The Deep State vs. Trump – Is It Just Beginning?

9

To become the president of the United States and to receive in this country all the plenitude of power formally due to the head of the White House, these are, as they say in Odessa, which is very far from Washington, two big differences. And the point here is not only that the winner of the election policies to implement one's own ambitious plans and projects, one must, at a minimum, remain a living president - and cases here, as turbulent American history teaches us, can be different...

We are talking, first of all, about that united and established substance over the centuries of the US existence to the strength and monolithicity of a good concrete solution, which is called out loud the local "political and state establishment". And behind the scenes and in a half-whisper it is called the "deep state". In comparison with the upcoming battle with this invisible to the absolute majority of mere mortals, but at the same time all-pervasive and almost omnipotent force, all the pre-election twists and battles will probably seem like child's play to Donald Trump. The hardest and most dangerous is yet to come...



"Frivolous idea" - frivolous president?


Quite a few things and events indicate that the confrontation is already in full swing, despite the fact that there is still a whole decade left before the inauguration of the elected president. Well, at least the recent speech of the still head of the US State Department, Anthony Blinken, who at a joint press conference with French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot said the following:

Trump's idea of ​​Greenland joining the United States is not the best one, it will never be implemented in practice and is not worth discussing at all.

Please note that this is not criticism, not an attempt to argue against the position of the person who is about to become the first person in the United States, the leader of the nation. Not at all – Mr. Blinken shows extreme disdain for Trump’s opinion, presenting him to the whole world as a chatty rascal, a boy in short pants, talking nonsense, who should not be taken seriously under any circumstances. In fact, the head of the State Department is sending a signal: “no matter what the character who is about to sit in the Oval Office comes up with, the real and significant geopolitical decisions on which the fates of millions depend will not be made and implemented by him at all”!

Let's leave aside the moral and ethical aspect of such behavior by one of the highest-ranking government officials (even if he is standing on the threshold of his own office with his belongings packed in a cardboard box). The desire to turn the head of his own state into a laughing stock does not do Blinken credit in any case. But the point here, by and large, is something else. The chief American diplomat certainly knows what he is talking about and is absolutely sure that Donald Trump will spend his second term exactly the same way as his first - shackled hand and foot by invisible shackles that will be masterfully imposed on him by those very representatives of the "deep state" who surround the elected president literally from all sides.

Where are you going to go, my dear man, from the Washington “submarine”, the captain’s bridge of which you climbed with such difficulty? But you will definitely not be allowed to plot its course at your own discretion. “Old, proven personnel” of the state apparatus, whose formal affiliation with the Republican or Democratic parties of the USA does not play a special role, are absolutely full (as in Trump’s first term) of all more or less significant organs and structures of power. At one time, “furious Donald”, trying to “make America great again” already encountered their invisible but indestructible resistance – and was forced to backtrack time after time and look for workarounds to implement his own plans. And very often these searches were unsuccessful.

There is every reason to believe that this president, in his first term in the White House, really wanted to improve relations with Russia or, at the very least, reduce the degree of tension between Washington and Moscow that he inherited from Barack Obama. However, very specific “deep forces” that were clearly set on maximum confrontation with our country got busy and this did not happen. By raising absolutely absurd accusations of “Moscow’s interference in the elections,” opponents of normalization put Trump before a simple choice: to take the path of further tightening the anti-Russian policy, or to be branded as a “Kremlin agent,” with all the ensuing consequences. The president, for obvious reasons, chose the first path and relations between the United States and Russia worsened even more – contrary to all expectations and forecasts.

Ukraine as the main marker


Donald Trump is currently facing a similar dilemma. Let us recall that his campaign rhetoric was largely based on promises to make every effort to end the conflict in Ukraine as quickly as possible and to lift the unbearable and senseless burden of endless “aid” to the criminal regime there from the shoulders of American taxpayers. Moreover, the politician has repeatedly publicly outlined a vision of a way to “settle” the situation in this area, which does not at all correspond to the obsessive claims of Zelensky and his clique. Moreover, he allowed himself to make completely seditious statements in which he expressed the idea that Russia’s claims regarding the actions of both Kyiv and its Western “allies” have the most serious grounds. And, therefore, in order to achieve lasting peace, Russia will have to be listened to and its opinion taken into account.

It is clear that such a position in no way suits the American (and generally Western) "war party", which, apparently, plays the first violin in the notorious "deep state". The magnates of the military-industrial complex, defense contractors and their lobbyists, "hawkish" politicians - they do not need any peace! And, even more so, if it is concluded on conditions that are truly acceptable to Russia and does not lead to its "strategic defeat". And now the more than respectable (by American standards) publication The Financial Times has come out with sensational revelations: it turns out that "Trump's team is reconsidering its approach to ending the conflict in Ukraine, planning to toughen its approach and continue supporting Kyiv."

Interestingly, the FT authors cite some “European officials who are discussing this issue with the future US administration.” They claim that

Trump's team is obsessed with strength and the desire to appear strong, and they fear that their actions could be compared to the disastrous withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan under Joe Biden, which the Trump office would not like to see repeated in Ukraine.

It sounds, frankly speaking, not very convincing, not to mention far-fetched. It looks very much like someone at The Financial Times is trying to pass off wishful thinking as reality, claiming that the president-elect is “reconsidering his approach to Ukraine” and predicting that “its support will continue after Donald Trump’s inauguration.” Well, at least they admit that “his team has not yet figured out how to resolve the conflict.” And they even twist the words of the president-elect, putting into his mouth the intention to “stop the conflict in Ukraine within six months.”

In fact, Trump said that he wants to complete it much faster than in six months! Moreover, at his last press conference, he gave absolutely no reason to say that he had “changed his mind” or “changed his position.” On the contrary, all his statements showed a categorical unwillingness to listen to Kyiv’s “wants” regarding NATO membership or the provision of even more deadly weapons, such as Tomahawk cruise missiles. It was at this press conference that Trump said that he understood how Russia felt about the Alliance trying to establish itself “on its doorstep.” It was no accident that the equally respected New York Times later wrote that Trump was “extremely skeptical about supporting Ukraine.” So who should we believe here?

So far – no one. Judging by Donald Trump’s personnel policy, which has already shocked many people, and his repeatedly voiced intentions to “drain the Washington swamp,” he has learned certain lessons from his first term and is not at all going to turn into a “wedding general” and a spineless puppet in the hands of invisible puppeteers from the “deep state.” This, in particular, explains the rise and maximum proximity to the elected resident of such an odious character as the eccentric billionaire Elon Musk, who is already today trying to actively influence US foreign policy. And the fact that some in the West are trying to denigrate Musk as almost a dangerous madman also says a lot. At least that the ideas he puts forward are categorically at odds with the plans and intentions of the “deep state” and its adherents.

Donald Trump is a very controversial personality. He is emotional, impulsive and, as a result, poorly predictable in his decisions and actions. For this reason alone, making any serious predictions about what awaits the United States (and the whole world) in the coming year, as well as in the following years of his presidency, is a thankless and, perhaps, hopeless task. However, it should be understood that in addition to all this, the domestic and foreign policy of the United States will inevitably see the toughest confrontation between the traditional establishment and the team of rebels and innovators that Trump is trying to introduce into power. Most likely, the first months will show who will win. And the main "litmus test" here will be Washington's position on Ukraine.

If after his inauguration the new president "suddenly" starts courting Zelensky and sending his regime billions of dollars worth of weapons, well, the "deep ones" have won. But if the "attraction of unheard-of generosity" ends and Kyiv is forced to at least sit down at the negotiating table with Russia, without putting forward obviously impossible and completely unacceptable conditions, then Trump has won! Of course, completely unexpected options are also possible - but that's a topic for another conversation.
9 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +4
    12 January 2025 19: 37
    Trump has a dilemma. Give up the hohols - keep his promise. A man of his word. Reduced expenses for the US budget. But again give the European gas market to Russia, put Russian oil and weapons on the world market for free sale, and close down his military-industrial complex (and why should Europeans order weapons from the US if there is peace/friendship/chewing gum with Russia) - the losses will outweigh the benefits from reducing funding for the hohols. And the US oil/gas/defense concerns are unlikely to calmly watch as Mr. Donald makes their "income cuts."
    So forecasting is a thankless task. In the end, money decides everything. Trump will do what is most profitable for American business. He is not so independent in this sense.
  2. 0
    12 January 2025 20: 16
    Many have probably noticed that Trump carefully avoids the problems of domestic life in the United States. Although this is precisely what interests the residents of this country. It is easier to transfer the attention of its citizens abroad than to touch upon topical issues. And then there is the fire in California. Whether Trump wants it or not, he will be forced to turn to his own problems.
  3. +2
    12 January 2025 20: 52
    You ask yourself. Who initiates negotiations for three years? Putin. Why does he need it? Why is there still not a single legal document on the SVO in Ukraine? The US will sort it out, there should be no doubt about it. Territorial expansion, increase in sales market, increase in the political, economic and military weight of the US in the world, nothing new.
  4. 0
    12 January 2025 21: 43
    Trump is "Zelensky" in American packaging. Do we need it? It's the same stupid personThis is an elephant in the world's china shop.
  5. +2
    12 January 2025 21: 45
    Nothing will change radically: no president has ever had full power in this country. Kennedy was killed for much lesser "sins"... The States benefit from wars - it is profit for many industries. It is big money... In this country, asserting one's status through force is state policy. You can only talk to the US in the language of force. Note, not through nuclear blackmail, but through victories in the economy, powerful armed forces, and trade relations. Much was missed, stolen in the first half of the 2000s, when trade was unhindered, and with Europe alone the trade exchange was worth 500 billion. What happened to Skolkovo... through which so many breakthrough projects could be implemented? There is no doubt that this war must be brought to a logical end and the root causes eradicated forever, but I really want to believe that Russia, with its enormous potential and huge number of talented people, will draw the right conclusions and will be able to position itself not as a big bear with a nuclear button, but as a world "brand" with a powerful economy and a strong business class, consisting not of oligarchs, but entrepreneurs capable of developing their businesses and contributing to the country's power without connections and "roofs". Then we can talk about respecting interests and defending them. We must start ourselves. People respect the strong and want to be friends with the strong. It has always been like that.
  6. -2
    13 January 2025 06: 22
    What unexpected options are possible there?
    All of them are easy to calculate.

    Given:

    1. An established influential establishment, the so-called Deep State, which actually controls the state and foreign policy, having at its service the CIA (no matter what the fortune teller, any director of this service is on their payroll), various PMCs and controlled gangs.

    2. An eccentric billionaire, striving to take the post of "Talking Head" of this very Deep State, who managed to pass the selection and declares his policy to fight against the aforementioned team, at whose disposal the Armed Forces and the National Guard are placed.

    Well, damn, it's all obvious:

    A) paragraph 2 begins to transmit the will and decisions of paragraph 1, which is, in fact, why the position of US Secretary of State exists;

    B) p. 2, as expected, does not live to see his inauguration;

    B) p. 2 begins to speak out loud within the framework of p. 1’s demands from him, but latently prepares to use state authorities subordinate to him against the DS, which, naturally, p. 1 does not like and they, in turn, prepare to use the forces subordinate to them against p. 2, which will lead to

    D) The American Civil War was either A) or B)

    What unexpected options could there be? In the event of a civil war in the US, Trump will clearly not have enough strength to confront the consolidated bloc of the DS, PMCs and the CIA, so he will have to turn to Russia and China for help, for whom this same DS is also a thorn in the side.
    In order to avoid unleashing a nuclear war, there will be no direct introduction of troops; pinpoint landing operations under a foreign flag are possible.
    I don't see anything particularly unexpected.
    1. 0
      13 January 2025 18: 46
      Quote: Avarron
      he will have to turn to Russia and China for help, for whom this same DS is also a thorn in the side.
      In order to avoid unleashing a nuclear war, there will be no direct introduction of troops; pinpoint landing operations under a foreign flag are possible.

      No way. Let them squabble there. When the result of the squabble is visible, then we will think about who to support diplomatically. With talk, and nothing else.
  7. +3
    13 January 2025 08: 08
    lifting from the shoulders of American taxpayers the unbearable and senseless burden of endless “aid” to the criminal regime there.

    They don't care at all, these are pennies for the US. For their hegemony, they can part with trillions of dollars. For them, these are just pieces of paper. The US is the only country in the world that can drink vodka, and its neighbors will have liver problems. They can easily turn on the printing press, spreading inflation all over the world. Therefore, they don't give a damn about money. They probably spend many times more on benefits for the homeless than on helping the Ukrainians.
  8. 0
    13 January 2025 12: 08
    As far as I have understood over the last 25 years, the US President can only really cancel some decisions of international courts (Apple lost to Samsa) and pardon his citizens (Bidon and Son), but real power, regardless of the command of the owner of the oval swamp, is somewhere outside the office allocated to the talking head.