The Russian Foreign Minister is a Thug

There are some news reports we publish on this blog that are so revolting that even we,  who fully expect them and are well used to such things, lack words to describe them.  Vladimir Putin told Time magazine last year that he was annoyed to find Westerners insist on thinking of his country as “a little bit savage.” And indeed, from this story it is clear we are wrong to do so. Russians are a lot savage!  The Telegraph reports:

The Daily Telegraph can disclose that Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, reacted with fury when Mr Miliband and he spoke on the telephone. Mr Lavrov objected to being lectured by the British.

Such was the repeated use of the “F-word” according to one insider who has seen the transcript, it was difficult to draft a readable note of the conversation.  One unconfirmed report suggested that Mr Lavrov said: “Who are you to f—— lecture me?”

He also asked Mr Miliband in equally blunt terms whether he knew anything of Russia’s history.  One Whitehall insider said: “It was effing this and effing that. It was not what you would call diplomatic language. It was rather shocking.”

The Foreign Secretary had been putting forward Britain and Europe’s objections to the actions of Russia, which began when their tanks rolled into the breakaway region of South Ossetia last month. Mr Miliband has said that Europe should reassess its ties with Russia after its “aggressive” behaviour. It is also understood that Mr Miliband was asked about Britain and America’s invasion of Iraq, when Russian actions in Georgia were questioned, during the tense conversation that took place recently.

Sources at the Foreign Office confirmed there was swearing “but only from one side”.  A spokesman for the Foreign Secretary said: “We do not discuss diplomatic conversations between foreign ministers.”

Mr Lavrov, who was promoted under Vladimir Putin, has developed a reputation as the fearsome face of Russia’s new aggressive foreign policy. When he held the position as Russia’s man at the United Nations in New York he developed a reputation as fierce critic of other nations.  But Mr Miliband is unlikely to have experienced anything quite so bruising in his year as Foreign Secretary than being told some home truths by a grizzled veteran of the international scene. Even the slap down from MPs supporting Mr Brown after the Foreign Secretary’s “leadership bid” article in July when he was accused of treachery, was not as bad.

Mr Lavrov has been highly critical of the way that the Russian move into Georgia has been portrayed by the West. He has criticised what he described as a “truly David and Goliath interpretation” of the conflict in which “the plucky republic of Georgia, with just a few million citizens, was attacked by its giant eastern neighbour”.  It is not the first time Mr Miliband and his Russian counterpart have clashed. Last year, Mr Lavrov retaliated to the expulsion of Russian diplomats from London by closing British Council offices in Russia.

The Russians were ordered out of the country in the wake of the Russia’s refusal to co-operate in the investigation into the murder of Alexander Litvinenko, who was poisoned in a London hotel in 2006.

17 responses to “The Russian Foreign Minister is a Thug

  1. Lavrov is pulling a classic move there. The message is quite simply this: We don’t care what you think, what you will do, and what you want. You can’t do anything that would hurt us enough to make us change. Deliberately offending the other side is a traditional move. The Brits responded by leaking it, also a neat move – they want to say that they are not intimidated.

    In other words, both sides have degraded to the level of dogs taking leaks at the same spot.


    In other words, you approve of Russia’s chief diplomat using vulgar profanity in official diplomatic communciation. Because, you too are a thug. It’s amazing that, with such brilliant champions as Lavrov and you, Russia is still such a basket case. Oh, cruel fate!

  2. LR – whether I approve or not approve of anything in international relations it utterly irrelevant. Just as your moral outrage makes not an iota of difference, mine wouldn’t either.

    I simply observe and evaluate.

    Is the Russian foreign minister a thug? Irrelevant. I have absolutely no expectations that holders of state offices conform to the norms of normal civilized conduct. You and I would never be allowed to order the murder of unarmed people. Foreign ministers and presidents do so as a matter of course.

    What’s a few f-words and the hurt sensitivities of a politician when presidents and premiers can order the invasion of countries and the death of thousands?

    You, my dear correspondent, happily advocate war and relish in the visions of mass-destructions. What does that make you?

    LA RUSSOPHOBE RESPONDS: You’re a barbarian! He’s supposed to be diplomat, not a thug! The fact that you don’t care if the foreign minister is a thug indicates you hate Russia more than words can express. Why? What did Russia ever do to you?

  3. Lavrov is a Goebbels incarnate except his face looks like a horse. He spews nothing but lies and hate from his filthily mouth. If you had to name the person, who bends over for Putin more- either Medvedev or Lavrov. I would have to say Lavrov. He knows that he’d be nothing more than a street cleaning truck driver in one of those blue and orange trucks that spray the streets of Moscow in the wee hours of the morning, if he ever lost his Foreign Ministry Post.

  4. What this indicates to me is that roosha is melting.

    All of its beautiful wickedness is melting.

    And that roosha is extremely frustrated and pissed because noone believes roosha’s propaganda about how beautiful its wickedness is.

    Lavrov’s outburst is on top of other “moves” that roosha has made, and with a melting economy, and world opinion against it – roosha’s “sour grapes-we-don’t-care” game isn’t working.

    Hence – Lavrov’s meltdown.

    Reflective of roosha’s meltdown.

  5. Khlynov,
    So you think it is perfectly normal for a high ranking “diplomat” to use vulgarities.
    You know, there are hundred of ways to insult and deride your opponent employing subtle and indirect ways – something every diplomat learns in the first course of Art of Diplomacy 101.
    Even Russian mafia dons never stoop so low as to use profanities.
    If Russian intention was to clearly insult the West, surely, the land that gave us Pushkin and Tolstoy, could come up with something more illustrious than a string of F words, don’t you think?

    Did Molotov ever use that kind of language before of after Germany’s invasion?
    During the peak of cold war and hostilities, Joseph Stalin never failed to send every year a box of Armenian cognac to Winston Churchill.
    And to think that Stalinist Russia had more class than Putin’s Russia today.
    God help us all.

  6. Hitler was known for being very polite in personal relations, and he never used coarse language.
    Joseph Stalin, as you tell us, was thoughtful in his relationship with Churchill.
    So much for the value of politeness.
    I don’t know how Russian mafia dons talk. I trust your expertise on this.

    Using vulgar language is not normal for diplomats. That’s the whole point.
    You forget that what matters in the end is outcomes. And obviously, the Russian leadership right now WANTS to antagonize the West.
    Why? Because it plays well with the audience this is all directed at. Russians, Central Asia, and China.

    LA RUSSOPHOBE RESPONDS: You are utterly demented. Any civilized country would be shocked and appalled by this behavior and condemn it, yet you rationalize it. You couldn’t care less what impression this diplomat makes on foreigners, yet his only purpose in life is to make a good impression and thereby advance Russia’s interests. He has made a public liar out of Putin and proved that Russians, at the very highest levels, are in fact savages, and all you can do is justify and support him. That is the act of a Russia-hating madman.

  7. LR – how do you know that his only purpose in life is to make a good impression and thereby advance Russian interests. Maybe he and his superiors do not believe that making a good impression will advance Russian interest – as they understand it. Maybe all they want to make is an impression. A strong one. Whether or not other ‘countries’ condemn it may in fact be utterly irrelevant to Lavrov and his superiors. One thing is for sure – whatever the nature of his ‘outburst’ – it was very likely carefully planned and discussed in advance.

    LA RUSSOPHOBE RESPONDS: Please don’t drink so much vodka before posting. Your insane rubbish is beginning to stink excessively. The purpose of a FOREIGN MINISTER is to carry on DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS with other countries, not to insult and alienate them but to get them to do what his country wants. The fact that you don’t understand that is a perfect illustration of why RUSSIA HAS NO FRIENDS IN THE CIVILIZED WORLD and stands alone.

  8. It appears that the Russian foreign minister may be better positioned to decide what his government may want to achieve than either you or me. What little rabble like you and me may wish our ‘leaders’ to do – or not do – is wholly irrelevant.

    LA RUSSOPHOBE RESPONDS: Ah, so you feel that Russia WANTS to alienate all the people of the world and have them think of Russians as barbaric slobs unworthy of sitting with civilized nations. That is totally insane. Suppose, like Stalin, they decide to start killing Russians by the millions? You don’t think at all before you write. You’re like our court jester.

  9. Maybe that is what Russia wants. Whatcha gonna do about it? Oh, yes – run your LR blog where moralism reigns supreme, and analysis takes second rank.

    No wonder you have no other platform from which to influence events.

  10. Dear General Khlynov; you claim that what us little people have to say doesn’t affect what our leaders do? You poor thing, you must really live in an authoritarian state. Whether it is real or just a state of mind, I don’t know. You should try democracy sometime, then maybe you could get leaders (actually they are ‘public servants’) who would listen to you. So sorry you feel you are so insignificant in your world. If only you realized you have the power to change it.

  11. What ‘us little people have to say’ is irrelevant. What matters is what ‘us little people DO’. Or NOT do. But, most people are apathetic and lazy, and do little more than express moral outrage, but have no understanding whatsoever of how to change things. Mostly because they don’t understand how things work.

    LA RUSSOPHOBE RESPONDS: Speak for yourself, microscopic man. This is one of the most powerful specialized sources of information about Russia on the planet, and your vast profusion of frenzied comments hardly indicates our insignificance.

  12. Saakashvili is exactly right – roosha is just a bunch of 21st century barbarians.

  13. Powerful? Not sure how you measure that.

    Go to google, type in “Russia”.
    Click on ‘blogs’.
    You receive this link:

    Where are you?


    It really is amazing how perfectly you personify the stupidity and dishonesty that destroyed the USSR. Didn’t you notice that the KREMLIN’s English-langauge site isn’t listed on the first page of Google results for “Russia”? Did you think AT ALL before you performed your little “experiment”?

    The #3 hit for “Russia” is the Kremlin’s Russia Today propaganda TV network. Go to Google, type in “Peter Lavelle” — the key foreign commentator for Russia Today.

    Now tell us where we are.

    The CIA is #2. Does that mean you concede the CIA is a leading source of reliable information about Russia?

    Type in “La Russophobe”

    You get more than 50,000 hits. How many do you get for YOUR name, imbecile?

    Here’s how we define powerful: Tens of thousands visit us each month. We’ve been cited by the Washington Post, the New York Review of Books, the Associated Press, the Moscow Times, and many others, including mighty blogs like Little Green Footballs and Slate.

    Who cites you, microbe?

    You are a demented, mendacious liar flailing desperately to confirm your own twisted, perverted world view. As such, you are utterly pathetic.

  14. Ah, if only Patton lived in these times! He’d slap Lavrov after the onslaught of verbal abuse.

  15. Who cares about that idiot Peter Lavelle? Who cares about Russia Today?

    I would be very much interested in links to the pages where you are cited by the Washington Post, the New York Review of Books, the Associated Press, the Moscow Times.

    Or are you merely mentioned in a negative way?


    Well, Google does for one. The Google you just cited. Google makes Russia Today the #3 source of information on Russia in the world, according to the standard you yourself just set.

    Don’t you ever get tired of making a complete and utter fool of yourself. You ought to try actually thinking before you write, you might like it.

    Ann Applebaum praised us in her WaPo column. The NYRB cited our translation of Nemtsov’s white paper with approval. The Associated Press linked to us as a leading source of information about Rusisa in the blogosphere, and the Moscow Times featured us in a major article as one of the leading Putin critics in the blogosphere. Why don’t you read a little more before you open your big fat mouth, instead of asking others to do you work for you? How typically Russian that is! And how disgusting.

    Your “point” about negativity is even more idiotic. Lots of people say negative things about George Bush — does that in your view mean he’s not powerful? The ENTIRE WORLD is saying negative things about Vladimir Putin every day. Is he therefore powerless? Many people, those who can actually think, would say that if nobody says negative things about you it means you have no power whatsoever.

    You’re incapable of reasoned thought, aren’t you? Just like a baboon. Spewing out totally empty meaingless words and making Russia look like a nation of drunken fools, with only the likes of you to defend it with gibberish. Very, very sad indeed.

  16. Anne Applebaum cited you? I can’t find the article. Do you have a link to it? And maybe a link to the others?

    Why don’t you link any of the people/sources who cite you, according to you?

    LA RUSSOPHOBE RESPONDS: We do, you ignoramus. It is all on this blog. If you think we are going to act like your secretary, you’d best think again. Try to think just a little: We don’t like or respect you. We don’t want to do you any favors, imbecile. Does that get through your thick skull? How about if you actually read our blog a little BEFORE commenting on it, rather than asking us to reread it after you comment. Dimwit. Ape. Clod.

    But just because we’re in the mood to make you look even more foolish:

    Now we will expect an apology. And if your next comment isn’t an unmitigated apology, you will be permanently banned from commenting.

  17. Thank you for the link. Congratulations to being cited by Applebaum. Not a day passes I do not learn something new.


    That’s not an apology. You are banned. Goodbye.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s