“The negotiations have been broken off. The Russian representatives were sincere and in earnest. They cannot entertain such proposals of conquest and domination.”

Wilson creates a contrast between the Russians and the Central Powers that begins to lay the foundation for his portrayal of the war as a moral clash. Furthermore, by saying that Russia cannot entertain such proposals he subtly dissuades Russia from making a separate peace with the Central Powers, which would be disastrous to the allies. Here too he begins to imply the old tradition of military conquest should have no place in the new century.

“The Russian representatives have insisted, very justly, very wisely, and in the true spirit of modern democracy, that the conferences they have been holding with the Teutonic and Turkish statesmen should be held within open, not closed, doors and all the world has been audience, as was desired.”

Wilson identifies communist Russia with principles of democracy and openness that America embraces. This rhetorical strategy attempts to strengthen the bond between the Allied Powers which will be broken if Russia makes a separate peace. Teutonic (meaning German) refers to the leaders of Germany and Austria, and the Turks led the Ottoman Empire.

“There is no confusion of counsel among the adversaries of the Central Powers, no uncertainty of principle, no vagueness of detail. The only secrecy of counsel, the only lack of fearless frankness, the only failure to make definite statement of the objects of the war, lies with Germany and her Allies.”

Wilson uses a type of parallel structure called chiasmus to contrast the moral status of the Allied and Central Powers. The first sentence opens by naming one side and the second sentence closes by naming the other. Sandwiched in the middle is the contrast between the Allied Powers’ commitment to principle and the Central Powers’ moral confusion.