The Third Story: Power, Diplomacy, and the Unheard Truth

Every dispute has three sides: the version of the first party, the version of the second, and the truth that emerges if both were to sit together and resolve their differences. However, the world rarely allows to hear this third story because powerful forces work to create a version that serves their interests. Nowhere is this more evident than in global politics, where superpowers intervene in conflicts between smaller nations, not to mediate, but to manipulate outcomes in their favor.

The Ukraine-Russia Conflict and the Role of the U.S.

One of the most evident contemporary examples of this dynamic is the ongoing Ukraine-Russia conflict. The United States has positioned itself as a key player in the crisis, ostensibly in the name of democracy and human rights. However, beneath the surface, geopolitical and economic motivations are at play. Ukraine is rich in minerals and natural resources, and Western corporations have long had their eyes on these assets. The conflict, therefore, is not just about territorial integrity or ideological battles but also about who gets control over these resources.

Smaller nations, such as Ukraine, often find themselves in the unfortunate position of needing the support of a larger power to survive. In turn, this support does not come without strings attached. The alliance with a superpower is rarely about benevolence—it is about leverage. When big nations step in, it is not to let the smaller ones resolve their disputes but to ensure they remain dependent on their protection and resources.

The Pattern in History: Divide and Rule

This is not a new phenomenon. Throughout history, powerful nations have inserted themselves into the disputes of smaller ones, not to resolve them, but to maintain control. Take the colonial era, for example. The British Empire mastered the "divide and rule" strategy, fostering divisions between native populations in India, Africa, and the Middle East to prevent any unified resistance against them. India’s partition in 1947, largely influenced by British policies, is a testament to how external powers create and sustain conflicts for their own strategic gains.

Similarly, during the Cold War, the U.S. and the Soviet Union interfered in numerous regional conflicts—not to foster peace but to ensure that smaller countries aligned with their ideological and economic interests. The Korean War, Vietnam War, and numerous coups in Latin America orchestrated by the CIA were not about letting nations decide their fate, but about ensuring the global dominance of one superpower over the other.

The Supremacy of Power in Negotiations

One of the fundamental truths of diplomacy is that it is often dictated by power rather than fairness. Can a smaller country mediate a major international conflict? Theoretically, yes. Realistically, no. It is always the larger powers that dictate the terms, ensuring that smaller nations do not have the autonomy to negotiate directly. For instance, in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, mediation has always been conducted by superpowers like the U.S. or influential blocs like the European Union, rather than neutral smaller nations that might have had the ability to bring a balanced perspective.

The United Nations, which was envisioned as a neutral global body, has often found itself paralyzed because of the influence exerted by the most powerful countries, particularly those with veto power in the Security Council. This ensures that no real resolution takes place unless it serves the interests of these dominant players.

The Philosophy of Control and Dependency

The world operates on a system where smaller entities rely on bigger ones, not out of choice but necessity. Throughout nature, we see a similar pattern—small animals depend on larger ecosystems for survival, but the larger predators control the balance. This dependency is not about mutual benefit but about ensuring the dominance of the more powerful entity.

Philosophically, this reflects a deeper human condition: the fear of losing control. Superpowers do not allow smaller nations to independently resolve conflicts because a truly independent and self-sufficient small nation threatens the very structure of global dominance. The ideal world would allow for fair negotiations between equals, but the reality is that those who control resources, military strength, and economic influence will always shape the narrative to their advantage.

The Third Party’s Advantage

Whether in personal relationships or international diplomacy, the entry of a third party into a dispute between two entities often skews the outcome in favor of the more powerful player. Rather than allowing the two parties to resolve their differences independently, the third party manipulates the situation to serve its own interests. This creates a dependency where neither of the original disputants emerges victorious, but the mediator gains leverage and control. In the geopolitical arena, this translates to economic exploitation, military dominance, and continued instability that benefits those who orchestrate it. The challenge, therefore, is for smaller nations and individuals alike to recognize these patterns and strive for direct, fair, and independent resolutions whenever possible.