Dear Hasbeen,

Pray tell what part of his assessment you find to be the most egregious?

"We don't really believe this administration is going to become substantially more normal; less dysfunctional; less unpredictable; less faction-riven; less diplomatically clumsy and inept."

Most of those reading it would feel it fitted the facts on the ground like a glove. The Mueller report exposed just how deep the dysfunction goes within the administration.

Is there any part of it you find particularly unfair or inaccurate?

I think you all miss the point.

Every diplomat of every country sends home secret assessments of the leaders of the countries where they are based. It is part of the job. The USA is no exception, in fact US diplomats are very explicit.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contents_of_the_United_States_diplomatic_cables_leak_%28analysis_of_individual_leaders%29

If Sir Kim faithfully articulated precisely, the official position of what his government thought of the TRUMP Administration, then he's doing his job, albeit without any effort of diplomacy. If however if he sought to inject his own (personal) opinions and views into his commentary, well he's done the wrong thing.

I always thought, from the Foreign Minster down, to the most minor of diplomatic staff, in some remote mission, you were still required to articulate the official position of your Government, despite your views. After all, it's you, who's the face and voice of your Government, in situ.

O Sung Wu. "I always thought, from the Foreign Minster down, to the most minor of diplomatic staff, in some remote mission, you were still required to articulate the official position of your Government, despite your views."

Read the comments by US diplomats in their secret cables. They make extremely critical personal assessments of the heads of government.

Diplomats have two jobs:
1. publicly articulating the position of their government to the government of the country where they are representing their government.
2. privately giving their government their frank assessment of the government of the country where they are representing their government.

The second is as important as the first. It was ever so: in the Roman Empire, in China, in the middle ages in Europe, in the days of the British Empire, and today. Governments have always wanted secret, frank assessments of other governments and their leaders, whether friends of enemies.

If Sir Kim never made any public criticism of Trump or his administration, but confined it to private reports, then he was doing his job.

Hi there COSSEMBY...

Many thanks for your response to my Post. I couldn't agree more with you. The diplomatic staff must give their respective Minister an accurate and factual opinion of their host nation, imperfections and all. And of course, that opinion should be given 'in-camera,' and might have no bearing whatsoever on what the Diplomate may say publically, about his host Nation. Is it not often mentioned, the road of diplomacy is often tricky?

I would find it very difficult indeed to speak 'glowingly' about the US President, Donald TRUMP, the most powerful leader of the free world? But to many of the US voters, he must have some charisma and enjoy a certain degree of popularity with some, together with the Electoral College(s), to be voted in as President initially. Moreover, I believe he'll probably win a second term of four years. I will admit to having a certain amount of admiration for the man, nevertheless. Thanks, COSSEMBY.

Some of us both wish to deny the views expressed about Trump are majority views
And ignore the evidence given here, that American diplomats have been every bit as bad [if truth can be bad] as they propose this man was