Diplomatic lessons for Elizabeth Truss

    How the British Foreign Minister was diplomatically shown her appropriate place in Russia
    Институт РУССТРАТ's picture
    account_circleИнститут РУССТРАТaccess_time16 Feb 2022remove_red_eye1 593
    print 16 2 2022

    The talks between the head of the British Foreign Office, Elizabeth Truss, and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, which took place in Moscow on February 10, have already been repeatedly covered and analysed in the media space. “A conversation of the mute with the deaf" and communication from the British side with slogans, or, as Mariya Zakharova aptly and sharply put it, "conversation with tweets” are laid out in detail. The results and consequences of the negotiations have been analysed from all sides in our information space. But there are some essential details that no one paid attention to.

    The RUSSTRAT Institute has already covered the political component and goals of London in all its recent European voyages and statements, including the Moscow meeting. Now we are going to reveal how, through the nuances of diplomatic protocol, it’s possible to indicate one’s attitude to the opposing side and set the necessary framework for negotiations.

    In the protocol part of any session, there are no minor details. Any point of the diplomatic round, with small permissible variations, should be appropriately scenically furnished. Through deviations in one direction or another from the generally accepted agenda, it’s possible to emphasise one’s attitude to the other side, which already sets a certain and necessary background. But not only that, with such subtle actions, one can already lay out the desired negotiation channel, in which everything will be directed.

    This tool is used by all serious players. The lack of a properly constructed protocol, or obvious mistakes in it, tells the other side, as well as the whole world, that something is not right in your country, in your pseudo-state. Similar, for example, is the whole activity of what Lavrov aptly called a Ukrainian “pianist".

    His "office", which through one person consists of "cultural workers", that is, participants, managers and producers of the “Quarter 95", clearly does not understand how everything is arranged and works for "adult uncles". At first, there were not many such protocol blunders, because the "youth"appealed to the mastodons of the old, still Soviet school, who had previously kept all the Ukrainian protocols since the times of Independence. But experts are well aware of how and why everything happened there.

    All these yesterday's schoolchildren and “not suckers" began to banally con people who deserve respect. Yes, yes, you heard right. Serious people were not paid royalties, were not given the promised positions or declared areas of activity. But this is a very narrow circle, which instantly, according to its internal "word of mouth", lay down the proper idea and began to avoid any suggestions from the “pianist" team.

    That is why we can now see constant, absolutely glaring failures of the Ukrainian side in the field of diplomatic protocol. It is enough even not to track specifically and not to be an expert in this field. One has only to look at how in Kiev a confused Erdogan and his wife get out of the car on the porch of the Mariinsky Palace, no one comes to meet him, and there is some market bustle around, and he seems to be lost in this market in the crowd. Or see Zelensky in white sneakers at an event in memory of the victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York. And after all, which is also important, not only there.

    As the "diplomat to the bone", former UN Deputy Secretary General, chairman of the Russian Public Council for International Cooperation and Public Diplomacy Sergey Ordzhonikidze put it on this topic, putting all the dots on the “i”:

    "This is inappropriate, because, you know, there is a specific protocol for each case, and it concerns most of all, and first of all, heads of state, governments and foreign ministers. The protocol does not proceed from the fact that it is just accepted and everything, it proceeds from respect for the event that is being held. In this case, we are talking about respect for the victims, for the people who were injured in the terrorist attack. It's like the president of some state would come to our eternal flame monument at the Kremlin wall in his underpants."

    It remains only to give birth to a new phraseology, something like "a fool who has climbed on the throne remains a fool" and no longer look in that direction. It is enough to understand that the modern Russian diplomatic school is not only true to its traditions, but also currently one of the most advanced. Our “diplomatic bastion” is served by talented people who deeply feel all the nuances of this sphere, and even against the background of the crushed Western "midgets" they look truly like titans.

    There are many reasons and explanations for this, but we will briefly, in one sentence, set out a meta-historical view of this: always, during the revival from the ashes of the Troubles and the maturation of a new young state entity, by the will of the providence of the Russian Demiurge, personalities of such magnitude are at the helm of statehood that correspond to the revival that He is creating.

    Our Foreign Ministry is well aware of all the rules and subtleties of the diplomatic game. So let's take a closer look at the visit of the head of the British Foreign Office, analyse its smallest details, which, as we now know, are not something secondary or unimportant.

    The atmosphere and tone of the meeting is set by the built-up protocol, where the first chord, which largely determines everything, is, in fact, the meeting of the arriving person itself. RUSSTRAT, in this case, pays special attention to this, since no one has highlighted the blatant, screaming picture of the arrival of the "Englishwoman" – the head of the Foreign Office was not served a ladder on the way out of the plane!

    The British Foreign Secretary was descending a flimsy ladder that looked almost like a rope ladder! Moreover, all the inconveniences intentionally caused by our host party resulted in the "Englishwoman" getting out of the tail of the plane! And not on any red carpet.

    Even individually, such essential details should have emphasised our attitude - she is not welcome here. Entering in unison with our Foreign Ministry, we will switch, describing the situation, respectively, to YOU: "You ride there as much as you can along our borders on a NATO tank, raise the degree of the unnecessary for us now invasion, strengthen the ranks of ‘tricksters' for us, recruiting Poles and Balts. You're not welcome here."

    But all together, such protocol refinements paint a slightly different picture. In the aggregate, they simply start shouting: whatever you do and offer - you will not succeed. Everything tells us this.

    This is also a skirmish that has turned into an open part, which always means the failure of negotiations. There are many markers that can eventually be used to monitor the extent to which negotiators are finding the "golden mean", or in which direction the scales are tipped a little more. Publication or voicing of a joint statement or memorandum, or lack thereof. Emphasising certain points by the parties, especially if they coincide. How much they match or differ.

    What was planned and what ended up happening. A bunch of terms that smooth out, emphasise, or, conversely, spray the essence. Whether the final statements include “fruitful" or just "business" negotiations, with a bunch of other shades and nuances. This is a whole science, and it is sure that many MGIMO teachers, as well as curators of the more "young" ones in the current vertical of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, eat their bread for a reason.

    So, the skirmish that has turned into an open part clearly means a negotiation failure. That is, as we stated in the diplomatic protocol language, which set the tone: you will not succeed - so it happened. Literally everything says this. As well as the statement of our minister about the "conversation of the deaf with the mute", which everyone could not help but pay attention to.

    But what went unnoticed was Lavrov's refusal of an interpreter. For a minister who has a perfect command of English, an interpreter is not necessary; he himself also corrected the interpreter. This is an attribute of the status of the negotiations themselves, that is, a purposeful reduction of this very status.

    Moreover, a certain time lag is created when the translator is working. Therefore, all the declared time of the duration of negotiations should be divided almost in half. Except for rare cases of communication by phone, when sometimes, due to circumstances, synchronists are used, and the lag is significantly reduced.

    And, of course, when conversations are held in the same language, as, for example, in most negotiations in the former Soviet Union. Then, for example, the designated six hours of negotiations between our leader and Lukashenko are truly super-meaningful and lengthy.

    So, this existing lag gives a certain field for manoeuvre, when you can think about something, formulate something better and present it. The "Englishwoman" was deprived of such a manoeuvre, she had to "work from the wheels" and the results of such "work" were deliberately announced to all of us - when the British Foreign Secretary does not know which regions are part of RussiaAnd this is a scandal and a powerful blow to the reputation of the British Foreign Secretary!

    When an "intimate" negotiation moment is being purposefully leaked from our side, exposing the "Englishwoman" in the light we need – this is also all from the same opera – this is an indicative dispatch to the diplomatic toilet. Refusing to recognise Russia's sovereignty over the Rostov and Voronezh regions is worthy of the Darwin Prize.

    But why was the Russian side determined to say unequivocally "you will not succeed" and began to put a stick in the wheels of the negotiation process? Although any diplomatic rounds, it would seem, suggest at least some rapprochement of positions. How could such a decision be influenced by the internal British political situation? We will cover this in other "unclassified materials".

    Average: 5 (1 vote)