Recognition, Rearmament, and the Rehearsal of Power

Diplomacy 101: Undiplomatically Speaking

Where Beliefs Clash and Stories Flash

Recognition, Rearmament, and the Rehearsal of Power

In a week that blurred the lines between symbolic gestures and concrete power moves, diplomacy continued to unfold on multiple fronts—with implications well beyond headlines.

First and foremost, the Republic of Ireland officially recognized the State of Palestine, joining Spain, Norway, and Slovenia in a coordinated diplomatic announcement. The move, described by Irish leaders as “a stand for peace and international law,” drew immediate condemnation from Israel, which recalled its ambassadors from all four countries. The European Union, as usual, offered no unified position, exposing once again the structural limits of its foreign policy coherence. Yet the signal was unmistakable: the patience of smaller Western democracies with the status quo in Gaza is reaching a breaking point.

At the same time, Israel approved a record emergency defense budget and accelerated deployment of reserve forces to the north, citing rising threats from Hezbollah in Lebanon. Iran, through its regional proxies, continues to test the limits of Israel’s deterrence posture while avoiding direct escalation. The shadow war remains just that—shadowy—but its pace and scope are unmistakably widening.

Meanwhile, in the Taiwan Strait, China launched what it called “punishment drills” around the island following the inauguration of President Lai Ching-te, whose speech reaffirmed Taiwan’s de facto independence without crossing any formal red lines. Still, Beijing’s response—encircling naval and air exercises—was designed to send a message to both Taipei and Washington. The U.S., in turn, dispatched a carrier group to nearby waters, marking yet another round in the pattern of posturing that now defines Indo-Pacific security dynamics.

In economic diplomacy, the BRICS bloc expanded its internal dialogue on currency coordination, this time inviting central bank representatives from observer states like Indonesia and Nigeria to a closed-door forum in Cape Town. Though no formal agreements were reached, the conversation about reducing dollar dependency is no longer hypothetical—it is institutionalizing, slowly but steadily.

As May draws to a close, one thing is clear: recognition, deterrence, and alternatives to Western-led financial structures are no longer rhetorical. They are the active vocabulary of a new global order in rehearsal—one where middle powers assert, great powers signal, and old alignments continue to fray at the edges.

Debt, Data, and Diplomatic Drift

Diplomacy 101: Undiplomatically Speaking

Where Beliefs Clash and Stories Flash

Debt, Data, and Diplomatic Drift

The IMF concluded its spring meetings in Washington with one clear takeaway: global debt is now a strategic variable. With over 60 developing nations in or near default, the G24 bloc demanded faster relief mechanisms, accusing wealthier states of weaponizing financial tools under the guise of “rules-based order.”

Meanwhile, China and Saudi Arabia announced a new data governance pact, including joint AI development protocols and digital infrastructure investment across the Middle East. The deal bypasses Western regulatory frameworks and signals the rise of alternative data alliances anchored in authoritarian tech norms.

In South Asia, the India-Bangladesh water-sharing dispute over the Teesta River resurfaced after monsoon projections predicted below-average rainfall. Dhaka accused New Delhi of unilateral dam management. Talks are scheduled in Delhi next month, but tensions persist, amplified by pre-election rhetoric on both sides.

Europe’s Fractures and the Fiction of Unity

Diplomacy 101: Undiplomatically Speaking

Where Beliefs Clash and Stories Flash

Europe’s Fractures and the Fiction of Unity

EU leaders convened an emergency summit in Brussels after Hungary vetoed a new sanctions package targeting Russian energy derivatives. Viktor Orbán, emboldened by fresh investments from Beijing, declared the sanctions “useless symbolism.” Germany and France expressed open frustration, prompting renewed debate on the EU’s unanimity rule for foreign policy.

Meanwhile, France and the UK launched joint naval exercises off the Baltic coast, alongside Finland and Sweden, signaling solidarity with NATO’s eastern flank amid rising hybrid threats. Moscow responded with cyberattacks targeting Polish logistics networks—low-intensity, high-symbolism.

In Africa, Zimbabwe was suspended from the Commonwealth once again after elections marred by fraud and violence. President Mnangagwa’s government accused Western observers of “neo-imperial bias,” while South Africa offered to mediate, revealing Pretoria’s desire to revive its long-dormant regional diplomacy role.

Axis of Isolation: Iran, Israel, and the Global Divide

Diplomacy 101: Undiplomatically Speaking

Where Beliefs Clash and Stories Flash

Axis of Isolation: Iran, Israel, and the Global Divide

As Israel intensified operations in Rafah, Iran crossed a threshold. In a speech commemorating Quds Day, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei publicly acknowledged Iran’s “strategic support” for armed groups operating against Israel from Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq—an unusual level of openness. U.S. CENTCOM responded by redeploying air assets to the Gulf, while French forces in Jordan increased regional surveillance flights.

At the same time, the International Atomic Energy Agency released a quietly damning report on Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile, now surpassing pre-JCPOA levels. While diplomacy has stalled, backchannels remain active via Oman and Qatar. European leaders are increasingly torn between reengaging Iran or doubling down on containment.

In Latin America, Mexico hosted a summit of CELAC nations, where a rare consensus emerged on opposing external military bases in the region. While largely symbolic, the statement signals growing unease over great power rivalries playing out on southern soil.

The Disunited States: When Personality Replaces Policy

Diplomacy 101: Undiplomatically Speaking

Where Beliefs Clash and Stories Flash

The Disunited States: When Personality Replaces Policy

It’s tempting to treat Trump’s ever-changing roster of aides and officials as part of the political theatre Americans have come to expect—another headline, another firing, another loyalist ushered in overnight. But what appears chaotic is a form of controlled disorder, with serious implications at home and far beyond.

We’ve entered a second Trump term, and the pattern hasn’t changed—it’s deepened. National Security Advisors come and go. Acting department heads seem to outnumber confirmed ones. This isn’t poor management. It’s strategic impermanence.

In a democracy, institutions are meant to outlast individuals. But Trump has reshaped the executive branch around performance. The result is less like a government and more like a show: fast-moving, improvisational, driven by optics. The White House has become a revolving door.

This instability doesn’t stop at the border. In international relations, trust is built on consistency. Diplomats, allies, and adversaries rely on continuity—not just of policy, but of personnel. Who speaks for the U.S. if the spokesperson changes every quarter? What value does a treaty hold if one administration signs it and the next tears it up?

Credibility erodes. And when that happens, other powers—China, Russia, even the EU—begin planning for a world where the U.S. isn’t steady. Europe pursues strategic autonomy. Asian allies hedge. Multilateralism frays.

The domestic costs are subtler but corrosive. This model of governance sends a message: loyalty over expertise, optics over policy, control over collaboration. It discourages independent thinking. It hollows out the institutional core.

It also sets a precedent. If one president can rule by momentum, why not the next? Trump may be the accelerant, not the origin—but he’s made the fire impossible to ignore.

To dismiss it as chaos is to miss the point. The revolving door isn’t a bug—it’s the system working as designed, in a new political order where personality trumps structure.

What happens when a world power loses its memory? When it stops speaking the language of institutions, and instead speaks only in the fragmented voice of whoever holds the mic?

We’re about to find out.