Russia would do well to learn from China, whose leader Xi Jinping has proudly exhorted the importance of self-criticism and self-reform for years already, even declaring that “We must be receptive to the public’s suggestions and willingly accept their supervision.”
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told local media that his country requested clarification from CIA chief John Ratcliffe during his trip to Moscow about whether the US is really still aiding Ukraine. In his words, “There was a question on our part, because information is periodically leaked to the Western media on how exactly the administration of Donald Trump, which proclaimed the Ukrainian conflict to be ‘Joe Biden’s war’, is helping Ukraine with financial aid, weapons, intelligence data and so on.”
He added that “When such information resurfaces, we calmly send it to the US Department of State via diplomatic channels, asking them to confirm whether it is true”. There have allegedly been “three or four such instances over the past couple of months.” With all due respect to Lavrov, who’s a world-class diplomat whose contribution to International Relations has truly been historic without any exaggeration, he himself as well as the entire government that he represents know the answer to that question.
Such performative diplomacy as asking the US to formally confirm its multifaceted aid to Ukraine after every new report about this, let alone revealing to the public that this is what his ministry has been doing over the summer, arguably serves no practical purpose. The US isn’t going to confirm the specifics of its aid to Ukraine, especially that which concerns military-technical cooperation against Russia, and Lavrov knows this. He probably just wants to have it “for the record”, but that serves no real purpose.
For instance, occasional headlines about the US officially refusing to confirm such reports aren’t going to change anyone’s views about the conflict, neither in the US nor anywhere else across the world. Nevertheless, revealing to the public that the Russian Foreign Ministry has requested official confirmation from the State Department about this several times over the summer despite knowing the answer could change people’s views about Lavrov and his team, and not for the better.
To be absolutely clear, they’re world class, but no human being is perfect nor is any collection of them perfect either. Moreover, constructive critiques are among the sincerest forms of support, which in this context are aimed at improving policy formulation and implementation. The decision to reveal this indisputably performative act of Russian diplomacy to the public arguably risks some of them thinking less of Lavrov and his team for the previously mentioned reason of this serving no real purpose.
Furthermore, the State Department and other members of the American Establishment might mistake Russia’s performative diplomacy for weakness and even incompetence, thus possibly contributing to the formulation of more aggressive policies with the intent of maximally exploiting this false perception. Even if the US is engaging in similar acts of performative diplomacy towards Russia, reciprocating such doesn’t entail any tangible benefits for Russia, and it actually only risks backfiring as explained.
All in all, Russia’s world-class diplomats are professionals who are in their positions for a reason, but that doesn’t mean that Russian foreign policy is perfect and can’t be improved. Russia would do well to learn from China, whose leader Xi Jinping has proudly exhorted the importance of self-criticism and self-reform for years already, even declaring that “We must be receptive to the public’s suggestions and willingly accept their supervision.” It’s with that spirit in mind that this constructive critique is shared.
I think Lavrov is a giant of diplomacy. But alas, we are no longer in an era of diplomats.
And that is precisely proof that we are already at war.
Furthermore, I think Lavrov and his team have a certain vision of Russia and its sovereignty. But that vision is far from consensual within the ruling class, a good part of which wishes nothing more than for their country to become the USA's little bitch again, so they can enrich themselves once more by prostituting the country, even at the cost of unspeakable suffering for the vast majority of the population, as in the Yeltsin years.
So, in my view, it is not Lavrov's method that is wrong; it is the lack of cohesion within the ruling class.
Putin is in the same situation. As they say in France: "Who made you king?"
Furthermore, the State Department and other members of the American Establishment do mistake Russia’s performative diplomacy for weakness and even incompetence, thus contributing to the formulation of more aggressive policies with the intent of maximally exploiting this false perception, and of inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia.
Andrew, great piece, honest, and "gentle," but I took the liberty of "editing" your sentence above.