Russian diplomacy is no longer about co-operation but "putting Westerners in their place", say ex-Kremlin insiders.
The apologists for Putin's Russia – both Trumpsters and tankies – say that Ukraine must "negotiate" an end of Putin's illegal invasion.
Those folks are either oblivious to Russia's recent history of negotiations or are intentionally ignoring that history for political reasons.
In the years leading up to Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, diplomats lost their authority, their role reduced to echoing the Kremlin's aggressive rhetoric. BBC Russian asks former diplomats, as well as ex-Kremlin and White House insiders, how Russian diplomacy broke down.
This was four month's before the invasion.
In October 2021, US Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland went to a meeting at the Russian foreign ministry in Moscow. The man across the table was Russia's Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov, who Ms Nuland had known for decades and always got along with. Mr Rybakov's American counterparts saw him as a practical, calm negotiator - someone they could talk to even as the two countries' relationship frayed. This time, things were different. Mr Ryabkov read Moscow's official position from a piece of paper and resisted Ms Nuland's attempts to start a discussion. Ms Nuland was shocked, according to two people who discussed the incident with her. She described Mr Ryabkov and one of his colleagues as "robots with papers", the people said (the State Department declined to comment on the incident). And outside the negotiating room, Russian diplomats were using increasingly undiplomatic language. "We spit on Western sanctions." "Let me speak. Otherwise, you will really hear what Russian Grad missiles are capable of." "Morons" - preceded by an expletive. These are all quotes from people in positions of authority at the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in recent years.
If you are thinking that this doesn't sound like serious negotiating, you are entirely correct.
This attitude didn't begin in 2021, it's been ongoing since at least 2007.
The first signal that a new Cold War was beginning came in 2007 with a speech Mr Putin made to the Munich Security Conference. In a 30-minute diatribe, he accused Western countries of attempting to build a unipolar world. Russia's diplomats followed his lead. A year later, when Russia invaded Georgia, Moscow's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov reportedly swore at his UK counterpart, David Miliband, asking: "Who are you to lecture me?" Western officials still thought it was worth trying to work with Russia. In 2009, Mr Lavrov and the then-US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pressed a giant red "reset button" in relations, and the two countries seemed to be building co-operation - especially on security issues. But it soon became obvious to US officials that their Russian counterparts were simply parroting Mr Putin's growing anti-Western views, says Ben Rhodes, deputy national security advisor to former US President Barack Obama. Mr Rhodes recalls President Obama having breakfast with Mr Putin in 2009, accompanied by a folk orchestra. He says Mr Putin was more interested in presenting his view of the world than discussing co-operation and that the Russian leader blamed Mr Obama's predecessor, George W Bush, for betraying Russia. As the Arab Spring, the US involvement in Libya, and the Russian street protests unfolded in 2011 and 2012, Mr Putin decided that diplomacy wouldn't get him anywhere, Mr Rhodes says. "On certain issues - Ukraine in particular - I did not get the sense that [diplomats] had much influence at all," says Mr Rhodes.
The arrival of Maria Zakharova as spokesperson for Russia's Foreign Ministry in 2015 signaled another deterioration in diplomacy.
[W]ith Ms Zakharova's arrival, foreign ministry briefings became a spectacle. Ms Zakharova often yelled at reporters who asked her difficult questions and responded to criticism from other countries with insults. Her diplomatic colleagues were going the same way. Mr [Boris] Bondarev, who used to work for Moscow's mission to the UN in Geneva, recalls one meeting where Russia blocked all proposed initiatives, prompting colleagues from Switzerland to complain. "We said to them: 'Well, what's the problem? We are a great power, and you are just Switzerland!' "That's [Russian] diplomacy for you," he says.
Getting back to the eve of the invasion. (emphasis added)
Mr Bondarev recalls a dinner in Geneva in January 2022 when Mr Ryabkov, from the foreign ministry, met US officials. US First Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman hoped to avert the invasion of Ukraine through 11th-hour negotiations. "It was awful," says Mr Bondarev. "The Americans were like, 'Let's negotiate.' And instead Ryabkov starts shouting, 'We need Ukraine! We won't go anywhere without Ukraine! Take all your stuff and go back to the 1997 [Nato] borders!' Sherman is an iron lady, but I think even her jaw dropped at this. "[Ryabkov] was always very polite and really nice to talk to. And now he's banging his fist on the table and talking nonsense."
The war hasn't changed things.
Ukrainian authorities complain that Russia is once again offering ultimatums instead of compromises, such as demanding that Ukraine accepts the annexation of occupied territories. Kyiv has no intention to negotiate under such conditions, and its Western allies publicly support this decision. Russia seems set on relying on its military machine, intelligence services and geo-economic power for influence - rather than diplomacy.
Some people won't like hearing this, but the only way to end this war is militarily.
Judy Dempsey is a nonresident senior fellow at Carnegie Europe and editor in chief of Strategic Europe. At Carnegie Europe she writes:
Negotiations can only begin if Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky is in a strong enough position to set the terms. Those terms are not just about restoring Ukraine’s territorial integrity. They are about ensuring that Russia does not attack or threaten Kyiv again. An end to the war is about ending Russia’s imperial ambitions in this part of Europe. [ ... ] It is not enough for leaders and defense ministers to say ad nauseam that they will support Ukraine “for as long as it takes” or that Ukraine must win. How is that going to happen if the country is not provided with the essential military equipment? And if there are mutterings in some Europeans capitals and in Washington that the Ukrainian offensive has not been quick enough or effective enough, the reason is that Ukraine lacks the military support to achieve it. [ ... ] The war is a test for Europe in particular and the West in general. It is about security, conviction, and trying to uphold values based on the pursuit of democracy. Ultimately, that’s what the Ukrainians are fighting for. A fudged compromise will damage the West and appease—indeed embolden—Russia and its supporters.
Exactly. This is not just an unprovoked war against Ukraine, it's a war against the West and liberal democratic values.
