|
The Mediocracy Of ‘Global Britain’
The knowledge and quality of 'western' leading officials is of serious concern. They are often politicians with no experience in the fields they are supposed to represent.
Liz Truss, currently the Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom, is a sad example.
It is said that the job of the foreign secretary has something to do with geography. To know where this or that country is and what its surroundings are is supposedly helpful when one wants wage war or peace with or against them.
Liz Truss had failed in this category when, a week ago, she said: "We are offering extra supplies and support into our Baltic allies across the Black Sea." The Black Sea is some 700 miles away from the Baltic states.
Today Liz Truss endorsed another occasion to fail when she visited Russia to talk about the Russian non-attack on the Ukraine only to get mocked by its very experienced Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.
Truss came dressed with a fur hat and gloves to a Moscow that today was warmer than London.
At the meeting Truss seems to have done exactly what Lavrov had publicly warned her not to do before the meeting started:
I have read Boris Johnson’s statement to the House of Commons, in which he said about relations with Russia that they should be improved. Following that, the Prime Minister’s Office announced that you and your colleague the Defence Secretary would travel to Russia to improve our relations.
At least this is what the announcement said. I don’t know if this is really so.
If this is the goal our British colleagues aspire to, we will definitely reciprocate. We cannot be satisfied with our current relations, which are at the lowest ebb in the past years.
Of course, relations can only be normalised through dialogue based on mutual respect and equality, recognition of each other’s legitimate interests and a search for mutually acceptable solutions.
Ideologically charged approaches, ultimatums, threats and moralising is a road to nowhere. Regrettably, many of our Western colleagues are using this form in their public activities. I do not see this as diplomacy.
You will agree, I am sure, that communication between two international subjects should have added value for both sides. Only in this case will it bring positive results.
The meeting did not go well.
Truss also showed a lack of manner when she started to talk (vid) even while the translation of the previous speaker was still ongoing.
Her knowledge was of similar quality. As Kommersant reports in Russian (machine translation):
The British Foreign Secretary told the head of the Russian Foreign Ministry about the need to withdraw Russian armed forces from the Ukrainian border. Sergei Lavrov replied that the military is on the territory of his country. Liz Truss repeated that they should be withdrawn. To this, the Russian minister again objected that the military did not violate anything, since they had the right to conduct any maneuvers on the territory of the Russian Federation.
After that, he himself addressed a question to his British colleague: “Do you recognize the sovereignty of Russia over the Rostov and Voronezh regions?”
“Great Britain will never recognize Russian sovereignty over these regions,” the Foreign Minister replied after a short pause.
British Ambassador to the Russian Federation Deborah Bonnert had to intervene in the situation, who delicately explained to Mrs. Truss that we were really talking about Russian regions.
At the press conference after the meeting Lavrov pilled on:
During an icy press conference after the talks, Lavrov said the two sides had found little common ground and that the talks contained “nothing secret, no trust. Just slogans shouted from the tribunes.”
“I’m honestly disappointed that our conversation turned out like the mute with the deaf. We appear to be listening but we’re not hearing anything. Our detailed explanations fell on unprepared ground,” Lavrov said.
“It’s like when they say that Russia is waiting for the ground to freeze so that tanks can easily enter Ukraine,” he added. “It seems that our British colleagues were on similar ground today, off of which bounced all the facts we presented them.”
It seems that 'Global Britain', as Boris Johnson envisioned it, is represented by a know-nothing dimwit traveling around to lecture real diplomats about issues they had already forgotten more about than Truss will ever know.
That's not going to end well.
Now for the presser’s Q&As. I must admit that Lavrov’s answers as usual are very detailed and thus lengthy, something that a few barflies consider a fault, that Lavrov must distill major, complex points to mere sound bites. I see that I’ve already dealt with the first Q&A that elicited the new concept of NATOcentrism. The next Q&A is an excellent example of the impossibility of separating the wheat from the chaff because to do so destroys the overall context required to comprehend:
“You are talking about Russia’s desire to combine ‘coercive diplomacy’ that combines political demands and physical threats (if I understand correctly). We have no desire to force anyone to do anything. It is the West that accuses us of demanding the implementation of the decisions of the OSCE summits, we are allegedly forcing someone to do something. We are all for diplomacy.
“Our Western colleagues have memorized the term ‘de-escalation.’ No matter what they say about Russia, they demand ‘de-escalation.’ The second thesis is that they ‘hope’ that Moscow will choose diplomacy. All these years they chose diplomacy [Do note the cynical sarcasm]. We still want to build on it. The Istanbul Charter for European Security of 1999 and the Astana Declaration of 2010 are products of diplomacy. And, at the highest level.
“Now we are told that they have agreed on the wording: no one should strengthen his security at the expense of the security of others. But this, they say, is only so that today they can defend the right of any country to choose alliances. We have been deceived more than once (after Germany united, President of Russia Vladimir Putin spoke about this in detail). Now they are trying to deceive us with the commitments that we have all agreed on and actively welcomed within the framework of the OSCE – about the indivisibility of security.
“Here’s an example. There is an agreed package, only the right to choose alliances is ‘torn out’ of it. The duty not to infringe on the safety of the other is ignored. Similarly, a selective approach dominates the West’s position on the Minsk agreements. Not to mention Kiev’s position. The Minsk agreements are the solution of security problems, a ceasefire, amnesty, the special status of Donbass, the reform of the constitution in the context of decentralization and the holding of elections under the auspices of the OSCE in coordination with Donetsk and Lugansk. After all this, the resumption of control of the Ukrainian authorities along the entire length of the border. Only the latter is ‘torn out’ of this package.
“When I touched upon this topic today, Ms Minister said that we need to look at the sequence of steps. What is meant: only a point beneficial to the Kiev regime on the resumption of control over the borders is taken. This point of the Minsk commitments, approved by the UN Security Council, is conditional on everything else. Kiev does not want to do everything else, it publicly declares it. The same example as with the obligations on the indivisibility of security – to agree on something, calm everyone down, then tear out the necessary, and reject the rest as artificially invented. That approach won’t work.
“We don’t want to threaten anyone. Look at the public statements. Not once were there any threats. They threaten us. Including The Minister recently addressed the House of Commons. At the talks, they heard all the same things that are heard on the air from the lips of official representatives of the British government: allegedly, if we do not stop the ‘aggression’, we will face severe consequences, which we will regret. What kind of aggression? When did it start? Against whom? Have you ever heard something like this from our mouths? I’m sure you won’t be able to give a single example.
“I would like to stress that we want the spirit of compromise, the search for a balance of interests, cooperation, mutual respect and equality, which made it possible to adopt key documents at the highest level within the OSCE, to help us now implement these agreements, which have already been fixed on paper. The time has come when words cannot remain only words. We are ready for such cooperation.”
I haven’t watched the video of this presser, but Lavrov comes across as extremely frustrated to the point of genuine anger, which IMO is very apparent in the final two Q&As:
“Today I mentioned that Jens Stoltenberg has repeatedly stated that NATO should bear special responsibility for ensuring security in the Indo-Pacific region, in particular, in the South Pacific Sea. If NATO also outlines this line of defense, will you also insist that it is the right of all countries to go where NATO wants? It’s a dangerous game. We hear all these ‘incantations’ about the defensive nature of the North Atlantic Alliance, despite the fact that we have repeatedly presented our NATO colleagues with information about how they bombed Yugoslavia and Iraq on the basis of an excuse that Tony Blair later called a mistake and a fake. There are many examples where a defensive alliance works. The reproaches hurled against us by London and other Western capitals concern the fact that we are interfering everywhere. Some kind of cyber war once again sounded today. There is speculation in the seemingly respected media about the ‘operation’ that we are preparing to seize Kiev and all other cities of Ukraine, or that some kind of ‘coup’ is being prepared to plant a ‘puppet regime’ in the Ukrainian capital. All this is again from the ‘highly likely’ series. Today I drew the attention of E. Truss to the fact that ‘highly likely’ remains ‘highly likely’. As for the accusations of poisoning Russia with Alexander Litvinenko in 2007, no facts have been provided. No facts have been provided on the Skripals, we don’t even know where they are. His daughter is a Russian citizen. It’s not that we’re not given access, they don’t say anything about it. Similarly, no facts have been provided on A. Navalny. In the campaign to denigrate Russia, the UK is playing a leading role.
“Today we talked a lot about the need to build our work on the basis of facts, otherwise it will be the propaganda of clean water. Unfortunately, no facts were heard. Moreover, we also did not hear any reaction to our statement about the need to somehow substantiate the accusations against Russia. Ms. Minister mentioned the Budapest Memorandum. I am sorry that this is the second time she has done so in this Chamber, despite the detailed clarifications that we have provided during the negotiations on this matter. The Budapest Memorandum between Russia, Great Britain and the United States provided security guarantees to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear state, standard security guarantees for any non-nuclear state. This memorandum did not oblige either Russia, Great Britain or the United States to recognize the unconstitutional coup d’état that was committed by neo-Nazis and ultra-radicals in February 2014. It requires all participants, including Ukraine, to prevent any violations of the fundamental principles of the OSCE, including (emphasized) the principle of respect for and rights of national minorities. Ukraine didn’t give a damn about all this.
“No one will ever impose on us the need, in violation of all of Russia’s international obligations, to recognize unconstitutional regimes and, especially, to justify the actions of these regimes to discriminate against the Russian-speaking population and representatives of other national minorities, which happens daily, including in the legislative activities of the Ukrainian regime with the active support of President Zelensky.
“Since we are talking about Ukraine, Ms Truss reminded us today that Vladimir Zelensky and his ministers and his head of the Defence and Security Council publicly declare that they will not comply with the Minsk Agreements. Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba has explicitly stated that there will be no direct dialogue with Donetsk and Lugansk, since such a dialogue is not provided for in the Minsk Agreements. This is exactly the school of J. Goebbels and even surpasses the art of the chief propagandist of the Third Reich, because on the ‘blue eye’ to say lies, to reject what is approved by the UN Security Council and written in black and white, and at the same time not to worry at all about the fact that London, Paris, Berlin or Washington will pull it off is a fairly comfortable position for demagogues who are now defending their rightness. Trying to rewrite the Minsk agreements. Unfortunately, this was also not heard by our partners today, although we spoke in detail about this issue.”
“Question (translated from English): The situation between the countries is extremely tense. De-escalation would help us cope with this tension. Could troops be returned to bases, for example, after the exercise in Belarus? Are you ready to demonstrate any meaningful gestures in order to achieve de-escalation and slightly reduce the degree of the situation?”
“Sergey Lavrov: After the military exercises, the troops return to the barracks. That’s the way it usually is. As for the duration of the exercises, this is the sovereign right of each government concerned. Unlike the exercises on its territory that Russia conducts, after which the troops return to the barracks, those troops that are far beyond the territory of Great Britain, the United States and Canada are sent to the Baltic countries, to the countries that are on the Black Sea coast, these troops and weapons, as a rule, never return home. We also talked about this today, but [Liz] Truss explained quite clearly that this does not concern us. But our troops on Russian territory are London’s main concern and the slogan of de-escalation, which you have just competently repeated. It is a unifying factor for the entire Western community. You are in the same logic that the political elites of the West have been explaining to you for more than a month. You asked your question whether Russia is ready to make any significant gesture to defuse the situation. You must first prove to me that we have charged this situation, that we are escalating it, and that we are doing something that does not concern our sovereignty and the sovereign right to act on our own territory. I leave it to the conscience of our Western partners the allegations regarding the presence of Russian troops and heavy weapons in Ukraine. This is all from the category of ‘highly likely’. I gave examples: A. Litvinenko, Skripal, A. Navalny – the same accusations. It’s not that we haven’t been shown the facts, and when we remind you several times that these facts do not exist, all these remarks are ignored. They do not want to hear us, because, apparently, we have other rights, not as significant rights in the international arena as the UK believes, what rights it has. You said that exercises are also taking place in Belarus, and Ms Minister said that the main thing for her is to avoid war in Ukraine. That’s why she’s here.
“I foresee the denouement of all this drama, which the West is playing out, trying even to make a tragedy out of it, although it looks more and more like a comedy. After some time, Western countries learn that the Russian-Belarusian exercises have ended and our troops have returned to Russian territory. A lot of noise will be raised in order to prove that the West has achieved de-escalation from Russia. Although in reality it will be an ‘air trade’. Everyone knows perfectly well, it was stated that after the completion of the exercises, Russian troops always return to their territory. I read in some Canadian media that the topic of Ukraine is ‘a crutch for the falling ratings of Western politicians.’ It’s an interesting metaphor.
“I hope that in serious matters related to European security, to the security of all NATO member countries, Ukraine and Russia without exception, we will behave in an adult way and not engage in open propaganda in the expectation of the next electoral adventures.”
I too share that hope, but experience tells me not to expect it to materialize. Serial Criminals are addicted to performing their criminality–there’s no hope in reforming them; so, either life in prison or execution are the only solutions. I see only one way to prevent war and that’s for all the nations agreeing with the principles of the UN Charter they once endorsed to join with Russia, China and their partners and become very vocal advocates as members of The Group of Friends in Defense of the Charter of the United Nations.
Posted by: karlof1 | Feb 10 2022 23:45 utc | 104
|
