Here’s how 2025 killed old-school diplomacy
At the end of December, we traditionally reflect on the events of the past year in order to understand what could be in store for us next year. The past 12 months have been a true test for global diplomacy, shaking the very foundations of a profession that is meant to facilitate political dialogue between world leaders and governments.
To better understand how bilateral and multilateral dialogues could evolve on the international stage next year, we have analyzed the key trends that shaped global diplomacy in 2025.
Diplomacy Live
Perhaps the most evident outcome of the year is that the art of diplomacy – traditionally conducted behind the closed doors of high offices – has shifted into the realm of a live political show.
This year, millions of people around the globe followed the twists and turns of the Ukraine peace process, developments in US-Russia relations, and other significant episodes in world politics, much like they would follow the new episodes of a captivating TV series.
At the same time, the leading roles in numerous diplomatic efforts were played not by the diplomats usually tasked with it – such as foreign ministers or ambassadors – but by figures appointed to this role by the “directors” of global politics.
For instance, Donald Trump, who set about reforming the US Department of State and other foreign policy agencies (including closing down USAID), appointed his close allies – special envoy Steve Witkoff and son-in-law Jared Kushner – to key diplomatic roles. Meanwhile, the unprecedented concentration of foreign policy power in the hands of Marco Rubio – who became both secretary of state and national security adviser for the first time since legendary US diplomat Henry Kissinger – did not necessarily secure him a central position within the national foreign policy framework.
A similar trend was observed in other countries, including Russia, where President Vladimir Putin actively involved not only Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov but also presidential aides Yury Ushakov and Vladimir Medinsky, along with the head of the Russian Direct Investment Fund, Kirill Dmitriev, in addressing diplomatic challenges.
The final stretch of the diplomatic marathon
Trump’s return to the White House has been a pivotal factor in revitalizing efforts to achieve a peaceful resolution to the Ukraine conflict. Aiming to end what he referred to as “Biden’s war,” the 45th/47th president of the United States has periodically revisited the idea of concluding a peace treaty between Russia and Ukraine.
To this end, this year the US and Russia held preliminary bilateral consultations in Riyadh and Istanbul, Trump and Putin talked on the phone several times, and the two presidents held a US-Russia summit in Anchorage, Alaska. It was the first such summit in the past four years and set the stage for the ongoing negotiations between the Kremlin and the White House.
Trump’s engagement on the Ukraine front also led to the resumption of direct Russia-Ukraine talks in Istanbul, which Vladimir Zelensky and former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson sabotaged in April 2022. These talks helped revive prisoner exchanges.
At the close of 2025, Trump and Zelensky held yet another meeting in Florida. The American administration seeks to push Kiev toward finalizing the details of a peace agreement. According to the representatives of all three sides, Washington, Moscow, and Kiev have made significant progress toward resolving the conflict; now they are entering the final stretch of the marathon, which, as any seasoned long-distance runner knows, can be the most challenging part.
Trump the peacemaker
Initially setting a brisk pace in his efforts to halt the largest armed conflict in Europe in the 21st century, the US president has approached other regional conflicts in a similarly dynamic manner.
The “Gaza peace council,” the “Trump Route” between Azerbaijan and Nakhchivan through Armenia’s Syunik region, extended phone conversations with the leaders of India and Pakistan, and the ceremony for signing a peace treaty between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda at the US Institute of Peace are just some of the highlights of Trump’s foreign policy endeavors over the past year – which, however, did not earn him a long-sought Nobel Peace Prize.
Positioning himself as the only US leader who has not engaged in full-scale military invasions, opting instead for targeted strikes to influence the governments of Venezuela and Nigeria, Trump has crafted a new foreign policy doctrine articulated in the updated National Security Strategy.
While maintaining the idea of dominance across all areas – from military might to “soft power” – through the well-familiar principles of “peace through strength,” “flexible realism,” and “America first,” he has defined new regional priorities. According to these, America aims to preserve its hegemony in the Western Hemisphere and “contain” China in the Indo-Pacific region, while reducing involvement in Europe, the Middle East, and other parts of the world.
The end of the ‘collective West’
The recent shift in geographical priorities explains why, over the past year, Trump has done more to dismantle the “collective West” than the entire Socialist bloc managed during the Cold War era.
His ambitions of making Greenland and Canada the 51st states of America or imposing hefty tariffs on imports from partner countries in the Asia-Pacific region and Europe signal an unprecedentedly hostile stance toward those who have until now been considered Washington’s “junior allies.”
While Trump’s goal was to prevent foreign elites from exploiting the US, his blunt diplomatic style has led to an unprecedented realignment: for the first time since Brexit in 2015, the United Kingdom and its former dominions (Canada, Australia, New Zealand) have formed closer ties with Europe, particularly Germany and France.
This strategic divergence between Washington and Europe is most evident in the context of the Ukraine conflict. As the American president urged an end to hostilities, arguing that Ukraine’s situation and Zelensky’s position would only worsen with time, European leaders such as UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, and French President Emmanuel Macron continued to support Zelensky’s determination to fight “to the last Ukrainian soldier.”
Zelensky himself hoped to “outlast Trump” and wait until the upcoming midterm elections in November 2026, when a Democratic majority in Congress might be more sympathetic to Kiev. In their efforts to undermine Trump’s peace initiatives, EU leaders approached a breaking point; their desire to continue supporting Ukraine through the expropriation of frozen Russian assets nearly pushed the European Union into a significant political rift, risking a loss of trust in European institutions among current or potential investors from the countries of the “global majority.”
Looking ahead to 2026
Clearly, the key players in global diplomacy are entering 2026 with very different mindsets. In Kiev, where corruption scandals and failures on the front lines collide with the cumulative effects of strikes on energy infrastructure, political tensions are escalating amid a power struggle. The political community is bracing for potential presidential elections, referendums, and other forms of expression of political will that could further exacerbate an already difficult internal situation.
In Europe, the mood is hardly more optimistic. Amid the militarization of economies and declining approval ratings of the ruling parties, euro-bureaucracy is reeling from the anti-corruption investigations surrounding former EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini, while national governments face the prospect of significant socio-economic upheaval. As a result, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni recommended that Italians “take a good rest” during the holidays, as next year “will be even worse.”
No doubt, it will be hard to find common ground as each country faces its own challenges and approaches them with its own mindset. As Americans nervously anticipate a government shutdown and potential unrest during the FIFA World Cup and the G20 summit which coincides with the nation’s 250th anniversary, Brazil, Hungary, and Israel are gearing up for elections; and India is finalizing preparations for its BRICS chairmanship. However, one thing is clear: the coming year may bring many surprises, which can radically alter our understanding of diplomacy as an art of engaging with those whose perspectives on the world are fundamentally different from our own.
