Foreign Minister S.V.
Lavrov made a statement that is rarely met in diplomatic practice.
In an interview with Al Arabiya TV channel, commenting on US actions on Iran (but it is clear that this not only concerned Persian affairs), he noted that "Washington has lost its talent for conducting diplomacy, only ultimatums and sanctions remain in its arsenal."
The United States "voices many strange things," including making demands on partners.
“And if their partners say that they cannot do this, they ask to discuss the question raised, they do not agree.
They give an ultimatum, set deadlines and impose sanctions. "
Lavrov, realizing that the emblem of the Republican Party is the elephant, nevertheless urged Washington not to view the world "as a china shop."
In itself, dissatisfaction with another power is a common thing.
However, it is rarely indicated that this power is not only unpleasant to other participants in the world theater (it does not have to be pleasant), but its activities are generally unskillful and harm not only rivals, but also itself.
Lavrov is a highly professional diplomat who knows the value of a word.
He in no way belongs to those (unfortunately, too numerous) politicians who carry no one knows what, and then explain that they were misunderstood.
If a qualified diplomat says something, it is in the expectation that he will be understood correctly.
And understanding the consequences.
The case when it was said that the rival had lost his former talents took place with Marshal Zhukov.
In his memoirs, he wrote: “As for the strategic art of their High Command, after the catastrophe in the Stalingrad area, and especially after the Battle of Kursk, it dropped sharply.
The German command became kind of hard-thinking, devoid of ingenuity, especially in a difficult situation.
In the decisions one could feel the absence of correct assessments of the capabilities of our troops and the enemy. "
What the marshal said about war, and the minister said about peace, is not so important.
The activities of both a soldier and a diplomat have much in common.
The difference lies elsewhere.
Zhukov wrote "Memoirs and Reflections" many years after the war and was definitely not afraid to worsen relations with the military-political leadership of the no longer existing Reich.
Lavrov talks about today's affairs and can further enrage those who have lost their talents.
That is, he risks more than a marshal at rest.
Moreover, sub specie aeternitatis, the jagged evolutions of American diplomacy are indeed unusual and instructive.
Sometime before World War I, the United States was completely absent from serious diplomatic arrangements.
The Europeans knew that there were such simple-minded savages and their diplomats were also extremely simple-minded, but this was of interest only ethnographic.
The American newcomer triumphantly entered the world diplomatic concert in 1918 at the Versailles Conference.
And then the British historian of diplomacy G. Nicholson wrote: “The professional diplomatic service has just appeared there and has not yet had time to develop its own technique.
European capitals were buzzing about the immodesty of these amateur diplomats, and their antics had a very harmful effect. "
However, "now that the American people have seen the need for professional diplomacy, we can be confident that in the near future, US diplomacy will become one of the best in the world."
Not that the morals of the American diplomatic corps have become ideal, but Nicholson's forecast seems to have come true.
After 1945, US diplomacy became highly respected and successful.
Moreover, it cannot even be said that the secret of success was reduced to the formula "there is strength - no mind is needed."
Of course, there were more than enough forces then - both military and economic - that contributed to the diplomatic success of the United States.
When does power and wealth not help them?
But at the same time there was also a sophisticated diplomatic technique.
In terms of sophistication, the United States stood on a par with other great powers, and cowboy manners - after all, you can't wash a black dog white - although they were present (where can you get away from them?), But to a minimal extent.
Now, when both the military and the economic power of the United States is on the decline, strong competitors have appeared, diplomacy has become openly blockhead.
Her motto is “The remnants of the former strength are still there, ergo mind is not needed at all”.
Can't hinder my ndrava.
Meanwhile, the strength of diplomacy is tested not at the apogee of sovereign power, but quite the opposite - at perigee.
Talleyrand at the Congress of Vienna, who, playing on the contradictions of the victorious powers, managed to bargain for the defeated France in the highest degree of preferential terms of peace.
Prince Gorchakov, after the Paris Peace (1856) painstakingly restored the position of Russia on the Black Sea.
The touchstone for diplomacy is hopeless (at least difficult) circumstances that true art overcomes.
And vice versa.
As of 1939, von Ribbentrop looked like a very strong diplomat.
In 1944, he no longer looked like that.
Couldn't stand the test on the touchstone.
And Lavrov noted that the State Department is more likely on the Ribbentrop line than Talleyrand.
This is quite a shame to hear, but what to do if it seems to be true.
The author's point of view may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.