Follow us on social

google cta
Shutterstock_1880185033

Tit for tat diplomatic expulsions by Russia and US are absurd and reckless

At a time when Washington wants to reduce tension with Moscow, these acts verge on the insane.

Analysis | Europe
google cta
google cta

Official U.S. behavior towards Russia is suffering from a pretty acute case of what might charitably be called obsessive-compulsive disorder. As a result of this affliction, it has often lost touch not only with basic strategic common sense, but with the overall goals and strategy of the current U.S. administration. 

The latest manifestation of this has been the U.S. refusal to extend the visas of Russian diplomats in Washington, which this week naturally and inevitably led to a new round of tit for tat expulsions of U.S. diplomats from Moscow. As a result of an escalating cycle of retaliation in recent years, the U.S. embassy in Moscow is now the only U.S. diplomatic presence in that country, and the number of its staff is barely one tenth of its previous figure.

While being unwilling to seek any real compromises with Russia, President Biden and his team are clearly anxious to avoid new crises if possible; and there are the most obvious and sensible reasons for this desire. The administration has made meeting the challenge (whether real or imagined) from China the core of its entire global strategy. Any new confrontation with Russia would be a colossal distraction from this strategy, and would in fact be a magnificent strategic gift to Beijing.

In these strategic circumstances, the obvious course for America would be to carry out the “opening to China” of the 1970s in reverse, and aim for a grand strategic compromise with Russia that would neutralize U.S.-Russian tensions and split Moscow from Beijing. Even if such a move is beyond the vision and moral courage of U.S. leaders today, at the very least one would expect that U.S. policy would avoid all purely gratuitous and unnecessary gestures of hostility towards Russia, especially when these are absolutely bound to provoke an equal Russian response.

Yet since the Biden administration took office, efforts to defuse tension with Russia have been interspersed with episodes of insulting language, symbolic affronts and meaningless but deeply provocative statements. It is as if the U.S. establishment simply cannot control itself when it comes to jabbing at Russia.

Recent expulsions of Russian diplomats by the United States, and the “solidarity expulsions” of Russian diplomats by several NATO countries and by NATO headquarters in Brussels, are a particularly new and dangerous departure in the practice of diplomacy. Previously, the expulsion of diplomats was tied to particular concrete instances of espionage or other actions incompatible with their diplomatic status.

Russia, while (in accordance with international tradition) it has engaged in retaliatory expulsions of Western diplomats, has only initiated expulsions in response to what it has claimed have been specific instances of espionage. Increasingly however, Western states have turned expulsions into general retaliation for real or alleged Russian misbehavior, or actions of solidarity with other NATO states that have expelled Russian diplomats for spying.

The U.S. Senate has played an especially irresponsible role in this regard, with the bipartisan suggestion in October 2021 that the Biden administration expel 300 Russian diplomats if Russia did not grant more visas to U.S. diplomats. Since Russia would undoubtedly retaliate in kind, and since there are now only 120 U.S. diplomats in Moscow, it might have been a good idea if the Senators had used a pocket calculator before issuing this statement.

The Senate statement is simply the ultimate extension, or reductio ad absurdum, of U.S. and NATO policy in recent years, which has tended towards a complete breakdown of diplomatic relations with Russia — and in the case of NATO, has led to precisely this outcome. The result is to damage or eliminate precisely those lines of communication which it is essential to keep open if minor incidents are to be prevented from escalating into major and unnecessary crises.

 If these moves were part of a U.S. considered strategy, they would be deeply foolish and reckless; but at a time when the U.S. leadership actually wants to reduce tension with Moscow, they verge on the insane.


Shutterstock/Zenzen
google cta
Analysis | Europe
Royal Navy
Top image credit: The Royal Navy guided missile destroyer HMS Duncan arrives in the port of Hamburg and moors at the Überseebrücke. The HMS Duncan arrives from Portsmouth and will leave the Hanseatic city on Tuesday, November 25, at 10:00 a.m. Marcus Golejewski/dpa via Reuters Connect

If Europe starts attacking Russian cargo ships, all bets are off

Europe

Inspired by the U.S. seizure on the high seas of ships carrying Venezuelan oil, Britain and other NATO countries are now considering using their navies to do the same to ships carrying Russian cargoes.

This would be a radical escalation of existing moves against Russia’s so-called “shadow fleet,” which have been restricted to the ports and territorial waters of NATO states. As such, they can be considered to fall under the sovereign jurisdiction of the states concerned. An extension of this strategy, as presently contemplated by some European countries, would be a limited but reasonable and comparatively risk-free way of increasing economic pressure on Russia.

keep readingShow less
Friedrich Merz
Top image credit: EUS-Nachrichten via shutterstock.com

Germany's grandstanding on Iran: The best Europe can muster?

Europe

In a striking display of recklessness, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz declared the Islamic Republic of Iran to be in its “last days and weeks,” a regime he asserted had “no legitimacy.”

While other Western leaders condemned the bloody clampdown on the protests in Iran — with, according to conservative estimates, around 2,500 a in few days — none of them went so far as to boldly prognosticate an imminent demise of the regime in Tehran.

keep readingShow less
Trump and Lindsey Graham
Top photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump, with Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick and Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), speaks to reporters aboard Air Force One en route from Florida to Joint Base Andrews, Maryland, U.S., January 4, 2026. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

Does MAGA want Trump to ‘make regime change great again’?

Washington Politics

“We must abandon the failed policy of nation building and regime change that Hillary Clinton pushed in Iraq, Libya, Egypt and Syria,” then-candidate Donald Trump said in his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention in 2016.

This wasn’t the first time he eschewed the foreign policies of his predecessors: “We’re not looking for regime change,” he said of Iran and North Korea during a press conference in 2019. “We’ve learned that lesson a long time ago.”

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.