Prof. Glenn Diesen (Norway): How the West Criminalised Diplomacy. NATO's Strategy for a Long War in Ukraine

Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more

How the West Criminalised Diplomacy

Prof. Glenn Diesen

Glenn Diesen

Aug 15

READ IN APP 

The tragedy of great power politics derives from the international anarchy, which refers to the absence of a central authority in the world. The point of departure in international security studies therefore tends to be the competition for security, as security for one state often results in insecurity for another.

This international system based on international anarchy originated with the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, which laid the foundation for the modern world order. The hegemonic system had broken down, and after 30 years of war, it became evident that there would be no peace through victory by a new hegemon. The Thirty-Year War thus ended with the Peace of Westphalia, which was based on the recognition that peace would depend on a balance of power between sovereign states. Security in the Westphalian system therefore entails mitigating security competition by attempting to establish formats for indivisible security. The Westphalian peace is often blamed for the international anarchy, yet this is not the crisis of our time.

What is often left out is that the Westphalian system relied on recognition of mutual security concerns as a condition for reducing mutual threats as a way to advance indivisible security. The Peace of Westphalia therefore also introduced the foundations for modern diplomacy, which entails dialogue for mutual understanding as the condition for reducing the security competition.

Our politicians and media no longer do this. They do not recognise the security concerns of our opponents, which means that they can no longer reduce the security competition and pursue indivisible security. Those who attempt to understand the opposing side, to place themselves in the shoes of the opponent and have some empathy, are labelled as Putinists, Panda-huggers and apologists for the Ayatollahs. Recognising the security concerns of the opponent has become tantamount to “legitimising” or “supporting” the policies of the opponents, which is seen as an act of treason. The result is that it becomes impossible to pursue indivisible security and peace.

In every war, we are fighting the most recent reincarnation of Hitler, which implies that negotiations are tantamount to appeasement and peace must be achieved through victory on the battlefield. Diplomacy risks “legitimising” Putin and, as former NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg stated, “weapons are the path to peace”. If adversaries must be defeated to have peace, then we are no longer pursuing a Westphalian Peace that pursues peace by managing a balance of power and mitigating the security competition. On the contrary, we have entered another Thirty-Year War is the endless and futile struggle for hegemony. Toward this end, we no longer refer to nuclear stability as a guarantor of the balance of power; rather we refer to “nuclear blackmail” that must be ignored.

Recognising Mutual Security Concerns?

The main problem of our era in terms of reducing the security competition derives from the inability to recognise the security concerns of our opponents. Why did we criminalise understanding?

We can look toward human nature as human beings organise in groups, and when we experience an external threat, we demand greater group cohesion for security. We begin to think solely in tribal terms as “us” (the in-group) versus “them” (the out-group), exaggerating the similarities among “us” and exaggerating the differences with “them”. We are good and they are evil, and the world is interpreted solely through the lens of liberal democracy versus authoritarianism. Under these conditions, no dissent threatens group cohesion, yet there is also no understanding for the other side.

The group psychology of “us” versus “them” also diminishes the rational considerations of the individual, which is exploited by our war propagandists. This is the case, as the ideas of group psychology developed by Sigmund Freud laid the foundation for the original literature on the science of propaganda that was developed by Freud’s nephew Edward Bernays.

Liberal Hegemony

The inability to recognise and consider the security concerns of our opponents go much deeper than a flaw in human nature and is caused by design. After the Cold War, the Westphalian system was abandoned as the Political West pursued an international system based on hegemony. In this system, security does not depend on managing a balance of power and taking into account the security concerns of our opponents. Instead of a balance of power, the hegemon is to be so powerful that it does not matter if we undermine the security of our opponents. Furthermore, a liberal hegemony implies that our dominance is a “force for good”, something that benefits the entire world. Recognising security concerns caused by our aspirations for hegemony is a betrayal of the assumption of being a force for good. Our opponents are presented with the dilemma of accepting that the hegemony is positive, or being considered an opponent of liberalism and civilisation. Hegemony is subsequently treated as a liberal norm.

The format for European security is to integrate the entire continent under NATO and the EU, except for Russia. We are developing a Europe where the country with the largest population, territory, economy (PPP) and military does not have a seat at the table. It is predictable and it has indeed been widely predicted over the past 30 years, that constructing a Europe without Russia would inevitably result in a Europe against Russia. Yet, the commitment to the narrative of the benign hegemon prevents us from addressing the obvious.

Liberal hegemony also corrupts diplomacy, which was intended to map out mutual interests and security concerns to make compromises and mitigate the security competition. Instead, under liberal hegemony, diplomacy takes on a pedagogic format between the subject and the object, between the teacher and the student. In this relationship, diplomacy does not aim to reach a compromise, as the teacher does not compromise with the student. Rather, the student must accept unilateral concessions.

If the public accepts the ideological stereotypes that every conflict is a struggle between liberal democracies versus authoritarian states, then war becomes virtuous and diplomacy is treasonous. Ideological Manicheanism has become the curse and undoing of the Political West.

The article is a summary of my speech at the Vatican in June 2025