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.”
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.
Thanks, Regis, I hope that my constructive critique and associated solution of following China's lead in embracing reasonable self-criticism and self-reform reaches the right people!
It really is interesting to me that Russia's "Pivot to the East" is de facto Sino-centric (notwithstanding close ties with India that nevertheless aren't comparable to the scale thereof with China), yet Russia has learned absolutely nothing whatsoever at all from Xi's over-half-decade-long campaign of self-criticism and self-reform.
You'd think that they'd have thought to practice at least part of this policy, but no, they're blind to it and will not under any circumstances (pending major changes of perception among establishment leaders) practice anything similar. I frankly think that it's long-overdue for them to finally follow Xi's lead in this respect, even if only mildly at first.
Heres some more performance art from Russia . Compare to the EU. Which one is a serious country ?
"Russia is seeking an unfathomable sum of money from one of the world’s biggest tech companies.
Google reportedly owes the Kremlin more than 2 undecillion rubles — a 2 followed by 36 zeroes — after refusing to pay fines that are now accruing for blocking pro-Russian channels on YouTube. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov admitted that he “can’t even pronounce this figure right” but said that the eye-watering sum was “filled with symbolism.” Google “should not be restricting the actions of our broadcasters on its platform,” he added. "
" The European Union has ordered Apple and Meta to pay a combined €700m (£599m) in the first fines it has issued under legislation intended to curb the power of big tech."
"Furthermore, the State Department and other members of the American Establishment might mistake Russia’s performative diplomacy for weakness and even incompetence..."
Pardon my criticism, but I think Lavrov and Zakharova's "performance" has been less exemplary than before. Maybe this is because SMO has morphed into a formal war; maybe age does matter.
This is probably a correct take and China's example notwithstanding, my respect and admiration for Mr Lavrov as a diplomat makes me unable to say it.
This question, however, make me wonder what sort of public diplomacy stance Russia might otherwise be taking. Those of us who are paying attention can see an inexorable march toward war. We can also see Mr Putin being extraordinarily cautious in escalating and, following Kennedy's advice, in avoiding the humiliation of an adversary. Could Russia ever get through the noise of western media to warn / convey how the world is again approaching a calamity?
Personally, I prefer the tact and calmness of Russian public diplomacy, but the ordinary rabble in Europe and America are getting the message. And they need to.
The painfully naive Russian leadership want to believe that this time,it's different, that no this time thr Americans really are serious and not toying around the way they did all the other times...
Lavrov is merely setting the table for the final response Russia will have. It's a ability to say, "We warned you and begged you not to, and you lied and lied about it. Now here is your punishment."
If Russia really is at war with the West as many Russian officials, including Lavrov, continuously claim, there should be no official communication with the US at all, and definitely not in public!
So what’s your advice? Attack logistics centers on NATO territory and smile politely at the next meeting once the message has been sent? I wouldn’t describe the attacks on Kyiv and Odessa as “performative.”
The real message of this performative dialogue needs to be seen in the context of the total absence of dialogue in the Biden administration—which raised the risk of an accidental direct conflict between the US and Russia. These meetings seem to communicate: “kill as many
Ukrainians as you want and destroy the country. Of course, we’ll raise the cost to you, but we don’t want a direct conflict.” The Ukrainians in this dance are the biggest suckers (except for their thieving, treasonous elites, who will skip town when the whole thing comes crashing down).
There’s no real need for Russia to escalate against NATO because they’re winning anyway.
Please don't build scarecrows. My advice is simply to abandon performative diplomacy that serves no real purpose and only risks making Russia look bad, not only among average folks, but more importantly among US policymakers, experts, and diplomats.
You don't need to defend every single thing that Russia does. Perhaps that's your philosophy, and that's fine if so, but mine is the polar opposite. I was raised to appreciate constructive critiques and to share them with that which I sincerely care for.
This is what I truly believe so I don't understand why you'd want me to self-censor, which is what you seem to be implying. In my experience, passive-aggressive responses like yours are due to the person projecting onto me.
I do not understand what you’re suggesting. What should Lavrov do, not meet, communicate a different message?
I’m not suggesting you self censor. I normally find your comments extremely interesting, but truly do not understand what alternative you’re suggesting now.
I tried to provide an alternative explanation as to why it might make sense for both the US and Russia to engage in these performative meetings. They’re better than no meetings at all—especially in comparison to the Biden period.
My question remains: what is the alternative? What is the proper course? Perhaps I was wrong to assume you were suggesting a harder line is in order (what people like Karaganov, and to a lesser degree Trenin suggest). I wasn’t trying to be offensive. I’m genuinely curious.
I truly don't know whether you're "concern trolling" or are genuinely confused. Assuming (perhaps naively as I'm wont to do) that your intentions are sincere, the purpose of this piece is to draw attention to this totally useless example of performative diplomacy and suggest the solution of the MFA following Xi's lead by engaging in long-overdue self-criticism and self-reform (including that which is stimulated by credentialed, experienced, and provably trustworthy experts such as myself and others).
As I explained, nothing is achieved by requesting confirmation of reports about the US' latest military-technical support for Ukraine: the US won't confirm them and Russia knows it. All that is therefore achieved is that Russia expends valuable finite time and resources on an outreach that's guaranteed not to provide any insight. Even worse, it risks making the MFA look weak and possibly even incompetent in the eyes of average folks and American policymakers, experts, and diplomats alike.
The alternative is to simply eschew such performative diplomacy in favor of more effective diplomacy that at least stands a relatively more credible chance of possibly advancing Russia's interests however they're conceptualized in this contex.t If you've followed my work, then you know that I've regularly critiqued Karaganov for what I consider to be his over-the-top proposals. If you think that I'm one of those who's salivating for Russia to nuke NATO, then you haven't been paying attention to my work at all.
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.
Thanks, Regis, I hope that my constructive critique and associated solution of following China's lead in embracing reasonable self-criticism and self-reform reaches the right people!
It really is interesting to me that Russia's "Pivot to the East" is de facto Sino-centric (notwithstanding close ties with India that nevertheless aren't comparable to the scale thereof with China), yet Russia has learned absolutely nothing whatsoever at all from Xi's over-half-decade-long campaign of self-criticism and self-reform.
You'd think that they'd have thought to practice at least part of this policy, but no, they're blind to it and will not under any circumstances (pending major changes of perception among establishment leaders) practice anything similar. I frankly think that it's long-overdue for them to finally follow Xi's lead in this respect, even if only mildly at first.
I'm not sure it's a mistake.
Heres some more performance art from Russia . Compare to the EU. Which one is a serious country ?
"Russia is seeking an unfathomable sum of money from one of the world’s biggest tech companies.
Google reportedly owes the Kremlin more than 2 undecillion rubles — a 2 followed by 36 zeroes — after refusing to pay fines that are now accruing for blocking pro-Russian channels on YouTube. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov admitted that he “can’t even pronounce this figure right” but said that the eye-watering sum was “filled with symbolism.” Google “should not be restricting the actions of our broadcasters on its platform,” he added. "
" The European Union has ordered Apple and Meta to pay a combined €700m (£599m) in the first fines it has issued under legislation intended to curb the power of big tech."
RUSSIA IS THE SUPER POWER. IT CAN DO AS IT LIKES
"Heaven sees as my people see; Heaven hears as my people hear"
"Furthermore, the State Department and other members of the American Establishment might mistake Russia’s performative diplomacy for weakness and even incompetence..."
Might?
Pardon my criticism, but I think Lavrov and Zakharova's "performance" has been less exemplary than before. Maybe this is because SMO has morphed into a formal war; maybe age does matter.
This is probably a correct take and China's example notwithstanding, my respect and admiration for Mr Lavrov as a diplomat makes me unable to say it.
This question, however, make me wonder what sort of public diplomacy stance Russia might otherwise be taking. Those of us who are paying attention can see an inexorable march toward war. We can also see Mr Putin being extraordinarily cautious in escalating and, following Kennedy's advice, in avoiding the humiliation of an adversary. Could Russia ever get through the noise of western media to warn / convey how the world is again approaching a calamity?
Personally, I prefer the tact and calmness of Russian public diplomacy, but the ordinary rabble in Europe and America are getting the message. And they need to.
The painfully naive Russian leadership want to believe that this time,it's different, that no this time thr Americans really are serious and not toying around the way they did all the other times...
Lavrov is merely setting the table for the final response Russia will have. It's a ability to say, "We warned you and begged you not to, and you lied and lied about it. Now here is your punishment."
If Russia really is at war with the West as many Russian officials, including Lavrov, continuously claim, there should be no official communication with the US at all, and definitely not in public!
So what’s your advice? Attack logistics centers on NATO territory and smile politely at the next meeting once the message has been sent? I wouldn’t describe the attacks on Kyiv and Odessa as “performative.”
The real message of this performative dialogue needs to be seen in the context of the total absence of dialogue in the Biden administration—which raised the risk of an accidental direct conflict between the US and Russia. These meetings seem to communicate: “kill as many
Ukrainians as you want and destroy the country. Of course, we’ll raise the cost to you, but we don’t want a direct conflict.” The Ukrainians in this dance are the biggest suckers (except for their thieving, treasonous elites, who will skip town when the whole thing comes crashing down).
There’s no real need for Russia to escalate against NATO because they’re winning anyway.
Please don't build scarecrows. My advice is simply to abandon performative diplomacy that serves no real purpose and only risks making Russia look bad, not only among average folks, but more importantly among US policymakers, experts, and diplomats.
You don't need to defend every single thing that Russia does. Perhaps that's your philosophy, and that's fine if so, but mine is the polar opposite. I was raised to appreciate constructive critiques and to share them with that which I sincerely care for.
This is what I truly believe so I don't understand why you'd want me to self-censor, which is what you seem to be implying. In my experience, passive-aggressive responses like yours are due to the person projecting onto me.
I do not understand what you’re suggesting. What should Lavrov do, not meet, communicate a different message?
I’m not suggesting you self censor. I normally find your comments extremely interesting, but truly do not understand what alternative you’re suggesting now.
I tried to provide an alternative explanation as to why it might make sense for both the US and Russia to engage in these performative meetings. They’re better than no meetings at all—especially in comparison to the Biden period.
My question remains: what is the alternative? What is the proper course? Perhaps I was wrong to assume you were suggesting a harder line is in order (what people like Karaganov, and to a lesser degree Trenin suggest). I wasn’t trying to be offensive. I’m genuinely curious.
I truly don't know whether you're "concern trolling" or are genuinely confused. Assuming (perhaps naively as I'm wont to do) that your intentions are sincere, the purpose of this piece is to draw attention to this totally useless example of performative diplomacy and suggest the solution of the MFA following Xi's lead by engaging in long-overdue self-criticism and self-reform (including that which is stimulated by credentialed, experienced, and provably trustworthy experts such as myself and others).
As I explained, nothing is achieved by requesting confirmation of reports about the US' latest military-technical support for Ukraine: the US won't confirm them and Russia knows it. All that is therefore achieved is that Russia expends valuable finite time and resources on an outreach that's guaranteed not to provide any insight. Even worse, it risks making the MFA look weak and possibly even incompetent in the eyes of average folks and American policymakers, experts, and diplomats alike.
The alternative is to simply eschew such performative diplomacy in favor of more effective diplomacy that at least stands a relatively more credible chance of possibly advancing Russia's interests however they're conceptualized in this contex.t If you've followed my work, then you know that I've regularly critiqued Karaganov for what I consider to be his over-the-top proposals. If you think that I'm one of those who's salivating for Russia to nuke NATO, then you haven't been paying attention to my work at all.
Well said!
Interesting Would love to know as to which shortcomings you see in Indian diplomacy just curious