Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov publishes an extended article, which contains passages bordering on moronic: kommersant.ru/doc/4877702?fb….
For example, in one place he claims that Russia has greater regard for law because the Russian word for law (pravo) has the same root as the Russian word for rules (pravila), whereas in "Western" languages, rule and law have different roots. I kid you not.
The gist of the article, though, is that the West is trying to impose its own rules on Russia, whereas there exist these "instruments of international law, which everyone has signed". At one point, he complains about the UN Charter and the OSCE not being mentioned often enough. Image
Lavrov of course forgets to mention how annexing foreign territory corresponds to principles of the UN Charter. He also fails to elaborate how undermining free and fair elections in Russia aligns to OSCE documents, not least the 1990 Copenhagen document, which Russia has signed.
This document contains, for example, these shocking words. But of course, Lavrov prefers instead to ramble about "the right of the peoples to determine their fate." Well, give us this right, Mr. Foreign Minister, or perhaps you are too busy studying linguistics? Image
In short, I do not recommend reading Lavrov for breakfast. As I read the article, I was reminded of Lavrov's most important contrition to date to understanding Russian foreign policy. souvrussia.com/en/t-shirt-lav…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Sergey Radchenko

Sergey Radchenko Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @DrRadchenko

30 Jun
A thread about "Soviet democracy." Many people do not realise that the Soviet Union had "elections." Why, Stalin himself was "elected" to the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. I was just reading today his "campaign speech," dated February 9, 1946 - it's a well-known speech. Image
It's well-known because it is seen as marking a turning point towards Cold War confrontation. In the speech Stalin rehabilitated the idea that capitalism inevitably leads to war, and advertised the might of the Red Army. It's a must-mention of any serious history of the Cold War.
But this thread is about something else. I learned while looking at the documents that Stalin personally wrote every word of this speech. The archives contain his hand-written original. What's funny is that at one point Stalin praises the Red Army for defeating Germany.
Read 6 tweets
28 Jun
One benefit of reading archival documents non-stop is you find stuff in places you did not expect. Consider the following document about Gao Gang (1905-1954), one of the most interesting characters in the CCP leadership in the late 1940s - early 1950s. 👇🏿
Here, Gao Gang recounts how he tried to deliver a special present "from the people of Manchuria" for Stalin's 70th birthday - a large cloth with Stalin's image - but how he was thwarted in his effort by the central Chinese government.
In the document, Gao Gang trashes other Communist Party leaders incl. Li Fuchun & Liu Shaoqi. But he asks the Soviet diplomat (who reported his words to Moscow) to smuggle the present to the Soviet Union anyway - only without letting Beijing know or "his head would be cut off". Image
Read 4 tweets
23 Jun
I am generally in favour of engagement with Russia. Always have been. But there are important issues to consider:

1) Terms
2) Timing
Terms. Engagement that appears to reward aggressive behaviour, legitimises authoritarian practices and leaves some EU member states in the lurch is a wrong kind of engagement. It should be said that no one ever engaged successfully by appearing weak, helpless, and divided.
Timing is key. There should be engagement with Russia when Moscow for its part seeks engagement and integration with Europe. There were plenty of missed opportunities in this respect in the last 30 years or so. Missed by Europe and the US - as well as Russia.
Read 5 tweets
10 Jun
People are surprised as to why I seem to be advocating against the Biden-Putin summit despite the importance of having open channels of communication for strategic stability. Let me explain: 👇🏿
Summits are not an end in themselves. They are a means to an end. You don't just meet to talk for talk's sake. You meet to solve problems. Sometimes you also meet to get a sense of your partner: what sort of person are they?
Both sides agree that there are no problems this summit can resolve. No new treaties to be signed. Neither side has shown willingness to compromise. The players are well known to one another. It's not like Biden will learn something about Putin by looking at him at close range.
Read 10 tweets
8 Jun
An interesting cable from Stalin to Molotov about Soviet forces in Mongolia (in Nov. 1946). Undercuts the (rather simplistic) narrative of Mongolia being a mere Soviet colony and a satellite (which is popular in the contemporary Mongolian historiography). Image
Stalin points out that there are 24K Soviet troops in Mongolia but that he wanted to reduce this number to just one regiment despite Mongolian government's request to leave them there. The reason he wanted them out was the financial burden of keeping an army in a foreign country.
What I find most interesting here is the Mongolian government's insistence on keeping Soviet troops in the country (they had many reasons for this - not, as Stalin claims, merely financial benefits). The key reason, I think, was their fear of China.
Read 4 tweets
8 Jun
One of the most interesting documents I've seen so far reflecting a shift in Soviet grand strategy post-war. Here (in Nov. 1946) Stalin is instructing Molotov to take an active role in the discussion of UN trusteeship (mainly, the fate of German, Japanese & Italian colonies). Image
Here, Stalin argues that the Soviet Union must not pretend like "it does not exist" in relation to these discussions. Instead, it should adopt an active role and trade its concessions on trusteeships for Western concessions in other areas.
What Stalin meant by that was that he was not averse to selling out various independence movements (who he said are in any case led by people who are more interested in their own privileges than in the fate of their national movements). Image
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(