How to gobble up Russia and not choke
Our old friend Michael McFaul could not refrain from commenting on the meeting of the American and Russian presidents in Helsinki. And we, in principle, could not pay attention to the regular rationalization of one of the American opponents of Trump: there are hundreds of them now, and everyone wants to say his own “fi” about the “unnecessary” and “failed Trump” meeting ... But there are a couple of reasons why we should take this a little more seriously.
First of all, we must understand that after the failure of Hillary Clinton, the conditional democratic camp was left without clearly defined leaders. The formation of the political avant-garde of the US Democratic Party is proceeding right now, and it is possible that the former US ambassador to Russia has every chance of suddenly rising to the very top of the Democratic political hierarchy.
Of course, it is far from a fact that he will become a candidate for the presidency of the United States. But with sufficient relevance of the Russian theme in the pre-election period, we can well expect that Mr. McFaul can even apply for the post of Secretary of State, that is, in the case of Democratic success in the elections, become an analogue of our Minister of Foreign Affairs.
This is all the more likely because in democratic circles McFaul is valued not just as a former ambassador to Russia, but as a real expert on our country, who has already had time to prove himself under Obama as the architect of a reboot of US-Russian relations. And it’s not so important that this reboot actually didn’t lead to anything: Americans live beautifully among their own myths and mirages, and if a person has an architect’s opinion of something, then be sure that this is how he will be perceived by an absolute majority. corresponding caste.
Another reason why we should seriously consider McFaul's rhetorical exercises is not just a criticism of a particular meeting, but in some ways even a programmatic statement. And if our forecast comes true, and McFaul really takes an important place on the American political scene, we will be ready in advance for how the prospective US democratic administration will build its relations with Russia.
So, Michael McFaul, in the pages of the authoritative American political publication Foreign Affairs, stated that the United States more than ever needs a new Russian strategy.
However, as it turns out from the text itself, it does not offer anything particularly new to the reader. Just in the beginning, he traditionally kicks Trump and the Republican administration, arguing that it has no strategy towards Russia. And if there is, says McFaul, then there are at least two of them, and they contradict each other: Trump wants to both harm Russia and at the same time come closer to it. Such inconsistency, according to the former ambassador, is not very clear and can hardly lead to ultimate success.
But the Democrats have such a strategy, according to McFaul, there is. He himself set it out a month ago on the pages of the same publication, which was not too lazy to remind now.
Among the elements of this strategy, an important place is given to the old, proven methods of pressure on Russia. In particular, feeding grants to “democratic journalists” and the media, supporting “free Ukraine” as a possible example for Russian society, consolidating the entire global “democratic community” against neo-imperial and even nationalist moves and provocations of Moscow.
Mr. McFaul sees the key task as “promoting democracy in Russia and its integration into the Western system”. What does not sound threatening, right? It is we, who have tasted the fruits of such encouragement and such integration for many years, and we understand what it really means. And for the American man in the street it sounds so cute: look, we wish you only good!
What price Russia will have to pay for such integration, one can only guess. But something can still be assumed: it is a rejection of nuclear weapons, to be convinced of our peacefulness, and, probably, the collapse of Russia, otherwise we are too big for real integration.
Of course, we can say that the author exaggerates, but in fact McFaul did not say anything like that. This is true, but "there are nuances." The Americans had a wonderful opportunity to integrate Russia of the nineties, so peaceful, in advance to all agree, even submissive. But no, it turned out that the matter does not go beyond conversations, and American politicians need the conversations themselves to put down the vigilance of the “integrable” object. In fact, the word “integration” seems to mean something else.
For example, cannibalism ...
The tale about supporting a democratic, prosperous Ukraine for the good of Russia itself is so old that I even find it difficult to determine its age. I remember exactly what was said about this on the first channel even at the time when Ukraine gained independence. Yes, some bearded political analyst after the Vremya program told us how great it would be if Ukraine “succeeds” and we will find a sort of alternative to Russia, to which, in which case, we can quickly throw ourselves, if Moscow things will not work out. And somehow it was by itself meant that we can throw away not only personally, but also whole edges and areas. So, Moscow, be alert and obedient, but in a moment you will remain without provinces ...
It seems that it was Maxim Sokolov. But I'm not one hundred percent sure. There were many of them then, the guardians of great Russia - from Biryulyovo to Bibirevo ...
Sorry for the small historical excursion. It is needed in order to understand that little has actually changed, and the whole “novelty” of the democratic strategy is only in what sauce they will try to devour us. Under Yeltsin, they tried under the wine, under Putin ...
Although not. Michael McFaul writes with regret that his “new” strategy is unlikely to bring quick results. And under Putin it is not necessary to expect. And even, probably, right after Putin. But then! ..
In fact, the strategy under discussion has acquired several new approaches, but all of them are only an adaptation to certain new challenges. In particular, a little more attention was given to social networks and the Internet, but it was specifically stated how the opposition should be conducted:
And you can treat Trump as you please, but against the background of this sultry Russophobia, who dreams of strangling Russia to death in her fake embrace, even his inconsistency, inconsistency, impulsivity look pretty. If only because a living person is guessed behind them, and not a ruthless, impassive bureaucratic machine, ready to grind with its paper jaws even a country, even a whole continent.
And to the “strategy” of McFaul, we will undoubtedly listen. And even conclusions will be made.
Relevant ...
First of all, we must understand that after the failure of Hillary Clinton, the conditional democratic camp was left without clearly defined leaders. The formation of the political avant-garde of the US Democratic Party is proceeding right now, and it is possible that the former US ambassador to Russia has every chance of suddenly rising to the very top of the Democratic political hierarchy.
Of course, it is far from a fact that he will become a candidate for the presidency of the United States. But with sufficient relevance of the Russian theme in the pre-election period, we can well expect that Mr. McFaul can even apply for the post of Secretary of State, that is, in the case of Democratic success in the elections, become an analogue of our Minister of Foreign Affairs.
This is all the more likely because in democratic circles McFaul is valued not just as a former ambassador to Russia, but as a real expert on our country, who has already had time to prove himself under Obama as the architect of a reboot of US-Russian relations. And it’s not so important that this reboot actually didn’t lead to anything: Americans live beautifully among their own myths and mirages, and if a person has an architect’s opinion of something, then be sure that this is how he will be perceived by an absolute majority. corresponding caste.
Another reason why we should seriously consider McFaul's rhetorical exercises is not just a criticism of a particular meeting, but in some ways even a programmatic statement. And if our forecast comes true, and McFaul really takes an important place on the American political scene, we will be ready in advance for how the prospective US democratic administration will build its relations with Russia.
So, Michael McFaul, in the pages of the authoritative American political publication Foreign Affairs, stated that the United States more than ever needs a new Russian strategy.
However, as it turns out from the text itself, it does not offer anything particularly new to the reader. Just in the beginning, he traditionally kicks Trump and the Republican administration, arguing that it has no strategy towards Russia. And if there is, says McFaul, then there are at least two of them, and they contradict each other: Trump wants to both harm Russia and at the same time come closer to it. Such inconsistency, according to the former ambassador, is not very clear and can hardly lead to ultimate success.
But the Democrats have such a strategy, according to McFaul, there is. He himself set it out a month ago on the pages of the same publication, which was not too lazy to remind now.
Among the elements of this strategy, an important place is given to the old, proven methods of pressure on Russia. In particular, feeding grants to “democratic journalists” and the media, supporting “free Ukraine” as a possible example for Russian society, consolidating the entire global “democratic community” against neo-imperial and even nationalist moves and provocations of Moscow.
Mr. McFaul sees the key task as “promoting democracy in Russia and its integration into the Western system”. What does not sound threatening, right? It is we, who have tasted the fruits of such encouragement and such integration for many years, and we understand what it really means. And for the American man in the street it sounds so cute: look, we wish you only good!
What price Russia will have to pay for such integration, one can only guess. But something can still be assumed: it is a rejection of nuclear weapons, to be convinced of our peacefulness, and, probably, the collapse of Russia, otherwise we are too big for real integration.
Of course, we can say that the author exaggerates, but in fact McFaul did not say anything like that. This is true, but "there are nuances." The Americans had a wonderful opportunity to integrate Russia of the nineties, so peaceful, in advance to all agree, even submissive. But no, it turned out that the matter does not go beyond conversations, and American politicians need the conversations themselves to put down the vigilance of the “integrable” object. In fact, the word “integration” seems to mean something else.
For example, cannibalism ...
The tale about supporting a democratic, prosperous Ukraine for the good of Russia itself is so old that I even find it difficult to determine its age. I remember exactly what was said about this on the first channel even at the time when Ukraine gained independence. Yes, some bearded political analyst after the Vremya program told us how great it would be if Ukraine “succeeds” and we will find a sort of alternative to Russia, to which, in which case, we can quickly throw ourselves, if Moscow things will not work out. And somehow it was by itself meant that we can throw away not only personally, but also whole edges and areas. So, Moscow, be alert and obedient, but in a moment you will remain without provinces ...
It seems that it was Maxim Sokolov. But I'm not one hundred percent sure. There were many of them then, the guardians of great Russia - from Biryulyovo to Bibirevo ...
Sorry for the small historical excursion. It is needed in order to understand that little has actually changed, and the whole “novelty” of the democratic strategy is only in what sauce they will try to devour us. Under Yeltsin, they tried under the wine, under Putin ...
Although not. Michael McFaul writes with regret that his “new” strategy is unlikely to bring quick results. And under Putin it is not necessary to expect. And even, probably, right after Putin. But then! ..
In fact, the strategy under discussion has acquired several new approaches, but all of them are only an adaptation to certain new challenges. In particular, a little more attention was given to social networks and the Internet, but it was specifically stated how the opposition should be conducted:
Every time an article or video supported by the Kremlin’s RT channel appears, BBC material should pop up next to them.
And you can treat Trump as you please, but against the background of this sultry Russophobia, who dreams of strangling Russia to death in her fake embrace, even his inconsistency, inconsistency, impulsivity look pretty. If only because a living person is guessed behind them, and not a ruthless, impassive bureaucratic machine, ready to grind with its paper jaws even a country, even a whole continent.
And to the “strategy” of McFaul, we will undoubtedly listen. And even conclusions will be made.
Relevant ...
Information