Before making landmark visits to foreign countries, high-ranking officials traditionally give interviews to the media of the inviting state. As a rule, officials have a serious approach to the choice of the media. Hillary Clinton chose New Times magazine from all Russian mass media on the threshold of her visit to Russia on March 18-19. The circulation of the magazine makes up 50,000 copies.
One may assume that the secretary of state is not the president and the USA is not the Universe: the circulation of the magazine seems to be adequate at this point.
Most likely, the choice was not based on size of the audience. During her first visit to Moscow (as an official, in October 2009) Mrs. Clinton believed that an interview to the Echo of Moscow radio station would not be shameful for her status.
The choice is obviously based on the political orientation (the marginal opposition) and the profile specialization (professionally exceptionable exposure of the “Kremlin regime”).
We would like to believe that Mrs. Clinton and her team simply mixed up two Russian words – ‘reset’ and ‘overcharge’. We would not like to think, though, that they made another unfortunate mistake again this time and mixed up New Times and the Moscow Times, etc. That would mean that US officials have poor knowledge of the country that they conduct negotiations with.
It goes about a serious message here, an action, if you like. What if Russian President Medvedev chose a website of an independent party, rather than Fox Channel for an interview prior to his official visit to the USA? What if he made such an unfortunate mistake?
The point of the decision of the US official can be formulated as follows: the specific publication would be presented to the American media and political communities as a “reliable” source expressing an “objective” look at the events. However, we have to take account of a different factor here. If Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov did the same, US officials would say that he made a ridiculous attempt to play on some political issues and the like.
At any rate, the US State Department decided to use ridiculous games of Russian fringe politicians in an intention to show which “powerful” levels it was going to have involved. The State Department also discovered the quality of the “moral position” and the professional level of those, whom it would like to rely on in Russia.
The editor-in-chief of New Times asked Hillary Clinton, how she would respond to the letter, which was sent to Barack Obama from his political adversaries. The letter was written by Obama’s political adversaries in close cooperation with the editor of the magazine and his associates.
To put it in a nutshell, the “Democratic” State Department has found itself in the wrong boat after it decided to participate in Russia’s home politics. The Department addressed to the part of the Russian “opposition” and “human rights activists” who do not even try to conceal their cooperation with the US Republican opposition. The latter dream to wipe their boots on Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and their party either during the elections to the US Congress or the next presidential election in the States.