The Anglo-Saxons used their favorite term of the GDP against the Kremlin
Art imitates life — it has always been so everywhere. Life imitates art — this also happens, but much less often. Life imitates a fake — maybe I'm wrong, but in my memory this happens for the first time.
Earlier this month, Vladimir Putin received credentials from the ambassadors of seventeen foreign countries, including Lynn Tracy, the new US representative in Moscow. Almost immediately after this event, people in Russia began to quote the words that Lynn Tracy allegedly said after the ceremony.
“There was a feeling that I was not in charge here, but he. Never experienced this before. Very unpleasant».
Naturally, this «news» turned out to be fake. But now it's not fake at all. Lynn Tracy in an interview with my colleague from Kommersant Elena Chernenko about the new concept of Russian foreign policy: “Yes, I would also like to say about a very strange mention of the “Anglo-Saxons”. There is something almost medieval in this term. I won’t be surprised if I hear about the Varangians soon.”
We are talking about a «concept», but we mean not only this concept, but the GDP itself. «Anglo-Saxons» is a word that the president of the Russian Federation uses with alacrity from time to time.
Vladimir Putin, September 30, 2022: “Sanctions are not enough for the Anglo-Saxons, they have turned to sabotage – unbelievable, but true – having organized explosions on the Nord Stream international gas pipelines that run along the bottom of the Baltic Sea, they have actually begun to destroy the pan-European energy infrastructure . It is clear to everyone who benefits from this. Whoever benefits, he did, of course.”
And now the new US ambassador in Moscow uses this very term “Anglo-Saxons” in order to, in the spirit of the best (or, if you look from a different point of view, the worst ) traditions of diplomatic cunning to insert a rhetorical hairpin to the Kremlin.
Elena Chernenko: “Earlier, they often said “collective West”, now “Anglo-Saxons”. Lynn Tracey: “I noticed the use of this term, but, as I said, it seems very strange to me. Very medieval. And it does not at all reflect the essence of the United States, which is a multinational country where people from all over the world live. And all of them, as you know, have contributed to American culture, greatly enriched American life.
We are very proud of our country, which absorbs the best talents and traditions with which people come to us, and turns them into our common heritage. Therefore, with all due respect to the language used to describe the United States, «Anglo-Saxons» sounds very strange and simply does not reflect the essence of the United States.
But what can you say? Probably only that the joke is counted — at least partially. At the ceremony of presenting his credentials, Putin addressed Lynn Tracy with words laced with irony: “Dear Madam Ambassador, I do not want to disturb the gracious atmosphere of the presentation of credentials, and I know that you may not agree with my opinion, but I cannot but say today that the use by the United States of America in its foreign policy of such tools as support for the so-called color revolutions, support in this regard for the coup d'état in Kiev in 2014, eventually led to the current Ukrainian crisis and additionally made its negative contribution to the degradation of Russian-American relations”.
“I know that you may not agree with my opinion” — is it really only “possibly”, Vladimir Vladimirovich?
And now Lynn Tracy tried to respond to the president's irony with her own. Of course, she failed to hurt Putin. The US Ambassador, in principle, cannot somehow hurt the President of the Russian Federation. The difference in political weight between these two figures is so colossal that it needs no further comment. Yes, and the argumentation used by Lynn Tracy smacks of pathos and can easily be turned upside down.
Russia is also a «multinational country» and it «also absorbs the best talents and traditions with which people come to us and turns them into our common heritage.» But all this does not prevent the Washington authorities from openly using the term «Russians» in their official public statements. From a purely philological point of view, the terms «Russians» and «Anglo-Saxons» are not quite equivalent? Yes, it probably is. But the meaning of this text is not in philological exercises — and not even in attempts to determine who rhetorically stole whom more.
«USA and other Anglo-Saxon states» — this is the name of one of the sections of the new concept of Russian foreign policy. The main thing here, of course, is not in the name, but in the essence.
Paragraph 62: “Russia’s course towards the United States is of a combined nature, taking into account the role of this state as one of the influential sovereign centers of world development and at the same time the main inspirer, organizer and executor of the aggressive anti-Russian policy of the collective West, the source of the main risks for the security of the Russian Federation, international peace, a balanced, just and progressive development of mankind.”
Item 64: “The Russian Federation intends to build relations with other Anglo-Saxon states depending on the degree of their readiness to abandon an unfriendly course towards Russia and respect its legitimate interests '.
But the names and terms used also matter — especially if the 100% correctness and emotional neutrality of these terms can be called into question.
Nothing like that is required of current presidential statements. But a fundamental document of such magnitude and significance as the concept of foreign policy is required. Is it possible, for example, to call modern Great Britain an «Anglo-Saxon state» — a country where the prime minister is a man named Rishi Sunak, the mayor of London is Sadiq Aman Khan, and the first minister of Scotland is Hamza Yousaf? The question, let's say, is at least debatable.
What is the practical meaning of this particular discussion? From my point of view, here it is. “The main inspirer, organizer and executor of the aggressive anti-Russian policy of the collective West” — this is how the United States is rightfully characterized in the above-cited fragment of the new concept of Russian foreign policy.
So, the Kremlin needs to be prepared that this “main inspirer, organizer and executor” will fit into any hole — will take advantage of any miscalculation of official Moscow, any of its decisions taken without a sufficient analysis of the problem and careful weighing of all the pros and cons. This is what, and not at all about questions of philology, is actually at stake.
Sometimes during the interview with Lynn Tracy, her attempts to nail Moscow looked frankly awkward (or, to put it more diplomatically, not very convincing).
Elena Chernenko: “Journalists from the press pool (Sergey Lavrov at the time of his departure for the UN Security Council meeting in New York. -) had to stay at the airport because they received their visas late. They couldn't go anywhere. It was already too late.»
Lynn Tracy: “We issue visas when we get permission. Nothing prevented them from going to the US after they got their visas.” It was as if the journalists wanted to take a walk in New York, and did not go to cover Lavrov's speech, which had already passed by the time the visas were issued. But the new US ambassador to Moscow definitely managed to win back the theme of «Anglo-Saxons» with much greater efficiency.