McFaul was clear he funds NGOs in Russia, and he claims that it is non partisan, but is that strictly true? On the surface he portrays it as fair, supporting those laudable concepts of democracy, human rights, values I may add that the US lacks heavily, but what happens if the US funds these organisation under these labels, then deliberately targets one of the democratic participants as a tyrant, possessing none of the democratic traits or even the whole government. Well doesn’t it all then swing into a NGO partisan game against that candidate or the whole government, funded by the US? Haven’t these laudable values just turned into a very undemocratic vicious weapon, by simply adding another little ingredient, US directed hate against one candidate and the government, with deliberate undemocratic targeted suggestions and campaigns. Indeed wasn’t that the plan overall of the US? McFaul, how many of these US funded NGO’s have highlighted Putin is a legitimate democratic candidate and that he has every right to stand in elections, or the government is a democratic one that just needs improvement. Clue for the answer McFaul, just keep those fingers clenched in that conflict pose! See actually, whether McFaul likes it or not the funding of these NGO’s looks at best ill advised to benefit US Russia relations, and at worst a deliberate attempt to attack Putin and the Russian government in an undemocratic way. So in my view to benefit US Russia relations and remove all doubt, realise that the removal of these NGOs is best for all and indeed a necessity!

An embarrassing interview for Mc Faul, because he does not have an audience so uneducated so as not to understand physics, not to understand strategy and not to understand history. Of course it would be nice to think he is just ignorant, but that is not a viable proposition, we could think he is stupid, but that is not viable also, so therefore we have to draw a negative inference and say that at best he is economical with the truth and misleading, or worse he is an outright liar. As he knows well any solid object that moves though space can be defined as a missile. The warhead is a part of the missile, just the same as the optional bus or rocket stages are, it is just the warhead that can be said to be the ‘useful’ part of the missile. So he is lying or ignorant by saying it doesn’t target the missile, it does absolutely in the scenario he describes. Now then of course it follows that the missile can be targeted when not just reduced to the eventual warhead, in other phases of flight; indeed missiles are very vulnerable in boost after leaving their launcher at ‘low’ speed and generally become less and less vulnerable as they move through the trajectory. So anyone targeting boost…. Gets up real close, as close as they can be, which is especially useful for submarines trying to maintain cover in national waters. So Mc Faul answer truthfully, where would you in physics terms place more advanced interceptors to get at early phase ICBM flight, Alaska? In terms of strategy, the US would want Europe to fight Russia, that is simply being ‘smart’ and learning from history, so again Mc Faul, if after kindling a European war with Russia, where would you place interceptors to attack retaliatory incoming Russian warheads, Alaska? In terms of history, Mc Faul an expert on Russia, a professor no less, cannot remember the promise about NATO will not expand, and the breach of that promise. I don’t believe that, I believe you are being evasive and dishonest in saying that.