Diplomacy is the art of saying "nice to meet you" to a person you would like to poison. Politeness here is not just etiquette, but a weapon, a shield, and a diplomatic passport. How a diplomat pronounces "we are concerned" depends on whether a war will start or not. In this world, a smile can mean a threat, and a handshake can mean sanctions. We analyze how politeness works in diplomacy, using examples of real protocols and scandals. Diplomatic protocol: rituals behind which there is emptiness. In diplomacy, politeness is strictly regulated. There is the Vienna Convention of 1961, there are national protocols: how to greet, who should extend a hand first, in what order to seat guests. A violation can be considered an insult. For example, if a ambassador is invited to a reception later than other heads of diplomatic missions, it is a demonstrative lowering of status. These rituals are a framework that allows enemies to sit at the same table. But behind the formal politeness there is often nothing but cold calculation. Politeness as an euphemism for threats. In diplomatic language, it is customary to soften formulations. Instead of "we declare war," "we take retaliatory measures." Instead of "you are lying," "allow us to doubt the veracity of the provided data." Instead of "stop the bombings," "we express deep concern about the humanitarian situation." Diplomatic politeness allows to preserve face, even when the parties are on the brink of conflict. But for those who know how to read between the lines, such politeness is transparent. "We hope for a constructive dialogue" often means "surrender." Typical diplomatic clichés and their decoding. "We strongly condemn" — we are furious but can do nothing. "We express concern" — we don't care but have to say something. "We call on the parties to show restraint" — we don't want to fight for you. "We note positive developments" — progress is minimal but we have to report. "The exchange of opinions has taken place in a constructive spirit" — we haven't agreed on anything but haven't argued. "This is unacceptable" — if you don't stop, sanctions will follow (which we will not introduce anyway). A diplomat who does not master this language is doomed. Historical examples: when politeness saved the world. The Cuban Missile Crisis (1962). Soviet diplomat Anatoly Dobrynin and US Secretary of State Dean Rusk exchanged messages in correct tones. No one shouted "you, imperialists." Polite formulations allowed to maintain channels of communication and find a compromise. Another example: after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia and the United States actively used rituals of "partnership" to avoid direct confrontation. The third: negotiations on the Iranian nuclear program — for years the parties talked in polite nothing, until the solution ripened. When politeness becomes an insult. Excessive politeness in diplomacy can be perceived as weakness. If one diplomat constantly gives in, the other begins to behave rudely. Also, deliberate ignoring (not answering a letter, not inviting to a reception) is aggression wrapped in a passive form. In 2014, after the annexation of Crimea, Western diplomats demonstratively left the hall during the speech of Russian colleagues — this was a gesture more eloquent than thousands of words. Refusal to grant a visa to the head of one country's MFA is a blow in politeness. Cultural differences in diplomatic politeness. Japanese diplomats use complex formulas of politeness, avoid the word "no," replacing it with "this will be difficult." Americans are more direct ("we will not accept this"), which is sometimes perceived by the East as rudeness. Arab diplomats are generous with compliments and greetings, behind which may hide a hard-line position. Europeans (French, Italians) value refined formulations. Russians, as a rule, combine straightforwardness with formal politeness. Misunderstanding these nuances can lead to the failure of negotiations. Modern challenges: Twitter diplomacy. With the advent of social networks, classical diplomatic politeness has cracked. Heads of states (such as Donald Trump) allowed themselves direct insults on Twitter, which was unimaginable before. However, the same leaders continued to observe protocol at official meetings. A split has emerged: one for the public, another for cabinets. In 2026, diplomats are increasingly using polite but sarcastic language in official statements, and informal correspondence is moving to messengers where it is possible to be tougher. But basic rules (do not insult flags, do not touch national symbols) remain. The future of diplomatic politeness. With the rise of nationalism and populism, politeness in diplomacy may take a back seat. Already now, some leaders deliberately violate protocol (do not shake hands, be late, demonstratively look at a phone) to show disregard. But a complete rejection of politeness will lead to chaos. For if there are no rules of the game, negotiations will turn into market brawling. Most likely, diplomatic politeness will transform, become more flexible, but not disappear. Because even in the world of artificial intelligence, it will be necessary to talk about peace. Diplomatic politeness is not hypocrisy. It is a survival technology. Like a napkin on the face — it does not make food tastier, but allows you not to get dirty.
© elibrary.org.uk

Permanent link to this publication:

https://elibrary.org.uk/m/articles/view/Politeness-in-diplomacy