I remember the old phrase “Sometimes you read a note in a newspaper and marvel at it beyond belief.” This does not mean that it reports some amazing fact, but that its publication itself contradicts the fundamental principles of editorial policy and ideology.
More than half a century has passed since this phrase was written, few people read newspapers now, but there is still something to marvel at on official Internet pages. In the sense of complete inconsistency with their own principles.
The Facebook page of the U.S. Embassy Moscow — extremely official, it seems—reported this week:
“According to the FSB, more than 260,000 men have fled the country since the announcement of mobilization. Source: Novaya Gazeta. Europe”.
To report that the number of deserters in Russia is by no means equal to zero (they comprised an impressive number also during the Great Patriotic War) is not expedient. Back in the First World War, there was a stable expression “Petrograd running society.” It is not surprising that now in Upper Lars, on the Georgian border, as well as in other places, one could observe members – competitors of the Moscow Running Society. Moreover, absolutely everyone reported this, even without references to running publications. Moreover, the Supreme Commander himself spoke about the problems of desertion.
So it would be difficult for the American embassy to find a more graphic illustration of the term “open secret”. But here something else is strange and new.
The genre of official messages of a foreign embassy addressed to the public of the host country is quite old. Even before the invention of not only the Internet, but even the computer in foreign missions, there was a practice of arranging information stands physically located on embassy land and, therefore, extraterritorial, but at the same time accessible to the eyes of local citizens.
The stands contained both purely practical information (for example, the opening hours of the consular department) and information about the culture, education, holidays and customs of the represented state (in our case, the United States). You can call it an advertisement of the American way of life and even propaganda, or you can call it the promotion of friendly relations and mutual understanding between the accredited state and the host country. This also included the exchange of publications. The USA published the magazine “Amerika” in Russian, the USSR – the magazine “Soviet Union” in English.
Of course, mutual attempts at ideological smuggling and agitation took place (how could it be without them?), but the fundamental principle that the internal affairs of the host country cannot be the subject of consideration on stands, in embassy bulletins, and advertising magazines was observed sacredly. Proceeding from the sound consideration that there are enemy voices. Or “Do not use tar to whitewash cabbage soup, that’s sour cream.” And no one has canceled the principle of reciprocity. Naturally, the problems of conscription in the host country were not considered an acceptable subject for official embassy information.
But in the current incident there is another oddity. “Novaya Gazeta. Europe” is an émigré publication openly hostile to the Russian government and not shy about expressing this hostility. Like Meduza*, Insider*, Khodorkovsky’s bulletins**, etc. If when Novaya Gazeta was in Russia there were some reasons forcing you to slow down when cornering, now there are no such reasons. Complete denseness, i.e. “The dark days are over, the hour of revelation has struck.”
In general, they are right. Working in Western countries, these publications are responsible only to the authorities of the host country. And it doesn’t mind.
However, it is difficult to imagine that the information stand of the US (or German) embassy in the USSR would have displayed materials from the radically anti-Soviet magazine Posev. Furthermore, the French mission did not post materials even from the immeasurably more delicate Russian Thought.
This is partly a case of media evolution. Half a century ago, the difference between The Times and Sowing did not require clarification, while today “everything is mixed up in the Oblonskys’ house.”
But something else is more significant. Previously, the deterioration of diplomatic relations was expressed in the progressive drying up of contacts up to their freezing at zero point – or even to a complete break. But even in this extreme case, outward propriety was respected.
It is impossible to imagine that the USSR in 1967, while maintaining formal relations with Israel, would instruct the Soviet embassy in Tel Aviv to relay the most zealous reports of Palestinian patriots about the internal life of the Jewish state. As well as in 1973, the Soviet embassy would continue to work in Santiago, spreading messages from Chilean emigrants about the murder of Pinochet. Impossible because it would be contrary to both minimal notions of diplomatic comity and practical considerations. Even when breaking off relations, it is advisable to do this without very rude steps. Then, after all, something may have to be restored, and diplomacy never burns all the bridges.
It is characteristic that all three recent American ambassadors in Moscow – Teft (2014-2017), Huntsman (2017-2019) and Sullivan (2020-2022), being unconditionally loyal to the US government, did not, however, do anything that could further scandalize already scandalous relations between Moscow and Washington. As for the newsletters, the last Ambassador Sullivan generally chose a good share, notifying the Russians solely about how well things are in America with LGBT people and gender. It is not known whether this brought the Russians into complete delight, but this did not contradict the formal norm – to notify the citizens of the host country about the customs and achievements of the United States. So the progressive LGBT case can be used for a conservative “do no harm” or at least “do less harm” approach, previously characteristic of embassy diplomacy in general.
Now, either in the State Department, banging their fist on the table, they said: “We will break this business!” — and began to break. Or in the absence of the ambassador – Sullivan left at the beginning of September, and there is no new one to be seen – recruited by advertisements and having no idea about diplomatic norms and customs, the embassy’s IT department, being left to its own devices, turns back what it wants.
* Media acting as a foreign agent.
** An individual acting as a foreign agent.
Maxim Sokolov, RIA
Due to censorship and blocking of all media and alternative views, stay tuned to our Telegram channel