The first shot was fired on 18 November, when President Putin addressed an expanded meeting of the Foreign Ministry Board gathered to discuss the implementation of national foreign policy and the future tasks of Russian diplomacy. Of course, he devoted much space to his repeated claims, largely shared in today Russia, that his country has the right to impose its exceptionalism, and to resist Western efforts to impose “universal values” that are in fact Western values serving the interests of Western countries. But he also said that the work of the ministry “has to take into account the recent amendments to the Constitution, which also concern foreign policy”. This is to say that, in this matters as in others, the work of the president and the diplomats has to the respect the “new Fundamental Law”, which has been approved by a popular referendum, “sealing such basic ideas and values as loyalty to the homeland, respect for our native tongue, history, culture and traditions of our predecessors”. He also insisted on loyalty and national union “to meet this goal of developing a sovereign peaceful Russia as an active member of the international community”.
Red lines
More surprisingly, he came with the concept of “red lines” drawn by the Kremlin, beyond which Russia has the right to defend its natural interests, even by force, if others have abandoned diplomacy and closed the door to dialogue. This is evidently an attempt to inform the West that Russian patience has its limits, a clear allusion to all the flashing points at the borders between EU or NATO, and Russia, with a special accent on the situation in the Black Sea. But the mention of “red lines” is also an indirect way to send the world back to the time when president Obama told Syrian president Assad he will face America’s almighty if he crossed Obama’s red lines. Nothing happened when Assad used chemical produces against civilians, it bruised Obama’s legacy and dented the credibility of Western promises to its allies, lately demonstrated under another president by the abrupt Western withdrawal from Afghanistan. By contrast, and not for the first time, Russia profiles itself as a reliable partner.
Business diplomacy
Then, on 24 November, the website of the Russian foreign ministry published the address of Sergei Lavrov to the Forum of Russian business leaders. He repeated Putin’s words about Russian determination to respond to “unfriendly steps in a balanced and appropriate manner”, while offering “our own positive agenda for ensuring equitable cooperation and a balance of interests in international economic relations without discrimination”. This includes discriminations that are perpetuated by international organisations that do not reflect the current multipolar world, but that of the post WWII situation. Beyond the phrasing, the real message was that, for the Ministry of foreign affairs, businessmen are full actors of Russia’s “economic diplomacy”; and that it is a two-way street: the more effectively Russia upholds its positions in the international arena, the better specific Russian businesses will be positioned on national and global markets. The day after, Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin hammered this view that Russia is suffering of unfair competition from the West, including with “politically motivated sanctions” .He was taking part in a videoconference between the heads of government from the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO).
The unfair West
Those synchronised declarations reflect Moscow’s growing impatience with the West, and more with EU than with Washington which is still viewed as the one that matters in international relations. The official view is that Russia tried all possible means to open a dialogue, but instead of being seen as an equal partner has just been treated like a supplicant and a junior partner. On the other side, the West is deploring just the opposite – that Russia is openly supporting a dialogue between equals, but only if it is more equal than the others. Hence the confusion about the meaning of those message from the Kremlin. Obviously, Moscow, more than the West, has taken the full dimension of the global world’s complexity, with its shifting regional alliances, and the intertwisting of economy, political, military, social and cultural dimensions. But Russia is still undecided about the full consequences of those changes in international relations and about the best means to engage in the management of its effects. Hence the decision to win times during the clarifying process, by being involved, at some levels at least, in all corners of the globe, from the Artic to Africa and the Middle East, to make sure that Russia will be de facto part of any dialogue and strategic