What does it mean when a leviathan turns to schoolyard taunts? States, as superstructures made of people, are subject to actions taken by those individuals. Diplomacy is adults talking with permission to set terms. So, why might a state, or its representatives, choose to insult another state?

That’s the central question at the heart of ““Filthy Lapdogs,” “Jerks,” and “Hitler”: Making Sense of Insults in International Relations,” in which Elise Rousseau and Stephane J. Baele examine the function of undiplomatic language.

“Our central contention is indeed that international insults constitute both at once tactical tools used to achieve interests by disrupting an interaction and modifying the payoffs associated with it and linguistic artifacts constructing and sharpening self- and other identities,” write the authors.

The paper was published in the fall of 2020, and the presence of President Donald Trump lingers heavily over the entire draft, though the authors take lengths to show his approach is hardly singular in the history of world politics. Twenty-first century leaders like Britain’s Boris Johnson and Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez feature, as do giants of the 20th century like President Richard Nixon and Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev. There are even prior examples, such as a 19th century letter used to nudge President William McKinely toward the Spanish-American war or the 1870 telegram edited by Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, used to spark the Franco-Prussian War.

Insults have a long history in international relations, sometimes with bloody consequences. Instead of treating these insults as irrational behavior, Rousseau and Baele instead look for the instrumental function behind name-calling.

“In the pragmatic literature, insults are considered ‘successful’ when they destabilize the target and, in so doing, create a new social situation. Therefore, insults are understood in opposition to the intuitive idea that they tend to be irrational outbursts of aggressiveness,” write the authors. “On the contrary, they are conceptualized as potentially advantageous linguistic devices that can be used tactically by individuals conducting their social interactions with broader strategic goals in mind.”

States and their agents use insults to disrupt and challenge the existing polite theater of diplomatic norms. Earlier this year, Critical State wrote about the Trump administration’s diplomacy as specifically following the beats of professional wrestling.

“The international insults used to qualify the EU in the wake of the Brexit vote were also used instrumentally in a bid to shift UK national identity, and yet they tabled on much broader background discursive formations that preceded the vote,” write the authors.

These insults have both international and domestic audiences, and they can sharpen divisions while bolstering the in-group appeal of the speaker’s followers. It’s a tool in the diplomats' toolkit, though, as the authors note, when insults become a habit for world leaders, they are much easier to ignore than when they are carefully chosen and used rarely.

“In an international environment where actors seek to preserve face and material interests alike, insults are a potentially powerful linguistic instrument to gain advantages, to destabilize a rival and force him/her into a reaction, to disrupt cooperation or secure connivance, or even to alter the structure of the system,” the authors conclude.

Sushmita Pathak documented the role of family planning in India, which will soon be the most populous nation on earth, even as its birth rate continues a long and radial decline. At present, much of this decline is a burden shifted on women, who opt for sterilizations after two or three or sometimes more children. Vasectomies, which are an outpatient procedure, have taken far less hold, with female sterilization at 38% while male sterilization is just 0.3%, according to government data. But, writes Pathak, “In the coming years, Vajpeyi said India needs to do more to encourage men to take part in family planning, through targeted social and behavioral change communication campaigns.”

Christy Crouse and Nathan Hosler called upon Congress to block the sale of drones and other weapons until monitoring is a legal requirement for those weapons sales. The advent of remote control and autonomous technologies especially used to facilitate counterinsurgency warfare by the United States and other countries with US weapons is subject to voluntary restriction by presidential directive. But, as the transition from Obama to Trump showed, voluntary opt-in rules are not enough to protect civilians from misuse of the technology. The authors, responding to a leak of Biden’s drone strategy, note that while its limits are a good start, “tighter requirements for targeted killings with drones are sorely needed.”

Tibisay Zea reported on the tension between green energy and lithium extraction in Chile’s Atacama desert. The desert is the world’s driest, but beneath the sands exists salty, brackish, and briney water rich in lithium. This water is brought to the service, where it is evaporated out in giant pools, the sun removing the water from the mineral, before the mines further process and produce useful lithium, which goes into batteries. This extraction can also disrupt the life patterns of Indigenous people that irrigate the desert and could disrupt bird habitats. It’s a tradeoff aimed at meeting the demand for stores of renewable power, one that warrants further study.

Freedom isn’t free; it’s a collectible available in booster packs.

It’s simple: thanks to the Treaty of Westphalia, retoots are retweets but tweets are not toots.

Emerald Island sorely lacking in quality green.

The World Cup runneth empty.

A work visa is just a promise to capital that some workers will never abandon the ship of industry, even as it collapses in flames.

Geocities Intelligence Agency.

S.P.E.C.T.R.E. hydrofoiled again.