Go to ...

The Newspapers

Gathering and spreading news from various Russian Newspapers

The Newspapers on Google+The Newspapers on LinkedInRSS Feed

Monday, March 19, 2018

McFaul outlined the future policy of Hillary Clinton

Former US Ambassador to Russia gave an interview to Estonian journalists. Nothing particularly new, he said – after his inglorious tenure in Moscow as Ambassador McFaul in public says about the same: about the greatness of the United States and that Russia is an urgent need to change the “wrong”, in his opinion, the power.

Was no exception and fresh performance in the edition of Postimees. McFaul speaks only the tough language of ultimatums and calls to give a “concrete response” to the Kremlin’s actions, but also States that “the United States should, in accordance with the needs to curb Russia and meet her.”

“My experience with Russian diplomats that the Russian want absolutely everything to commit to paper, all need written contracts”

In the beginning of the interview the ex-Ambassador once again voiced by my favorite argument of Western “hawks” that Moscow no one promised that NATO expansion will not. They say, “this statement is complete fiction. My experience with Russian diplomats that the Russian want absolutely everything to commit to paper, all need written agreements.”

At the same time, as recalled by the representative of the foreign Ministry Maria Zakharova, just a week ago, former Secretary of state Henry Kissinger suggested that they were “informal comments, which were so understood by Russia.” “But I would not began to accuse Russian leaders that they invented these agreements,” stated former U.S. Secretary of state. That is, in fact, accusing of lying Mikhail Gorbachev and Soviet diplomats that his ears heard the promise not to expand NATO, at the same time McFaul, in fact, rebuked the lie and the Kissinger.

And there is no contradiction in the fact that when McFaul, Russian diplomats began to require all Americans to be committed to paper. In the late 80s and early 90s is really a Soviet and then Russian policy in euphoria – who is sincere and who is stimulated from abroad. “Eternal peace without annexations and indemnities”, “Russian Americans – brothers forever” and so on idealism. The stronger is euphoria, all the more unpleasant was the fall from heaven to earth in the second half of the 90s, and after the “humanitarian bombing” of Yugoslavia, all finally fell into place. What we thought was the overall victory over communism, the United States was considered his personal victory over the Russians. In the words of Kissinger, it was “one of the areas of mutual misunderstanding of the parties.”

Further McFaul has accused Russia that it “does everything for the Ukrainian economy collapsed”. Also interesting the prosecution on the part of the citizen of a country that is doing everything in order to collapse the Russian economy. And it is not clear why Russia should, as it did from 1991 to 2013, to continue to support the economy of independent Ukraine, if Kiev authorities had made a clear choice in favor of the European Union?

All Russian economic measures against Ukraine were either retaliatory or caused by economic necessity. In this case, Ukraine will continue to run Russian banks and cellular operators, and the citizens of this country, as before, have the opportunity to earn money in Russia and send home to their bedstuy. That is, about any “blockade” out of the question.

And McFaul, speaking about the West’s support of Ukraine, puts the rigid framework: “for Ukraine the necessary incentives, but also to establish their conditions,” he says Estonian journalists. It is significant that, when Russia established for any foreign state incentives with the terms, this is called “political pressure” or “unacceptable Russian influence”. And when the same is done by the West – nothing personal, just business.

In fact, discussing NATO and Ukraine, former Ambassador and come to the conclusion that Russia needs to “rein in” and “reflect coming from her threat.”

By and large currently McFaul, just one of the American intellectuals, whose opinion means more especially not the views of any other Professor at Stanford University. His “mission to Moscow” is recognized as a failure not only in Russia but also in many influential American publications.

But, despite some “disgrace”, it should be remembered that in case of victory of Hillary Clinton in the presidential election, the Professor can return to the state Department or become an Advisor to the President. And what is now expressed only as a wish, be a harsh foreign policy reality.

Democrats like to counter the “intellectual” Clinton “uneducated” Trump, but the example McFaul once again proves that, when armchair scientists come in real politics, nothing good will come out of it.

Russia, we recall, went through it twice – in February 1917, when intellectuals tried in vain to control the crumbling country and a little more than six months lost the power of well-organized Bolsheviks, to bet not to the intelligentsia (although its intellectuals the Bolsheviks also missing), and the proletariat and understood by any illiterate person promises.

The second attempt of the intelligentsia coming into power took place in the early 90-ies, and again Yegor Gaidar ended up shifted “uneducated” Viktor Stepanovich Chernomyrdin six months later, inglorious work as acting head of the government.

McFaul behaves absolutely in the same style as “go” in the power of the Russian intellectuals – at first confusing and unnecessary to most citizens policy, then – a total insult to the “misunderstanding” and regret that “got the wrong people.”

Probably, analysts of the state Department before the appointment of an Ambassador in 2012 estimated the destructive potential of the Russian intelligentsia and suggested that American intellectual in the role of Ambassador will be able to provide a similar effect, but miscalculated. Therefore, McFaul returned to teaching, and in Spaso house in Moscow has called an experienced career diplomat John Tefft.

For Russia as a whole doesn’t really matter who wins the US presidential election – in any case, the leadership of our country will have to work with those whom we call the American electoral College. But an interview with McFaul – another visible reminder: in case of victory of the Democrats in the person of Hillary Clinton have at least another four years without the slightest hope of improvement of relations.

Related posts:
Exercises the U.S. and South Korea called the nuclear threat of the DPRK
Mirage Syrian world: the Pentagon against the state Department
Not any speaker of the Petersburg Parliament journalist trying to send in the army
The human rights activist said the lack of information about serious violations of the election


More Stories From Politics