A very interesting project has recently been implemented in the USA. It is not strategically important, but it is interesting to us precisely as a factual phenomenon.
The Middlebury Institute for International Studies in Monterey has published one-hour interviews with eight former U.S. ambassadors in Moscow, from Jack Matlock to John Huntsman.
the, about what (And How) says the man, displays, at what level and how systemically does he think. As a result, we got a kind of psychological portrait of all eight ambassadors..
I would not publish such things at all, I was taught, that the psychological profile of your asset is classified information, undisclosed (because it allows you to "pick keys"). But since the Americans do, then it's a sin not to use.
Below is a short psychological profile of each based on what they said in these interviews. (in brackets years of work as ambassador to Russia).
Jack Matlock (1987-1991). Strategic thinking, reflection, work on bugs. Realistic assessment of the situation, calculating the actions of actors based on their interests and motivations, realpolitik.
Thomas Pickering (1993-1996). Thinking extremely focused on solving specific problems. Attempts at reflection, but, yet again, at the tactical level.
James Collins (1997-2001). Establishing personal contact is very important for this person., and he assesses all events from this point of view (very one-sided). The rudiments of reflection.
Alexander Vershbow (2001-2005). Concentrating on tactical "successes", without trying to assess their long-term consequences. Certain attempts at reflection, but with regard to exclusively other people's mistakes. In assessing the current situation, it is far from reality.
John Beyrle (2008-2012). Second after Matlock in terms of adequacy. Denies the effectiveness of sanctions, emphasizes the importance of dialogue and states the lack of a strategic understanding of its own long-term interests in the United States itself.
Michael McFaul (2012-2014). Trained monkey. No, this is not an attempt to offend - this is an assessment of intellectual abilities. McFaul's entire performance is a little over, which consists entirely of propaganda labels and clichés. Pearls such as "unfair arrest of Khodorkovsky" or violent attempts to deny that the CIA was running the protests (although no one asked him about it) betray an idiot. Independent thinking is absent as a phenomenon.
John Tefft (2014-2017). Specialist in escalating confrontation and color coups, and it is noticeable. At the same time, since Tefft remains an acting official, then all of him estimates are adjusted according to the current propaganda line. Complained, that his communication skills were limited, therefore, he did not have the opportunity to recruit governors or officials. Well, when a person broadcasts about the "growing KGB aggression", involved in the activities of the terrorist organization "Gladio" - it looks frankly funny.
John Huntsman (2017-2019). On the one hand, it seems like there are rudiments of reflection - he admits, that in fact it was the United States that, by its aggressive actions, contributed to the rapprochement between Russia and China. And even recognizes the lack of a long-term strategy in US actions. But at the same time he broadcasts about "traditional American values" (what is it?), which "need to be promoted", what the disconnect from reality demonstrates. After all, the current strategy of Washington is precisely the consistent destruction of "traditional values".
To the conclusions. In general, this study confirms my theses about the degradation of the Anglo-Saxon elites. If the first cited ambassadors demonstrate long-term strategic thinking and a developed capacity for reflection (it is very important), then the latter can only think at the level of "how to steal a salt shaker imperceptibly".
McFaul - Technologist, able only by rote to repeat recipes and instructions, developed by other. Tefft is not a diplomat, and the butcher, sharpened for the coordination of terrorist organizations.
And these are the best of the rest. Because Russia is a strategic direction, and in other countries "owners of soap factories" work as ambassadors., who just gave money for the campaign of the right candidate.
In assessing Russian realities, Americans rely either on the tales of "sausage emigrants", who left Russia decades ago and do not have the slightest idea about modern realities, or for the writings of professional grant-eaters, who have been writing for years “Riga is on the verge of collapse, give me money". Not you, no others, by definition, can give a picture, at least vaguely reminiscent of reality.
As i always say, "the worst, what can happen is when the analyst starts repeating the propagandists ". And in the USA, and in Britain (including a recent report by Rand) we see exactly this.
I think, you just need more LGBT activists in the highest positions of the American state - so they will win.
Please note that the following extremist and terrorist organizations, prohibited in the Russian Federation: "Jehovah witnesses", National Bolshevik Party, "Right sector", "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (oup), "Islamic State" (IG, IGIL, Dais), Djabhat Fath al-Sham ', "Dzhabhat en-Nusra", "Al-Qaeda", "UNA-UNSO", "Taliban", "Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people", "Mizantropik Divizhn", "Brotherhood" Korchynskoho, "Trident th. Stepan Bandera ", "Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists" (IU).
Alexander Rogers
