On an inspection trip, the city of Kiev was visited by a gentleman and a lady - US Secretary of State Tony Blinken and his deputy Victoria Nuland. This wording may seem a little strange. Usually, it is not customary to mention the first person in conjunction with his subordinate. But in this case, everything is very justified. What is Tony Blinken remembered for by the Russian observer? So far, by and large, nothing. But with Madame Nuland the situation is the opposite. One has only to pronounce her name - and in the brain immediately pops up: "Cookies from the State Department." True, this time the Washington guests did not please their Kiev counterparts with the "distribution of sweets." Instead, they handed out guidelines to the right and left to consolidate the system of external American control in Ukraine. 

"Ukraine is hindered by external forces (Russia) and internal forces (oligarchs who pursue their own goals)," the US Secretary of State said during his stay in Kiev. I fully agree with Tony Blinken about the oligarchs. But, speaking about the first problem of Ukraine, the head of American diplomacy, acting in line with the laws of the genre, was very cunning. Firstly, Ukraine has three main problems, not two. In addition to the "intrigues of insidious external forces," I would also add to this list Ukrainian radical nationalists, who de facto have the right to veto in terms of addressing key issues of state development. And secondly, the notorious "insidious external forces" hindering Ukraine are not Russians, but Americans.

So, should the US secretary of state learn to count to three? It looks like it. However, stop. Maybe I shouldn't be talking about the head of American diplomacy? Maybe in Ukraine there really are not three, but two main problems, and the system of American external control and the dominance of nationalists are just two sides of the same coin? I will not practice any further political arithmetic. But these two problems are really very closely related. One phenomenon, which is detrimental to the Ukrainian statehood, feeds another - and vice versa.

At the very end of April, a march was held in Kiev in honor of the day of the creation of the SS Galicia division. It would be logical to assume that the US Secretary of State has something to say about this. Who the SS men are and how they behaved in Eastern Europe, he knows firsthand. The stepfather of the head of the US diplomacy was the famous Polish American lawyer Samuel Pizar, a Holocaust survivor.

Eleven years ago, he said in an interview with RIA Novosti: “The greatest catastrophe, the greatest crime committed by man against man, has not taught anything.

The world is on fire again, the danger to humanity is great ... It may repeat itself in a different form.

We, the survivors of the Holocaust, who went through Auschwitz, disappear one by one.

Very soon we, the direct witnesses of the catastrophe, will be gone.

And history will speak in the impersonal voice of novelists, researchers, historians - at best ... At worst - the voice of demagogues, falsifiers, those who say that the Holocaust never existed. "

However, Tony Blinken said nothing about the neo-Nazi Sabbath in the Ukrainian capital, and if he did, he did it so “modestly and quietly” that almost no one noticed it.

What is the reason for this "modesty"? In the reluctance of the US Secretary of State to "interfere in Ukrainian internal affairs"? Let's not make each other laugh. From the point of view of American politicians and diplomats, such a concept as "Ukraine's internal affairs, in which we have no right to interfere", is absent as such. American politicians, including Tony Blinken, do not hesitate to give their Kiev colleagues (read: subordinates) persistent advice (read: orders) about which official should occupy which place in the Ukrainian power hierarchy.

So why does Tony Blinken suddenly become surprisingly "modest" and silent when it comes to the rampant of neo-Nazis in Ukraine? The answer lies on the surface. We are talking about a banal coincidence of interests. The main goal of American policy in Ukraine is to tear this country away from Russia as much as possible. The main enemy of modern Ukrainian radicals is Russia and everything Russian. That is why Tony Blinken diligently "turns aside" and is silent. Where the stepfather of the future head of American diplomacy passionately called for words and action, we have the "deafening silence" of his stepson. And this silence is louder than any words and pretentious phrases. 

The great English thinker of the 18th century Edmund Burke once said: "The only thing that is needed for the triumph of evil is that good people do nothing."

I'm not going to speculate about what kind of person Tony Blinken is.

But I am absolutely sure that his silence is very powerful contributing to the triumph of evil in Ukraine.

Silence is not just silence.

Silence is also an act (although it would probably be more correct to speak of the absence of an act).

On the one hand, I am very glad that Samuel Pizar, who died in 2015, did not see all this.

But on the other hand, I am very interested: what would he say to his stepson if he witnessed his silence?

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