Boris Bondarev became a Russian diplomat because he believed in peaceful international cooperation. But Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine sobered him. Here he reports on lethargic ex-colleagues who don’t dare to contradict Putin.
Vladimir Putin’s attack on Ukraine on February 24 was a key moment for me. It resulted in my resignation as a senior Russian diplomat just a few weeks later.
For it became crystal clear that remaining in the foreign service and continuing to work for the government undoubtedly meant supporting Russian aggression. The war against Ukraine – as well as against the entire West – was the biggest mistake of contemporary Russia. I consider it a crime against the future of the country.
Now save articles for later in “Pocket”.
When I was growing up in the Soviet Union, diplomacy was thought of as big receptions, balls, and genteel men dressed in 19th-century attire or white ties.
Diplomats were believed to be highly competent, fluent in foreign languages, and possessed of a wide range of knowledge. In short, they were believed to be highly intelligent and perceptive people.
Again and again, civilians die as a result of Russian attacks in Ukraine. Its president has therefore reiterated his call for those responsible to be brought before a war crimes tribunal. The OSCE meanwhile sees indications of Russian war crimes. That happened in the night.
For the past few days, Ukraine has been celebrating increasing successes against the Russian army with US weapons. On the one hand, this is due to the weapons themselves – but it is also related to an empty promise. A former prime minister of Russia is now facing consequences.
According to the think tank Center for Research on Energy and Clean Air, the EU is still the main recipient of Russian oil exports. Accordingly, the EU receives 51 percent, China 25 percent and India four percent of Russian oil. Still, since the war of aggression in Ukraine began, Russia would export fewer fossil fuels than before.
The Soviet diplomats were truly privileged. So they could travel abroad and even live there – completely impossible for most of the population in the USSR. And the diplomats typically brought home wondrous Western products, ranging from jeans and chewing gum to electronics and films.
At the same time, they allegedly gained insights into political affairs and state secrets. Quite a romantic profession indeed.
With the collapse of the Soviet Union, this luxurious notion also disappeared. The reputation of the diplomats was lost and their wealth shrank drastically. Many left the State Department (MID) to try their luck in the expanding private sector. Those who stayed were, by definition, less ambitious, less talented, and less promising.
They were average officers. A few, however, went on to have impressive careers after filling the vacancies. Today they are at the head of the MID.
It’s been about 22 years since I first entered the holy of holies of Russian diplomacy – the MID administration building – to spend a month there as a trainee. There was a great lethargy among the diplomats.
They seemed dissatisfied and very few were inclined to learn anything new. Many of them couldn’t even turn on a computer! But they didn’t see that as a problem. They wanted to keep their own comfort zone and largely ignored trainees.
Only a few years later I began – with a certain disillusionment – my diplomatic career. Nevertheless, I felt that we in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs would help protect and strengthen Russia’s national interests.
In my view, these interests consisted in the development of peaceful and fruitful cooperation with other countries. The diplomats I met on my first foreign assignments or later were no different from the gray civil servants of yesteryear. They preferred to save money to renovate their houses in Moscow than to come up with new ideas to strengthen ties with the country in which they were stationed.
In Putin’s head: the logic and arbitrariness of an autocrat
One anecdote stuck in my mind: When I was working in Mongolia between 2009 and 2013, UN-Habitat intended to improve sanitation and street lighting in the slums of Ulaanbaatar.
They approached us looking for a sponsor. I thought this idea made sense and believed it would strengthen our soft power. It was also a modest amount of funding for the project. However, my ambassador refused to even read the proposal. “Moscow will definitely not welcome this idea,” was his reply.
The principle of our diplomats has long been that Moscow must not be upset. It was respected then and is still consistently followed today. Whatever happens, whatever mistakes and errors we record, every internal communication turns them into great triumphs of Russian diplomacy.
The result is a demise of the MID. A lack of initiative and aversion to responsibility have produced a childish cohort of diplomats. Questioning certain political decisions was initially a rarity and soon became taboo.
“The executive floor knows better” or “they have the perspective” were the common phrases of my experienced colleagues. This weakness has led to a devaluation of the Ministry. It is now practically an administrative body whose only task is to implement decisions made by the Kremlin and its allies.
Surf tip: You can find all the news about the corona pandemic in the FOCUS Online news ticker
President Putin’s increasingly confrontational stance toward the West met with no doubts or opposition from the State Department. Even those who weren’t exactly enthusiastic about the annexation of Crimea and the fighting in Donbass between 2014 and 2015 didn’t dare openly protest. I was one of those people.
I was of the opinion that the situation could still be clarified through diplomatic channels. However, this turned out to be very naive. The events mentioned shaped the work processes in the Foreign Ministry.
As anti-Western propaganda mounted, senior diplomats immediately recalled their seemingly forgotten Soviet-era skills. Telegrams from all over the world were reminiscent of old Soviet headlines from the 1930s. The 2018 poisoning of Sergei and Julia Skripal in the UK raised tensions to a new level.
I read internal telegrams that contained almost exclusively slogans, insults to Western delegations and cheap clichés. Professionalism was eventually replaced by propaganda. It has now become far more dangerous as the Russian leadership, among other things, relies on such reports and shapes foreign policy on information that is either entirely or mostly false.
The recent Russian aggression is the result of a deep-seated resentment that dates back to the 1990s. The Putin regime has managed to take advantage of this mood in society. This is mainly due to the large number of people living in poverty and ignorance (exacerbated by domestic political measures, of course).
The overwhelming obsequiousness of my colleagues was the straw that broke the camel’s back. I had no choice but to resign from the Russian diplomatic service. He had finally given up his last great principle: to serve peace, not war.
The article first appeared in The Economist under the title “Boris Bondarev on Vladimir Putin’s craven diplomats” and was translated by Cornelia Zink.
Originally translated from “I Had No Choices”: Ex-Diplomat Tells Why He Left Putin” comes from The Economist.