further through sabre-rattling and warmongering," Mr Steinmeier said in an interview to be published in Germany's Bild am Sontag newspaper.

"Whoever believes that a symbolic tank parade on the alliance's eastern border will bring security, is mistaken.

"We are well-advised to not create pretexts to renew an old confrontation," he said.

The exercises are intended to test Nato's ability to respond to threats, and take place every two years.

But Russia has repeatedly said that Nato troops close to its borders are a threat to its security.

read more: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36566422

It was a handshake for which Russian President Vladimir Putin had been waiting a long time. The flags of Russia and the European Union were on display behind him, alongside a gold-trimmed table. And next to the table was European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, the man who had been forced to endure considerable criticism for his decision to travel to St. Petersburg to meet with the Russian president.

Many in Brussels had complained prior to Juncker's trip that the visit by the head of the EU executive body would be a coup for Putin, whose country is the target of EU sanctions due to its aggression in Ukraine. But Juncker, 61, was, as is often the case, convinced he was right. He said this week that he was fully aware that not everyone was happy about his visit, but he added that it was the right thing to do.

It is hardly a surprise that Juncker this week became the first prominent European to extend his hand to Russia. He may have only been in his current office for just a year and a half, but unilateral actions like this one have become something of a trademark. He has even come up with a philosophic framework for his increasingly erratic behavior. This commission, he has said, is a "political commission."

The claim may not sound like much, but in reality it is akin to a revolution. According to the European treaties, the body Juncker leads is a normal government agency that must ensure that agreements reached are in fact adhered to. Juncker, though, sees himself as the head of a government -- one who has made it his job to break agreements if it appears politically advantageous.

The list of his unilateral forays is a long one. During the Greek debt crisis, he threw his support behind Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras even though the Commission is not one of Greece's creditors. In the refugee crisis, he wants force EU member states to accept other countries' offers to provide police officers to help protect their borders and has threatened states with monetary penalties should they not accept refugees -- an imposition for any sovereign state.

read more: http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/eu-commission-president-juncker-under-fire-a-1098232.html

RT: The memo essentially contradicts Kerry's earlier attempts to broker peace in Syria. How do you account for this rift at the State Department?

Karen Kwiatkowsky: I think that this administration is running out of time. And it is true that Barack Obama has kind of been a barrier to some of the more aggressive policies that have been emanating from both State Department and the Pentagon. But at the same time, this administration and the life spans of these political appointees, these ambassadors, many of whom signed on to this very aggressive warmongering letter, their life span is limited, they have basically 6 months to go. Very likely they will not retain their appointments in a new administration. Certainly, if Hillary Clinton is elected, I imagine many of these war mongering State Department officials are appointees or friends of Hillary Clinton, people who agree with her approach. So, I do see this as somewhat aimed at engaging politically in the domestic events here in the US. We have an election coming. Clinton is very besieged by many things. But she is the neoconservative candidate. She is the candidate who will make this war, if this war on Assad is to be stepped up. She is the one that will do that and these are her people. And they don’t have a lot of time left. 

RT: Do you think that the differences that we’ve seen in the State Department are just there or this is something that is indicative of differences throughout the administration? 

KK: This release to the New York Times is a political event. This is aimed at making policy when there is very little time left to make that policy. If you read the letter, it doesn’t offer really any new strategy. And Obama has been accused of having no real strategy. This is not a new strategy; this is not a replacement strategy. This is bomb and ‘show the flag’. And it is being put forth not by the Air Force, not by the Pentagon - who you might presume might know something about fighting. Certainly, we cannot take ground from the air and this is precisely what they are advocating is airstrikes, which have long been proven to be ineffective. That is why I see it as a political thing and not an actual strategy. There is very little strategy there. What they are putting forth won’t work, is known not to work by even the advocates of violence in the Pentagon know that it won’t work. So, it is not a very good solution. Therefore, I have to conclude that it is aimed at politically communicating something. And I find it remarkable and hilarious that this letter was released and put up through the channel for dissent. These 51 warmongering diplomats are dissenters. That is just absolutely spectacular. 

RT: Just a few days ago, John Kerry said the US is losing patience with Assad.  Does that kind of rhetoric not undermine the peace he's supposedly trying to broker?

‘Hillary Clinton never mentioned Libyan disaster, which is her baby more than anybody’s’

KK: It is typical of John Kerry’s entire approach from the time he has been the Secretary of State. He is trying to walk two different paths and you can’t do that: threatening and negotiating. But the threats are empty. And it is well-known in the region since we have been intervening and interfering and bombing for so long now. The people in the Middle East both are allies and our enemies if you want to consider Assad and Iran as our enemies. All of them know us very well now. They know how we operate; they know to call our bluffs. Our bluffs aren’t bluffs anymore, they are just empty conversation. Kerry hasn’t changed; his policies and approaches have been the same. He is just ineffective. And he is ineffective because our own fundamental policy is not what he says. And it is not what the president says. It is what we actually do. And what we actually do has been reported for years: we topple governments in the Middle East that we don’t like and we encourage movements that will help us in this - regardless of how dangerous or how empty or how incompatible with liberty and our own value system these allies are. And this is why we find ourselves supporting ISIS and fighting with people who are doing terribly destructive things and we can’t say anything bad about them because they are our allies. We’ve got ourselves into this situation; I don’t think it is fair to blame Kerry as an individual. He is representing a system that has no credibility. And certainly you can’t believe a word that is said by an American politician when it comes to what we will and what we won’t do in the Middle East.

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/347364-state-department-memo-clinton/

Irrespective of whether he wins or not, by nature of the fact he is where he is, Donald Trump throws into question the nature of our relationship with America, including the so-called "Alliance".

How is it that a country like America, with a lot of talented people, can produce a presidential candidate like Trump and see him within a hairsbreadth of becoming President?

Is it the same phenomena that saw Abbott become Australian prime minister, Boris Johnson seeking to become British prime minister, or the narrowly defeated right wing presidential candidate in Austria, Norbert Hofer, Dutch rightwing aspirant for prime minister, Geert Wilders, presidential aspirant in France, Marine Le Pen, or even our own Malcolm Turnbull, who has gone from a "small l" Liberal to right wing conservative in the space of five months?

A common theme with all is demonisation of asylum seekers and immigrants, particularly Muslims. They ascribe to and seek to maintain a status quo which has gone — the supremacy and dominance of the white population. But Trump is more. He is a xenophobe with a huge military arsenal potentially at his disposal and an "army" of rednecks backing him internally, which includes members of state and federal police, the border force and members of the U.S. armed forces.

Australia rushed to the side of the American involvement in Viet Nam. It was a war which should never have been fought. It was entered into because of an American commitment to winning the Cold War. The analysis which saw Viet Nam as a domino in an Asian and broader world scenario was flawed. But as a part of paying our premium on the U.S. defence insurance policy, Australia went and in the process for the first time conscripted young men to fight overseas.

It was a policy implemented by redneck Robert Menzies, Australian Prime Minister from 1949-1965 and an American and monarchical admirer, who tugged his forelock at both. He is lauded by the Sydney Institute and other conservative institutions, such as the Institute for Public Affairs, and conservative Australians such as Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull.

Tony Abbott wants to be the Defence Minister. Isn't dividing up the spoils of office a little presumptive? https://t.co/E00QDrhIV5

Turnbull embraces the American Alliance, but the unequal nature of the arrangement and the huge power imbalance between the two countries can hardly be seen as an alliance of equals. It is on American terms and always has been.

Australian military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan has achieved nothing positive or of lasting gain. Instead, we have seen the rise of ISIS, and the Taliban both in Afghanistan and Pakistan are stronger. American diplomacy relies on military power; without it they believe their ability to negotiate is weak.

American pressure forced the Australian purchase of the F-111 and now the F-35; it pushed the construction or purchase of larger submarines, resulting in the Collins Class lemon; for construction of the air defence destroyers and now a new generation of submarines. They made acceptance of the Pine Gap spy and control facility a test of the Alliance. Operation of that facility and access to the information it gleans is entirely on their terms – hardly an outcome from an Alliance of equals.

Turnbull says he could work with Trump, but how could anyone? The man is repugnant.

Paradoxically for a Republican, Trump has tapped into white blue collar and redneck fear of a loss of economic and social standing; they fear being a minority in their own U.S. of A. This mood and Trumps fostering of it is dangerously destabilising and could lead to social unrest; whether Trump wins or loses, the genie is out of the bottle.

Where is the USA headed, with or without Trump as President? Trump does not like China, but Clinton is unlikely to moderate the responses already in place and planned to counter what the U.S. sees as unjustified Chinese regional expansion. For Australia, it remains all the way with the USA for better or for worse. But we could act as a broker; we could convene a permanent regional structure for ongoing dialogue to reduce and redirect tension.

China is the biggest and best 'abuser': #DonaldTrump https://t.co/rulF3Hkuvppic.twitter.com/rz2Vd3BJmO

Many years ago, Australia, through its key federal public departments, universities and independent think tanks, might have sought to construct an independent Australian defence and foreign policy, centred on the region rather than U.S. global concerns, ideology or fears over oil supply. Such a policy might have been nuanced and subtle. It would have required a degree of maturity and self confidence that, to date, has been sadly lacking in Australia.

Is it too late? Are we irretrievably bound up in the fate of America, like a Roman vassal state as the Empire moved toward collapse?

Bruce Haigh is a political commentator and retired diplomat. You can follow him on Twitter @BruceHaigh2.

read more: https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/the-american-dependency,9132

Hard to know which one, Trump or Clinton, is worse for the future. Despite his many stupid ways to delegate problems for cash, it is possible that Trump is not in favour of war, unlike Madam Clinton... Picking either-or of them is like having to choose between drowning, being quartered or being shot in a nightmare.... except this is reality...

The recent tragedies in Orlando, Istanbul, Dhaka, Baghdad, Medina and Nice — like the related ones coming — all have roots in Syria. Conventional wisdom holds that if the United States had done more to affect the course of Syria's civil war, the Islamic State terrorist group might never have taken hold, Syrian President Bashar Assad might have been defeated, and the scale of the war might have been far smaller. According to this argument, the terrorist attacks that fill our headlines are the results of failed policy.

But the conventional wisdom is wrong. Providing lethal aid early would have made matters worse, accelerating the war rather than slowing it. What no one wants to see today, because so few saw it at the time, is that there was another policy that could have prevented the chaos now consuming the region. The U.S. and its partners could have, and should have, let Assad win. Instead, years later, an anti-ISIL coalition met for two days this week in Washington to plan next steps against the caliphate and those it has inspired.

Several points are worth remembering about how the Syrian civil war began.  First, to the extent that a moderate opposition existed, it was weak. There were Syrians who protested peacefully, and many hoped for a secular alternative to Assad. These people were no match for a well-trained Syrian army supported by Russia, Iran, andHezbollah. The U.S. could have poured weaponry into the conflict, but most intended recipients would have had little training or combat experience. Those weapons would have changed hands, just as U.S.-provided artillery, tanks and Humvees have in Iraq.

Second, the opposition was disorganized and lacked coherent leadership. Many people recognize the names Assad and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIL. Some recognize the name Abu Mohammad al-Julani, head of the Nusra Front. But who can name anyone in the moderate Syrian opposition? Who leads the Free Syrian Army or the Syrian National Coalition?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/07/21/obama-did-too-much-in-syria-let-assad-win-column/87362856/

In order to let us know that Trump is in the pocket of Putin, the NYT (New York Times) runs a story about Trump advisor who used to work for the Ukrainian president before he was sent packing, replaced by a "popular uprising"... Bullshit.

The lawyers for Mr Manaford claim that he never received "$12.4 millions" in cash payment from the pro-Russian political party in Ukraine while WE KNOW THAT THE US PRESIDENT GAVE ONE BILLION DOLLARS to the new government of Ukraine and millions of dollars to the thug militias in that country as well, while the CIA was also influencing the media there. 

The NYT (Link not available on this computer):

Mr. Manafort’s involvement with moneyed interests in Russia and Ukraine had previously come to light. But as American relationships there become a rising issue in the presidential campaign — from Mr. Trump’s favorable statements about Mr. Putin and his annexation of Crimea to the suspected Russian hacking of Democrats’ emails — an examination of Mr. Manafort’s activities offers new details of how he mixed politics and business out of public view and benefited from powerful interests now under scrutiny by the new government in Kiev.

-----------------

ABC (American Broadcasting Corporation)...:

Secretary of State John Kerry traveled to Ukraine today to show support for the country's new government amid mounting tension from Russia - and he showed up with a pretty big gift, too.

Kerry brought news of a $1 billion aid package the U.S. is giving Ukraine to help it get through the next few months of turmoil, according to U.S. Treasury Department.

The aid is made up of a $1 billion loan guarantee as well as technical and financial experts to help the Ukraine's bank and finance ministry with its financial affairs and help prepare the country for national elections in May.

News of the $1 billion loan guarantee was met with skepticism in this country:

We're trillions of dollars in debt and Obama and Kerry want to loan 1 billion to Ukraine??? What happened to… http://t.co/2f03L31ZDe

- Oscar (@OAG707) March 4, 2014

So Obama gives the Ukraine $1 BILLION dollars. Seriously?!?! WTH!!! Thought we were out of money 17 TRILLION dollars ago.

- Katie K (@HelloChampagne) March 4, 2014

@johnkerry USA offers $1 Billion in Loan Guarantees to Ukraine. That is 1/70th of Bill Gates fortune. Are we serious? #russiainvadesukraine

- Dr. David Romei (@DavidRomeiPHD) March 4, 2014

To help explain why the United States would offer Ukraine $1 billion, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace expert Eugene Rumer explained the back story of Ukraine's financial woes. The story helps explain the current conflict between pro-Western and pro-Russian groups in Ukraine.

Rumer said Ukraine was in dire financial straits in November 2013. The International Monetary Fund offered financial assistance on the condition that it come with strict reforms for the country, but Russia stepped in and offered a cushy $22 billion without such reforms.

"Putin offered Ukraine a $22 billion aid package - with $15 billion in loans on very favorable terms and $7 billion in energy discounts, which today they've announced they've withdrawn," Rumer said.

Then-President Viktor Yanukovych accepted Russia's offer, a decision that played a large role in protestors calling for his ouster. Pro-European groups in Ukraine wanted to see the country more closely aligned with the West, not Russia.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014/03/why-is-the-u-s-sending-1-billion-to-ukraine/

Call this a bribe... yes. The "protestors" (pro-European group — read US agitators) were helped by the CIA... You can believe this. 

Moscow is calling on the West to abandon its attempts of "geopolitical engineering" in the Middle East, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said in a recent interview.

"The Syrian conflict can only be settled by the Syrians themselves. In this regard, we reiterate our calls on our western and regional partners to abandon attempts of geopolitical engineering in this region, respect sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic and work together to help achieve the main goal of life becoming peaceful again in this country," Lavrov told the Corriere della Sera newspaper. Russia expects that US President-elect Donald Trump’s future foreign policy team will take practical steps to normalize bilateral relations and continue fighting terrorism, Lavrov told the Italian newspaper.

Read more: https://sputniknews.com/world/201612011048032423-lavrov-west-abandon-geopolitical-engineering/

See from top...

Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov Friday met NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg on the sidelines of the annual Munich Security Conference. Although both admitted the need for dialogue, the mood at the table was palpably tense.

“NATO's expansion has led to an unprecedented level of tension over the last 30 years in Europe," Lavrov told the Munich conference. 

Statements made by Western politicians at the Munich Security Conference indicate that the Cold War is not over yet, he said.

“They say that all wars begin in the minds of people, and by this logic, that’s where they are supposed to come to an end. However, this hasn’t been the case with the Cold War yet, [at least] judging by some speeches of politicians in Europe and in the US, including statements that were made yesterday and today at the beginning of our conference,” the Russian Foreign Minister noted.

Meanwhile, there is also dissonance among Western leaders, including the issue of NATO expenses, as the Trump administration calls on European members to pay their bills to the 28-member defense bloc and boost defense spending.

RT: Can this split that we see happening among the US, the European Union and Russia deepen? What can we read into the situation at this time? 

Daniel McAdams: I think it is all very healthy because everyone is going to have their bluff called. The Europeans are screaming about ‘Russian aggression’ and how they must do something about Russian aggression. Obviously if they felt threatened they would spend more of their own money defending themselves, as any normal person would have if they felt threatened.

read more:

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/377813-munich-trump-us-nato/