mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn
Lavrov Slamming Hillary and Rice?

If Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov were an American college president, he’d be fighting for his life right now.  Said Sergei, according to Reuters:

“Some of the voices heard in the West with evaluations of the results of the vote in the U.N. Security Council on the Syria resolution sound, I would say, improper, somewhere on the verge of hysteria[…]”

Considering that the two most high profile US critics of Russia’s position are of the female persuasion, describing their positions as hysterical would get you in a lot of trouble with the gender police.  That can be a big deal; ask ex-Harvard president Larry Summers.

It’s possible that a misunderstanding contributed to his rhetoric.  Clinton called the resolution a ‘travesty’: in a surprisingly large number of European languages that means a drag show. We call Russia gay, they call us hysterical.  Diplomacy in 2012.

Via Meadia urges both sides to pretend this never happened. We have enough substantive issues between us not to sweat a few word choices.

Features Icon
show comments
  • Kris

    A little education…

  • J R Yankovic

    “It’s possible that a misunderstanding contributed to his rhetoric. Clinton called the resolution a ‘travesty’: in a surprisingly large number of European languages that means a drag show. We call Russia gay, they call us hysterical. Diplomacy in 2012.”

    Why, it’s only fitting that our sweeping, irreversible American progress of the past 20 years (in just about every field of public and business endeavor one can think of) should issue in an unprecedented honing of our diplomatic skills. No doubt it’s a byproduct of the growing civility and mutual openness of our political discourse – our uncanny modern American ability to see every side of a complex issue (as opposed to slavish devotion to narrow ideological paradigms). And all of it, I’m sure, a legacy of our glorious Unipolar Moment at the turn of the present century, when the world lay at our feet. I always say, there’s nothing like believing you’re the best – and, better yet, ACTING like it in everybody’s face – for helping you understand the concerns of other people.

    Seriously, I’m as ardent a believer in the NATURAL supremacy of the Anglosphere as anyone. But as I see it, if we want a better handle on what MADE us Anglophones supreme, we could do a lot worse than to study the ideals and sentiments that governed our public culture in the period 1910-1960 (note how those years encompass the entire period of the UNION of South Africa). And my guess is that, if we try seriously to cull the BEST from that period, we’ll find ourselves reading at least as many British as American writers (Sir Alfred Zimmern is a particularly rewarding study, as is Halford Mackinder, on many subjects besides geopolitics).

  • J R Yankovic

    Just one more thing, sir: I won’t say Britain did not make a grievously wrong turn in 1945, with the election of Labour (a turn made disastrously irreversible, I think, by the return of a Labour majority under Wilson in ’64). But in ABSOLUTE terms – i.e., in comparison with its previous self, not with other countries – the fact remains: Britain made enormous social and economic gains in the period 1908-1944. Which is to say, well before the famous Beveridge Act of 1944 which instituted the National Health Service.

    Oh, and one another thing (then I’m done, I promise): If there’s one BROADLY sure moral guidepost for us in navigating these weird, undefinable times, I think it may be best summarized by the humble, cautionary words of Kipling’s 1897 poem “Recessional”: A warning that, while intended for a specifically British Imperial audience, can be applied, I think, with equal profit to any Anglo-Saxon empire current or yet to come.

  • joe

    What does Mr. Lavrov have against Andrew Sullivan?

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2016 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service