Russia’s diplomats were once a key part of President Putin’s foreign policy strategy. But that has all changed.
In the years leading up to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, diplomats lost their authority, their role reduced to echoing the Kremlin’s aggressive rhetoric.
BBC Russian asks former diplomats, as well as ex-Kremlin and White House insiders, how Russian diplomacy broke down.
No but that’s how Putin kept trump in line, polonium laced tees ready at a moments notice for his many impromptu golf trips. Must be what Kishner used that secret Russian channel for
Nah, Russian diplomacy is at their highest once they realize they could write off the West as a loss instead of sucking up to them, who sees the Russians as Asiatic orcs anyways. Russia is somehow able to be friends with both India and China, they have made huge diplomatic (and military) strides in Africa, and they’re not doing too shabby in SEA or WANA either. That’s almost two continents right there.
Only Russia is not a friend for India and China. Its capabilities are not sufficient to be one anymore. It’s just begging them to make some appearance of friendship for cheap resources and various concessions which can not go on forever.
The USSR is still breaking up. Russian state as it exists now is not sustainable. It was a complete nightmare in the 90s, yes, and was apparently becoming better in the 00s and even 10s, but now we will see what is going to transpire inside Russia after cessation of hostilities with Ukraine, and that is not yet a thing.
The British Bullshit Corporation is one to talk, they’ve been seething about India gaining Independence now for decades, and despite them literally going to the moon they still can’t bring themselves to show any measure of respect
Also lets just magically all forget all these NATO trash “diplomats” walking out of Lavrovs speech at the UN like 13 year olds having a tantrum instead of actually engaging in the one thing they were supposed to do, “diplomacy”. The west is the entity that didn’t even want to negotiate with Russia, NATO is the one who decided to egg Russia on until this happened, despite Ukraine not even being a NATO member.
But yeah sure, whatever BBC, it’s totally Russia’s fault you acted like babies and backtracked on all your agreements
It’s actually hilarious how millennials are refusing to shit themselves in fear over hollow threats of nuclear apocalypse like the boomers did for decades.
Like, I’m going to die a slow death from microplastic poisoning. My kids will slowly cook to death as the earth warms. Instant death by fireball sounds pretty nice.
idk, I think I prefer the constant fear, at least compared to the bloodthirsty calls for nuclear war to begin over Ukraine because ackstually Russia’s nukes don’t work anymore, and also nuclear war isn’t really that bad anyway
I’ve seen this on reddit and other hellholes from time to time
most people tend to have a degree of separation from it, like early on in the war when people were calling for a no-fly zone over Ukraine (which would have necessarily meant NATO strikes into Ukraine or Russian territory, which would put us at the closest humanity has ever been to a nuclear exchange); about mid-way through the war when some countries were trying to form a “coalition of the willing” (article is more recent than when I was thinking though) to enter Ukraine that wasn’t technically NATO forces but like, my god, you’re really cutting it fucking close there; and some people nowadays are musing if F-16s could be used from NATO territory
The young scions of our age find themselves in a curious juxtaposition to their forbearers, who once trembled at the thought of world-ending calamities unleashed by the fiery engines of the Autarch’s weaponry. These newer souls scoff at such fears, deeming them hollow echoes of a past era, perhaps because they have been raised in the shadow of subtler, yet equally inexorable, dooms. To them, the threat of slow ruin wrought by the invisible maladies that pollute our waters and air, or the gradual inferno that the Sun’s ever-increasing wrath promises to our world, hold more tangible dread. For these youths, the prospect of instantaneous annihilation in a blaze of cosmic fire seems almost a reprieve, a quick severance of life’s Gordian knot, sparing them the prolonged suffering promised by the ills that plague our slowly deteriorating Urth.
Your sentiment is not, in fact, new. It existed back then as well.
millennials are refusing to shit themselves in fear
Started good…
Like, I’m going to die a slow death from microplastic poisoning. My kids will slowly cook to death as the earth warms. Instant death by fireball sounds pretty nice.
…And then you wrote this. I see contradiction.
I’m really sorry to piss on your little eco-statement here, but climate change fears are relevant for decadent rich societies only. Most of the actual humanity is still more concerned with poverty, illiteracy, hunger, epidemics and genocide.
But I agree that those threats are hollow now, because people who’d never actually fulfill them are voicing them. Mostly thieves from the Russian “elite”.
In 1984 the threat would be voiced by bureaucratic leaders of a block occupying large part of the globe which was more or less designed from the ground up for playing “Global Thermonuclear War”, you can see than even in the way Soviet military in its every component was being developed starting from the 50s. Those leaders were not even that corrupt, usually (well, such famous Politburo members as Boris Yeltsin and Heydar Aliyev obviously were, but still), what they owned officially and unofficially is upper middle class level, in Western terms.
You gotta remember though, people who claim that Russia is isolated are the same people who were outraged that Russia started a war in a country where people have blue eyes and blond hair.
For example continuing cooperation and expansion of BRICS, recent Africa summit, increasing relations with countries in LatAm, many trade relations which were in large part able to replace everything lost on NATO embargoes, etc. etc.
But that’s just being nice to those who are automatically nice to them. Why don’t they do the same with those who oppose them? They just keep doing “no u, no u, no u.” In that respect, other countries such as Saudi Arabia and China have better diplomacy.
Sure, sure. But China is not full “I will nuke you!” with the U.S. I don’t even like the Chinese government. But their diplomacy is better than the Russian one. That’s all my point.
But that’s just being nice to those who are automatically nice to them.
That’s part of a diplomacy. Also ask yourself, why are they being nice to them, especially places being plundered by wester colonialism for centuries. For example something like the current situation in Niger where French diplomat get his credentials and visa revoked over not even pretending to be doing his job + ignoring the government he was ambassador to + inflammatory speech of Macron worsening the situation. Which leads to the curious problem of westerners, including a lot of people in this thread, having weird definition of diplomacy as dictating ultimatums to kneeling nonwhite people. USA and EU are now doing exactly this: dictating ultimatums, and are bewildered when other people don’t want to hear this.
Also, it’s not olny being nice: there are a lot of treaties being signed, a lot of gound prepared for further ones - this is how you gauge diplomacy.
Why don’t they do the same with those who oppose them?
You mean Russia? West is only speaking to Russia with ultimatums and loaded “propositions”. I guess the revelation of how France and Germany treated the Minsk agreement was a big bucket of cold water for Russia, they stopped believing what NATO says.
They just keep doing “no u, no u, no u.”
Again, what does west expect when they aren’t even engaging in a good faith? Non hostile countries hear something vastly different, as proven by the examples i cited earlier.
In that respect, other countries such as Saudi Arabia and China have better diplomacy.
Idk about Saudis, but China recently vrokered a deal between Iran and Saudis, two of the most traditionally mutually hostile countries on Earth, i would call this stellar diplomacy.
Why exactly do you think that pretty much the entire Global South has not placed significant sanctions on Russia? Why do you think so many countries want to join BRICS?
Must be because of poor Russian diplo. Meanwhile, African countries are literally committing coups for their government staying too close to European colonial powers.
Joining sanctions necessarily incurs a cost in trade. It’s understandable that poorer countries which have smaller stake in the war don’t want to participate.
Why do you think so many countries want to join BRICS?
They want to join to get funds from the development bank. Not much more.
Sorry kiddo but we’re talking about our garden and our yards in front and behind the house and not the jungle right outside our pristine whitewashed picket fence
It might be hard to imagine now, but Mr Putin himself told the BBC back in 2000 that “Russia is ready to co-operate with Nato… right up to joining the alliance”.
“I cannot imagine my country isolated from Europe,” he added.
Back then, early in his presidency, Mr Putin was eager to build ties with the West, a former senior Kremlin official told the BBC.
Gotta wonder how Russia never ended up being able to NATO despite this.
NATO, as an alliance, requires that its members follow rules. A country that has difficulty following rules may not come to the aid of its allies when needed. Do you really think NATO came out a loser in that deal? It sounds like they dodged a bullet in not having to rely upon a capricious dictator.
Lol, what a fine example of whataboutism. We’re talking about a procedure to enter NATO and you whatabout Iraq. How about we talk about the crimes of Ivan the Terrible instead?
The factual link you posted (not the commentary on CATO, lol) says the opposite. NATO cut ties after Putin began turning aggressive as Ukraine began gaining independence.
CATO is a Washington think tank. I don’t know why you are laughing it off in this matter, over Wikipedia which fails to mention that efforts to approach NATO were initiated by Russia. You want a more recognizable source? Fine: www.google.com/amp/s/time.com/…/%3famp=true?espv=…
And yeah. You keep posting links that contradict the statement “they laughed them out of the room” you originally posted. NATO opened up to Russia. Russia decided it was not worth their effort.
Your links keep contradicting your own point and your response is that we are confirming our own bias? The mental gymnastics and cognitive dissonance you go through on a regular basis must be a real bitch lmao
CATO is a bunch of crazies posturing as a think tank. Their opinions are ideological and not fact based. They make the Heritage Foundation (I think they rebranded to Heartland Institute) sound like a reasoned logical bunch.
CATO is not a trustworthy factual source. It’s a trustworthy source if you want to justify oligarchy and fascism, though.
Declassified (by the US) documents mention that Putin wanted to join without waiting in queue with “insignificant countries” (in early 2000s, who would that be? Baltic countries?), and as late as 2012 there was a contract for usage Russian airport as transit hub to Afghanistan (m.gazeta.ru/politics/2012/06/29_a_4650373.shtml, was looking specifically for pro-Russian media as a source)
Putin wanted to join without waiting in queue with “insignificant countries”
this is the dumbest excuse ever trotted out in explanation for why Russia wasn’t allowed to join. because the largest military and nuclear arsenal in europe should for some reason wait in a “line” in joining an allegedly defensive alliance, when they’d be the greatest possible contribution to common defense? why on earth would there be a “line” to enter an alliance in the first place? surely they had more than a single clerk doing nations’ paperwork to join?
Something about “you should apply” vs “you should invite us”. Noone wants to bow to another and then tension raised over it. Seems pretty believable to me, especially with what was going on domestically
IMO, the new council they have made in Rome in 2002 (NATO-Russia Council) and its predecessor (Permanent Joint Council, 1997) existence should have stopped the farce with “oh no, they are expanding”, and a start of joint cooperation. Maybe not as NATO memebership, but as a new working alliance. Right after founding of NRC though, Russia decided that it wont proceed with NATO membership
Russia does not intend to join NATO. Russia, as you know, is engaged in a very constructive dialogue with NATO to create a new Russia-NATO structure “at twenty”, in which all twenty countries will be represented as nations, each having one vote, and all the issues will be solved without prior consultations, without any prior decisions on a number of issues being taken first within the bloc.
And a curious snippet
I am absolutely convinced that Ukraine will not shy away from the processes of expanding interaction with NATO and the Western allies as a whole. Ukraine has its own relations with NATO; there is the Ukraine-NATO Council. At the end of the day the decision is to be taken by NATO and Ukraine. It is a matter for those two partners.
I have secret intelligence that the actual reason Putin didn’t join NATO is because he was angry that Romania joined first because he wanted to be the first country starting with R in NATO. NATO officials begged, pleaded with him to join the organization, but he’s just such a petty man.
I do not get your take. It is obvious that early 2000s Russia wanted special treatment. It is also obvious that it was not getting it, ever. If it did not take a stance of “special treatment country”, Russia would most likely be a NATO member without “special” priveledges (I assume that most notable is selling war assets to allied countries). Still, the intent was to cooperate, as late as 2012. Internally, there was even a promise of Visa-free access to Schengen
Add comment