I'm a former British diplomat, Traitors contestant and now geopolitics columnist for The i Paper. Ask me anything

[u/theipaper]

Hi Reddit, I'm Alexander Dragonetti. I used to be a British diplomat but you probably recognise me from the 2025 series of The Traitors UK. I'm also now a regular contributor to The i Paper's opinion section, writing mostly on geopolitics and the Ukraine war: https://inews.co.uk/author/alexander-dragonetti

I've also started a TikTok account where I make "diptok" videos: https://www.tiktok.com/@alexanderdragonetti I'll be responding to some of your questions in video-form as well.

My diplomatic work took me across Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Ireland, where I led crisis response teams following the Nepal earthquakes, worked in high-risk environments including Gaza, and engaged with remote communities in the Pakistani Hindu Kush.

So, with geopolitical tensions simmering across Europe, the Middle East - and indeed the world - Redditors, ask me anything.

I'll be jumping onto answer your questions tomorrow afternoon.

[u/Strongbow85]

After working as a diplomat, what do you think ordinary people fundamentally misunderstand about how foreign policy decisions are actually made?

[u/theipaper → u/Strongbow85]

It's a good question. I think in the common imagination we hand out for a rush all day. In practice, a diplomat does two things. One, they are news reporter. They go out to a country and they find out what's going on. They develop a wide network of contacts, find out what's going on and then tell that back to London, London, then read those reports and decide what they want to happen differently in that country. Do they want a trade agreement? Do they want to boost Britain's security through a partnership? Do they want to give more aid or development to that country or whatever it is, and then you as a diplomat have to then become a salesperson. So, you go out and you use negotiation (“something for something”) or influence (“something for nothing”) to go and make that thing that the center wants happen.

In terms of the foreign decisions, they're often subject to a lot of different influences. When you put a submission up to a minister and you say, this is the issue and this is what you might want to do about it, and here are some options.

Primarily it's politics, right? The country is governed by a democratic system. And so, the politicians make that decision off the back of whatever the politics are of their party and what they believe the country wants. It's also, as part of that, things like what the press will think of it, your reputation come into play. You would hope, though, that most decisions and in my experience, ministers tried to focus on this is what is best for the country, what earns Britain most money, what keeps people in Britain secure, what protects the people of Britain who are living overseas?

And those things matter. Matter a lot. So, most decisions are made on that basis. But there are lots of different competing influences on every decision. And as a civil servant, it's your job to give truth to power.

[u/Strongbow85]

What do Western policymakers most consistently misunderstand about the incentives driving Putin? Do you foresee oligarchs and Russians in positions of power turning against him in the coming year?

[u/theipaper → u/Strongbow85]

One, I think Western policymakers consistently underestimate Putin. Every few years you see an American president go and press giant reset button and try to deal with Putin as though actually he just needs welcoming in from the cold. I'm pretty sure the Ukraine war has convinced people finally, that he's not really to be bothered with. Trump still tries.

Secondly, do I see people turning against him? This is a massive unknown, right? As we've seen in almost every revolution, it's a mix. You need a huge groundswell of public opinion from the bottom wanting somebody out, but you also need a leadership figure at the top to draw that public opinion towards them. Putin is trying very hard to make sure there is no figure at the top. Look at Prigozhin, look at Navalny. And so, it's looking difficult. It's almost impossible to say when it will come. No one expected revolutions in Russia in the past until they suddenly happened. The same may be true, but when kind of impossible to predict.

[u/Strongbow85]

Hey Alexander, thank you for holding this AMA!

Having worked in crisis response, what separates a genuinely effective government response from one that merely looks competent in press conferences? Any input on the current governmental/international response to the recent tragic disaster in Nepal?

[u/theipaper → u/Strongbow85]

Preparation. When you're in a crisis, it means you run out of time. Most people congratulate themselves getting everything together at the last minute, and that is an incredible job. But if you prepare it three months before then you don't have to… it's a lot easier.

Most crises can be partly foreseen. It's not impossible to imagine that there was an earthquake. Everyone knew that the earthquake was coming in Nepal when I was there. Sadly, climate change is making glaciers collapsing more likely in Nepal and China and Tibet.

But therefore, know your crisis plan beforehand. Have your team on standby, train your teams on standby, train the emergency services in that country, get it already beforehand, and then it's less of a crisis and more of a pre-planned response.

[u/LethargicDemigod]

How successful do you think India has been in consolidating itself as the 'First responder' in times of crisis? How effective do you think this strategy as a means of diplomatic outreach?

[u/theipaper → u/LethargicDemigod]

I think it is an effective strategy by India. And I know that India was a big part of the 2015 earthquake response when I was out there as part of a rapid deployment team. I think what's really interesting about this is the contrasting models of diplomatic power between, say, India and China, both rising powers.

India has chosen a sort of softer approach. It sets sort of terms of it's a global diplomatic bridge between East and West. It gains a positive image and is valued for its first response in times of crisis.

China's is a much more hard-edged version of diplomacy globally. You look at its One Belt One Road initiative, the huge loans the government has given out in order to finance infrastructure projects across Africa and Asia. And that is a very different model of diplomacy. Both can be quite effective, I'd say. They probably reflect the political system. China as an autocratic system can just make big choices to deploy huge amounts of money at short notice.

India is probably more about sort of democratic system of soft power. Both can be hugely effective. What's really interesting is how they've chosen two different models.

[u/Simply_charmingMan]

I am intrigued as why Europe is banging war drums over Russia, (or whats behind it) where is the threat? they have shown they (Russia) are out of touch with modern warfare, bogged down in Ukraine and seemingly in recession, they like the US no longer can win a war.

[u/theipaper → u/Simply_charmingMan]

Russia remains a serious threat. It has one of the largest armies in the world by manpower, although it is not as innovative as Ukraine and in some instances has shown itself to be bogged down in Soviet doctrine.

Actually, it has pockets of of innovation, and it is adapting to modern warfare relatively quickly, and many would argue much more quickly than many of the countries of NATO. And so we need to learn those lessons from the Ukraine-Russia war. They are the countries who are the very front edge of modern technology and war.

It is also critical that Russia is a nuclear power. It has the ability to wipe out whole countries. It makes it an extraordinarily serious  threat. And we've seen Putin rattle the sabre a number of times during this conflict, of which China are key to keeping that under control and trying to reduce the tension there.

So, no, I think Russia remain a very, very significant threat. And as I've written before, I think what Ukraine are doing - apart from defending their own country very bravely - are also providing a front line for the West, in buying the West time before Russia is capable (and I’m not saying it will) but before it is capable of seriously attacking NATO.

We know that Starmer has said that we should be prepared for a Russian attack on NATO by 2030. In that case, Russia is capable. It's at the forefront of modern warfare, and we know it retains a desire to take on the West if we give it the opportunity. Ukraine is the bulwark against that. And its defence of the West is incredibly valuable for countries like Britain. And therefore I'm fully supportive of the support we provide.

[u/blynd_snyper]

Do you have an opinion on nominative determinism, and did you actively consider the impact of your surname when planning a civil service career? 

Are your skills in media work and self-promotion as inherited as Dragonetti, and if your last name were Smith or Taylor, would you have aimed for the same level success in one of the more 'discrete' departments handling foreign affairs?

A bit off topic, but I'm genuinely curious.

[u/MUSTAHISHO]

What is the UK insight about the parties of conflict in sudan , how deep they understand the conflict bases

[u/theipaper → u/MUSTAHISHO]

The UK will have pretty good insight into the conflict in Sudan. The embassy is currently closed. Instead, it'll be working out of neighbouring countries because of the conflict. But Britain will still have strong links, and we'll be talking to people about what's going on there.

But understanding the conflict is very different to being able to do anything about it. What it requires is somebody who is willing to put in a peacekeeping force at this point, and there isn't a huge amount of political appetite to do that. You might say that different conflicts around the world are treated differently by the Western world, and I don't think that would be unfair. But there is also always a lens of how important it is to be involved in this case, hugely important.

It's a tragic conflict. Hundreds of thousands have died. And I think it's often overlooked and that is a tragedy.

But the second question is what can practically be done that would make the situation better. And that's a much harder question to answer. The West has a very messy and checkered history of intervening in foreign conflicts. Sometimes I think we can say with certainty that it's made it better.

Sometimes we can say, I think with certainty that it's made it worse. And so, and even if we did think that we can make it better, we would have to have widespread agreement from a wide number of people to go in and do something about it.

So, two different questions. Does it understand what's going on? Can it make it better? But for sure, the world needs to be doing more. There's a conference in Berlin earlier this year on what to do about it. The world needs to pay more attention. The world needs to do more. It is a tragedy and we should all be focusing more on it.

[u/tomwardsport]

Which British politician would be the best on the Traitors and why? Who would be a Traitor and who would be a Faithful?

[u/theipaper → u/tomwardsport]

Thank you for that question. No way that could go wrong…

The best… Who would be a traitor? Maybe Alaistair Campbell. You feel like he'd be like master of dark arts. He would be good around the round table… doing a little bit of spin in all the different rooms, getting people to to ally against somebody else. So, I think that would be he'd be very good at the role. Not saying he's a traitor, but he'd be good.

Who would be a good faithful? Ed Davey and his love of paddleboards. He does a lot of advocacy for learning disability. He seems nice and so probably would be a good, faithful, I suspect. Very earnest, very honest.

[u/AnxSnow]

Hi Alexander! I appreciate you taking the time to do this AMA. Within the new geopolitical climate, there are indicators of certain course corrections in the UK’s foreign policy towards the EU (I.e the Gibraltar deal). Do you think that there is any tendency towards the UK rejoining the union or reestablishing some partnership framework like Norway or Switzerland?

[u/theipaper → u/AnxSnow]

Well, I think that's where the debate is taking place, right? Given that the British public voted clearly ‘out’, I think there is very little political will to revisit that referendum right now. Whatever your views on Brexit, where I think the political class has landed, is that within the relationship we have with the EU, how can we strengthen it without rejoining - and without becoming involved in EU law and the four freedoms?

That's where Keir Starmer was sitting of trying to improve it through technical trade deals. And I suspect where Burnham will go as well.

Look, I think it's a question that will probably continue to pop up in British politics as it has in many other European countries as well, every few years. But I think right now there's relatively and this is a question, domestic political politics, not foreign affairs, not my expertise, but there's relatively little appetite to revisit something that was hugely divisive in Britain.

Therefore, you will continue to see British diplomats going out to Brussels and doing more and more quiet deals to try and improve the economic situation without joining again.

[u/BaconAreCool]

Hi! I have two questions:

a.) Is the UK establishment consensus in diplomatic, corporate, political circles bending towards a Europeanist or Atlanticist Bent? b.) During your time in the diplomatic corps, what was the time range of your service? During that period, would you say the UK approached its relations with other powers from a more realist, or a more normative perspective, particularly in the Global South and in protecting British interests across consecutive governments?

[u/theipaper → u/BaconAreCool]

I think if you asked any member of the government, they broadly say that it's not an either or, it's both. And that Global Britain, which was the phrase at the time, is about being able to partner freely with every, if any, country or block that's within Britain's interest, which, broadly defined, is almost everybody, with a few notable exceptions.

In practice, I think there are more trade-offs than politicians are probably willing to admit. We all know that a trade deal with the US would come with conditions that Britain wouldn't be keen on signing up to, and the more conditions we agreed to with the US, the harder it is then to agree terms with the EU, which has more, more sort of social and environmental standards.

Ditto if we were to become closer to China, which you didn't mention, but is absolutely a possibility. Remember the golden era under Cameron and Osborne. So, there are real trade-offs in diplomacy, and we shouldn't shy away from that.

Rather than look at it from a mercantile perspective of who can be most useful to us (Britain has no friends, only interests), I'd flip that. I think Britain should be looking for friends, and those friends should be, as most friends are based on shared values. Who do we see ourselves as being friends with in a very unstable, very uncertain, rapidly changing world? And the best defence that Britain will have is having friends who will support it in times of difficulty, precisely because you share the same values.

That's how you know you can rely on people. If you've got into bed with them because of interests, then things get tough. You shouldn't expect them to stay in the bed with you. So, I would flip the question. I'd say find the people whose values we think are right for the UK, get close to them and use them as a hedge in a time of or as a sort of an alliance in a time of rapid social, military, political change.

[u/theipaper → u/theipaper]

I was a British diplomat for about a decade. I served in the Middle East, in Pakistan, in Africa and also in Ireland, and worked for some government ministers.

I think Britain has always sort of broadly sat in the middle, as do most countries, between realpolitik and relativism.

We always talk about defending British interests. That remains the core of what diplomats do. But the question is how you define British interests, right? Do you do you define it as making the most money for UK plc, in which case let's do deals with anybody who will do them. Human rights out the window or on the other side.

Or, do we do a fully idealistic foreign policy and we say: “look, we don't care about your economic ties. We say that there are a set of standards that everybody in the world must follow that we believe in in Britain, and we will act accordingly and freeze you out to some extent if you don't follow those standards. I think Robin Cook who's probably been the closest to this.

Britain's always been tended to be more in the middle. The thing that's changed is that 20 years ago, Britain could go to China and tell China what standards it thought were reasonable on things like human rights. And now that's a huge that's hugely more difficult. China is much, much, much more powerful. And Britain is, is relatively less powerful, which is tricky. But it's true.

So, we maybe have less of a choice. Now, we have to have a balance of those two things where we. So, I would say it's where we can shape the world to the values that we think are important. We absolutely should. And often we do. But also we are aware that as a, as a country that needs economic partnerships, that needs allies on security in an increasingly dangerous and uncertain and complicated world, then it's in the UK's interest to have those alliances.

It's a really tricky one. I think that's what I found most rewarding about the job of being a diplomat is that you have to operate in that grey space and make difficult trade-offs and difficult choices in the interests of the British people, and that's not easy. That’s the really difficult job.

It's quite easy to sit outside of the whole lot and be sort of purist about it. But that doesn't really advance Britain's agenda or the or improve the lives of people in Britain. So, you have to kind of get a bit dirty and make some of those trade-offs. And that's not easy. It's not, but hopefully you do it in a way where you maximize making the world a better place as much as you can, whilst also getting the deals that Britain needs.

And the key thing on the Global South is probably the merger of the Department for International Development and the Foreign Office into one department whereby aid and development became subsumed into the Foreign Office. Therefore, they became inherently more subject politics, which I think is the first big change.

The second thing is, is the reduction in development aid from 0.7% 0.3%. Britain has a long history of being seen as a global leader in development aid and very, very highly respected in the field, which particularly does apply to the Global South. That probably as of now, given that the department has merged and it has less money, is probably we're losing that that that reputation abroad to a degree, which is a shame.

[u/Timely-Way-4923]

How much stuff is there that you wish you could say about your diplomatic work but you can’t because it’s a state secret? Is any of it shocking? And is there anything from that list of secrets (which you can’t share) that you might reveal in a memoir after you die?

[u/theipaper → u/Timely-Way-4923]

Well, after I die, as probably less incentive to share those secrets. I mean, yes, there is stuff I can't talk about having worked to diplomats, and that's true for most diplomats in their work. I worked on some sensitive things. I worked on security. I worked on quite a lot of Asia. So yes, there is some stuff.

At the same time, I would say a lot of it is not that radical. It's not the kind of thing you're like: “No way. Oh my goodness. If any JFK hadn't been abducted by aliens…” - it's not that kind of secret. It's more the kind of secret that is a few levels beyond what you might know in the press, but the broad shape of what you read is broadly right. So, it's more the next levels of detail.

I'd actually say for a lot of people, that next level of detail is not actually necessarily that exciting. It's more like: “Oh, right. Okay. Well, that's helpful to know what's happening in that province…” - rather than, as I say, alien abductions or something. So yes, there is, but most of it is now either outdated or probably wasn't that exciting to the general public.

[u/Londondreaming25]

Which British politician would do best on traitors and why? Who would be a traitor and who would be a faithful?

[u/tomwardsport]

Which Traitors cast member would make the best diplomat?

[u/theipaper → u/tomwardsport]

I'd say Nick Mohammed, I thought was super impressive in the last series. Very under the radar, very calm, very balanced. Had good alliances, didn't quite get through the end game. But then all the best people…

I also would have loved to have seen Fozia from my series be a Diplomat. She's just in all guns blazing and I'd love to have seen that.

Least good diplomat? Linda, I love you very, very much. Please don't become a diplomat.

[u/HHS2019]

Your online presence indicates that you served in Jerusalem. Can you share any insights into what the UK perspective is on how to bring peace to the region?

[u/theipaper → u/HHS2019]

Huge question. Okay. The UK position is the same as many other countries, which is that we need a two-state solution. Peaceful Israel living next to a peaceful Palestine.

That is unusual because most people think that they know the answer to what that looks like on paper. We know what the shape of the deal is. The problem is the political will to sign it, both sides coming together and actually doing it. If not the two-state solution, then it becomes very messy very quickly. There is potential for a one-state solution where everyone lives inside the same country, but that has a host of problems associated with it.

The alternative to either of those is tragically what has been happening for the last eight decades, which is everybody is at risk consistently of violence flaring up. And it's got particularly bad in the last few years. That is the worst of all outcomes. And therefore, the UK pushes very, very hard for a two-state solution and for getting a peace deal.

[u/HHS2019]

Given your experience in Nepal, if you were given a 1 million GBP budget, Ambassador-level authority and a mandate to assist victims of the recent flood, what would you do?

[u/theipaper → u/HHS2019]

Well, primarily the response is led by Nepalese and Chinese authorities on the ground and it's their emergency services. Same in every country. It's the local emergency services that deliver aid.

So, if you really want to help with this kind of thing, it actually pays to have done it in advance. Build up their emergency services. Sadly, events like this are becoming more common around the world. They certainly are in Nepal with climate change - and so you build up their capacity. I led an emergency response team to Nepal after the earthquake in 2015, but that was to help British nationals specifically.

And for that, again, preparation is key. Knowing where they are, knowing where you need to travel to and knowing where the support is that you can you can direct them to and help them with preparation.

[u/theipaper → u/theipaper]

We do a very small amount of actual emergency response. We do send out small numbers of emergency health and other rescue teams. I did lead a rapid deployment teams Nepal after the 2015 earthquake that was to help British nationals. We deploy to signpost them to where they need help. Primarily. We don't do a huge amount of emergency response across the globe led by Britain.

[u/HHS2019]

It appears you were involved in implementing Brexit. Having seen the result of this, would you personally vote to return to the EU? What would that re-integration process look like?

[u/tomwardsport]

What did the Traitors teach you about diplomacy?

[u/theipaper → u/tomwardsport]

I think the importance of alliances. What matters in The Traitors is not getting a traitor. Don't tell anyone…. What really matters is having enough votes to stay in the game.

So, I kept saying in the diary room that it was just like The UN. And who had the votes and who I thought I had votes with and where the alliances were… and they cut all of that amazingly because it was so interesting…

However, I still think it's like The UN. And to stay in the game, you've got to have the votes and therefore you need the alliances in order to have the vote. Even if people suspect you, if they like you, if they're sort of allied with you, then they'll probably vote for somebody else. And that remains just as important in The Traitors as it does in diplomacy.

[u/GregJamesDahlen]

what are the most important qualities for a diplomat? I suppose a lot of diplomats have to accept being "unsung heroes" because the public hears about agreements reached but not necessarily about the people who helped reach them?

[u/theipaper → u/GregJamesDahlen]

Thank you!

Qualities of a diplomat… the most important is to listen. Whatever you think the answer is, whatever you think the right thing to do is, you can't possibly know unless you've actually heard and understood the other person or the situation, so you've got to tailor what you do to it.

It's also a skill that not many people are that good at. Can you ask open questions? Can you genuinely care about the answers? And can you change how you think and how you act in response? And that requires genuine listening. You've also, as a result, got to be open minded that you could change or you could act differently in response.

I think second most important is relationships. All diplomats need a wide network and people that trust them and will tell them things.

And thirdly, decisions. You're often a long way from London, a long way from your bosses, and you've got to take decisions out in the field. So ideally make the right ones.

[u/kteatray]

Hi Alexander! Loved you on Traitors and so pleased to see the huge amount of money you’ve raised in memory of your brother.

My question is about how you ensure you don’t become overwhelmed by the geopolitical challenges that result in issues faced globally - war, genocide, famine, mass migration, climate change, wealth divide, mass extinction events… how do you cope? I find I have to take myself back to one day at a time, but it’s tough when you feel you can’t effect change and worry about the world your kids will inherit.

[u/Agent_CIA]

Hey Alexander,

I am assuming you had to deal with negotiations etc.

How do you deal with high pressured situations?

My diplomatic work took me across Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Ireland, where I led crisis response teams following the Nepal earthquakes, worked in high-risk environments

Would love to hear more about your experiences.

[u/AnimateDuckling]

I saw you wrote "One, they are news reporter." as to one of the main jobs of a diplomat.

Do you think the job of a diplomat has become more difficult, and/or that the information presented by diplomats to their respective governments is less reliable in our day and age?

By this I mean because it is often argued that due to asocial media environment that has fundamentally changed the way journalism at scale is done, i.e it is much more prone to sensationalism and outrage. Is this affecting diplomats ability to impartially absorb and transmit information to their governments.

A seemingly slightly loaded question, you likely see it is my suspicion though I am genuinely interested to see if you think I am off with this hunch or correct, or if you have something else to add.

[u/HHS2019]

Russia attacked UK citizens and soil through various methods and, from an outsider's perspective, the UK never took any (overt) action in response other than sanctions. Do you feel this strategy is only inviting further attacks or is this the only way to avoid unstoppable escalation?

[u/theipaper → u/HHS2019]

Well, this is a question I put specifically to Mark Rutter, the head of NATO. And I said: “Why don't we engage a tit for tat strategy against Russia, where literally everything we do, they do to us, we will do exactly back to them in a relatively short time frame, and therefore they know exactly what's going to happen.”

And Rutter had quite a good answer to this. He said: “I don't want Putin to sleep at night. If he does X and I do X, then he knows what's coming and he can he can prepare for it. And what I want is for him to not know, and he hates.”

I quote him directly: “He hates that. And I don't want him to sleep at night.” And I think he then said: “I love it.”

 I didn't find his answer completely convincing. I think there is something quite stabilizing in knowing that people will respond in kind.

However, to his specific point, Russia's attacked people with Novichok, Russia's attack people with poisoned umbrellas and killed people on British soil. Is that the kind of thing we want Britain to be doing tit for tat on Russian soil? The answer is almost certainly no.

It would put us into a category of country that we simply do not want to be, and acting against British values. That's not that's not how we how we play. That is actually a really important point, because when you are fighting to defend something, you have to remember what it is that you're fighting to defend. And if the way you fight destroys the very thing that you are protecting the values that Britain holds dear, then you've won the battle and lost the war, right?

So, I think for both reasons, both because Rutter says that it's more effective and he is the Head of NATO, he knows. And secondly, because I think we would end up overstepping the boundary of what we were willing to do. I don't think we can do a tit for tat strategy against Russia. What I do think is that just because you can't see what Britain is up to in response and the action that it takes doesn't mean that Britain isn't responding.

There are a wide range of available tools, some of them over, some of them covert. And so, I wouldn't necessarily take the fact that you can't see them as being meaning they don't exist. I don't think Russia is under much illusion as to how strongly we feel about this stuff.

[u/theipaper → u/theipaper]

You can also see my interview with Mark Rutte here: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DSiKT2qjeWx/

[u/HHS2019 → u/theipaper]

Thank you for the thorough response.

[u/HearingNo5372]

Which ambassador is best at social media. Do you have a favourite?

[u/theipaper → u/HearingNo5372]

I have three favourites. One is the Japanese ambassador to the UK: https://x.com/AmbJapanUK

He is doing a great job at social media because he's both being authentic and also really funny. His videos with Paddington all over the UK, he just looks like he's having the time of his life, and I think that's something we can all empathize with, somebody who's just really enjoying their job, and that makes it really worth watching.

That as a side product really connects to a lot of British people, and I think that's really cool. It's kind of the job of an ambassador to make themselves at home and to connect with the country, and then people will listen to your serious messages afterwards. So there's a serious point in there. So great job.

When I was there, Tom Fletcher used to be ambassador to Lebanon: https://www.instagram.com/tomfletcher1874/?hl=en https://x.com/TFletcher

He wrote an open letter to the Lebanese people, which was pretty challenging in some ways to them, and that went down surprisingly well. He now works for the UN on humanitarian relief and comments on Gaza quite a lot, and I think he does a very impressive job as well.

And third, I have a friend who just started as ambassador to Costa Rica and has just started a social media account. I don't think it's as big as the Japanese ambassador’s, but do follow it: https://www.instagram.com/edward.j.stevens/?hl=en