The blame game surrounding Russia’s exclusion from the Group of Seven (G7) was just one of the many side stories piquing Western leaders in their recent display of irrelevance. It’s somewhat fitting that even the G7’s token communiqué was left in tatters—with all of its hackneyed neoliberal pledges for gender change and climate equality. Instead it was the insider anecdotes that dominated the news cycle. This summer, a remarkable array of summits is taking place, from NATO and BRICS to Finland and North Korea, but if the Quebec G7 entrée was anything to go by, we are in for a smorgasbord of sour grapes and humble pie.

Now that the 2014 reincorporation of Crimea into Russia is no longer seen by the international community as the great Anschluss of our times and given that the election meddling hysteria is not sustainable for much longer, something has to give. With Trump and Italian PM Conte expressing support for Russia’s return to the group, other members seem to have countered with a secondary strategy: they now disagree about the disagreement. Hardliners now argue that Russia is choosing to self-exclude from the Group of Seven, even neocon-supervised encyclopedia Wikipedia cites an article on Russia’s intent to leave, but contains nothing other than sardonic hypotheticals from Russian officials. Putin and Foreign Minister Lavrov have stated on a number of occasions that Russia never left and is in fact still waiting to resume hosting of the boycotted Sochi summit.

It’s difficult not to be cynical about the jet-set diplomacy of intergovernmental forums like the G7, which last just two days and appear to be little more than an annual ‘Look at us’ PR parade of self-aggrandizement. One of the few reasons thought to justify the continued existence of the G7 is that it was a conciliatory platform for Germany to make its mark because less powerful countries like France and the UK are enjoying a much more meaningful role as permanent members of the UN Security Council. Germany’s stake in the G7 is virtually duplicated with the presence of an EU delegation, since Chancellor Merkel wears the pants in the EU family the way Trump wears a red power tie.

In an incident from the summit only recently made public by Ian Bremmer, it is alleged that Trump threw Merkel some Starburst candy, with the remark that she needn’t complain any more about how he never gives her anything. Trump may be known for his good-cop-bad-cop style of negotiation, but the rumored source of animosity was his frustration with the Merkel-led mobbing that eventually made him sign on the dotted line. Merkel would have held on to this minor victory were it not for second-generation PM and feckless Canuck Justin Trudeau, whose tariff banter and bad-faith diplomacy with Trump not only left him sullied and browbeaten, it gave Trump an excuse to nullify the G7 communiqué from the luxury of his airborne Air Force One.

Just like his favorite kosher candy, Trump maintains an “unexplainably juicy” inner circle of associates, advisers and backers—a faction never identified by MSM for its over-representation unlike, say, Whites males. The most controversial influencer, for obvious reasons, is billionaire Israel-firster Sheldon Adelson, a man whose Blofeld-like locomotion sends chills down the anti-war coalition’s spine. He hasn’t yet subdued his feisty Persian cat, but to that end he has commissioned Likud-lickspittle John Bolton to massage the idea a little deeper into the Oval Office. It isn’t Trump that needed Adelson’s money this time, but the RNC, supposedly in order to be “competitive” in November. But just as Tesla has incredible brand recognition without Elon Musk ever purchasing an advertisement, the Republican Party could cruise to victory on sheer popular support and minuscule donations, if only the president would actualize his election promises to their fullest.

Regrettably, Adelson’s regent is accompanied by a throng of like-minded types, including the Kushners, who should have been thrown out on their tushners after Jared’s security clearance was revoked and Ivanka’s recurrent jar-of-tears trick has exposed her as a putz for obvious war propaganda. Other terrible choices from which Trump just doesn’t seem to learn include Goldman and Sachs’ Gary Cohn, shyster adviser Sam Nunberg and incompetent lawyer Michael Cohen—all of whom were terrible. Even Henry Kissinger has been drafted in as a foreign policy adviser, a man who once said that power was the ultimate aphrodisiac, though at 95 years of age his classic Realpolitik may work out to be a force of moderation. It isn’t very well known that Kissinger has a long-standing relationship with Vladimir Putin, and it’s almost certain that he was the intermediary (and not Bolton) who is to thank for the upcoming Trump-Putin summit. Thus, the Abe Lincoln of Jewish America is colluding with the Russians; now what do Maddow, Olbermann and Kristol think of that?

As Russia collusion-gate fizzles and its subscribers struggle with phantom evidence-withdrawal symptoms, the demonization of Russia will still nevertheless live on in the hearts and hiveminds of Western nihilists. Its form, however, will need to be adapted and generalized. Recently, US lawmakers ruled that Russia Today’s election coverage was guilty of the crime of “sowing discord among Americans.” Meanwhile Dems on the House Intelligence Committee concluded that even voter suppression was the handiwork of cyber bandits from the Russian internyet.

European governments from Bulgaria to Norway and Netherlands have also begun to cry Russia hacking, but perhaps the most desperate effort has been to revisit the 2016 Brexit referendum and claim Russian meddling—at a time when foreigners like George Soros openly pour money into efforts to stop Brexit. The contradictions never end, as unhinged partisans have seemingly become addicted to a shot of Russian vodka in their liberal kool-aid. At any rate, seeing American hero and classic liberal Edward Snowden safely asylummed in Moscow must trigger a cognitive dissonance of some sobering effect.

If Putin is a dictator, he is one of the most refreshingly transparent ones in world politics. He partakes in televised 4-hour question-answer sessions with ordinary citizens. He wins 77% of the vote, running as an independent. Western liberals will admit that Putin is hugely popular in Russia (indeed he should be if he is the mastermind responsible for half the things Russia’s enemies claim), yet they still think he needs to rig elections to stay in power.

Russia’s steady hand in Syria and long-suffering patience with hitherto Western aggression and defamation has earned Putin the respect of many in the international community. Trump may represent the better end of a polarized Western polity, but the damage has been done after years of cowboy diplomacy from NATO satellite states constructing missile ‘defense shields’ at Russia’s border. If the Trump-Putin summit in Finland is to be anything other than cosmetic, a lot more will need to change in the coming years, though Helsinki is a good start. Obama actually flew to Moscow in happier times between the two countries to meet with Putin over a traditional Russian breakfast, though one can’t help but think he would have felt more comfortable pressing the flesh in a Finnish sauna.

The media may have carried water for Obama for eight years, but now the new golden boy on the world stage is former Rothschild banker Emmanuel Macron, a man who was countersignalled to power as some sort of “anti-establishment centrist.” Even more insulting to public intelligence, Politico recently characterized the 40-year-old toy-boy as an alpha male, shoulder to shoulder with Mr Trump. Hope for a gallant Gaul ruling the roost in France were raised early in his presidency when he dared link African emigration to birth rates. Alas those hopes have since been thoroughly caponized. Macron now never strays far from the script and recently compared Italy’s patriotic resurgence to leprosy.

Macron was in his element addressing US Congress in April, delivering a speech that may as well have been written by Bernard-Henri Lévy. Iran can never have nukes, Assad used chemical weapons, and fighting terrorist groups is the key to Western liberty. It was an ode to globalism and a unipolar “world order.” The preferred term nowadays, however, is “multilateralism.” His dire warning against America “closing the door to the world” was even rounded off by a snarky “Make the Planet Great Again” to stupefying Congressional fanfare.

Ironically, Macron prefaced his sermon with an anecdote about Voltaire and diplomat Benjamin Franklin exchanging pleasantries in Paris, 1778, though it was somehow lost on his speech writers that Voltaire was a distinguished anti-Semite and Franklin an immigration-restrictionist to the point of excluding “swarthy” Germans and Swedes. Macron then launched into the standard hagiography on certain domestic “fears” and the horrors of “isolationism,” “withdrawal” and “nationalism.”

But the prize for the year’s most derisory ulterior motive in international diplomacy goes to deviant washed-up sports star Boris Becker, whose recent attempts to gain diplomatic immunity have made comical headlines. Becker, who is tens of millions of euros in debt, claims to now be an envoy of the Central African Republic and therefore immune from legal proceedings against him. To be fair, the ploy is not completely disingenuous, since the star has been a tireless ambassador for Afro-European relations for years, consorting exclusively with women of African extraction and having four children by three such women. On the other hand, should his plan succeed he will have to be wary of the disturbing ongoing African predilection for albino body parts. New balls please.

Intriguingly, the concept of diplomatic immunity was pioneered by none other than Genghis Khan of the Mongol Empire. The Khan strongly insisted on an untouchable status for diplomats and wrought terrible revenge on states that violated this code, not because he was enchanted by enlightenment values but because it was ruthlessly pragmatic and disproportionately benefited his style of warfare. Still, it was apparently more progressive than the approach of the Khan’s namesake and incumbent Mayor of London Sadiq Khan, who is unwilling to extend the same guarantees to the President of the United States of America. George III would be proud.