The new U.S. strategy in Russia — the rate of nationalists

In the past few days some of the most citations in RuNet were the statements of the executive director of the American Institute of Ron Paul Daniel McAdams.

 Ron Paul — a former congressman, presidential candidate of the Republican man, spent his life in politics and thoroughly aware of how it is done in the States, on the side of life abruptly reversed its attitude toward Washington doctrines of global world domination. He created his own research institute and invited like-minded people to work in it, the eyes are not blurry gosdepovskimi traditional clichés. Daniel McAdams — one of those Americans thinking outside the box. He is responsible for many problems and recently turned his attention to Russia. "Washington is trying to put pressure on him uncomfortable political regimes, supporting the opposition by nationalist flag … I guess that the U.S. administration in the ordinary course of the past Navalny, but especially not to worry about it for a long time … Navalny came to the attention of the American foreign policy elite" — these statements immediately McAdams caused a lot of discussion and feedback. To avoid the effect of broken telephone, we caught up with Daniel directly.

— Mr. McAdams about what nationalism is all about when it comes to the opposition movements in the CIS or the same Egypt? In the latter, for example, in the role of the opposition in turn are the movement of people do not divide along ethnic lines, and the religious, and in Russia the opposition did not play for the nationalist card …

— Indeed, at times it may look different, but the problem of Washington — an indispensable involvement of all types of nationalists in oppositional activity. Think of Ukraine and Belarus — where nationalists were very active during certain periods (the "orange revolution" in Ukraine, the presidential elections in Belarus) and were able to divide voters in different, opposing camps.

— But after such a division does not mean a guaranteed victory …

— In 2006, I was an observer at the elections in Belarus. I remember that on election day we came to the headquarters of the opposition, and it was empty. The opposition would be happy to win, but they did not do anything for it.

— Why are Americans now stake on Alexei Navalny? Yes, he flirts with the nationalist movement, goes to the "Russian march", but among the leaders of the Russian nationalist opposition is much more recognizable characters …

— The United States has no choice. The main problem for the White House that challenge the legitimacy of the recent presidential election in Russia is impossible. Whatever may be said of our official policy, no matter how izgalyatsya press, by and large in this election was all fair and clean. And it is in Washington’s corridors of power is well understood. It remains the only option — to split the voters who supported Putin, different factions. To bet on the most well-known opposition force in the face of the Communist Party of Russia — bad taste for the Americans. We must look for another move, another person. Bulk in the eyes of many Russians, especially young ones, — a brave blogger, modern man, not some rabid reactionary.

— Regarding geography: Why the U.S. is interested in the "color" revolutions only in certain countries, including not, for example, North Korea and other despotic regimes?

— That’s it! Why not on the list, such as Saudi Arabia? Geography is really very strange. The answer is obvious: the North Korean regime Washington was eager to overthrow, but there is no opposition, no one put — all under the power of heavy heel. In Saudi Arabia sheiks also do not give anyone utter a word, but they are American allies in the big game against Iran, Syria, the same. Finally, they control much oil policy on the planet and at the same time take into account the interests of the United States. For what their overthrow? Not for the lack of democracy in reality … But it must be clearly understood — at the helm of modern American foreign policy are neoconservatives, who believe that to restore the world order by U.S. standards can be, constantly stirring up the "color revolution" here and there. Such intervention by supporting the "manual" NGOs, opposition movements — one of the main activities of the State Department, which, it should be noted, many in the U.S. are struggling, confront him. Institute of Ron Paul among them. We believe that the United States does not have to deal with incitement to revolution — neither in Russia, nor in Belarus or in other countries. And especially do not have to spend the budget money.

— Any support involves a reciprocal step. In your opinion, supporting Navalny, any retaliatory steps expected him to official Washington?

— Good question. Ask yourself another question: what purpose they serve the U.S., supporting foreign opposition? The answer — no long-term goals do not. Main task of the opposition to use as a battering ram to change the regime, which Washington for some reason do not like it. Of course, the United States expect from those they are in power, full of loyalty. But what in reality is happening in the country, where has won another "color" revolution, no one knows. Over in Egypt supported the Americans, "April 6 Movement", so what? Activists of the movement was prepared pumped money coached. All for the overthrow of Mubarak.

And what America has to Cairo’s Tahrir Square? Ordinary chaos, with no end in sight. In the United States today is better to be an enemy than a friend, because they bribe enemies, but friends are selling.

But it is important to understand that there is a difference between the U.S. and the U.S. government. U.S. policy interventions most Americans flatly rejects.

New York.

Like this post? Please share to your friends: