For decades, global geopolitics has been framed as a contest between sovereign states, with the United States often presented as the leader of the so-called “free world” and the ultimate arbiter of international diplomacy. However, recent developments—particularly in the case of the Ukraine conflict—raise significant questions about who actually pulls the strings behind world diplomacy. With the Trump administration withdrawing U.S. support for Kyiv and calling for peace talks, while its traditional allies (or vassal states, as some would argue) continue advocating for prolonged conflict, we must now scrutinize the deeper forces at play.
The U.S. Role in Provoking Russia’s Special Military Operation
The notion that Russia was provoked into its Special Military Operation (SMO) in Ukraine is no longer a fringe argument. Prominent figures such as economist Jeffrey Sachs have laid out clear evidence that the U.S. orchestrated events leading up to the conflict, from NATO expansion eastward to the 2014 Maidan coup, which replaced a democratically elected government with a pro-Western regime. Even figures within the Trump administration now openly acknowledge that U.S. actions contributed to the escalation.
The Western narrative, which paints Russia as an unprovoked aggressor, ignores the deeper geopolitical manoeuvres that pushed Moscow into action. The Minsk Agreements, initially meant to provide a peaceful resolution to the Donbass conflict, were later admitted by Western leaders such as Angela Merkel and François Hollande to have been a ruse to buy time for Ukraine to militarize. The direct involvement of the U.S. in these deceptive tactics suggests that Washington never sought peace but rather a long-term confrontation with Russia.
The Role of Vassal States in Maintaining Conflict
While Washington played a central role in orchestrating the Ukraine conflict, its so-called allies—countries like the UK, Canada, Australia, and the EU—have acted as enforcers of U.S. policy, imposing sanctions, sending weapons, and blocking diplomatic solutions.
One of the most blatant examples of this subservience was Boris Johnson’s intervention in 2022, where he reportedly pressured Ukraine to abandon peace negotiations with Russia. This act of sabotage ensured that the war would continue, benefiting Western arms manufacturers and reinforcing NATO’s geopolitical relevance. The EU, despite facing severe economic consequences from sanctions on Russia, followed suit, demonstrating that its policies are dictated more by external pressures than by the interests of its own citizens.
Yet, as soon as the Trump administration signalled a shift in U.S. policy—cutting military aid to Ukraine and urging negotiations—these same vassal states doubled down on their support for prolonging the conflict. Why would they insist on continuing a war that even Washington is now backing away from? This contradiction suggests that an even deeper power structure governs world diplomacy.
The True Architects of Global Diplomacy
If the U.S. is no longer fully in control of its own foreign policy—at least in the case of Ukraine—then who is? Several key actors stand out:
1. The Military-Industrial Complex
The military-industrial complex, a term popularized by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, remains one of the most powerful forces in shaping global diplomacy. Western defence contractors such as Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and BAE Systems have reaped enormous profits from the Ukraine war. These entities maintain deep connections with policymakers, ensuring that conflicts remain profitable and protracted.
In many ways, NATO functions less as a defensive alliance and more as a mechanism for funnelling taxpayer money into private defence firms. European leaders, heavily lobbied by these corporations, have little incentive to deviate from the war narrative, even as their economies suffer from energy shortages and inflation.
2. The Financial and Banking Elite
Beyond the military-industrial complex, international finance plays a crucial role in global decision-making. Institutions like BlackRock, Vanguard, and major central banks exert tremendous influence over national policies. These financial entities benefit from prolonged conflicts, as war spending drives up debt, leading to further dependency on financial institutions.
Moreover, the Western sanctions regime—ostensibly designed to cripple Russia—has served to strengthen the dollar-based global financial system, ensuring that U.S. and allied economies remain tethered to the interests of multinational financial elites.
3. Intelligence Agencies and Deep-State Networks
The influence of intelligence agencies in directing global policy cannot be overstated. The CIA, MI6, and other Western intelligence networks have a long history of regime-change operations and disinformation campaigns to manipulate public perception. These agencies operate with minimal oversight, often pursuing agendas that do not align with democratic governance.
For example, the suppression of peace negotiations in Ukraine, the widespread censorship of dissenting voices, and the escalation of anti-Russian narratives all point to a coordinated effort by intelligence agencies to maintain global conflict.
4. The Think Tank Network
Organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the Atlantic Council, and the Bilderberg Group bring together policymakers, corporate executives, and military leaders to shape international strategies. These think tanks effectively create a parallel diplomatic apparatus, influencing government policies in ways that often bypass democratic accountability.
By controlling the intellectual and ideological discourse around global conflicts, these entities ensure that alternative perspectives—such as calls for peace or multipolar cooperation—are marginalized.
The Battle for Multipolarity
While the West continues to push for a unipolar world dominated by U.S.-aligned institutions, new power centres are emerging. The BRICS+ nations, led by Russia and China, are constructing an alternative diplomatic and financial framework that challenges Western hegemony.
The growing de-dollarization movement, increased trade between non-Western states, and the rise of alternative security alliances signal a shift away from U.S. dominance. Washington’s vassal states, however, remain locked in their outdated allegiance to a crumbling imperial order, resisting any movement toward multipolarity.
Conclusion: Who Really Runs Diplomacy?
The evidence suggests that world diplomacy is not dictated by elected governments or even by singular hegemonic powers like the U.S., but rather by a complex web of deep-state institutions, financial elites, and corporate interests. While Washington plays an outsized role, its ability to dictate global events is constrained by forces beyond its control.
The fact that America’s traditional allies continue pushing for war even as the Trump administration seeks de-escalation is a glaring sign that Western governments no longer serve their own people’s interests. Instead, they act as enforcers of a global order dictated by elites whose power transcends national borders.
As the world transitions toward a multipolar era, these entrenched forces will resist change at every turn. The challenge for those who seek a more just and balanced global order is to expose these hidden powers and forge new pathways for diplomacy that prioritize genuine sovereignty over subservience to the elite-controlled system.
