Goebbels came back as Lavrov

If we go strictly by official post, then Sergey Lavrov’s closest Nazi analogue was Joachim Ribbentrop, Hitler’s foreign minister during the Second World Special Operation.

Yet Lavrov forfeited any claim to being a top diplomat, indeed a diplomat at all, in 2008, when our Foreign Secretary David Miliband had the gall to question Russia’s record on human rights.

Showing an enviable command of the English language, if some disdain for diplomatic protocol, Lavrov replied: “Who the fuck are you to lecture me?” What happened to “This is outside my remit, but I’ll look into it”? Or, more committal, “We’ve progressed in that department since Stalin’s time, so let’s talk that trade deal”?

In a way, that was honest of Lavrov. He communicated to the world in no polite terms that his job was propaganda, not diplomacy.

And in that field Lavrov is guided by the observation first enunciated by Dr Goebbels. “The English,” he said, “follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous.”

That comment was meant to be critical, but Lavrov took it as a call to action. The more brazen a lie, he realised, the more likely would people be to believe it. Thanks for the tip, Joseph.

It must be said that Lavrov is striking powerful blows for the notion of unremitting progress. Though taking his cue from Goebbels, he has outdone the old master many times over. And at the same time, he has proved Marx wrong.

Commenting on the contemporaneous situation in France, Marx wrote that history appears twice: first as tragedy, then as farce. Lavrov, however, shows that these two genres don’t have to be practised consecutively. They can happily coexist side by side.

Yesterday I mentioned his farcical comment on Russia’s geopolitical plans. “We aren’t going to attack any other countries,” he said. “We didn’t attack the Ukraine either.” Could have fooled me.

But didn’t Russia sign a pledge to guarantee the Ukraine’s territorial integrity? When a journalist posed that question, Lavrov pointed out his mistake: “If you’re talking about the Budapest Memorandum, we have not violated it. It contains only one obligation – not to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine.”

He sounded so convincing that I had to look up the text of that document. And sure enough, the first obligation mentioned in the Budapest Memorandum is “to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.”

Never mind casuistic details. In fact, explained Lavrov, “We want a friendly Ukraine”. No doubt that’s true. It’s just that Russia’s approach to making friends strikes me as somewhat unconventional.

Not that I propose to hold myself up as an example to follow, but when I wish to befriend someone, I don’t beat him to a pulp first, then murder his whole family and set his house on fire. Yet I’m willing to admit that Lavrov has garnered a deeper understanding of human relations.

Even though Russia didn’t attack the Ukraine, Lavrov helpfully explained why she did. The reason for invading the Ukraine, he said, was that the US was using her “territory to create a biological weapon, and an ethnically targeted one at that”.

Those dastardly Yanks are devilishly clever, and I’m using the word ‘devilishly’ advisedly. They are on the threshold of developing pathogens that kill Russians, while sparing Ukrainians. I wouldn’t put such deviousness past them, but there’s a slight snag there.

How can those viruses distinguish between the two groups if, as Lavrov’s immediate superior has explained a thousand times, the Russians and the Ukrainians are the same people?

Well, they are, except that, according to the official belief, the Russians are uniquely blessed with an extra gene of spirituality. One has to infer that the Yank virus is designed to zero in on that special gene, which indirectly proves it exists.

But how will that satanic weapon be delivered into the bloodstream of uniquely spiritual Russians? Lavrov neglected to go into such technicalities, which oversight was helpfully corrected by Gen. Konashenkov, Defence Ministry spokesman:

“We were particularly interested in the detailed reports that the US was using the Ukraine’s territory to conduct experiments in spreading pathogens through wild birds migrating between the Ukraine and Russia.”

I wonder what the Geneva Convention has to say about avian terrorism. If those nit-pickers haven’t yet got around to banning birds, they should. And while they are contemplating the necessary steps, the NSPCA should issue a ringing denunciation of this mass cruelty to avian Americans.

But let’s forget such WMDs for the time being. According to Gen. Konashenkov, they are still in development. What about the real bombs levelling Ukrainian cities, burying thousands under the rubble, including women and children?

Trust you to ask such provocative questions. One can tell you don’t watch Russian TV, especially Vladimir Soloviov’s programme on the First Channel. He is one of the propagandists trying to rival Lavrov for the honour of being the Russian Goebbels.

Though I’m sure Lavrov will win in the end, if only by pulling rank, Soloviov is doing his level best. Yesterday he laughingly advocated a “bang! and everything turns to dust” scenario as a way of telling Nato to mind its own business.

Yes, but what about those Ukrainian women and children? Oh well, if you insist.

You see, those Judaeo-Banderite Ukie Nazis are bombing their own cities to besmirch Russia’s otherwise stainless reputation. And, though the Russians would never carpet-bomb residential areas, thousands of Ukrainian women and children are dying because Ukie Nazis are using them as human shields.

Some 70 to 80 per cent of the Russians support Putin’s Special Operation, which means they deserve Putin. But they do have a mitigating circumstance: Lavrov and his ilk are lying not only externally but also domestically.

The idolised Russian warrior (Special Operator?), Suvorov, once said: “Every soldier must know his manoeuvre.” He might have practised what he preached, but Col. Putin’s men made sure Russian soldiers went into the Ukraine as blind as newly born kittens.

They were told to expect a cakewalk, followed by a victory parade. That’s why they only carried rations for two days in their knapsacks. The saved space was filled with dress uniforms, to be worn on parade grounds.

The general impression conveyed by the domestic lies was that any problems likely to be encountered called for police action only. Thus, close to a quarter of the invading contingent were not soldiers, but either policemen or internal troops, equipped with a large consignment of rubber truncheons and crowd-control shields.

When the shooting started in earnest, those men had to be retrained as infantry, which fast-tracked programme ideally prepared them for acting as sacrificial lambs. And speaking of those sacramental animals, some Russian pilots were also tricked.

There are many reports of the parachutes of ejecting Russian pilots failing to open. Accidents do happen, one or two. But when there are many more, one has to suspect they aren’t exactly accidental.

Apparently, the Russians deliberately equipped novice pilots, those most likely to be shot down, with faulty parachutes to make sure they couldn’t act as future witnesses for the prosecution.

Japanese kamikaze pilots leaving their parachutes on the ground before taking off come to mind, but with one salient difference. They knew they were flying suicide missions. No one had lied to them they could safely bail out if hit.

I hope that Lavrov (and Putin’s other bandits, including the bunker hermit himself) will end up treated to either Goebbels’s cyanide pill or Ribbentrop’s noose. I’d even be willing to let him choose.