What is it that compels an individual to look at what can be achieved in bringing peace, multilateralism, and stability to the global community only to use the platform to polarize his audience with propaganda that seeks to create division for the purpose of advancing his own nation’s agenda. Diplomacy is not the mission of such people. It is more the domain of propagandists who engage in distortions of truth, outright disinformation and manipulation of mass media to promote discord, to claim victimhood and accuse others of atrocities clearly committed by themselves. This behavior is not solely the practice of any individual nation but it deserves particular attention in the case of the Russian Federation and its chief “diplomat” for the flagrant attempts at deception practiced on the world stage with regularity. Seemingly unaware of the clownishness of many of these pronouncements, efforts continue to be made in the same manner, drawing laughter from some, silent incredulity from others, and tacit approval by like-minded authoritarian regimes which seek their own desired outcomes by similar methods.
Sergey Viktorovich Lavrov, the 73-year-old Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, has occupied his current office since 2004 and, prior to this, from 1994 to 2004, he was Permanent Representative to the United Nations (UN). Educated at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations, he graduated in 1972 and entered the Foreign Ministry as an advisor and translator in the Russian Embassy in Sri Lanka where he would ultimately become an attaché. He returned to Moscow in 1976 to work in the Section for International Economic Relations of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) where he rose to the rank of second secretary and worked as an analyst, becoming familiar with a variety of international organizations. Lavrov moved to New York City to become senior adviser to the Soviet mission to the UN in 1981 and remained there until 1988 when he returned again to Moscow as Deputy Chief of the Section for International Economic Relations of the USSR.
Photo Credit: lev radin
During the tumult that led to the dissolution of the USSR, Lavrov ascended to the post of Director of the International Organization of the Foreign Ministry in 1990 and, subsequently, became Director of the Department for International Organizations and Global Issues in what was now the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR). The RSFSR became the dominant entity within a new Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) reconstituted from the previous Soviet republics of the USSR under a new agreement embodied in the Alma-Ata Protocols of 1991. Lavrov came to oversee human rights and international cultural cooperation for the CIS countries. In 1992, he rose to the prestigious rank of Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary in the RSFSR and continued his work within Foreign Affairs until he returned to the UN in 1994 as Permanent Representative. During his UN tenure, he acted as President of the Security Council on repeated occasions according to a rotational agenda among the permanent member nations from 1994 until 2004.
In 2004, Vladimir Putin appointed Lavrov, Minister of Foreign Affairs. In this post, opinions of Lavrov have varied from that of a tough, sophisticated negotiator, described in Patrick Jackson’s “Profile: Putin’s foreign minister Lavrov,” to that of a supporter of Putin’s overtly aggressive foreign policy and, more plainly, a “jerk,” noted in Michael Isikoff and David Corn’s book, “Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin’s War on America and the Election of Donald Trump.” To be sure, Lavrov has demonstrated a capacity for deception, obfuscation, and engaging in narratives that promote disinformation and distortions of truth, all characteristic of Putin’s regime. This was most apparent in the immediate period preceding Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022 when he openly denied any intention of a pending invasion despite all the indications to the contrary. Whether he had direct knowledge of the plans or not, one must question how the foreign minister of the RSFSR could avoid noticing that a massive military buildup on Ukraine’s border would not be perceived as intentional, especially when Crimea had already been illegally annexed by Russia and the Minsk Agreements had clearly failed. And what sort of regime would not inform its own foreign minister of an action that so clearly violated international norms and put the country at odds with several agreements it had signed that honored the sovereign status of nations. So, was it a blind ignorance unworthy of a senior diplomat, an ostrich-like attempt at avoidance or the practiced tendency of a regime so entrenched in habitual deception and disinformation that it no longer cared how it was perceived?
Having now undertaken the invasion and incurring the condemnation of the majority of nations in the global community for this and the atrocities which followed, Lavrov engages in a narrative introduced by Putin, that Russia has entered into a struggle against a ‘Nazi’ regime. To this point, few, if any nations, can claim an absence of right-wing ultranationalism. But it is Russia that actually harbors self-proclaimed neo-Nazi elements in its Russian Imperial Movement. The latter has promoted expanding Russian influence into neighboring states and provided training to white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups in Europe for the purpose of promoting societal instability. Russia’s Wagner group, a paramilitary mercenary organization, appears not far behind in claiming the same status with its widespread presence in several countries, undertaking military operations in support of authoritarian regimes or of rebel groups seeking to gain power. Its presence has served to create instability and to secure favorable conditions for the acquisition of particular resources or strategic territory that would benefit Russia and extend its global reach.
In his recent role as President of the Security Council, Lavrov has used the opportunity to deflect attention away from Russia’s current criminal conduct in Ukraine and redirect attention to the well-worn victimhood rhetoric in which the West is made out to exert influence over the globe in order to promote anti-Russian sentiment. Only now, he unites Russia with its partner authoritarian regimes along with the world outside of the United States (U.S.) and European Union (EU) into an amalgam that purportedly is to represent a new world thematic order of multilateralism to replace the arrogant West, as he sees it, and its global dominance. In the process, he fails to reconcile the concept of national sovereignty as Russia might choose to define it with its current unjustified invasion of Ukraine and its human rights violations in other countries in the Middle East and Africa. Lavrov’s worldview appears at odds with Russia’s behavior on the world stage and, once more, directs one to his real intentions in promoting the sort of rhetoric that appears to unite a part of the world against another. This is a familiar pattern reminiscent of the Cold War in which active division within the world was sought after and only led to a state of global antagonism.
Accusations inevitably focus on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the EU which are looked upon by Lavrov as the aggressors in the current conflict in Ukraine. These center around Lavrov’s argument that NATO and the EU have formed a “strategic partnership,” the nature of which ostensibly is to threaten Russia, as if to say they should refrain from opposing Russia’s open aggression upon a neighboring sovereign nation and remain accepting of the state of affairs as Russia alone sees it. The “special military operation” in Ukraine, Lavrov predicts, “will end only if we observe the end of attempts by the West to assert their hegemony” by which we must assume that Russia itself is merely behaving in a manner that it is without imperialist intentions and that its aggressions in Ukraine are entirely justifiable. To add to this, Lavrov feels that the NATO-EU alliance intends next to move upon Moldova in its quest for eastern expansion but mentions nothing of the established Russian military presence in Moldova’s northeastern pro-Russian enclave of Transnistria and Russia’s recently discovered planned coup d’état of the nation’s elected pro-Western government.
During the early stages of the war, Lavrov had already crossed the line, showing his propagandist qualities with his shameless pronouncement that Russia, in fact, “did not attack Ukraine,” a particularly crude comment when war crimes committed by the Russian military were already in evidence and clearly documented by the media. In the face of such commentary, it is difficult for any sort of diplomacy to move forward. The intent, therefore, on Lavrov’s part, was set. His role would not be one of a diplomat or foreign policy adviser but rather an agent for misinformation, presenting material without foundation and diverting attention away from clear violations perpetrated by his regime. Russian disinformation was recognized as a “grave transnational threat” across Europe well before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) which monitors issues of arms control, journalistic freedoms, fair elections and human rights within its 57-nation domain has documented criticism of Russia’s repeated denials of the February 24, 2022 invasion and the persecution of its own journalists for reporting the reality of the situation in Ukraine. Despite its inattention to truth, Russia’s global delivery of propaganda, through its news channels RT and Sputnik News, has managed to recruit foreign media commentators to promote its purpose. This is particularly beneficial when these commentators share similar attitudes and deliver the propaganda in a manner familiar to their audience, with the habitual element of anger to make it more persuasive.
Tucker Carlson, during his tenure at Fox News, having no demonstrated insight into Russia’s war with Ukraine or its historical background, chose to render commentary on the matter, mouthing key elements of Russian propaganda to his viewing audience for what can only have been an attempt to dissuade Americans from taking an interest. Naturally, Lavrov appreciated the effort on his behalf and was much aggrieved by Carlson’s recent firing, using it as an opportunity to raise questions about the loss of an important voice that carried a favorable perspective upon Russia’s war for American consumption. Little was said regarding the circumstances surrounding Carlson’s dismissal, particularly the part where the ethics of responsible broadcasting was called into question along with reports of egregious conduct within the Fox News network. It was only that Carlson provided support from abroad that gave relevance to the alternative reality that Lavrov chooses to live within.
A British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) interview by Steve Rosenberg with Lavrov in June 2022 provides some insight into how Lavrov copes with questions that challenge his notions of reality. He reiterated that, “we didn’t invade Ukraine” because, “we declared a special military operation” and, “we had no other way of explaining to the West that dragging Ukraine into NATO was a criminal act.” When confronted with such responses, it may be best to recall Thomas Paine’s admonition, “to argue with someone who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.” This perhaps is the first point to be understood which is to appreciate that Lavrov doesn’t seem to mind whether reason has bearing on his statements as long as certain preferred words are said and the flow of the delivery is sufficiently smooth. On other occasions, Lavrov simply does not answer the question but attempts to redirect the narrative to suit his own agenda despite the several non sequitur entries that result.
“Rosenberg: Before Putin took the decision to announce the start of the “special military operation,” as he calls it, did he ask your advice about whether it was a good idea?”Rosenberg: Before Putin took the decision to announce the start of the “special military operation,” as he calls it, did he ask your advice about whether it was a good idea?
Lavrov: A decision-making mechanism exists in every state and, in this case, the mechanism in the Russian Federation was enacted in full.
Rosenberg: But did he ask your advice?
Lavrov: I’ll explain to you again. There are some things that we don’t say publicly. There is a mechanism for taking decisions and this mechanism was adhered to.
Rosenberg: I’m asking you because you have been the Minister of Foreign Affairs for 18 years and invading a neighbouring sovereign state is a “foreign affair.” The President probably knows there would be serious international consequences, so I assumed he asked your advice.
Lavrov: Steven, you’re a very experienced journalist. You know the reality of Russia and the post-Soviet region. Your question makes it sound like you want to cancel everything; “cancel culture.” Everything that happened before 24 February.
Rosenberg: I just want to clarify your role in this.
Lavrov: For eight years, the Foreign Ministry and the Defense Ministry together with our intelligence services, have been calling for the implementation of the Minsk Agreements that were unanimously approved by the UN Security Council. For eight years, we managed to persuade the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics, which, as you remember in 2014, in response to the neo-Nazi uprising in Kyiv, declared independence. We persuaded them to sign the Minsk Agreements, which guaranteed the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine. But now, when Scholz says we need to force Russia to reach an agreement with Ukraine, that respects Ukrainian territorial integrity and sovereignty, it seems to me that he’s on a different planet, somewhere in outer space. For eight years, we tried to achieve the implementation of these agreements which guaranteed the territorial integrity of the Ukrainian state.”
Quoted from the BBC interview by Steve Rosenberg, sourced above.
Lavrov never came to answer the question that was posed several times to him but finally did introduce the point he intended to establish during the interview and that was to justify the invasion. But the reliance on the Minsk Agreements of 2014-15 as justification falls woefully short of the mark intended. As Wolfgang Sporrer of the Hertie School of Government in Berlin and former head of the Human Dimension Department of the OSCE in Kyiv, put it, “the Minsk Agreements did not address the root cause of the conflict” between Russia and Ukraine. The conflict actually had to do with Russia’s loss of control over Ukrainian domestic and foreign policy and Ukraine’s lean toward the West, its desire to enter the EU and to consider engagement with NATO. Here comes the realization of what Zbigniew Brzezinski, former U.S. National Security Adviser, professed to be the heart of the matter, “It cannot be stressed enough that without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be an empire.” For Putin, this was the brunt of the matter and not the territorial dispute in the Donbas as Lavrov wants to point toward. Inasmuch as this particular territory in eastern Ukraine was concerned, Russian support for its separatist movement was long established in the region and the Wagner Group had already settled itself there in April 2014 well before the Minsk Conferences were underway. The provisions of the Minsk Agreements were too numerous and the means to undertake them were not specified so the “implementations” that Lavrov laments were unlikely to come about effectively. Russian-backed troops were not withdrawn from the territory, the Special Monitoring Mission of the OSCE was not afforded secure access and Russia was reminded of its obligations as late as 2020. Putin finally declared the Minsk agreements nonexistent and officially recognized the Donetsk and Luhansk Peoples Republics immediately prior to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
There has been indication that Lavrov’s luster has diminished and his status in Putin’s orbit has drifted into an extraplanetary domain. The bizarre responses to foreign journalists’ questions that have served only to embarrass him on the world stage would confirm the opinion that he no longer has much relevance within the regime other than to be another mouthpiece to serve its propaganda. Hence he suffices in his current role for what worth it is given by the regime.
There is little sympathy that can be afforded to Lavrov as, given his loyalty to Putin and in light of his need to perpetrate deception, he has gained personally in his private life. With an estimated net worth of $20 million and an annual salary of $1.5 million, he provided his daughter a life in the U.S. throughout the majority of her youth. There, she attended the Manhattan School and Columbia University, where she obtained a bachelor’s degree in political science. She moved to London in 2014 to begin her career in the art world before marrying and finally settling in Moscow. Her image was hurt when she was sanctioned by the United States in 2022 as part of an executive order related to economic penalties levied upon Russian officials and their relations with whom finances have been hidden. A number of artists have left her company, Smart Art, in protest over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Her husband has likewise been sanctioned by the EU for involvement in financial sectors that have benefited the Russian government. Less conspicuous but raising considerable suspicion has been Lavrov’s support provided for an alleged mistress over the past two decades, whose 21-year-old daughter was able to purchase a posh apartment in West London’s Kensington district with a cash payment of £4.4 million which, in 2016 at the time of the transaction, amounted to an estimated 5.4 million USD. She attended a private boarding school in Bristol, earned a degree in political economics at Loughborough University and finally completed a master’s degree in economics and business strategy at Imperial College London. In 2022, she was sanctioned by the British government for corruption related to broader allegations of Russian financial malfeasance.
It seems as though history will treat Lavrov unkindly and for justifiable reasons. As an agent of Russian foreign affairs within the Soviet communist regime, his intentions may have been more of the sort expected within international diplomatic circles. The transitional chaos of the 1990s following the collapse of the USSR found him becoming immersed in an entirely different domain particularly with the arrival of the new millennium. Putin’s brand of government with its toxic mix of nationalism, criminal enterprise and religious fervor has brought with it a new perspective on the old theme of Russian imperialism, one in which the rule of law does not pertain. Ridiculous notions of invading a nonaggressive neighboring sovereign nation such as Ukraine for the purpose of “self-defense,” while vaguely referencing Article 51 of the UN Charter as justification, is an affront to the human intellect and unworthy of a senior diplomat. The only threat to Russia was Ukraine’s desire for self-determination and engagement with the West, a matter intolerable for a regime unwilling to emerge from its historic sense of entitlement into a new world order.
How does diplomacy factor into such an environment? Well, Mr. Lavrov, no longer the diplomat, must go the way of changing the narrative by criticizing the “rules-based order” that he feels is set according to the West’s standards. These same standards, he argues, impose “illegitimate unilateral restrictions” by which the rest of the world must abide. He seeks to isolate the West from the global community by demonizing it for its “expressed neocolonial orientation,” a familiar trope that he has adopted. The “rules-based order,” with which Lavrov appears to have difficulty, concerns the matter of respecting national borders and the obligations of those nations, Russia among them, which sign agreements to actually honor them. These same rules apply also to the conduct of nations in not perpetrating genocide and the numerous atrocities for which Russia now stands accused.
History will not be kind, Mr. Lavrov.
Copyright @Kost Elisevich, MD, PhD 2023. All rights reserved. Any illegal reproduction of this content will result in immediate legal action.
