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