The US reaction to the expulsion of diplomats from Russia was not long in coming
Employees of the US Consulate General in St. Petersburg are exporting things. Reportedly, 20 boxes of pizza were ordered to the building on Furshtatskaya Street, which the US representatives are due to leave. One of the Petersburgers gave the Americans a “gift to the table,” throwing a glass of coffee into the building. A farewell party will have to be arranged for those who work in a mansion in Grodno Lane.
But the leadership of the United States itself is clearly dissatisfied with the Russian decision to give an adequate response to overtly hostile steps towards Moscow. They believe that Russia is exceeding mirror measures, closing the consulate general in St. Petersburg. And in general, as the official representative of the US Department of State, Heather Nauert, said that with such steps Russia "is on the path of self-isolation."
- said Nauert (of course, continuing without any shame to repeat the false and unsubstantiated accusation of London against Moscow).
The State Department considers the Russian decision to give an answer to the expulsion of 60 diplomats from Washington “without justification.” In addition, the administration of US President Donald Trump condemned this response. The White House’s special statement on this subject says that in this way Russian-American relations are getting worse.
The American press is also dissatisfied. Here is what one of the most famous editions, The New York Times writes:
Thus, senior officials in Washington seek to repeat (in other words) the boorish statement of British Secretary of Defense Gavin Williamson, who said that Russia should "leave and shut up." But the trouble is that Russia “doesn’t shut up,” but it can very well give back. Now, in addition to closing the US Consulate General in St. Petersburg, 58 embassy employees in Moscow and two consulate general workers in Yekaterinburg will have to leave Russia.
The question remains: did Washington, in anticipation of fueling a conflict with Russia, believe that the latter would "wipe itself out"? Or did those who made such a decision assume that the case will end as it was in December 2016? Then the administration of the outgoing US President Barack Obama sent 35 Russian diplomats as a “farewell gesture”. The Russian Foreign Ministry proposed to take similar measures, but Russian President Vladimir Putin decided otherwise. As a result, American diplomats were not only not sent, but also invited their families to the New Year tree.
It was a gesture of friendship with respect to the recently elected (at that time) Donald Trump: then in Russia they counted on the normalization of Russian-American relations. However, instead of normalizing, we get the opposite. So opposite that even the UN Secretary General Antoniu Gutterrish expresses concern.
- declared Gutterrish. He added that there are differences: in that period, nevertheless, both powers - the USSR and the USA - "retained full control over the situation." Now there are other players who are "relatively independent." It’s interesting, did the UN Secretary General mean the same Britain, which brewed this “mess”, which the whole world is now shedding and can’t siphon for a month?
But the leadership of the United States itself is clearly dissatisfied with the Russian decision to give an adequate response to overtly hostile steps towards Moscow. They believe that Russia is exceeding mirror measures, closing the consulate general in St. Petersburg. And in general, as the official representative of the US Department of State, Heather Nauert, said that with such steps Russia "is on the path of self-isolation."
As I understand it, Russia intends to take similar measures in relation to 28 other countries that have expressed solidarity with the UK. Russia itself isolates itself, continuing to shamelessly ignore the fact of a chemical attack
- said Nauert (of course, continuing without any shame to repeat the false and unsubstantiated accusation of London against Moscow).
The State Department considers the Russian decision to give an answer to the expulsion of 60 diplomats from Washington “without justification.” In addition, the administration of US President Donald Trump condemned this response. The White House’s special statement on this subject says that in this way Russian-American relations are getting worse.
The American press is also dissatisfied. Here is what one of the most famous editions, The New York Times writes:
The Kremlin exceeded the equivalent US response and ordered the closure of the US consulate in St. Petersburg, Russia's second largest city. This consulate is larger and much more important for relations than the Russian Consulate in Seattle
Thus, senior officials in Washington seek to repeat (in other words) the boorish statement of British Secretary of Defense Gavin Williamson, who said that Russia should "leave and shut up." But the trouble is that Russia “doesn’t shut up,” but it can very well give back. Now, in addition to closing the US Consulate General in St. Petersburg, 58 embassy employees in Moscow and two consulate general workers in Yekaterinburg will have to leave Russia.
The question remains: did Washington, in anticipation of fueling a conflict with Russia, believe that the latter would "wipe itself out"? Or did those who made such a decision assume that the case will end as it was in December 2016? Then the administration of the outgoing US President Barack Obama sent 35 Russian diplomats as a “farewell gesture”. The Russian Foreign Ministry proposed to take similar measures, but Russian President Vladimir Putin decided otherwise. As a result, American diplomats were not only not sent, but also invited their families to the New Year tree.
It was a gesture of friendship with respect to the recently elected (at that time) Donald Trump: then in Russia they counted on the normalization of Russian-American relations. However, instead of normalizing, we get the opposite. So opposite that even the UN Secretary General Antoniu Gutterrish expresses concern.
I am very concerned. I see that we are returning to a situation that is largely similar to the one that existed during the Cold War
- declared Gutterrish. He added that there are differences: in that period, nevertheless, both powers - the USSR and the USA - "retained full control over the situation." Now there are other players who are "relatively independent." It’s interesting, did the UN Secretary General mean the same Britain, which brewed this “mess”, which the whole world is now shedding and can’t siphon for a month?
Information