US Secretary of Defense Mark Esper missed an excuse to remain silent. Live on Fox News, he said that the United States is moving its troops closer to Russia, so that everything that is happening now with the American group in Germany and around it is a regrouping with the aim of a more complete and comprehensive containment of Moscow.

This statement briefly hit the top news both in our country and in the West. This was partly due to the activity of the media from Fox News. From an exclusive interview given by Esper to presenter Janine Pirro, they made a “sensation cut” - about Afghanistan, about the South China Sea, about the explosion in Beirut ... and about containing Russia. It is not surprising that it was the last fragment that aroused the greatest interest in Russia.

Meanwhile, talking about containing Moscow was completely optional in the interview, even if, for some editorial or political reasons, Fox News could not but discuss the possible withdrawal of part of the American contingent from Germany. From the point of view of big politics, it was even stupid.

Analysts have different views on Esper's loyalty to the current owner of the White House. Someone says that he is loyal to the head of state, while others suspect him of trying to distance himself from the supreme commander on a number of issues. But Janine Pirro's loyalty to Donald Trump is beyond doubt. She put her reputation on the line by supporting the president. Her articles, television appearances and speeches at conferences, her books of recent years are a continuous apologetics for Trump and a loud call for heavenly punishment on the heads of his enemies.

Therefore, it was especially strange to hear from her a question about Russia in connection with the planned redeployment of American troops and headquarters in Europe. And it was not just a question, but a very carefully constructed leading question - they say, is it true that the Kremlin will only get worse from the decisions made (so it doesn't even have to rejoice in the reduction of the US presence in Europe), since the valiant United States Armed Forces are only closer move closer to the borders of Russia? Mark Esper answered almost reflexively: yes, yes, this is all being done to contain Russia. Then the head of the Pentagon came to his senses and began to retell in detail the well-known point of view of the White House on the military spending of NATO allies - pay more or stop pulling Uncle Sam's sleeve.

Now about why it was a big stupidity, both strategically and tactically. The fact is that, from the point of view of Trump himself and all the ideologues of Trumpism, China is the main enemy of the United States. Broadly speaking, the impending Cold War with China has already become the subject of a bipartisan consensus in the United States. Different factions and interest groups see it differently, but everyone agrees with the fact that it is inevitable.

And although the doctrinal documents of the current American administration call Moscow and Beijing the same - "revisionist powers" - and are recognized as global opponents, "the question of Russia" remains open.

No, there is no talk of fraternal friendship, but in the fight against China's growing global influence, any tactical allies, fellow travelers, and even just passively sympathizers would be useful. Almost all reputable American foreign policy publications write that Russia should be drawn in one form or another into the fight against China. Their voices are often not heard by the general public behind the loud yells of CNN and the outrageous exclamations of The New York Times, but that does not mean that they are not listened to in the White House. Moreover, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and Donald Trump himself, and his adviser on the issue spoke with indirect (sometimes clumsy) hints that Moscow could be "useful to the free world" if it took its side in the new Cold War. National Security Agency Robert O'Brien. Not to mention influential conservative publicists.

For the sake of justice, it should be noted that the Chinese comrades are constantly hinting at the same - they say, Moscow could be more active in the "main strategic confrontation of the 21st century."

Of course, on the side of Beijing. This is not mentioned (yet) in the statements of the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party. But on the pages of the multilingual publications People's Daily, The Global Times and others under his control, they talk about this often and in detail.

So, one of Washington's tasks is to achieve, if not alliance, then at least neutrality of Moscow in the "Chinese question". Let's take a look at this task of "attracting Russia" from the side of the White House. She's not easy. And this is not only a matter of the legacy of past administrations. Trump himself constantly had to prove that "no one was as tough with Russia" as he was. And yet, "getting along with Putin", "wresting Moscow out of Beijing's embrace" (quoted from Foreign Affairs) and "building realistic relations with the Kremlin" (quoted from The National Interest) seems to be necessary for the White House. At least to a minimal extent. So that there is no need to wage a cold war on two fronts (which Nixon and Kissinger sought to avoid in the 1970s) and so that more players remain in Eurasia (including the Middle East, of course) who are able to conduct a dialogue with the United States.

This is the general line of the Republican Party under Trump. It may be a dead end, but it is still important - at least based on the tasks of domestic policy. Further scaring off Russia is strategically harmful. Not that someone was going to lift the sanctions from us. No, we cannot count on this. And it's not worth it. It has long been necessary to understand that you will have to decide everything yourself. But Americans (smart Americans loyal to Trump) must understand that continuing attacks on Moscow do not improve Washington's global position in any way. It is one thing to fight the Baltic gas pipelines, sentencing about the liquefied "gas of freedom", and quite another to declare about containment.

American foreign policy experts cannot fail to understand that the very word "containment" affects Russian diplomacy and the military machine in a known way.

Not to mention the top political leadership of our country, which remembers the history of the previous Cold War and drew the proper conclusions from it. Our colleagues from the USA are aware of this. The best way to raise the level of anti-Americanism in Russia is to declare "containment."

Both Mr. Esper and Miss Pirro made a mistake. Apparently, the show "Justice" (Justice, another translation - "Justice") has lost its first place in the rating of the most "watched" news and analytical programs both on Fox News and in the United States in general. Tucker Carlson now shines with ratings (he also broadcasts on the conservative Fox channel), who asks awkward "Sino-Russian" questions on the air.

And if we talk about the European direction, then the journalist and the minister also presented themselves as a laughing stock to the whole world. After all, there is no real redeployment from Germany to Poland or, say, to the Baltic states. There are no funds or logistic plans to make such a maneuver. In addition, Congress does not want to allocate money for the withdrawal of part of the American contingent from Germany. Finally, what kind of weakening or strengthening of the American presence "closer to the Russian borders" can we talk about if it is planned to redeploy a couple of thousand (if not hundreds) of military personnel, including supply managers and staff officers? Moscow is much more "interested" in the US attempts to build a system of missile defense positioning areas in Europe.

In short, the question of "containing Russia" has hopelessly spoiled the generally interesting interview of the US Secretary of Defense with the pro-Trump television channel. A Trump administration official and one of his brightest loyalists set up their patron.

And why? Because in such a large bureaucratic department as the Pentagon, and in such a politicized media empire as Fox (which also has its own bureaucracy), it is impossible to get rid of inertia and “phantom pains”.

This is one of the biggest problems in the United States today. Politicians like Trump and analysts like Stephen Bannon can pull America in one direction as much as they like, but bureaucrats in the media and federal departments will inertly pull America in the other, even as Trump's loyalists.

And they harm only their own country. That's what it cost the otherwise uncompromising Janine Pirro to ask the very professional Mark Esper a question about involving the army to suppress riots in US cities? After all, this would be an acute question, a matter of substance, on which the outcome of the intra-American confrontation largely depends, with a climax on election day, November 3! What about coronavirus on US Navy ships, Mark? What about the suicide rate in the gallant United States army, Minister?

But no! Let's talk about "containing Russia." Listen, this is definitely a reason to contact a psychoanalyst, since there is a sea of ​​them in the USA. Or is there a systemic crisis in this “city on a hill” industry as well?

The author's point of view may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.