RUTHFULLY YOURS

“Diplomacy and virtue do not make easy companions.”  Iain Pears (1955-)

“Your countries are going to hell,” said President Donald Trump to the UN on September 23. “…you want to be politically correct and you are destroying your heritage.” While he was speaking to the General Assembly, his words were aimed at long-time allies in Western Europe. Post-war Presidents have prided themselves on their diplomacy. Even President Reagan, while demanding that Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev “tear down this wall,” did so without a hint of acrimony in his voice. While I suspect Mr. Trump has never read H.L. Mencken’s Prejudices: First Series, he, nevertheless, followed his admonition: “Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.”

Diplomacy is the art of having people understand and accept your position. In the halls of government power, words are usually best understood when backed by strength. President Theodore Roosvelt advised American Presidents to “…speak softly and carry a big stick.” Will Rogers, American humorist and social commentator, put it differently: “Diplomacy is the art of saying ‘nice doggie’ until you can find a rock.” The American journalist and author Isaac Goldberg wrote in 1927 that diplomacy is the art “to do and say the nastiest things in the nicest way.” At times it is more diplomatic to leave certain things unsaid. Nixon’s Secretary of State Henry Kissinger once said: diplomacy, “is the art of restraining power.” In the end it is the ability to get people to see and do things your way. 

Donald Trump, for all his qualities, is not a diplomat.[1] To his accolades that makes him a hero. On the other hand his bluntness and coarseness can be off-putting. He went beyond just Europe when he asked what the more delicate would have hesitated to ask: “What is the purpose of the United Nations?” According to its Mission Statement, its core mission is to “Maintain Peace and Security – to prevent and remove threats to peace and to suppress acts of aggression through peaceful and just means.” Forty years ago Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Reagan’s Ambassador to the UN, condemned the UN for the “bizarre reversal” of its founding intent to resolve conflicts. Has there been an improvement in the last four decades? In March 2014, Russia annexed Crimea, In February 2022, Putin’s armies invaded Ukraine. On October 7, 2023, Hamas militants slew 1,200 Israelis. Sudan’s civil war (April 2023-present) has killed 150,000 and displaced an estimated 14 million, in a country of under 50 million. Today, what in different circumstances would seem black humor, the military junta that governs Sudan is a member of the UN’s Human Rights Council. Amazing! Why are critics of Israel, including the UN, silent on Sudan?

In his attack on Western governments, President Trump, in his immutable way, focused on what he called a double-tailed monster: “Immigration and the high cost of so-called green energy is destroying a large part of the free world and a large part of our planet. Countries that cherish freedom are fading fast because of their policies on these two subjects. Both immigration and their suicidal energy ideas will be the death of Western Europe.”

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/21924/trump-iran-accountability

Oil sales are a lifeline for the Iranian economy, funding both domestic governance and external operations, including support for proxy militias. If these funds were curtailed, the regime would struggle to maintain its internal stability while simultaneously attempting to sustain influence abroad. Such an economic squeeze would heighten domestic discontent, increase political pressure on leaders, and force Tehran to consider its options in a more constrained and exposed position than ever before.

Iran is apparently aware that it faces an administration under Trump that is determined to maintain the pressure until meaningful, verifiable changes occur. Tehran’s desperation underscores the effectiveness of the strategy: when authoritarian regimes are confronted with coordinated, uncompromising pressure — duress — they are forced to confront their vulnerabilities and recalibrate their behavior.

Understanding the “language” of authoritarian regimes has been a critical factor in Trump’s success. Maximum pressure is not subtle; it is a direct communication that dictators understand. It combines visibility of consequences, clarity of demands, and the credible threat of continued escalation. For Iran, this has meant that there is no ambiguity about the costs of pursuing nuclear weapons, maintaining proxy operations, or destabilizing the region. Force, coordinated international sanctions, and strategic diplomacy have created an environment where the regime cannot rely on its previous strategies of coercion or intimidation. This approach demonstrates that sustained, multidimensional pressure can achieve outcomes that decades of negotiation and partial agreements could not.

The future for the Iranian regime, under continued maximum pressure, depends on the EU maintaining a firm stance as well. Iran’s nuclear program must be dismantled entirely, financial and military support for proxy groups curtailed, and no concessions offered that could weaken the credibility of the strategy.

This historic moment represents an opportunity to reshape the region, limit the threats posed by Iran, and reinforce the principle that force, when applied strategically, remains a decisive tool in addressing state-sponsored aggression and nuclear proliferation – also in countries other than Iran.

The Iranian regime finds itself in a situation it has never faced in its more than 40 years of ruling. The pressures it is now under are the result of a coordinated and relentless approach by President Donald J. Trump, whose policies are systematically targeting every pillar of the Iranian state that supports its nuclear ambitions, regional influence and financial stability.

The strategy, often described as “maximum pressure,” is applying economic, military, and diplomatic force in a way that previous administrations, despite decades of involvement in Middle Eastern affairs, could not or did not. This approach has forced the Iranian leadership to confront the consequences of its actions while leaving no room for misinterpretation about the seriousness of U.S. resolve. The result is an Iranian regime that is significantly weakened, isolated, and desperate for relief, yet it faces the U.S. under the Trump administration and Israel united in maintaining the pressure until its nuclear program is completely dismantled and its destabilizing influence curtailed.

https://amgreatness.com/2025/09/05/america-first-and-dealing-with-a-recalcitrant-putin/

It has now been three weeks since the historic Trump-Putin summit in Alaska, where the two leaders met to discuss how to end the horrific war in Ukraine. President Trump has extended to Putin hospitality, patience, and incredibly generous terms to provide him with an off-ramp to end the war and Russia’s isolation. Despite Trump’s peacemaking efforts, Putin has not only spurned him and continued the war but also attended a showy summit convened by Chinese President Xi Jinping, where Putin expressed his defiance of U.S. peace efforts and flaunted a closer relationship with China and North Korea.

Putin’s recalcitrance requires a robust response from President Trump to promote peace and reaffirm America’s global leadership. This should be a carefully calculated America First policy initiative to pressure Putin to end the war and promote diplomacy while keeping U.S. troops out of Ukraine. Trump also must demand that Europe do much more to pressure Russia to end the war.

Naturally, President Trump’s political opponents and the mainstream media are blaming Trump for Putin’s decision to continue the war. This criticism is unfair. Trump and his senior officials went to great lengths to give Putin an honorable way to halt the war, along with post-war diplomatic and trade opportunities to end Russia’s isolation and bring prosperity to Russia. God gave man free will and the ability to make right and wrong decisions. President Trump is not responsible for Putin’s choice to make the bad and irrational decision to ignore his peace offer and continue the war.

Chinese President Xi hosted a summit meeting of the do-nothing Shanghai Cooperation Organization this week, which Trump’s political opponents and the mainstream media used to attack his foreign policy and Ukraine peace efforts. Photos of Xi, Putin, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi cheerfully greeting each other and holding hands at the summit—along with a massive Chinese military parade—were cited as evidence of a new world order that is arising due to opposition to President Trump’s foreign policy, especially his tariff policy.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/21871/trump-putin-win

China will be among a collection of hostile states, which also includes Iran and North Korea, that will be taking a close interest in the outcome of the diplomatic initiative Trump began…

Trump himself has given a clear indication that… the White House is prepared to grant Moscow control over some of Ukraine’s most strategic and resource-rich regions.

Such a deal would not only represent a complete betrayal of the Ukrainian people, who have fought heroically to defend their country from Russian aggression. It would completely undermine the credibility of the Western alliance to defend its interests in the face of unprovoked acts of aggression in Europe.

By far the most likely consequence of Trump agreeing to any sell-out over Ukraine would be to encourage China’s Communist rulers to launch their long-anticipated plan to invade the democratic territory of Taiwan, a move that runs the risk of provoking a major conflict in the Indo-Pacific.

If Trump really wants to end the war in Ukraine and achieve lasting peace, then he should consider reviving his threat to impose punitive sanctions against countries that continue trading with Russia, as well as providing Ukraine immediately with offensive weapons, rather than just defensive ones. Every day of delay is simply being used by Putin to kill more Ukrainian civilians and gain more territory.

Such a move would not only end Putin’s ability to fund his “special military operation” in Ukraine. It would send a clear signal to other autocratic regimes like China, as well as terrorist groups, that the Trump administration will confront acts of aggression, and never reward them.

The most vital fact that US President Donald J. Trump needs to take on board is that Russian President Vladimir Putin has no earthly chance of winning his war in Ukraine — unless, that is, Trump gifts the Russian despot a victory.

China will be among a collection of hostile states, which also includes Iran and North Korea, that will be taking a close interest in the outcome of the diplomatic initiative Trump began with Putin following their face-to-face meeting in Alaska earlier this month, to end the Ukraine conflict.

https://quadrant.org.au/news-opinions/qed/is-anyone-else-pushing-for-peace/

When Ukraine gave up nukes 1994 in exchange for security guarantees, Clinton was in charge. When Russia invaded Georgia in 2008, George W. Bush was in charge. When Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, Obama was in charge. When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, Biden was in charge. See, it is all Trump’s fault.

Andrew Bolt on Monday evening outdid himself. Watch it here if you have a strong stomach. It was the most drawn-out unhinged attack on Trump that I have seen. None of Adam Schiff, Gavin Newsom, Jasmine Crockett, Rashida Tlaib, Maxine Waters or Zohran Mamdani has done it better. What company to keep. But, for the record, Greg Sheridan congratulated him on his magnificent op-ed. Mon Dieu!

Now, to be fair, Bolt is a conservative warrior on climate change, on Israel, and on other things. He is one of the good guys. However, there is evidently something about Putin and Russia, maybe Zelensky, which produces cognitive dissonance in certain susceptible conservative minds. An assessment that Putin is a despotic thug, which is accurate enough, becomes synonymous with waging war by proxy to the last Ukrainian and Russian soldier standing. Recalcitrant, Trump refuses to buy this deadly bill of goods.

Trump has tried and is trying to forge a peace deal. So far without success. Are his critics upset at his failed mediation attempts? Not so much. Clearly, they are much more upset at his reluctance to go all in for Zelensky and a forever war. Seemingly, at whatever cost in blood and treasure, and however much it might lead to a wider bloodier war.

Thus, instead of warmly greeting and rolling out the red carpet for Putin in Alaska, Trump should have shirtfronted the thug or something of the sort. Yet, if the convivial meeting with Putin and the later meeting with European leaders and Zelensky eventually leads to a winding pathway to peace what the heck is there to gripe about? Not to worry. Those of a determined anti-Trump disposition will find something. There is no “conceivable” peace deal that will reflect well on Trump.

Trump knows that if the killing is to stop, the smaller country will have to swallow giving up territory; already mostly lost on the battlefield. Meanwhile, in the make-believe world of his critics, Russia can’t be “rewarded” for its aggression. It would be unjust. A lesson in history would be instructive. Constantinople is now Istanbul. Tibet is China.

I wrote about Israel last week. For some reason the comments section switched to Ukraine. The wars don’t have much in common. At the same time both are plagued with fabulism.