Lev Shlosberg’s blog post, 23.05.2025

Photo: Journalists awaiting the end of negotiations between Russian and Ukrainian delegations in Istanbul / Photo by Kirill Zykov, RIA Novosti

Commentary on negotiations has begun to occupy more space in public politics than the negotiations themselves. This destroys the fabric of professional diplomacy and leads to risks of negotiation failure, especially on sensitive issues. Diplomacy conducted through public space, including through media, loses flexibility and finds itself completely dependent on mass stereotypes and phobias.

18+ НАСТОЯЩИЙ МАТЕРИАЛ (ИНФОРМАЦИЯ) ПРОИЗВЕДЕН И РАСПРОСТРАНЕН ИНОСТРАННЫМ АГЕНТОМ ЛЬВОМ МАРКОВИЧЕМ ШЛОСБЕРГОМ ЛИБО КАСАЕТСЯ ДЕЯТЕЛЬНОСТИ ИНОСТРАННОГО АГЕНТА ЛЬВА МАРКОВИЧА ШЛОСБЕРГА

18+ THE PRESENT MATERIAL (INFORMATION) IS PRODUCED AND DISTRIBUTED BY FOREIGN AGENT LEV MARKOVITCH SHLOSBERG OR CONCERNES THE ACTIVITIES OF FOREIGN AGENT LEV MARKOVITCH SHLOSBERG

Confidentiality is the most important feature of professional diplomacy. It allows building relationships of trust between negotiation participants – especially in situations when countries are in conflict. All the more so, when it concerns warring states.

Politician, diplomat and commentator are different professions. It is impossible to conduct deep negotiations and expect results when every word spoken in the negotiating room can be taken outside at any moment and become the subject of public discussion.

The negotiating room is a special territory. It cannot be turned into a stage with windows wide open. The freedom of the negotiating room depends on its closure. Until negotiations are completed and have reached a result, they must be protected from live broadcasting.

No one should be admitted into the room of diplomatic negotiations, as into an operating theatre, except the direct participants in the action. Certainly, publicity of negotiations does not necessarily lead to failure, but it significantly increases the probability of failure.

Disclosure of circumstances of incomplete negotiations in public space creates additional risks of negotiation failure. As a rule, the secrecy of the negotiating room is violated by those who seek to destroy the negotiations. In this way, responsibility is transferred from oneself to the opponent and justification of one’s actions takes place, up to/and including refusal to negotiate.

The technology of negotiations through public space includes manipulation – both of negotiation participants and of society, which is drawn into the professional diplomatic process without understanding its peculiarities and risks. This is how populism works.

Public politics in the era of information society creates new communication technologies, which contain not only opportunities but also risks. These risks arise when the minute-by-minute reflection of society intrudes into the space of negotiations, whose perception becomes a separate factor in negotiations.

Public opinion has been, is and will be a factor in public politics. However, public opinion can work either as referential, consultative, or as formative thing, including through crowd pressure, when a politician essentially loses agency and becomes a hostage to the crowd.

Negotiations between Russia and Ukraine have become hostage to public politics in its modern form. Donald Trump’s mediating efforts are also being destroyed not only by the irreconcilability of the parties, but also by the continuous flow of public commentary on the negotiations, starting with Trump’s own comments.

The responsibility for determining the measure of publicity of negotiations rests with the politicians and diplomats. Starting from a certain moment, commentary on negotiations becomes an independent factor in politics and begins to dominate over the negotiations. At such a moment, the negotiating room closes, because it ceases to be a place of professional work. Along with this, the window of historical opportunity closes, and it may not arise again for a long time.