US Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul: Anti-diplomatic diplomat

The U.S. Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul is tirelessly surprising the Foreign Ministry. His last speech before the students at High School of Economics may go down in textbooks of anti-diplomacy. He told the students that Russia had bribed Kyrgyzstan to make them throw the Americans out of Manas. He complained that the US also offered Bishkek a bribe in order to keep its air base at Manas, but it was ten times smaller than the Russian one.

He said that Russia exchanged Iran for Georgia, missile defense system in Europe for Central Asia, North Korea for human rights in Russia.

The authorities accepted the last speech of McFaul as a familiar evil: "This is not the first time that the statements and actions of Mr. McFaul, who takes such a responsible position, cause confusion. The task of ambassadors, as we understand it, is to promote sustained development of bilateral relations with the host country based on a thorough knowledge of the facts, rather than frustrated replication of tales in the media space. "

The tone of the notes of the Russian Foreign Ministry deserves attention. Instead of charging - calm down your ambassador - the U.S. State Department is given a lofty explanation about the "progressive development of bilateral relations," and pointed to inadmissibility of "arrogance."

This is customary for the diplomats - before taking measures they meticulously weigh their options as in foreign policy wrong words may come at a high price. But the point is that the McFaul is a "fake" diplomat, according to the admission of Victoria Nuland, the official representative of the U.S. State Department: "We (the professional diplomats) have been taught to go around, and he (McFaul) simply says what he sees and we will have to put up with it."

Russia certainly has some respect for the work in the style "I say what I see." Russia is a "wild country", according to yet another famous statement of McFaul, so why the ceremony?

The benefit for Russia is obvious here. For example, if it was not for McFaul, we would only wonder why America is going to "reset" the relations, and he said it out loud: the reset does not mean a desire to make the relations good, it is a desire to make them meaningful."

He was also vocal about the missile defense system in Europe, where "no restrictions are acceptable." If it was not for the U.S. Ambassador, we would have long conversations with the Americans, hoping to make concessions, and he immediately said what Russia has nothing to wait for here.

There are no maintenance costs of such an informant because he lives on the State Department's money. There is no need to send a messenger either because he stated that he worked all day and every day at 10pm he started his social networks activity.

As for a rendezvous of McFaul with the opposition and his openly "hostile" aphorisms, everything is logical here. First, every intelligence officer must have a cover. Secondly, acting absolutely openly, McFaul signals who else is on his side.

Mikhail Sinelnikov

Pravda.Ru 

Read the original in Russian