I attended a Chautauqua week long program supposedly focused on diplomacy. While the term diplomacy was used, the actual content was foreign policy. The West has been on top for so long that they have not needed diplomacy.
Putin in a recent statement says that planning in Russia starts from the front line. In other words, bottom up effort connection is essential like a the military front line. Actual practice is essential.
I see in the actions of Russia, China, BRICS and other organization like this a solid focus on the practice of running a country which extends to a equitable global order
it would be impossible for the west to draw up a story line to counter what lavrov has stated here... they couldn't do it... we're screwed as i see it.. the west is truly non negotiable... the most scary thought is that lavrovs history lesson would be seen by an impartial audience in the west... the msm will not be reporting it and as gil scott heron said - 'the revolution will not be televised'... it is being seen in many other parts of the world.. that is my hope... i'm with russia in the depiction of the west duplicitous actions to date and - they haven't changed.... lavrov is much too civilized to say the usa and friends are a bunch of liars, so you can forget it coming from him! but he is essentially saying this regardless....
thanks for this post... the overview is disturbing, but i believe it is very accurate..
Lavrov does use one word that's probably mistranslated--"Cheated," which I emphasized. In Russian it's "I cheated." He does say the West broke their word and promise on several occasions, but he doesn't use the term liar, лжец. The PR said "more than 70 ambassadors and representatives of diplomatic missions accredited in Moscow" attended the talk.
I usually find Lavrov very interesting and informative. I feel this speech is too defensive and lacking in assertiveness. I feel Lavrov misses the opportunity to explain what he expects from the West. Obviously the West is not going to agree to Lavrov's demands, but some clear demands by Lavrov directed at Washington might force Washington to expose its own aims more openly. We know they are bullies in Washington and they show no empathy so one needs to use a direct, simple and unequivocal rhetorical style to talk to them.
IMO, it's very important to consider the audience, which in this case was an academic/diplomatic roundtable with many foreign representatives in attendance. I have read Lavrov going off in the manner you describe. According to Pepe Escobar, Lavrov has a very distinct front-stage/back-stage persona that can be very acerbic and witty when he wants to be.
Right. The audience included foreign representatives and Lavrov made a good historical summary of the origins of the conflict from a Russian perspective. However, as James implies in his reply, Washington has no capabiility to at least reflect correctly other's points of view. So Lavrov was not talking to Washington in that speech and I shouldn't have expected assertiveness from Lavrov in that setting.
i don't share your view here... what is there to assert with an opposition that is incapable of honouring others, let alone being honest with itself?? the west's dishonesty of the past 10 or more years speaks for itself....
Russian diplomatic practice going back to the Soviet Era had similar dynamics, the best example being pre-WW2 when the last resort was Molotov-Ribbentrop.
I attended a Chautauqua week long program supposedly focused on diplomacy. While the term diplomacy was used, the actual content was foreign policy. The West has been on top for so long that they have not needed diplomacy.
Putin in a recent statement says that planning in Russia starts from the front line. In other words, bottom up effort connection is essential like a the military front line. Actual practice is essential.
I see in the actions of Russia, China, BRICS and other organization like this a solid focus on the practice of running a country which extends to a equitable global order
Lavrov embodies diplomacy.
it would be impossible for the west to draw up a story line to counter what lavrov has stated here... they couldn't do it... we're screwed as i see it.. the west is truly non negotiable... the most scary thought is that lavrovs history lesson would be seen by an impartial audience in the west... the msm will not be reporting it and as gil scott heron said - 'the revolution will not be televised'... it is being seen in many other parts of the world.. that is my hope... i'm with russia in the depiction of the west duplicitous actions to date and - they haven't changed.... lavrov is much too civilized to say the usa and friends are a bunch of liars, so you can forget it coming from him! but he is essentially saying this regardless....
thanks for this post... the overview is disturbing, but i believe it is very accurate..
Lavrov does use one word that's probably mistranslated--"Cheated," which I emphasized. In Russian it's "I cheated." He does say the West broke their word and promise on several occasions, but he doesn't use the term liar, лжец. The PR said "more than 70 ambassadors and representatives of diplomatic missions accredited in Moscow" attended the talk.
Thank you Karl! Shared!
Thank you for this post and for your comment on Lavrov's talk. Very illuminating. It all makes sense to me.
I usually find Lavrov very interesting and informative. I feel this speech is too defensive and lacking in assertiveness. I feel Lavrov misses the opportunity to explain what he expects from the West. Obviously the West is not going to agree to Lavrov's demands, but some clear demands by Lavrov directed at Washington might force Washington to expose its own aims more openly. We know they are bullies in Washington and they show no empathy so one needs to use a direct, simple and unequivocal rhetorical style to talk to them.
IMO, it's very important to consider the audience, which in this case was an academic/diplomatic roundtable with many foreign representatives in attendance. I have read Lavrov going off in the manner you describe. According to Pepe Escobar, Lavrov has a very distinct front-stage/back-stage persona that can be very acerbic and witty when he wants to be.
Right. The audience included foreign representatives and Lavrov made a good historical summary of the origins of the conflict from a Russian perspective. However, as James implies in his reply, Washington has no capabiility to at least reflect correctly other's points of view. So Lavrov was not talking to Washington in that speech and I shouldn't have expected assertiveness from Lavrov in that setting.
i don't share your view here... what is there to assert with an opposition that is incapable of honouring others, let alone being honest with itself?? the west's dishonesty of the past 10 or more years speaks for itself....
Russian diplomatic practice going back to the Soviet Era had similar dynamics, the best example being pre-WW2 when the last resort was Molotov-Ribbentrop.
yes - good observations and i appreciate you sharing your perspective on this here...