It is fairly surrealistic that NATO is attempting to force on Russia conditions like General Zelensky was already standing at the gates of Moscow, on the edge of final victory. This basically proves that they are unwilling to submit to reality; just as they were when they cooked up and victimized themselves with an absurd military strategy in 2022. The average Western reader is absolutely misinformed, thanks to the uniform, single sided media coverage.
As far as Trump’s role, at best he is playing with the war for monetary restitutions for the US. It is difficult to believe that he truly wants a lasting peace settlement as this is in direct opposition to his prior acts during his first term and US interests in general. As far as the things he bubbles up are completely meaningless, only actions count.
‘Lavrov’s warning about the US’ attempt to establish strategic superiority over Russia is relevant’ And vey mch so! America was swept out of the larger part of Asia at the front of our very eyes during the last year. Trump is not going to turn around this giant geopolitical loss by herding Russia into some sort of Trojan Horse Deal. He is dealing with world class diplomats and politicians, supported by a major military superpower, not a Bedouin Tribe in North Africa.
Where is this whole diplomatic clowning going?
One day, after a ten hour totally meaningless diplomatic meeting a senior Russian diplomat will approach Trump with a broad smile at the front of a hundred media people and offer him a colorful box of hair colorings with ‘better choices’. Telling him to send some to London for Boris Johnson as well.
Viet Nam is very careful with its relationship with USA and only acts according to perceived economic benefits from its former enemy. USA no longer has any political influence over Viet Nam.
in fact, they were happy to do it even then - the whole war was meant to erase the communists in south vietnam before taking that part. it wasn't an assault, but more a unification with american support, after they got the french out.
Because there is nothing Russia can do short of WWIII that will harm the interests of the europeans that matter. By contrast, the war has brought them nothing but benefits..so naturally, they want it to continue.
Only Putin wants the war to continue. Zelensky has already said he will relinquish territory and he will step down as president as part of a ceasefire. The only obstacle is America providing Ukraine with a security guarantee if Putin steps over the new border.
Russia does not want a ceasefire - they want a permanent and total cessation of hostilities without compromise or conditions set by either USA, UK or NATO.
I think this Substack + comments should be sent personally to Trump and Rubio and then they might begin to understand the reality of political life in Russia and what is both practical and possible in future negotiations. No use sending it to UK , EU or NATO as they are totally divided and devoid of imagination.
So the double entendre was that the Kremlin may not have been pleased by Lavrovs words. His removal from negotiations seems not covered by others and seemed a possible slight to me for a possible infraction. Any clarification Andrew it has been something puzzling me.
My personal view is that Lavrov is on "time-out" for two reasons; he needlessly provoked Rubio, one of the most powerful US officials in decades, by wearing his USSR sweatshirt at Anchorage (Rubio is a diehard anti-communist); and his reported demand that the US put in writing Trump's supposed verbal pledge to Putin to pressure Zelensky might have risked upsetting the very sensitive diplomatic dynamics between the US and Russia at this crucial time.
Also, perhaps it has nothing to do with Lavrov being on "time-out", but he as Russia's top diplomat must ultimately take responsibility for the previously unthinkable setback that Russia experienced last summer in the South Caucasus when the US replaced Russia's role in the Armenian-Azerbaijani peace process and even what had up till that point been known as the 'Zangezur Corridor' before being rebranded as TRIPP, through which Turkiye is now expected to turbocharge the expansion of its influence all along Russia's vulnerable southern periphery.
I respect Lavrov for remaining in such a distinguished position for so long, and I certainly don't have the patience to travel across the world, meet with all these other diplomats, and carry out his job's daily functions, but regardless of however pleased his rhetoric might make some of us fellow "Non-Russian Pro-Russians" feel, what I described above is one of the greatest setbacks that Russia has ever achieved since the dissolution of the USSR and the buck ultimately stops with him even though other factors beyond the MFA's realm of responsibility played a role in this.
Thanks for your time Andrew, was there not arrests in Ekaterinburg which inflamed tensions in the Caucasus's? Yes the nazbol community was up in arms about these machinations, though my wonder is does Lavrov have control of all moving parts to be fully responsible for the present horrendous situation?
What you're thinking about was the arrest of ethnic Azeri criminals that was then exploited by Azerbaijan as the pretext for persecuting employees of the local Sputnik branch on the dubious claim that they were undercover spies.
As for the US' geopolitical coup in the South Caucasus, Lavrov's MFA has been struggling on that front for years. Their "cardinal sin" was assuming that Pashinyan was a pragmatist despite coming to power through an anti-Russian Color Revolution.
I distinctly remember working at Sputnik back then, having already published critical analyses about him and the overall situation on other platforms, and then seeing all the positive reporting from Sputnik about Pashinyan and what just happened as it was unfolding.
It was surreal to me as a, humbly speaking, credentialed expert on Color Revolutions (I wrote my Master's thesis on the subject and the book that I later published based off of that was reviewed by the Russian Diplomatic Academy) to see Russia openly embracing this obvious Western puppet.
That's not to say that Russia was capable of preventing the Color Revolution, and I understand the "pragmatism" involved in working with whoever comes to power in a formally allied (CSTO in this case) state, but I also feel like Russia's MFA really let its guard down quite a lot.
Then we have the continued failure to get Armenia to compromise on Karabakh before the 2020 conflict, after which Russia failed to get Armenia to comply with the Putin-mediated ceasefire's clause about opening regional transport infrastructure ("Zangezur Corridor").
This whole time, Armenia was blatantly reorienting itself towards the EU, US, and NATO, all while Russia sat on the sidelines and did pretty much nothing at all. I can't imagine its aforesaid adversaries or even rivals like Turkiye letting an "ally" practically walk away and "defect" like that.
With all due respect to MGIMO, which is my alma mater that's formally run by the MFA, my honest assessment of Russia's "diplomats in training" (which is what 90% of my colleagues there are) is that they don't properly understand Western deviousness.
To be even more candid, most of you all here who comment under my Substack analyses have a clearer understanding of the West than they did, including many (but importantly not all!) of the professors that I had from 2013-2015 when I had in-class instruction for my Master's.
I've heard that it's improved a bit from people who've studied there since, but knowing how it all works, I'm a bit skeptical. More and more, while understanding that other institutions share responsibility for Russian setbacks, I'm beginning to conclude that the MFA shares more than most.
Lavrov is only one man, he can't manage everything, and he's an older guy who's been working in this difficult position for years so I sympathize with him, but ultimately, as Russia's top diplomat, he takes responsibility for setbacks and successes whether he openly acknowledges it or not.
And what recently happened in the South Caucasus was literally one of the worst-case scenarios imaginable. I really don't know how Russia can regain its lost influence and restore the regional strategic architecture in a way that confidently ensures its security interests after this.
Absolutely, excellent comparison! I always tell non-Russian friends who ask me about Russians, inquiring whether they're really as "cold" as the stereotype says, that such appearances are a defense mechanism but that they're actually really trusting once you get to know them, even to the point of naive.
I remember back at Sputnik some of the editors would critique my articles for them with the letters "OTT", which I, as someone who was never into texting culture all that much, didn't understand till they explained that it stands for "over the top", as in, my critiques of US foreign policy are "over the top"!
For background, maybe of the folks in my age group there (I was there during my late 20s, early 30s) are pretty well off, so much so that some have traveled extensively throughout Europe and even taken road trips across the US, something that I, a native Clevelander, never did, so they were mostly Western-friendly and some were even pro-Western.
Many of them got their jobs, in my personal opinion, because of their language fluency, sometimes complemented by a journalism degree, basically, just because they could write news articles, etc., in a foreign language (which can nowadays be done by AI), not because they were subject specialists (a few were, mostly the older folks).
Apart from the older folks, very few of my colleagues in my age group even really cared about international politics. Sure, they loved Russia, but that's it. The job was, from what I could tell, mostly just a cushy and prestigious office job that looks good in their family's and friend's eyes. What I'm trying to say is that they weren't really passionate about what they were doing.
Diplomats-in-training who I befriended years ago at MGIMO were more or less the same, they just cared a bit more about everything because they were actively studying it, but few were very skeptical of US intentions, mostly due to many professors casually dismissing claims of American foreign policy malice and duplicity to "incompetence" and "partisanship".
It was really an eye-opener for me as a NRPR to attend MGIMO and work at Sputnik, thus seeing what Russia's diplomats-in-training and their teachers were like as well as some of Russia's "soft power practitioners". Both institutions, mind you, don't take kindly to unsolicited critiques or advice, I learned that the hard way on several occasions lol
Change pretty much only happens from the top-down, only very rarely from the bottom-up, and it was these experiences which taught me that one of the Russia's most serious shortcomings is its lack of viable feedback loops, so I can totally understand how the MFA might have truly be more or less ignorant of Armenia's pro-Western pivot.
After all, if diplomats there were sending reassuring reports out of fear of angering their bosses and whatever that might then consequently entail, those above them were getting the wrong assessment, and so on and so forth up the chain, with each self-censoring for the aforesaid self-interested reason or truly being ignorant of objective political reality.
Look at Ukraine in the run-up to the SMO, Russia seemed to have seriously thought that people would flood into the streets to greet them and "fellow travelers" would seize government buildings, etc., but none of that happened, yet the opening stage of the SMO was clearly predicated upon that sequence of events (the minimal force size is proof among others).
How could it be that the MFA gets things wrong over and over (I know they get some things right but there's no constructive purpose in talking about that in this context)? Armenia, Ukraine, Syria, now Kazakhstan, which plans to produce NATO-standard shells, the list continues growing, and each time, Russia seems caught off guard.
What needs to happen, and I say this as a proud NRPR with tangible stakes in Russia's success (I own an apartment, my life savings are in rubles, my wife and two kids are Russian citizens, I've been defamed by the US Government and others for my work, etc.), is far-reaching systemic reforms after the SMO ends.
The precedent exists as evidenced by the aftermath of the Crimean and Russo-Japanese Wars so it wouldn't be surprising, but at the same time, I'm not getting my hopes up because I'm unsure of how widely Russia's systemic vulnerabilities are, particularly its unviable feedback loops at the core of each institution's problems in my opinion.
Herman, that is one way to look at it but I do believe there is a more dubious reason than that unfortunately though only time will tell whether I am correct.
That surely is one way to look at it but I do believe there is a far more dubious interpretation that would/could be closer to the reason for the present situation relating to the RF.
Sometimes, people like Gromyko and Lavrov have good reflexes. But sometimes, they are off because they interprete too much through Marxist lenses. I think Soviet Union had similar problems in the 1930s, when Stalin took out many of the old diplomatic staff like Radek, Litvinov, Maisky and Kollontai, who still knew the bourgeois world from day to day experience and replaced them with new people.
I'd be happy for Lavrov if Putin finally let him retire, which I think he'll probably do after the SMO ends since Putin doesn't really like "reshuffling the deck" during conflicts (he's done it before but it's not something he seems to enjoy).
I also think that a new diplomatic style, understanding that the top diplomat and his spokesperson (Lavrov and Zakharova in this case), set the tone for all of those below them.
I know that a lot of NRPR love her rhetoric but I cynically look at it as a distraction from the fact that little of substance usually follows. She talks the talk but rarely walks the walk.
I totally understand Russia's diplomatic and other limitations, and I'm not saying that she needs to explicitly draw attention to them, but her rhetoric (presumably approved by Lavrov) has gotten a lot of NRPRs' hopes VERY HIGH.
I'm worried that some of them are finally beginning to experience what I predicted would be the inevitable disappointment that always follows such rhetoric among those clear-minded enough to perceive reality as it exists.
Flippant remarks, an overload of sarcasm, innuendo about consequences that never materialize, all of that characterizes Zakharova's style, and I personally feel that Russia could be represented in a more professional, serious way.
I respect her and her position, she also has the right to express herself however she wants in implementing her professional duties per her boss' approval, but it just strikes me as outdated (if it ever was relevant) and counterproductive.
An example that I recently wrote about was her claiming that Poland owes its revival and survival to Lenin, which is a gross distortion of historical truth among those who are aware of the actual, indisputable facts:
I felt that she simply let herself get carried away after being triggered by Sikorski, who I personally and very deeply despise (he also blocked me on X after insulting me), when she should have kept her composure instead:
Do Russians really want to reconstitute the USSR that included roughly 100 million Muslims?? Or do Russians want Ukraine, Belarus, and Georgia as a new empire?? From my understanding the vast majority of the leadership both of the CPSU and SAF came from those 4 ethnic groups.
There's no real interest in reconstituting the USSR among average Russians from what I could tell having lived here and spoken to them over the past 12.5 years.
But what about Ukraine and Belarus and Georgia? So Georgia is in a political crisis right now that involves a pro-Russian oligarch that is currently the de facto ruler.
Ugh, another troll who somehow stumbled upon my Substack. You clearly have no idea who I am because I regularly share constructive critiques of Russia. You also lack media literacy if you can't discern the difference between analysis, which is what I do, and reporting. Crawl back into your cave and GTFOH.
RUSSIANS & UKRANIANS are identical people. Same DNA, ORTHODOX RELIGION,, alfabet, ,everyday words are identical, common history, fightin the same enemies and winning, intermarriage , etc, etc. Have a good day Jojo your friend Walt
Not quite the same. Real Ukraine was the South-West Region of the Catholic Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the 14th-18th century. Russia itself was partly independent in the North (Novgorod) and under Tatar-Mongol control in the South. Once Russia regained complete sovereignty under Ivan IV, it went on to russify and christianize the Finno-Ugrics in the North and Tatars in the South. Of course, Novorossiya where all the current war is was never part of this real Ukraine.
"..According to him, (Lavrov), the UK “ is speaking increasingly more often on behalf of the EU”.
Somewhere within the depths of the UK's MI6, Intelligence and military planning agencies there is a poisonous, paranoid, obsessive but irrational hatred based philosophy that is intent on destabilising and destroying everything Russian. This maniacal self destroying attitude stems from post WW1 when British troops were dispatched to Murmansk and Archangel in 1919 to assist the Mensheviks in their hopeless struggle against the Bolsheviks and the emerging Communists. The surviving British troops returned defeated, in ignominy and ignored by history. Boris Johnson and his ilk belong to that forgotten era.
It comes down ti this. The European countries that invaded Russia were beaten by Russia and feel and are inferior to Russia. These countries are the ones that cling on to the USA. Who else clings on to USA? Isreal , and the whole world hates them . Trump realizes that for the good of both countries & the world we need to be friends with Russia. USA & Russia combined have 90% of the worlds nuclear weapons. If there were a war, the entire WHITE RACE would be eliminated. TRUMP & PUTIN become friends and save the WHITE RACE.
It is fairly surrealistic that NATO is attempting to force on Russia conditions like General Zelensky was already standing at the gates of Moscow, on the edge of final victory. This basically proves that they are unwilling to submit to reality; just as they were when they cooked up and victimized themselves with an absurd military strategy in 2022. The average Western reader is absolutely misinformed, thanks to the uniform, single sided media coverage.
As far as Trump’s role, at best he is playing with the war for monetary restitutions for the US. It is difficult to believe that he truly wants a lasting peace settlement as this is in direct opposition to his prior acts during his first term and US interests in general. As far as the things he bubbles up are completely meaningless, only actions count.
‘Lavrov’s warning about the US’ attempt to establish strategic superiority over Russia is relevant’ And vey mch so! America was swept out of the larger part of Asia at the front of our very eyes during the last year. Trump is not going to turn around this giant geopolitical loss by herding Russia into some sort of Trojan Horse Deal. He is dealing with world class diplomats and politicians, supported by a major military superpower, not a Bedouin Tribe in North Africa.
Where is this whole diplomatic clowning going?
One day, after a ten hour totally meaningless diplomatic meeting a senior Russian diplomat will approach Trump with a broad smile at the front of a hundred media people and offer him a colorful box of hair colorings with ‘better choices’. Telling him to send some to London for Boris Johnson as well.
In what places in Asia has USA been ousted????
Please go back and ask your kindergarden teacher.
It's too easy to say big bullshits without being able to say only one example.
No, no, it's to easy buddy. Tell me from where in Asia, USA has been ousted?
Not in South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Philippines, Thailand, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Pakistan, Syria, Emirates, Arabia, Jordania.
So, please, tell from where they have been ousted.
And now, maybe, Iraq?
Vietnam?
Afghanistan (and USA is currently out of favour in India)
50 years ago?
And now Vietnam is happy to lick US feet
Viet Nam is very careful with its relationship with USA and only acts according to perceived economic benefits from its former enemy. USA no longer has any political influence over Viet Nam.
in fact, they were happy to do it even then - the whole war was meant to erase the communists in south vietnam before taking that part. it wasn't an assault, but more a unification with american support, after they got the french out.
Because there is nothing Russia can do short of WWIII that will harm the interests of the europeans that matter. By contrast, the war has brought them nothing but benefits..so naturally, they want it to continue.
Only Putin wants the war to continue. Zelensky has already said he will relinquish territory and he will step down as president as part of a ceasefire. The only obstacle is America providing Ukraine with a security guarantee if Putin steps over the new border.
Russia does not want a ceasefire - they want a permanent and total cessation of hostilities without compromise or conditions set by either USA, UK or NATO.
ANDREW , your newsletter is the BEST. Forget the MSM which is typically slanted to satify certain elements in our country.
Thank you so much, Walt, and wishing you a wonderful rest of your Sunday!
It's bothering to see Russia reduced to clinging to this kind of branch.
This substack + comments is absolutely essential in understanding the reality of the Ukr conflict and Russia.
FWIW, I think history will view Mr Lavrov very favorably. I personally think he and Mr Putin are two of the most competent leaders of my lifetime.
I think this Substack + comments should be sent personally to Trump and Rubio and then they might begin to understand the reality of political life in Russia and what is both practical and possible in future negotiations. No use sending it to UK , EU or NATO as they are totally divided and devoid of imagination.
Thanks, friends!
So the double entendre was that the Kremlin may not have been pleased by Lavrovs words. His removal from negotiations seems not covered by others and seemed a possible slight to me for a possible infraction. Any clarification Andrew it has been something puzzling me.
My personal view is that Lavrov is on "time-out" for two reasons; he needlessly provoked Rubio, one of the most powerful US officials in decades, by wearing his USSR sweatshirt at Anchorage (Rubio is a diehard anti-communist); and his reported demand that the US put in writing Trump's supposed verbal pledge to Putin to pressure Zelensky might have risked upsetting the very sensitive diplomatic dynamics between the US and Russia at this crucial time.
Also, perhaps it has nothing to do with Lavrov being on "time-out", but he as Russia's top diplomat must ultimately take responsibility for the previously unthinkable setback that Russia experienced last summer in the South Caucasus when the US replaced Russia's role in the Armenian-Azerbaijani peace process and even what had up till that point been known as the 'Zangezur Corridor' before being rebranded as TRIPP, through which Turkiye is now expected to turbocharge the expansion of its influence all along Russia's vulnerable southern periphery.
I respect Lavrov for remaining in such a distinguished position for so long, and I certainly don't have the patience to travel across the world, meet with all these other diplomats, and carry out his job's daily functions, but regardless of however pleased his rhetoric might make some of us fellow "Non-Russian Pro-Russians" feel, what I described above is one of the greatest setbacks that Russia has ever achieved since the dissolution of the USSR and the buck ultimately stops with him even though other factors beyond the MFA's realm of responsibility played a role in this.
Thanks for your time Andrew, was there not arrests in Ekaterinburg which inflamed tensions in the Caucasus's? Yes the nazbol community was up in arms about these machinations, though my wonder is does Lavrov have control of all moving parts to be fully responsible for the present horrendous situation?
Your elaboration on this would be appreciated.
What you're thinking about was the arrest of ethnic Azeri criminals that was then exploited by Azerbaijan as the pretext for persecuting employees of the local Sputnik branch on the dubious claim that they were undercover spies.
As for the US' geopolitical coup in the South Caucasus, Lavrov's MFA has been struggling on that front for years. Their "cardinal sin" was assuming that Pashinyan was a pragmatist despite coming to power through an anti-Russian Color Revolution.
I distinctly remember working at Sputnik back then, having already published critical analyses about him and the overall situation on other platforms, and then seeing all the positive reporting from Sputnik about Pashinyan and what just happened as it was unfolding.
It was surreal to me as a, humbly speaking, credentialed expert on Color Revolutions (I wrote my Master's thesis on the subject and the book that I later published based off of that was reviewed by the Russian Diplomatic Academy) to see Russia openly embracing this obvious Western puppet.
That's not to say that Russia was capable of preventing the Color Revolution, and I understand the "pragmatism" involved in working with whoever comes to power in a formally allied (CSTO in this case) state, but I also feel like Russia's MFA really let its guard down quite a lot.
Then we have the continued failure to get Armenia to compromise on Karabakh before the 2020 conflict, after which Russia failed to get Armenia to comply with the Putin-mediated ceasefire's clause about opening regional transport infrastructure ("Zangezur Corridor").
This whole time, Armenia was blatantly reorienting itself towards the EU, US, and NATO, all while Russia sat on the sidelines and did pretty much nothing at all. I can't imagine its aforesaid adversaries or even rivals like Turkiye letting an "ally" practically walk away and "defect" like that.
With all due respect to MGIMO, which is my alma mater that's formally run by the MFA, my honest assessment of Russia's "diplomats in training" (which is what 90% of my colleagues there are) is that they don't properly understand Western deviousness.
To be even more candid, most of you all here who comment under my Substack analyses have a clearer understanding of the West than they did, including many (but importantly not all!) of the professors that I had from 2013-2015 when I had in-class instruction for my Master's.
I've heard that it's improved a bit from people who've studied there since, but knowing how it all works, I'm a bit skeptical. More and more, while understanding that other institutions share responsibility for Russian setbacks, I'm beginning to conclude that the MFA shares more than most.
Lavrov is only one man, he can't manage everything, and he's an older guy who's been working in this difficult position for years so I sympathize with him, but ultimately, as Russia's top diplomat, he takes responsibility for setbacks and successes whether he openly acknowledges it or not.
And what recently happened in the South Caucasus was literally one of the worst-case scenarios imaginable. I really don't know how Russia can regain its lost influence and restore the regional strategic architecture in a way that confidently ensures its security interests after this.
The Russians remind me of good-natured farmers, fresh from the countryside, who go to the big city to do business with seasoned real estate managers.
Absolutely, excellent comparison! I always tell non-Russian friends who ask me about Russians, inquiring whether they're really as "cold" as the stereotype says, that such appearances are a defense mechanism but that they're actually really trusting once you get to know them, even to the point of naive.
I remember back at Sputnik some of the editors would critique my articles for them with the letters "OTT", which I, as someone who was never into texting culture all that much, didn't understand till they explained that it stands for "over the top", as in, my critiques of US foreign policy are "over the top"!
For background, maybe of the folks in my age group there (I was there during my late 20s, early 30s) are pretty well off, so much so that some have traveled extensively throughout Europe and even taken road trips across the US, something that I, a native Clevelander, never did, so they were mostly Western-friendly and some were even pro-Western.
Many of them got their jobs, in my personal opinion, because of their language fluency, sometimes complemented by a journalism degree, basically, just because they could write news articles, etc., in a foreign language (which can nowadays be done by AI), not because they were subject specialists (a few were, mostly the older folks).
Apart from the older folks, very few of my colleagues in my age group even really cared about international politics. Sure, they loved Russia, but that's it. The job was, from what I could tell, mostly just a cushy and prestigious office job that looks good in their family's and friend's eyes. What I'm trying to say is that they weren't really passionate about what they were doing.
Diplomats-in-training who I befriended years ago at MGIMO were more or less the same, they just cared a bit more about everything because they were actively studying it, but few were very skeptical of US intentions, mostly due to many professors casually dismissing claims of American foreign policy malice and duplicity to "incompetence" and "partisanship".
It was really an eye-opener for me as a NRPR to attend MGIMO and work at Sputnik, thus seeing what Russia's diplomats-in-training and their teachers were like as well as some of Russia's "soft power practitioners". Both institutions, mind you, don't take kindly to unsolicited critiques or advice, I learned that the hard way on several occasions lol
Change pretty much only happens from the top-down, only very rarely from the bottom-up, and it was these experiences which taught me that one of the Russia's most serious shortcomings is its lack of viable feedback loops, so I can totally understand how the MFA might have truly be more or less ignorant of Armenia's pro-Western pivot.
After all, if diplomats there were sending reassuring reports out of fear of angering their bosses and whatever that might then consequently entail, those above them were getting the wrong assessment, and so on and so forth up the chain, with each self-censoring for the aforesaid self-interested reason or truly being ignorant of objective political reality.
Look at Ukraine in the run-up to the SMO, Russia seemed to have seriously thought that people would flood into the streets to greet them and "fellow travelers" would seize government buildings, etc., but none of that happened, yet the opening stage of the SMO was clearly predicated upon that sequence of events (the minimal force size is proof among others).
How could it be that the MFA gets things wrong over and over (I know they get some things right but there's no constructive purpose in talking about that in this context)? Armenia, Ukraine, Syria, now Kazakhstan, which plans to produce NATO-standard shells, the list continues growing, and each time, Russia seems caught off guard.
What needs to happen, and I say this as a proud NRPR with tangible stakes in Russia's success (I own an apartment, my life savings are in rubles, my wife and two kids are Russian citizens, I've been defamed by the US Government and others for my work, etc.), is far-reaching systemic reforms after the SMO ends.
The precedent exists as evidenced by the aftermath of the Crimean and Russo-Japanese Wars so it wouldn't be surprising, but at the same time, I'm not getting my hopes up because I'm unsure of how widely Russia's systemic vulnerabilities are, particularly its unviable feedback loops at the core of each institution's problems in my opinion.
Herman, that is one way to look at it but I do believe there is a more dubious reason than that unfortunately though only time will tell whether I am correct.
That surely is one way to look at it but I do believe there is a far more dubious interpretation that would/could be closer to the reason for the present situation relating to the RF.
Sometimes, people like Gromyko and Lavrov have good reflexes. But sometimes, they are off because they interprete too much through Marxist lenses. I think Soviet Union had similar problems in the 1930s, when Stalin took out many of the old diplomatic staff like Radek, Litvinov, Maisky and Kollontai, who still knew the bourgeois world from day to day experience and replaced them with new people.
Thanks for the deeper understanding!
You're very welcome, they were good questions to ask!
The Jews openly declared war on Germany in 1933, it seems to me Russia is getting the same treatment they just aren't openly declaring it..
These seem to have been two clumsy and uncharacteristic diplomatic faux pas.
Few people are at their best when they’re in their mid-seventies; after twenty-plus years in the job, perhaps it’s time for Mr. Lavrov to move on.
I'd be happy for Lavrov if Putin finally let him retire, which I think he'll probably do after the SMO ends since Putin doesn't really like "reshuffling the deck" during conflicts (he's done it before but it's not something he seems to enjoy).
I also think that a new diplomatic style, understanding that the top diplomat and his spokesperson (Lavrov and Zakharova in this case), set the tone for all of those below them.
I know that a lot of NRPR love her rhetoric but I cynically look at it as a distraction from the fact that little of substance usually follows. She talks the talk but rarely walks the walk.
I totally understand Russia's diplomatic and other limitations, and I'm not saying that she needs to explicitly draw attention to them, but her rhetoric (presumably approved by Lavrov) has gotten a lot of NRPRs' hopes VERY HIGH.
I'm worried that some of them are finally beginning to experience what I predicted would be the inevitable disappointment that always follows such rhetoric among those clear-minded enough to perceive reality as it exists.
Flippant remarks, an overload of sarcasm, innuendo about consequences that never materialize, all of that characterizes Zakharova's style, and I personally feel that Russia could be represented in a more professional, serious way.
I respect her and her position, she also has the right to express herself however she wants in implementing her professional duties per her boss' approval, but it just strikes me as outdated (if it ever was relevant) and counterproductive.
An example that I recently wrote about was her claiming that Poland owes its revival and survival to Lenin, which is a gross distortion of historical truth among those who are aware of the actual, indisputable facts:
https://korybko.substack.com/p/how-wise-was-it-of-zakharova-to-claim
I felt that she simply let herself get carried away after being triggered by Sikorski, who I personally and very deeply despise (he also blocked me on X after insulting me), when she should have kept her composure instead:
https://x.com/AKorybko/status/1753115556822282557
Do Russians really want to reconstitute the USSR that included roughly 100 million Muslims?? Or do Russians want Ukraine, Belarus, and Georgia as a new empire?? From my understanding the vast majority of the leadership both of the CPSU and SAF came from those 4 ethnic groups.
There's no real interest in reconstituting the USSR among average Russians from what I could tell having lived here and spoken to them over the past 12.5 years.
But what about Ukraine and Belarus and Georgia? So Georgia is in a political crisis right now that involves a pro-Russian oligarch that is currently the de facto ruler.
What about Putin's ongoing plan to subvert any discussion of peace that does not involve complete Ukrainian capitulation?
Equal time due is all if you are going to do honest reporting Andrew. Have you EVER written such a post? If not, why not?
Ugh, another troll who somehow stumbled upon my Substack. You clearly have no idea who I am because I regularly share constructive critiques of Russia. You also lack media literacy if you can't discern the difference between analysis, which is what I do, and reporting. Crawl back into your cave and GTFOH.
Lol. Deserved.
RUSSIANS & UKRANIANS are identical people. Same DNA, ORTHODOX RELIGION,, alfabet, ,everyday words are identical, common history, fightin the same enemies and winning, intermarriage , etc, etc. Have a good day Jojo your friend Walt
Not quite the same. Real Ukraine was the South-West Region of the Catholic Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the 14th-18th century. Russia itself was partly independent in the North (Novgorod) and under Tatar-Mongol control in the South. Once Russia regained complete sovereignty under Ivan IV, it went on to russify and christianize the Finno-Ugrics in the North and Tatars in the South. Of course, Novorossiya where all the current war is was never part of this real Ukraine.
"..According to him, (Lavrov), the UK “ is speaking increasingly more often on behalf of the EU”.
Somewhere within the depths of the UK's MI6, Intelligence and military planning agencies there is a poisonous, paranoid, obsessive but irrational hatred based philosophy that is intent on destabilising and destroying everything Russian. This maniacal self destroying attitude stems from post WW1 when British troops were dispatched to Murmansk and Archangel in 1919 to assist the Mensheviks in their hopeless struggle against the Bolsheviks and the emerging Communists. The surviving British troops returned defeated, in ignominy and ignored by history. Boris Johnson and his ilk belong to that forgotten era.
So what does Russia propose to do about it?
European warmongering"
It comes down ti this. The European countries that invaded Russia were beaten by Russia and feel and are inferior to Russia. These countries are the ones that cling on to the USA. Who else clings on to USA? Isreal , and the whole world hates them . Trump realizes that for the good of both countries & the world we need to be friends with Russia. USA & Russia combined have 90% of the worlds nuclear weapons. If there were a war, the entire WHITE RACE would be eliminated. TRUMP & PUTIN become friends and save the WHITE RACE.