US Ambassador “Wiped His Feet” on Russian Diplomats
Michael McFaul has admitted that, despite Moscow’s protests, the U.S. will tighten its anti-missile stranglehold around Russia.
It seems that the main "Color revolutions" expert, who has been appointed by the U.S. State Department to represent U.S. interests in Russia, has decided to personally find the lowest point in the moral decline of the Russian authorities, who desire insatiably to surrender Russian foreign policy positions in exchange for the mythical benefits of the infamous "reset" in U.S.-Russian relations. After paying tribute to politeness and diplomatic conventions following the ceremony of presenting credentials, the new U.S. ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul, seriously addressed his duties and prescribed the Russian leadership a horse dose of various bitter pills.
No sooner had Russian diplomatic officials (who seem more concerned with creating the appearance of a “reset” idyll rather than upholding the pragmatic interests of the Russian Federation) recovered from McFaul’s rattled-off invective pearl calling Russia a “wild country" than they were once again put in a very awkward position by their U.S. colleague. In an interview with RIA Novosti, in response to the question of what U.S. President Barack Obama's promised "flexibility" on missile defense will mean for Moscow in the event of Obama’s election to a second term, the ambassador decided to forgo sly euphemisms. He unequivocally admitted that the U.S. foreign policy’s Aesopian language of "flexibility" means … an uncompromising rigidity, and a total lack of any desire to take into account the country that the U.S. publicly calls its partner.
According to McFaul, Washington will build in Europe the kind of missile defense system that it considers necessary, and it has no intention of being accountable to Moscow or in any way limiting itself in this area. Michael McFaul openly voiced the never-changing credo of U.S. foreign policy: “We are going to accept no limitations on that whatsoever because the security of our people, of our allies, is the number-one top priority.” These words were said specifically for Russia’s pitiful “reseters,” in an "everything you wanted to know, but were afraid to ask" manner. However, to at least slightly soften the overall impression made by such a peremptory admission, McFaul nonetheless made a traditional reservation that the U.S. hopes to fully implement a missile defense system without threatening the current strategic stability between Russia and the United States. Despite the seeming absurdity of this statement, in principle it can be rationally interpreted, because, according to Washington politicians, the framework for U.S-.Russian strategic stability is clearly founded on Moscow’s [posture of] permanent concessions, which for a long time has been reminiscent of a one-way street.
In fairness, it’s worth noting that the intended audience for the creative “rigid flexibility" oxymoron used to describe the U.S. position on missile defense was not so much the Russian public as the U.S. electorate. Recall that Western journalists have recently broadcast to the world (including, naturally, the Americans) the seditious phrase that Obama was careless enough to say during his last, for-the-road meeting with Russia’s departing president, Dmitry Medvedev. Apparently wanting to make a nice farewell gesture (Barack Obama and his Russian counterpart were meeting for the last time as the acting heads of state) and to thank his “reset” partner at least on a meaningless, rhetorical level, the U.S. leader confided to Dmitry Medvedev that if Barack Obama is re-elected for a second term, the U.S. position on missile defense may have "more flexibility." However, after this controversial admission was broadcast, he immediately rushed to take back his words.
In an interview with KM.RU, the vice president of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems, Vladimir Anokhin, commented on the status and prospects of Russian-U.S. relations in light of the recent revelations made by the U.S. ambassador:
“I believe that the Russian government continues to surrender our position in relation to the U.S. All of the bold statements made periodically by our diplomats are hot air, designed to create the appearance of an independent position. I greatly regret to admit that we are definitely losing to the U.S. in all matters related to foreign policy.
“In fact, we trail behind the West in regard to dealing with the events in the Middle East. We are also afraid to define our foreign policy ambitions in relation to Iran and Syria. And what is currently happening in Ulyanovsk practically means the creation of a base that will be the source of a serious threat to our security, not to mention the fact that the appearance of this base will enable radar surveillance of our entire territory. Additionally, we’ve in essence created the conditions for surrounding our country along the entire perimeter of its borders with elements of U.S. missile defense. Finally, our authorities are not taking real steps to ensure our defense. The actions of the Defense Ministry, including its General Staff (as represented by its leader and "the greatest strategist" General Makarov), which undermine our export potential in the arms market, also raise questions.
“At the same time, I do not think that our government’s actions of making more and more concessions in favor of the West are determined by the need for electoral legitimacy. The legitimacy of our election’s results is derived from our society’s attitudes. In other words, it is a purely internal process. It’s a separate matter, which, under the leadership of our elite Russia’s political and economic system, is becoming less viable. This is the main threat, which is ripening from within. Therefore, our government is more likely interested not in an electoral, but in another form of legitimization. The fact is that their children study abroad, and their capital flows to the same destination. I think that the U.S.-Russian 'reset' at the elite level is a 'marriage of convenience,' but, as we know, such marriages are strong. Perhaps there’s no trace of sincerity in the relationship, but no one will push for a break up either. We have already surrendered our positions so much that we have a limited space for maneuvering and proposing counter terms.
“As for deploying the elements of the global U.S. missile defense system, we essentially only have one option — building up our nuclear capability — because there is no longer any doubt that, regardless of the personalities in the White House, the American establishment will bring this project to its logical conclusion.”
It seems that the main "Color revolutions" expert, who has been appointed by the U.S. State Department to represent U.S. interests in Russia, has decided to personally find the lowest point in the moral decline of the Russian authorities, who desire insatiably to surrender Russian foreign policy positions in exchange for the mythical benefits of the infamous "reset" in U.S.-Russian relations. After paying tribute to politeness and diplomatic conventions following the ceremony of presenting credentials, the new U.S. ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul, seriously addressed his duties and prescribed the Russian leadership a horse dose of various bitter pills.
No sooner had Russian diplomatic officials (who seem more concerned with creating the appearance of a “reset” idyll rather than upholding the pragmatic interests of the Russian Federation) recovered from McFaul’s rattled-off invective pearl calling Russia a “wild country" than they were once again put in a very awkward position by their U.S. colleague. In an interview with RIA Novosti, in response to the question of what U.S. President Barack Obama's promised "flexibility" on missile defense will mean for Moscow in the event of Obama’s election to a second term, the ambassador decided to forgo sly euphemisms. He unequivocally admitted that the U.S. foreign policy’s Aesopian language of "flexibility" means … an uncompromising rigidity, and a total lack of any desire to take into account the country that the U.S. publicly calls its partner.
According to McFaul, Washington will build in Europe the kind of missile defense system that it considers necessary, and it has no intention of being accountable to Moscow or in any way limiting itself in this area. Michael McFaul openly voiced the never-changing credo of U.S. foreign policy: “We are going to accept no limitations on that whatsoever because the security of our people, of our allies, is the number-one top priority.” These words were said specifically for Russia’s pitiful “reseters,” in an "everything you wanted to know, but were afraid to ask" manner. However, to at least slightly soften the overall impression made by such a peremptory admission, McFaul nonetheless made a traditional reservation that the U.S. hopes to fully implement a missile defense system without threatening the current strategic stability between Russia and the United States. Despite the seeming absurdity of this statement, in principle it can be rationally interpreted, because, according to Washington politicians, the framework for U.S-.Russian strategic stability is clearly founded on Moscow’s [posture of] permanent concessions, which for a long time has been reminiscent of a one-way street.
In fairness, it’s worth noting that the intended audience for the creative “rigid flexibility" oxymoron used to describe the U.S. position on missile defense was not so much the Russian public as the U.S. electorate. Recall that Western journalists have recently broadcast to the world (including, naturally, the Americans) the seditious phrase that Obama was careless enough to say during his last, for-the-road meeting with Russia’s departing president, Dmitry Medvedev. Apparently wanting to make a nice farewell gesture (Barack Obama and his Russian counterpart were meeting for the last time as the acting heads of state) and to thank his “reset” partner at least on a meaningless, rhetorical level, the U.S. leader confided to Dmitry Medvedev that if Barack Obama is re-elected for a second term, the U.S. position on missile defense may have "more flexibility." However, after this controversial admission was broadcast, he immediately rushed to take back his words.
In an interview with KM.RU, the vice president of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems, Vladimir Anokhin, commented on the status and prospects of Russian-U.S. relations in light of the recent revelations made by the U.S. ambassador:
“I believe that the Russian government continues to surrender our position in relation to the U.S. All of the bold statements made periodically by our diplomats are hot air, designed to create the appearance of an independent position. I greatly regret to admit that we are definitely losing to the U.S. in all matters related to foreign policy.
“In fact, we trail behind the West in regard to dealing with the events in the Middle East. We are also afraid to define our foreign policy ambitions in relation to Iran and Syria. And what is currently happening in Ulyanovsk practically means the creation of a base that will be the source of a serious threat to our security, not to mention the fact that the appearance of this base will enable radar surveillance of our entire territory. Additionally, we’ve in essence created the conditions for surrounding our country along the entire perimeter of its borders with elements of U.S. missile defense. Finally, our authorities are not taking real steps to ensure our defense. The actions of the Defense Ministry, including its General Staff (as represented by its leader and "the greatest strategist" General Makarov), which undermine our export potential in the arms market, also raise questions.
“At the same time, I do not think that our government’s actions of making more and more concessions in favor of the West are determined by the need for electoral legitimacy. The legitimacy of our election’s results is derived from our society’s attitudes. In other words, it is a purely internal process. It’s a separate matter, which, under the leadership of our elite Russia’s political and economic system, is becoming less viable. This is the main threat, which is ripening from within. Therefore, our government is more likely interested not in an electoral, but in another form of legitimization. The fact is that their children study abroad, and their capital flows to the same destination. I think that the U.S.-Russian 'reset' at the elite level is a 'marriage of convenience,' but, as we know, such marriages are strong. Perhaps there’s no trace of sincerity in the relationship, but no one will push for a break up either. We have already surrendered our positions so much that we have a limited space for maneuvering and proposing counter terms.
“As for deploying the elements of the global U.S. missile defense system, we essentially only have one option — building up our nuclear capability — because there is no longer any doubt that, regardless of the personalities in the White House, the American establishment will bring this project to its logical conclusion.”
Next article![]( "Bad Aim")
