The theory hinges on one tantalising possibility: that an agreement was struck before the G7 summit, setting events in motion long before the public confrontation unfolded. If that interpretation holds, the characters may not have been reacting to a crisis at all. They may have been carefully controlling the conditions under which their enemies would reveal their true intentions.

That possibility casts the finale in a completely different light. Every tense exchange, every apparent betrayal, and every sudden shift in allegiance becomes a potential clue rather than a straightforward sign of political collapse. The question is no longer simply who has lost control — but who might have been directing the chaos from the beginning.

Of course, this remains a theory rather than a confirmed explanation of the finale. But that is precisely what makes it so compelling: The Diplomat thrives on uncertainty, hidden agendas, and the dangerous distance between what political figures say and what they actually intend. If the apparent break was engineered, the consequences could reach far beyond the summit itself.

Source: Compiled from various sources