Mr Tefft and the New World Order
The American ambassador to Russia, John Tefft (John Tefft), who, unlike the emotional predecessor of Michael McFaul, has not yet been marked by a single scandal, was interviewed by the newspaper Kommersant. From the answers of Mr. Ambassador, it can be understood that he is glad to return to Russia: here he has many friends, relations with whom were formed in the last century. According to the ambassador, he has extensive diplomatic experience, and that is why the White House sent him to Moscow.
Recall, John Tefft (1949 b.) - career diplomat, previously worked in Lithuania, Georgia and Ukraine. It would be useful to quote the dates: he was ambassador to Georgia in 2005-2009; Ambassador to Ukraine - in 2009-2013
Tefftu had also served in Moscow in the “blessed” Yeltsin years. In 1996-1999 He served as Deputy Head of the US Diplomatic Mission in Russia.
In general, Tefft's career started in the seventies of the last century, that is, at the very height of the Cold War. So, the White House selected the most suitable candidate for scoring in Moscow the “policy of containment”.
However, thanks to the interview that John Tefft gave to a special correspondent "Kommersant" Elena Chernenko, more precisely, thanks to Mr. Ambassador’s ability to answer questions, an angel in the flesh appears before us, called upon by his very phenomenon in Moscow to calm unbridled Russians.
Tefft enjoyed his retirement holiday (since September 2013), when suddenly the Secretary of State, on behalf of Obama, asked him if he would like to go to Moscow. Tefft’s wife decided that “you shouldn’t refuse”: “This is important for the country. Now is a very difficult period in relations between the United States and Russia, and you have a lot of experience, and if the country's leadership believes that you need this work, then you shouldn’t refuse. ”
The couple came to Moscow with joy. Tefft says that “we are happy to return to Russia. Yes, this is obviously a difficult time in terms of politics, but we are glad to be in Moscow again. We have many friends here - since the 1990s, when I was the deputy ambassador ... ”
As for difficult times, the Cold War and other things, Mr. Tefft, in his words, has “great experience”, that’s why the president chose him. “It is a great honor to be the US ambassador to Russia,” the diplomat said.
The journalist could not resist the question of scandals. Which, in general, does not surprise: the predecessor of Tefft, Mr. McFaul, continually clung to something, for which he happened to have to apologize. “Do you specifically position yourself as the opposite of your former colleague, whom many have criticized here?” Asked the special correspondent of Kommersant.
“Do you need scandals?” Answered Tefft.
"Well, we will write about what ..."
Further, Tefft noted that each ambassador has his own character and style. And here the conversation turned to the goal that confronts Tefft in Moscow.
The ambassador "would like relations to be better than they are now." But this is hampered by "fundamental differences" in Ukraine. However, "many things in our bilateral relations continue to evolve." What kind of "things", the American did not specify. “Contacts between people continue,” he added, and explained that “I would like to expand these contacts.”
Tefft doesn’t like the viewpoint on the Ukrainian crisis, according to which the West is to blame for the expansion of NATO. Tefft believes that the North Atlantic Alliance, having expanded, thereby strengthened security in Europe. And the West (and Europe, and the USA) benefited from this. Moreover, Russia won. “I don’t think that NATO is a threat to Russia,” the ambassador said. “I know that in Russia some people think differently, but the point is that NATO is a defensive alliance.”
One of the questions was about the expected way out of the Ukrainian crisis. According to John Tefft, the plan could be to “implement the Minsk Agreement of September 5”. Poroshenko and Putin agreed on twelve steps, but if some were implemented, others did not. “The position of Washington, as well as of Berlin, London and Paris, lies in the fact that President Poroshenko fulfilled much of what he promised, and there are still many gaps on the Russian side,” said Tefft. And marked the "gaps": Russian weapon not exported from the territory of Ukraine; effective control is not ensured on the Russian-Ukrainian border; A number of other points are not fulfilled (without clarification). Now the main task of American and Western diplomacy in general is to ensure a stable cease-fire.
Regarding sanctions, Tefft said that the answer to the question of building them up "depends on the actions of the Russian authorities." “In Brisbane,” the diplomat reminded, “President Obama said that if Russia chooses a different path and respects Ukraine’s sovereignty and international law, he will be the first to propose lifting some sanctions”
But do sanctions work against Russia? According to the ambassador, they are acting "seriously": "I think that the sanctions, coupled with the decline in the Russian economy (which began even before the Ukrainian crisis) had a serious impact. You know the statistics on inflation and other indicators. At the same time, it seems to me that some of the counter-sanctions have harmed the citizens of Russia more than the measures imposed by the West. ”
To this, John Tefft added that the United States would like to "see a world order in which international law and the rule of law are respected." And he cited the words of Henry Kissinger, who called an unacceptable situation in which one country "cuts off a piece" of another (it does not matter for what reason). But this is exactly what happened in the Crimea, Tefft said. And he expressed the hope that Moscow will not cut off even a piece of the Ukrainian east.
From here, Tefft moved to the region. storiesas well as futurology. “We know the story,” he said. “But if countries simply begin to seize foreign territories, we will return to the realities of the 19th and 20th centuries.” And we want to build a new world order in the 21st century. That is why Russia's actions have caused such a strong rejection - and not only in the United States, around the world and above all in Europe. Europe wants to live in peace and stability. Without revanchism and bloodshed of past centuries. We share this dream. ”
Under the new world order, the diplomat understands a world in which there will be neither territorial conflicts, nor wars, and people will live in safety.
Then the diplomat offered Russia some points of contact in geopolitics: “I personally would like us to cooperate more in the Middle East - in the fight against the“ Islamic state ”in Syria. In my opinion, the joint efforts of our two countries in this area could produce amazing results that would meet the interests of both parties. ”
However, the US will not forget about the Ukrainian crisis: “This does not mean that we just take and forget about Ukraine. This is a problem and must be solved. I am convinced that the implementation of the Minsk Agreement would allow to stop the bloodshed and find a way out of the crisis. ”
The last question concerned the sensitive issue of the special services. The journalist recalled that in the American press there were reports that employees of the US embassy in Moscow were under pressure from the Russian special services: someone allegedly hacked the mail, and someone pierced the tire.
Neither about tires, nor about mail, nor about spies and agents, nor about any pressure at all, John Tefft did not say a word. He replied wisely: “... the safety of diplomatic staff is guaranteed by the Vienna Convention. We are sent here by the leadership of our country to understand Russia and represent the United States in a dialogue with Russia. I have a great team here at the embassy: these are people who want to be in Russia and cooperate with it, and I hope that they will have the opportunity to just do their work. ”
So, in the ability to give clear answers to the questions Tefft does not blame. How can you not blame in the absence of diplomatic experience. Here, the new ambassador is really very different from the "romance" McFaul, the ideologist of the "reset", who was amazed at the time by the "anti-Americanism" of Moscow.
At the same time, the line chosen by the State Department for its envoy is not without weak points, and both sides (and the United States, Russia) probably understand this.
Firstly, the point of view condemning “revanchism” (for example, in the form of the Crimea) looks unconvincing where the question of the collapse of the USSR, which the United States once welcomed, falls. Washington is pleased with everything that weakens his geopolitical adversary, and this is a very common fact. Washington is upsetting that the enemy is strengthening.
Secondly, NATO’s concern for peace and security looks so touching after the bombings of Libya or Yugoslavia (a couple of examples will suffice). “I don’t think that NATO poses any threat to Russia,” the ambassador said. “I know that in Russia some people think differently, but the point is that NATO is a defensive alliance.” The only trouble is that it is not Russia that surrounds the NATO countries with its bases, but NATO is spreading across Europe. It is unlikely that the alliance is going to attack the Russian Federation - rather, we are talking about the growing appetites of the bourgeois masters of the military-industrial complex. Nevertheless, the rapid expansion of the block to the east cannot but disturb Moscow. Over the last decade of the last century and the past years of the new century, 12 states have entered NATO!
Thirdly, the opinion on the cooperation of Washington and Moscow in the Middle East, aimed at fighting the “Islamic State” (in Syria), contains as many as two inconsistencies. The “Arab Spring” is a “democratic” brainchild, fostered by the United States. What the color revolutions lead to and who prepares them, Tefft with his Georgian and Ukrainian experience can not explain. And since he is a connoisseur of history, let him better remember how the White House rejoiced at the election of Islamist M. Mursi in Egypt and how it ended.
The Islamic State is a product of unhealthy American politics in the Middle East. And the Russians, according to Tefft, apparently must now rake the crap at the State Department, the Pentagon and the CIA. In addition, Russia in Syria stands for Assad, and the United States is against it. The Assad army would be the best to fight terrorists from the IG, but it was not only the American administration that did not want to deal with it, but also wanted to defeat it with the force of “moderate opposition”.
“IG” is a product of chaos that has been arranged by Americans in the region since the invasion of Iraq, and intensified since 2010, when the first signs of the “Arab spring” appeared. This is a kind of "al-Qaeda" number two (the first, by the way, also spawned Washington - in the eighties in Afghanistan). And it is not surprising that al-Qaeda and the IG recently concluded an agreement on fraternal assistance in Syrian affairs.
With such a policy, when America, “knowing history,” honors the ideals of the “new world order,” and dreams of stability (read: a unipolar world), Russia is not hard to find a point of contact with it, but impossible.
Recall, John Tefft (1949 b.) - career diplomat, previously worked in Lithuania, Georgia and Ukraine. It would be useful to quote the dates: he was ambassador to Georgia in 2005-2009; Ambassador to Ukraine - in 2009-2013
Tefftu had also served in Moscow in the “blessed” Yeltsin years. In 1996-1999 He served as Deputy Head of the US Diplomatic Mission in Russia.
In general, Tefft's career started in the seventies of the last century, that is, at the very height of the Cold War. So, the White House selected the most suitable candidate for scoring in Moscow the “policy of containment”.
However, thanks to the interview that John Tefft gave to a special correspondent "Kommersant" Elena Chernenko, more precisely, thanks to Mr. Ambassador’s ability to answer questions, an angel in the flesh appears before us, called upon by his very phenomenon in Moscow to calm unbridled Russians.
Tefft enjoyed his retirement holiday (since September 2013), when suddenly the Secretary of State, on behalf of Obama, asked him if he would like to go to Moscow. Tefft’s wife decided that “you shouldn’t refuse”: “This is important for the country. Now is a very difficult period in relations between the United States and Russia, and you have a lot of experience, and if the country's leadership believes that you need this work, then you shouldn’t refuse. ”
The couple came to Moscow with joy. Tefft says that “we are happy to return to Russia. Yes, this is obviously a difficult time in terms of politics, but we are glad to be in Moscow again. We have many friends here - since the 1990s, when I was the deputy ambassador ... ”
As for difficult times, the Cold War and other things, Mr. Tefft, in his words, has “great experience”, that’s why the president chose him. “It is a great honor to be the US ambassador to Russia,” the diplomat said.
The journalist could not resist the question of scandals. Which, in general, does not surprise: the predecessor of Tefft, Mr. McFaul, continually clung to something, for which he happened to have to apologize. “Do you specifically position yourself as the opposite of your former colleague, whom many have criticized here?” Asked the special correspondent of Kommersant.
“Do you need scandals?” Answered Tefft.
"Well, we will write about what ..."
Further, Tefft noted that each ambassador has his own character and style. And here the conversation turned to the goal that confronts Tefft in Moscow.
The ambassador "would like relations to be better than they are now." But this is hampered by "fundamental differences" in Ukraine. However, "many things in our bilateral relations continue to evolve." What kind of "things", the American did not specify. “Contacts between people continue,” he added, and explained that “I would like to expand these contacts.”
Tefft doesn’t like the viewpoint on the Ukrainian crisis, according to which the West is to blame for the expansion of NATO. Tefft believes that the North Atlantic Alliance, having expanded, thereby strengthened security in Europe. And the West (and Europe, and the USA) benefited from this. Moreover, Russia won. “I don’t think that NATO is a threat to Russia,” the ambassador said. “I know that in Russia some people think differently, but the point is that NATO is a defensive alliance.”
One of the questions was about the expected way out of the Ukrainian crisis. According to John Tefft, the plan could be to “implement the Minsk Agreement of September 5”. Poroshenko and Putin agreed on twelve steps, but if some were implemented, others did not. “The position of Washington, as well as of Berlin, London and Paris, lies in the fact that President Poroshenko fulfilled much of what he promised, and there are still many gaps on the Russian side,” said Tefft. And marked the "gaps": Russian weapon not exported from the territory of Ukraine; effective control is not ensured on the Russian-Ukrainian border; A number of other points are not fulfilled (without clarification). Now the main task of American and Western diplomacy in general is to ensure a stable cease-fire.
Regarding sanctions, Tefft said that the answer to the question of building them up "depends on the actions of the Russian authorities." “In Brisbane,” the diplomat reminded, “President Obama said that if Russia chooses a different path and respects Ukraine’s sovereignty and international law, he will be the first to propose lifting some sanctions”
But do sanctions work against Russia? According to the ambassador, they are acting "seriously": "I think that the sanctions, coupled with the decline in the Russian economy (which began even before the Ukrainian crisis) had a serious impact. You know the statistics on inflation and other indicators. At the same time, it seems to me that some of the counter-sanctions have harmed the citizens of Russia more than the measures imposed by the West. ”
To this, John Tefft added that the United States would like to "see a world order in which international law and the rule of law are respected." And he cited the words of Henry Kissinger, who called an unacceptable situation in which one country "cuts off a piece" of another (it does not matter for what reason). But this is exactly what happened in the Crimea, Tefft said. And he expressed the hope that Moscow will not cut off even a piece of the Ukrainian east.
From here, Tefft moved to the region. storiesas well as futurology. “We know the story,” he said. “But if countries simply begin to seize foreign territories, we will return to the realities of the 19th and 20th centuries.” And we want to build a new world order in the 21st century. That is why Russia's actions have caused such a strong rejection - and not only in the United States, around the world and above all in Europe. Europe wants to live in peace and stability. Without revanchism and bloodshed of past centuries. We share this dream. ”
Under the new world order, the diplomat understands a world in which there will be neither territorial conflicts, nor wars, and people will live in safety.
Then the diplomat offered Russia some points of contact in geopolitics: “I personally would like us to cooperate more in the Middle East - in the fight against the“ Islamic state ”in Syria. In my opinion, the joint efforts of our two countries in this area could produce amazing results that would meet the interests of both parties. ”
However, the US will not forget about the Ukrainian crisis: “This does not mean that we just take and forget about Ukraine. This is a problem and must be solved. I am convinced that the implementation of the Minsk Agreement would allow to stop the bloodshed and find a way out of the crisis. ”
The last question concerned the sensitive issue of the special services. The journalist recalled that in the American press there were reports that employees of the US embassy in Moscow were under pressure from the Russian special services: someone allegedly hacked the mail, and someone pierced the tire.
Neither about tires, nor about mail, nor about spies and agents, nor about any pressure at all, John Tefft did not say a word. He replied wisely: “... the safety of diplomatic staff is guaranteed by the Vienna Convention. We are sent here by the leadership of our country to understand Russia and represent the United States in a dialogue with Russia. I have a great team here at the embassy: these are people who want to be in Russia and cooperate with it, and I hope that they will have the opportunity to just do their work. ”
So, in the ability to give clear answers to the questions Tefft does not blame. How can you not blame in the absence of diplomatic experience. Here, the new ambassador is really very different from the "romance" McFaul, the ideologist of the "reset", who was amazed at the time by the "anti-Americanism" of Moscow.
At the same time, the line chosen by the State Department for its envoy is not without weak points, and both sides (and the United States, Russia) probably understand this.
Firstly, the point of view condemning “revanchism” (for example, in the form of the Crimea) looks unconvincing where the question of the collapse of the USSR, which the United States once welcomed, falls. Washington is pleased with everything that weakens his geopolitical adversary, and this is a very common fact. Washington is upsetting that the enemy is strengthening.
Secondly, NATO’s concern for peace and security looks so touching after the bombings of Libya or Yugoslavia (a couple of examples will suffice). “I don’t think that NATO poses any threat to Russia,” the ambassador said. “I know that in Russia some people think differently, but the point is that NATO is a defensive alliance.” The only trouble is that it is not Russia that surrounds the NATO countries with its bases, but NATO is spreading across Europe. It is unlikely that the alliance is going to attack the Russian Federation - rather, we are talking about the growing appetites of the bourgeois masters of the military-industrial complex. Nevertheless, the rapid expansion of the block to the east cannot but disturb Moscow. Over the last decade of the last century and the past years of the new century, 12 states have entered NATO!
Thirdly, the opinion on the cooperation of Washington and Moscow in the Middle East, aimed at fighting the “Islamic State” (in Syria), contains as many as two inconsistencies. The “Arab Spring” is a “democratic” brainchild, fostered by the United States. What the color revolutions lead to and who prepares them, Tefft with his Georgian and Ukrainian experience can not explain. And since he is a connoisseur of history, let him better remember how the White House rejoiced at the election of Islamist M. Mursi in Egypt and how it ended.
The Islamic State is a product of unhealthy American politics in the Middle East. And the Russians, according to Tefft, apparently must now rake the crap at the State Department, the Pentagon and the CIA. In addition, Russia in Syria stands for Assad, and the United States is against it. The Assad army would be the best to fight terrorists from the IG, but it was not only the American administration that did not want to deal with it, but also wanted to defeat it with the force of “moderate opposition”.
“IG” is a product of chaos that has been arranged by Americans in the region since the invasion of Iraq, and intensified since 2010, when the first signs of the “Arab spring” appeared. This is a kind of "al-Qaeda" number two (the first, by the way, also spawned Washington - in the eighties in Afghanistan). And it is not surprising that al-Qaeda and the IG recently concluded an agreement on fraternal assistance in Syrian affairs.
With such a policy, when America, “knowing history,” honors the ideals of the “new world order,” and dreams of stability (read: a unipolar world), Russia is not hard to find a point of contact with it, but impossible.
Observed and commented on Oleg Chuvakin
- especially for topwar.ru
- especially for topwar.ru
Information