Threats, insults, and Kremlin 'robots': How Russian diplomacy died under Putin
Threats, insults, and Kremlin 'robots': How Russian diplomacy died under Putin
Russian diplomacy is no longer about co-operation but "putting Westerners in their place", say ex-Kremlin insiders.
Russia's diplomats were once a key part of President Putin's foreign policy strategy. But that has all changed.
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.
You're viewing a single thread.
It might be hard to imagine now, but Mr Putin himself told the BBC back in 2000 that "Russia is ready to co-operate with Nato... right up to joining the alliance".
"I cannot imagine my country isolated from Europe," he added.
Back then, early in his presidency, Mr Putin was eager to build ties with the West, a former senior Kremlin official told the BBC.
Gotta wonder how Russia never ended up being able to NATO despite this.
Declassified (by the US) documents mention that Putin wanted to join without waiting in queue with "insignificant countries" (in early 2000s, who would that be? Baltic countries?), and as late as 2012 there was a contract for usage Russian airport as transit hub to Afghanistan (https://m.gazeta.ru/politics/2012/06/29_a_4650373.shtml, was looking specifically for pro-Russian media as a source)
Putin wanted to join without waiting in queue with "insignificant countries"
this is the dumbest excuse ever trotted out in explanation for why Russia wasn't allowed to join. because the largest military and nuclear arsenal in europe should for some reason wait in a "line" in joining an allegedly defensive alliance, when they'd be the greatest possible contribution to common defense? why on earth would there be a "line" to enter an alliance in the first place? surely they had more than a single clerk doing nations' paperwork to join?
Something about "you should apply" vs "you should invite us". Noone wants to bow to another and then tension raised over it. Seems pretty believable to me, especially with what was going on domestically
IMO, the new council they have made in Rome in 2002 (NATO-Russia Council) and its predecessor (Permanent Joint Council, 1997) existence should have stopped the farce with "oh no, they are expanding", and a start of joint cooperation. Maybe not as NATO memebership, but as a new working alliance. Right after founding of NRC though, Russia decided that it wont proceed with NATO membership
Quotes of Putin from Ukraine joint press conference, 2002 (source: http://www.en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/21598)
Russia does not intend to join NATO. Russia, as you know, is engaged in a very constructive dialogue with NATO to create a new Russia-NATO structure “at twenty”, in which all twenty countries will be represented as nations, each having one vote, and all the issues will be solved without prior consultations, without any prior decisions on a number of issues being taken first within the bloc.
And a curious snippet
I am absolutely convinced that Ukraine will not shy away from the processes of expanding interaction with NATO and the Western allies as a whole. Ukraine has its own relations with NATO; there is the Ukraine-NATO Council. At the end of the day the decision is to be taken by NATO and Ukraine. It is a matter for those two partners.
Guess money and power do change people.
I personally can't think of anything that's happened with NATO since 2002, so you might have a point here
I have secret intelligence that the actual reason Putin didn't join NATO is because he was angry that Romania joined first because he wanted to be the first country starting with R in NATO. NATO officials begged, pleaded with him to join the organization, but he's just such a petty man.
I do not get your take. It is obvious that early 2000s Russia wanted special treatment. It is also obvious that it was not getting it, ever. If it did not take a stance of "special treatment country", Russia would most likely be a NATO member without "special" priveledges (I assume that most notable is selling war assets to allied countries). Still, the intent was to cooperate, as late as 2012. Internally, there was even a promise of Visa-free access to Schengen
Of course Russia should get special treatment! They were America's greatest foe in the Cold War!
The US not letting Russia into NATO might be their single greatest error. Ever.
It’s simple, they never actually asked to join.
Russia / Putin didn't want to follow standard procedure, feeling entitled for a special treatment.
And now y'all can reap what you sowed.
NATO, as an alliance, requires that its members follow rules. A country that has difficulty following rules may not come to the aid of its allies when needed. Do you really think NATO came out a loser in that deal? It sounds like they dodged a bullet in not having to rely upon a capricious dictator.
Turkey literally never follows any rules whatsoever and yet you still shill for them
Rules such as constantly invading countries and causing chaos across the world?
Like when the US illegally invades Iraq and murders millions of civilians against UN orders
Lol, what a fine example of whataboutism. We're talking about a procedure to enter NATO and you whatabout Iraq. How about we talk about the crimes of Ivan the Terrible instead?
I’m starting to think there are Russian shills ITT.
NATO laughed them out of the room, then proceeded to pretend they were still the USSR.
The factual link you posted (not the commentary on CATO, lol) says the opposite. NATO cut ties after Putin began turning aggressive as Ukraine began gaining independence.
CATO is a Washington think tank. I don't know why you are laughing it off in this matter, over Wikipedia which fails to mention that efforts to approach NATO were initiated by Russia. You want a more recognizable source? Fine: https://www.google.com/amp/s/time.com/5564207/russia-nato-relationship/%3Famp=true?espv=1
CATO is a bunch of crazies posturing as a think tank. Their opinions are ideological and not fact based. They make the Heritage Foundation (I think they rebranded to Heartland Institute) sound like a reasoned logical bunch.
CATO is not a trustworthy factual source. It’s a trustworthy source if you want to justify oligarchy and fascism, though.
And yeah. You keep posting links that contradict the statement “they laughed them out of the room” you originally posted. NATO opened up to Russia. Russia decided it was not worth their effort.
Anything that confirms your bias I guess. Have a nice day.
Lol. I accepted 2/3 of your links but I reject the idiocy of CATO so I am biased!? Lol
Have a nice day.
You didn't indicate so. You just laid out a claim on thin air and then went ahead to deny all I said. So...
Your links keep contradicting your own point and your response is that we are confirming our own bias? The mental gymnastics and cognitive dissonance you go through on a regular basis must be a real bitch lmao
Responds to criticism of a Cato link with a google amp link...
Dude responded with a Time Magazine article, you're arguing in bad faith.
I'm not arguing at all I'm just pointing out some cringe behavior.
CATO as a source is worse than RT lol. Talk about arguing in bad faith.