Russia should not give such people an opportunity to insult with their provocative agenda.
Britain’s Foreign Minister Liz Truss was given a cool reception in Moscow this week. The guarded attitude is understandable for Truss has shown no respect to Russia or any attempt at genuine diplomacy. Her boorish warmongering and arrogant conduct should have been dealt with by denying her entry to Russia.
Granted, in the world of diplomacy there are supposed to be always open doors and it is recommended that uttering the word “no” is forbidden. So, one could argue that the Russian government was obliged to receive Britain’s top diplomat this week.
Nevertheless, Liz Truss has shown herself to be spectacularly unbecoming as a diplomat. For weeks now, she has been ramping up belligerent rhetoric towards Russia, baselessly accusing it of planning to invade Ukraine. Her surname translates in the Russian language as “patsy” and she has certainly demonstrated such a dubious quality from her repeated indulgence of wanton Anglo-American propaganda. That propaganda has recklessly wound up tensions over Ukraine with Russia. The recklessness is inciting conflict and the danger of war in Europe. Arguably, Truss and her ilk should be prosecuted for incitement, not pandered to.
Not surprisingly then, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov gave his British counterpart a cold shoulder when she arrived in Moscow on Thursday. Lavrov said lecturing and threats to Russia of the kind that Truss has peddled for weeks are a dead-end street. Truss continued making provocative and ignorant statements while in Moscow, urging Russia to “de-escalate” and “choose the path of diplomacy or else face severe consequences”.
The embarrassing lack of preparation by the British minister was revealed when Lavrov at one point during their discussions asked Truss ironically if Britain recognized Russia’s sovereignty over Rostov and Voronezh. They are located within the Russian Federation where there are military bases. Truss reportedly retorted: “The UK will never recognize Russia’s sovereignty over those regions.” Apparently, she mistook them for being in Ukraine.
This is not the first time that the British diplomat has come up short on basic knowledge when presuming to pontificate about subjects. Recently, while on a tour of Australia, Truss held forth about the medieval history of Kievan Rus declaring that “Ukrainians” have defended their territory from “invasions by the Mongols to the Tatars”, apparently not realizing that the 13th-century events were part of the one “Mongol-Tatar Yoke” imposed on several Slavic peoples.
Regrettably, Liz Truss is more adept at showboating than genuine diplomacy. She has a penchant for photo-ops rather than policy. When she was in Moscow this week, she was dressed all in black and wearing a traditional Russian fur hat. Commentators noted how the attire was not appropriate for the unseasonably mild weather and that the image-conscious Truss was trying to evoke memories of the formidable British leader Margaret Thatcher on her landmark visit to Moscow in 1987 during the Cold War.
Indeed there is open speculation in the British media that Truss has her eye on taking over as prime minister in the event of Boris Johnson being ousted from Downing Street over his scandal-ridden tenure. Before leaving for Russia, Truss made defiant comments about how she would be warning Moscow to “de-escalate”.
The contrast was salient with French President Emmanuel Macron’s earlier visit to Moscow on Monday. Macron said he had “rich and substantive” talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin over five hours. There were no high-handed ultimatums or spurious demands. There was instead an earnest effort to find a diplomatic resolution to the tensions between the US-led NATO bloc and Russia over Ukraine.
Part of the resolution involves a proper understanding of Russia’s strategic security concerns with regard to NATO’s historic, relentless expansion and, secondly, finding an urgent peaceful settlement of the eight-year Ukrainian civil war. At least Macron showed an understanding and respect for Russia’s perspective.
By contrast, Lavrov apparently had to explain to Truss why the Ukraine conflict continues because the NATO-backed Kiev regime refuses to implement its legally binding obligations to the 2015 Minsk Peace accords.
The stark conclusion is that Washington and London are not serious about dialogue with Moscow to find a diplomatic solution to all of these issues. American and British media claim that Washington and London are trying to “ease tensions”. The exact opposite is true. The Anglo-American axis has incited tensions and a sense of crisis that runs the risk of open war. This axis has greatly increased the supply of weapons and special forces to Ukraine, thus emboldening the Kiev regime to reject a peaceful path. The Americans and British have militarized Eastern Europe with unprecedented deployments of troops, warships and warplanes. While Truss was in Moscow, her nominal boss Boris Johnson was in the Polish capital Warsaw inspecting British troops that had just arrived to “defend” Poland and Eastern Europe from alleged Russian aggression.
Thus, it can be said that the current American and British officials are incapable or unwilling to engage in genuine diplomacy with Russia to find a peaceful resolution and a modus vivendi free of Cold War ideology. Liz Truss is more a propaganda operative and warmonger than a bona fide envoy committed to establishing understanding and improved relations.
Russia should not give such people an opportunity to insult with their provocative agenda. For such people, a closed door and Nyet are appropriate exceptions in diplomacy.
