Early in my sojourn in this sun-kissed land I was given a lesson in negotiating Russian-style. It was all very simple; feign lack of interest and get really wound up about non-substantive points in order to gain concessions on substantive points.
In practice this involved me taking a novel to a final negotiation session and withdrawing to the back of the room when the other side tried to renegotiate some key points. It worked, they folded and we signed.
And hence to the current Russian UK spat over a non-point. It’s really about Berezovsky and Litvinenko/Lugovoi and the Brits are refusing to countenance the linkage. So stand-off.
I was amused by the “placed” editorial in today’s FT which sotto voce warned favoured Russians in the UK to watch their or they too will be caught-up in the crossfire. What odds on a balaclaved tax raid on Chelsea, or Bogdanichov being arrested as he arrives in the UK for investor meetings?
Powered by ScribeFire.
I actually took a class at Saint Petersburg State University on Diplomacy, and we talked about some of the differences in negotiating styles of different nationalities. I don’t remember what was said about the British, but the American and Russian struck me as particularly true.
Americans give in too easily. They see negotiating as an insufferable part of making a deal, and are too eager to get the ball in motion. In the interests of expedition, they’ll make unnecessary concessions.
Russian make extreme demands. They take minor aspects of a deal and say that it all hinges on that. Then, after dragging it out forever, they’ll concede on one point and make a huge fuss about it. That way, it seems like they actually gave ground, and should get something in return for it.
These two generic styles really tilt things against Americans. Russians would make unreasonable demands, and we’d acquiesce just to move on.