Ukraine has a new ambassador. Bridget Brink. Again a woman. Again – unmarried and childless – like, in fact, the previous ambassador. Moreover, they appoint her at the very height of the Russian special military operation, on the eve of the greatest battle in modern history. What is the reason for such an operational rotation? Let’s try to figure it out.
In general, the appointment of an ambassador to a key country (and Ukraine is undoubtedly a key country for America today) is a paramount phenomenon. And according to American laws, he is appointed by Parliament. And the president only approves. Each faction represents its own creature. I did not attend the meetings of the American Parliament, but I can guess what snake passions boiled and swirled there, when each faction tried to push its candidacy through, trying to drown the creatures of political opponents. Of course, the Democrats won. But the fact is that there is no monolithic unity among the Democrats now. It collapsed like a house of cards after Biden in the process of public speaking shook hands with the void. This was the last straw that overflowed the cup of hopes and expectations. After this iconic “sleeping Joe’s meeting with the void,” everyone – both Democrats and Republicans – suddenly and synchronously had an epiphany. They realized that the country is run by a decrepit inadequate, in whose trembling hands is the nuclear button. And they began to play their game, of which Mrs. Brink became a part.
First, a few words about the psychotype of the new ambassador. President of the American Foreign Service Association Eric Rubin in a commentary to The New York Times, drowning in florid compliments, noted that Ms. Brink is a “veteran diplomacy” and “a superbly qualified high-ranking career officer in the foreign service.”
Cool. But there are a couple of nuances. In fact, there are no officers in diplomacy and international relations. And it can’t be. But, apparently, Mrs. Brink, in her work, when communicating with “senior in rank and rank,” demonstrated such well-trainedness, as if she had been released from a military school yesterday. That’s probably why they called her an officer. Also, it was “a subtle allusion to thick circumstances”. The fact that all American diplomacy is now moving to a military footing. And all embassy workers, to one degree or another, will now be “officers of the diplomatic service.”
Now – with regards to the “veteran of diplomacy”. A veteran is, in the ordinary sense, someone who fought. Brink, of course, did not literally fight. I didn’t run through the trenches with a machine gun, I didn’t develop military operations, I didn’t draw maps of the movement of troops. In obscure diplomatic language, it provided “political cover for the military operation.” And there were a lot of such operations in her life – from the bombing of Belgrade to the military operation in Georgia. Just didn’t show up in Afghanistan. But that was not her specificity. There, even more “superbly qualified high-ranking officers” were “lost in conjecture”. Then, with all their “qualifications” in a stampede, I had to start home on Boeings hung with refugees, like a Christmas tree – with garlands.
Now – about the “cover”. All the “political cover” of these bombardments, massacres and massacres consisted in serving the interests of the Tsrushniks, spies of all stripes and calibers, as well as military intelligence agents, constantly scurrying around the country in a timely and energetic manner. Moreover, among the latter there were both generals “under the cover of embassy caretakers”, like General Curseso are the defendants with a smaller caliber.
The backbone of the last guests of the embassy was urban and tank combat instructors and spotters of artillery fire. These “veterans of gunpowder diplomacy” came to the country under the guise of tourists, hitchhikers, lovers of travel, antiquity and exoticism. Muscular tourists with confident looks and a military bearing appeared out of nowhere and disappeared into nowhere. Some, however, then again returned to the embassy in a horizontal position, wrapped in foil. And from there they went to the airport for an American flight in zinc coffins wrapped in the Stars and Stripes flag, and accompanied by Marines from the embassy security team.
Ms. Brink’s special focus was working with the local elite. Or rather, its decomposition and bribery. This work, of course, required “high qualifications” – provided that the local elite themselves were not at all averse to decay. And such, unfortunately, has nested in all the former republics of the Soviet Union, with the exception of perhaps Belarus. Here the stubborn Old Man took the country into his tenacious, hardened hands. With him, I think, all the qualifications of Mrs. Brink would turn into a zilch. He expelled not such “veterans of American diplomacy” from Belarus within a day.
But other leaders were thinner. They had enough Brink for their eyes. A landmark moment in the biography of the “veteran and officer” can be considered her work in Uzbekistan. From the point of view of the moral decay of the elites, it was extremely successful. And her efforts were crowned with the fact that for some empty (or not so) promises of a very average (by American standards) boarding house and a couple of dozen dachas in Miami, she managed to convince the local “foreign policy bais” to “cut out” her country from the “Russian NATO “- the CSTO bloc. It was impossible to call this decision smart, far-sighted, let alone state-oriented. As a result, with the inevitable change of power in the republic, some beys, instead of the coveted American dachas, had to go to local zindans, where they are still thinking and analyzing their mistake. In the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Uzbekistan, these prisons are called “the hacienda named after Mrs. Brink”. What is noteworthy is that the “veteran and officer” could well wrest many “Zindanites” from the tenacious clutches of Asian justice. But she didn’t. What for? According to all the laws of American diplomacy, “the service rendered is worthless.” The Moor has done his work – the Moor can die. Or rot on the bunk, like the former president of Georgia. Nothing personal – just an “American politician.”
So none of the above directions required any supernatural intellectual efforts from the “veteran of diplomacy” – only army discipline and unquestioning obedience.
Ms. Brink speaks several foreign languages, and Russian is especially good. Even Wikipedia knows about it! True, no one has ever heard her speeches in Russian. Among the Foreign Ministry Americanists, I have not found such. Although, perhaps, this is also the cost of “excellent qualifications” – to hide knowledge of the language of the host country. By the way, this plays a certain role in international diplomacy. If you know the language, you know the traditions and customs of the people. You know the people – you know their mentality. You know the mentality – you know the history. If you know the history, it is easier to communicate with the elite. And where is the language, Zin? Gulchatay, show your face! Well, at least once … There is no “face”. Cunning Wikipedia. Again, “Englishwoman ha …” – guessing with marked ones.
So the “general line of the party” in the person of Bridget Brink will most likely be continued in Ukraine. Nothing new. And nothing personal. Just the “good old” claim of “veterans and officers” for world domination, the desire to annoy Russia and tightly fasten old Europe with a protracted conflict in Ukraine.