Did Russia’s Libya ambassador call Medvedev a traitor?
Russia’s ruling tandem are playing down the importance of their brief public spat over Vladimir Putin’s description of the international mission in Libya as a "crusade," and as Julia Ioffe points out, there was probably less to the affair than met the eye. But Russia’s recently recalled Ambassador to Libya, Vladimir Chamov, is doing his ...
Russia's ruling tandem are playing down the importance of their brief public spat over Vladimir Putin's description of the international mission in Libya as a "crusade," and as Julia Ioffe points out, there was probably less to the affair than met the eye.
Russia’s ruling tandem are playing down the importance of their brief public spat over Vladimir Putin’s description of the international mission in Libya as a "crusade," and as Julia Ioffe points out, there was probably less to the affair than met the eye.
But Russia’s recently recalled Ambassador to Libya, Vladimir Chamov, is doing his best to reignite tensions by calling Russia’s failure to prevent international airstrikes a betrayal of national interests in a statement upon his return to Moscow. He may have gone even farther than that in private:
He denied rumours that he wrote a telegram to Medvedev calling him a traitor, but said: "I wrote a telegram in which I underlined that I represent the interests of Russia in Libya. Recently, our countries have aimed at close co-operation, and it is not in the interests of Russia to lose such a partner."
He added: "Russian companies have signed very advantageous contracts for billions of euros for several years ahead that could be lost or have already been lost. In a certain way, that can be considered a betrayal of Russia’s interests."
The Moscow Times reports that those contracts include $4 billion in weapons deals, a $3.1 billion for Russian Railways to build a railroad, and hundreds of millions of dollars in oil exploration.
Chamov kept going:
However, he said Gaddafi was "a very adequate person" and, when asked to comment on Putin’s Crusades comment, he replied: "Vladimir Vladimirovich, and this is something I particularly like about him, gave a very precise, short and profound definition. And here, I think, he is not far from the truth."
Chamov declined to comment on what he thought of Medvedev.
Kremlinology aside, Chamov’s analysis seems a bit short-sighted. Those contracts were likely on hold as a result of the civil war anyway. Whatever political order emerges following the conflict, I think it’s a safe bet that Tripoli will still be interested in buying guns and pumping oil. Now, Russia gets to sit on the sidelines with its ever-closer BRIC allies and snipe as western powers enter yet another Middle Eastern war.
Joshua Keating was an associate editor at Foreign Policy. Twitter: @joshuakeating
More from Foreign Policy
Saudi-Iranian Détente Is a Wake-Up Call for America
The peace plan is a big deal—and it’s no accident that China brokered it.
The U.S.-Israel Relationship No Longer Makes Sense
If Israel and its supporters want the country to continue receiving U.S. largesse, they will need to come up with a new narrative.
Putin Is Trapped in the Sunk-Cost Fallacy of War
Moscow is grasping for meaning in a meaningless invasion.
How China’s Saudi-Iran Deal Can Serve U.S. Interests
And why there’s less to Beijing’s diplomatic breakthrough than meets the eye.
Sign up for Morning Brief
Foreign Policy’s flagship daily newsletter with what’s coming up around the world today. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
