I get the feeling that Donald Trump was simply too smart: he wanted to become the “mistress of the sea,” as Pushkin once wrote. Is it far from a broken trough?
Last week, the biggest international news item on Russian political talk shows was the Lavrov-Trump meeting in the Oval Office, and the day before Trump's dismissal of James Comey, head of the FBI (although there was no connection between these events).
The significance of this dismissal cannot be underestimated. Firstly, it is a very rare case when the head of the FBI is fired by the President of the United States. This happened for the first time in 1993 under President Bill Clinton - and then, such a decision was much more justified: the then director of the FBI was convicted of corrupt abuse of his official position.
Secondly, Comey's firing is a much more scandalous case also because it is a flagrant violation of an important democratic institution in the United States, according to which the FBI should act as an independent body and an important deterrent against, among other things, abuses of executive power. The independence of the FBI is especially important when it comes to the investigation by the same agency against Trump's close advisers (and maybe even against Trump himself).
There are two leading theories as to why Trump unexpectedly fired Comey.
First version: this is a personal settling of scores -- Trump's punishment of the head of the FBI for lack of loyalty to the president. According to an article in the New York Times last week that cited Comey's close associates, Trump demanded some sort of "loyalty pledge" from Comey (which Trump naturally denies). Comey refused to take such an oath, explaining to the president that the very concept of "loyalty" in the sense that Trump demanded it, contrary to the meaning and basic function of an independent FBI.
The head of the FBI is appointed for a term of 10 years. The whole point of his work is not that he loyally serves this or that Democratic or Republican president for a whole decade. It must serve only US law.
Such an oath of loyalty must have served Trump's interests well when he took over his private real estate development company, constantly and conspicuously firing subordinates for lack of loyalty. But such a practice is unacceptable when it comes to the head of the department, which is an important component of the American system of checks and balances.
However, Trump has zero tolerance for any kind of criticism - including from the head of the FBI. Trump is known to have very thin skin and any criticism hurts not only his gigantic ego, but also his deep-seated inferiority complex.
According to the first version, the Russian component was not the most important factor in the dismissal of Komi. The head of the FBI was simply extremely disliked by Trump on a professional and personal level. Deeply offended by Comey's "arrogant" refusal to become his "loyal subordinate," Trump may also have taken offense at Comey's other refusal to investigate the current president's completely unsubstantiated and ridiculous allegations that Barack Obama ordered illegal wiretaps against him during his campaign. (They joke that the real reason for the dismissal is that Trump simply did not like the fact that Comey was 13 centimeters taller than him. This is somehow not supposed by status.)
Be that as it may, by firing Comey, Trump managed to get rid of his annoying irritant, and at the same time once again show everyone exactly who is the boss in the (White) House.
But there is also second version-- the most plausible, in my opinion, is why Trump fired Comey so suddenly. It lies in the fact that the head of the FBI began to “too actively” investigate the “Russian trace” in Trump’s election campaign - namely, the issue of cooperation between Trump’s close advisers and official (and “not very official”) persons of an “unfriendly” state.
Of course, few believe Trump's frail official story that Comey was fired due to negligence related to the Hillary Clinton email investigation. Yes, negligence, unprofessionalism and Komi's self-PR certainly took place, but they appeared almost a year ago! Why did Trump fire Comey just now?
This is a clear inconsistency - and even more so since Trump, on the contrary, praised Comey for his "great job" when the head of the FBI decided to reopen the investigation against Hillary two weeks before the presidential election, which, of course, was in Trump's hands.
As a result, the President of the United States looks like a 9-year-old schoolboy who comes up with weak and ridiculous excuses to the teacher, trying to explain why he did not do his homework.
Trump's conflict of interest and abuse of power is clear, as he fired the very man who led the investigation against him. Most likely, Trump's main motive for firing the head of the FBI was an attempt - albeit a desperate one - to obstruct the administration of justice and a banal desire to save his own skin. In a word, Trump simply smelled fried.
Indeed, the cat knows whose meat it ate. And Trump understood perfectly well that every day the FBI dossier against his associates (and maybe against him) is growing. Apparently, the evidence of the FBI on the Russian trail is becoming more and more compelling.
It turns out that the Russia-gate case is sewn not only with white threads, but, perhaps, they are also dyed in the colors of the Russian tricolor.
It can be assumed that the new head of the FBI appointed by Trump will become such a “loyal person” who will more “loyally” investigate this “Russian case”, which is so unpleasant (and can be destructive) for Trump.
However, all these ridiculous maneuvers will not save Trump, of course, but will only hasten his fall - just like in 1973, when the disgraced US President Richard Nixon, with the same arbitrariness, vindictiveness and desperation, fired the chief independent investigator of the Watergate case . And this scandalous dismissal ended for Nixon a year later - we all know how.
Firing Comey will also backfire on Trump. It's like a powerful and tight spring: the more Trump puts pressure on the media, Congress, civil society and other elements of the American system of checks and balances, the stronger all these democratic mechanisms will resist his pressure. The fact is that Trump leads the United States of America, and not "The Trump Organization," where his native dictatorial style of government easily rolled.
As a result of this "spring", expect more leaks from opponents of Trump's attempts to hush up the high-profile Russia-gate case. Expect more revelations from the media on this case. Expect increased Senate and House investigations and calls for an independent investigator into possible Russian collaboration with the Trump campaign.
And expect more surprises when Comey himself testifies during new congressional hearings. After all, Trump fired the head of the FBI, but the President of the United States cannot abolish this entire agency.
And the President of the United States cannot yet put a gag on the mouth of James Comey, who has already become a private citizen, although this does not mean at all that he will not try to do it. Trump already sent a very strange tweet the other day hidden threat to Komi about some possible incriminating secret recordings of their conversations.
In general, the further into the forest, the more firewood for Donald Trump. And I can't help but feel a strong sense of déjà vu: the Trump presidency looks more and more like a Nixon presidency. Trump's fall is just beginning, and it will most likely end with impeachment.
Image copyright AFP Image caption The first 100 days in the White House forced Donald Trump to reconsider many of his views
After coming to White House Donald Trump brought about several important changes in US relations with the rest of the world. We have selected the seven most significant changes.
Rising Tensions in Asia
Image copyright AFP Image caption Trump has yet to develop a workable strategy for North KoreaThe presidency of Donald Trump has led to a significant increase in tensions in Southeast Asia.
Even before his inauguration, Trump seriously alerted China with his comments about Taiwan. And his appointed Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, announced the possibility of blocking China's access to artificial islands that it is building in the South China Sea. In response, a warning about the threat of a military clash appeared in the Chinese state press.
Japan and South Korea, according to Trump, rely too much on the United States. He even stated that these countries would benefit if they had their own nuclear arsenals.
But at the center of a potential conflict is North Korea, which is developing its own nuclear weapons.
Trump faces the challenge of curbing those ambitions, something his predecessors failed to do.
Under President Barack Obama, US policy towards North Korea was called "strategic patience": pressure Pyongyang with sanctions, convince other countries, primarily China, to do the same, and wait.
But current Vice President Mike Pence said recently that .
According to the Washington administration, "all options are now being considered," and the dispatch of US Navy ships to the Korean Peninsula led to the assumption that power option problem solving.
In response to this move, the North Korean regime promised to hold weekly missile tests and threatened full-scale war.
But 10 days later, the situation looked even more confusing: it turned out that the group of ships, which, according to Trump, was supposed to go to the Korean Peninsula, moved in the opposite direction.
The White House later clarified the situation and assured that everything was going according to plan, and Trump focused on negotiations with China, which he seeks to persuade to take action against Pyongyang.
"China is economically vital to North Korea, so even though things aren't easy, if they want to solve the North Korean problem, they will," he tweeted.
Relations with Russia have become even more difficult
Image copyright AP Image caption Trump said he wanted to treat Putin with confidence, but warned that "it may not last long"During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump hailed Vladimir Putin as a strong leader with whom he would like to have a good relationship.
This was before US intelligence concluded that Russia was responsible for hacking the Democratic Party's computers. Trump was eventually forced to agree with this conclusion.
The publication of a scandalous and unconfirmed dossier alleging that the Kremlin had incriminating materials on Trump also raised unpleasant questions about him. Trump dismissed them, saying that all these accusations are nothing but "fake news".
However, issues surrounding his administration's contacts with Russian officials continue to cast a shadow over Trump's presidency. It is because of such contacts with the Russian ambassador that shortly before that, Trump-appointed national security adviser Michael Flynn.
Trump said he wanted to start with trusting Putin, but warned that "it might not last long."
And, apparently, that's exactly what happened. Relations between Washington and Moscow deteriorated sharply after.
The Western countries blamed the Syrian government for this, but Russia continued to defend President Bashar al-Assad.
President Trump said after that that relations between the US and Russia are at a low point.
Image copyright Reuters Image caption Donald Trump (pictured with Jens Stoltenberg) no longer considers NATO an obsolete organizationIn the spotlight- NATO
Last year, Trump was extremely critical of NATO, the cornerstone of American foreign policy for the past 60+ years.
He declared that this organization had become obsolete, and accused the allies of ingratitude and the desire to live at the expense of the United States.
In February, US Secretary of Defense James Mattis warned US NATO allies that Washington would "cool its commitment" to the alliance if its members failed to deliver on a 2% share of GDP for defense.
Trump later said that his firm stance led to "money flowing" into defense budgets. Experts, however, argue that NATO member countries have already increased their defense budgets in accordance with the 2014 agreement.
Nevertheless, in April, at a joint press conference with the American president, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg thanked Trump for his attention to the problem.
"We all see the result of your close attention to the burden that the alliance bears together," Stoltenberg said.
Trump, for his part, has changed his view of NATO and no longer considers the organization obsolete.
He said that the threat of terrorism highlights the importance of the alliance, and even called on its members to intensify assistance to Iraqi and Afghan partners.
Use of force
Media playback is unsupported on your device
US drops 'mother of all bombs' on AfghanistanPresident Obama was elected to end the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and was very reluctant to get involved in any other military conflict in the Middle East.
Even as the extent of the crimes against civilians in Syria became apparent, he remained convinced that a military intervention would only be a costly failure.
Instead, his administration focused on providing humanitarian aid and funding moderate Syrian rebels, all while promoting the idea of a truce and negotiations that would lead to the departure of President Bashar al-Assad.
Donald Trump has also opposed American military intervention in Syria in the past, but for a different reason: he called for a focus on the internal problems of the United States.
"Forget about Syria and make America great again," he tweeted in 2013.
So when he ordered a tomahawk strike on a Syrian air base in April, it was a major departure from his traditional views.
Trump said the chemical attack, blamed on the Assad government, has changed his attitude. "This attack on children affected me very much," he admitted.
It was the first direct US military action against the Assad regime. It was hailed as a startling change in the policies of Trump, who used to be seen as an isolationist.
But a few days later, the Trump administration was once again flexing its military muscles. This time the blow was inflicted on the positions of the militants " Islamic State"in Afghanistan, on which it was dropped, which had never been used in combat before.
Given that the United States intends to increase defense spending, it seems likely that at least now - that Washington will take a more active stance in conflicts abroad.
The Future of Free Trade
Image copyright Reuters Image caption Free trade agreements provoked protests in many countriesOnce in office, Trump set out to radically change decades of US trade with the rest of the world.
He threatened to void several trade agreements, including the North American Free Trade Agreement between the United States, Canada and Mexico (NAFTA).
Trump believes that because of this agreement, Americans have lost many jobs.
Trump even suggested that the United States withdraw from the World Trade Organization (WTO).
After winning the election, he threatened American companies, primarily automobile companies, that he would impose a 35% tariff on goods made in Mexico.
How far he will go in his threats is not yet clear.
However, on his first day in the Oval Office, Trump signed a decree signed by 12 countries and actively promoted by President Barack Obama.
The countries participating in this agreement accounted for 40% of the world economy.
This treaty has not even been ratified by the US Congress yet, but the presidential decree already completely crosses out US participation in it.
The main goal of Trump's trade policy is to create new jobs in the US, end the trade deficit and secure "good deals" for Americans.
He has already set his sights on a foreign work visa program and has ordered an overhaul of exceptions to trade agreements that allow foreign firms to take precedence over US firms in the government procurement market.
However, he retracted his accusations against the Chinese authorities, which he believes are manipulating exchange rates. Such accusations, as experts warned, could provoke a trade war.
Relation to global warming
Image copyright Science Photo Library Image caption Trump vows to deregulate US energy sectorTrump promised that he would end the Paris climate agreement within 100 days of taking office. This did not happen, and there is reportedly no unanimity among his advisers as to whether this should be done.
Nevertheless, Trump has already done a lot to reverse the decisions made in this area by President Obama.
In March, he signed a presidential executive order repealing the so-called Clean Energy Plan, which required US states to regulate power plants more tightly. This plan was previously challenged in court, so its implementation was delayed.
Trump said the cancellation of the plan was necessary in order to ensure the energy independence of the United States and save jobs. But environmental groups have warned that the deregulation would lead to serious consequences both in the US and abroad.
Trump has repeatedly denied the scientific validity of claims that main reason global warming is human activity, calling these claims fiction.
But, as on many other issues, his views are full of contradictions.
Trump told the New York Times in November that he acknowledged there was "some connection" between human activity and climate change. Instead of saying that the US should withdraw from the Paris Agreement, he said at the time that he would "look at that document."
But even if it wants to withdraw from the 2015 Paris deal, the US remains legally bound to comply with its provisions for another four years.
There are various legal and procedural obstacles that complicate a complete review of US policy in this area, writes the New York Times.
But Trump's critics argue that his stance could add skepticism to other leaders about the need to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
Iranian nuclear deal
Image copyright AP Image caption Iran Nuclear Deal Trump Says Worst He's Ever SeenFor Barack Obama, the deal with Iran, which involves the lifting of sanctions in exchange for guarantees of non-development of nuclear weapons, was a historic achievement.
But for Donald Trump, who expresses the general position of the Republicans on this issue, it was "the worst deal he has ever seen."
Repeal of this treaty, as Trump once said, will be his number one priority. However, he did not explain what exactly he was trying to achieve.
Now his administration has announced a complete overhaul of US policy toward Iran.
This revision will take into account not only Tehran's compliance with the terms of the nuclear deal, but also Iran's actions in the Middle East, where it is a key player in the Syrian conflict and the main rival Saudi Arabia and Israel.
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif has already urged Trump to comply with the terms of the signed agreement. He stated that the United States should respect this document, since it was signed by several world powers.
Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was more outspoken. "If they tear it apart, we will burn it," the Associated Press quoted the Iranian leader as saying.
Relations with Iran have certainly become tense since Trump came to the White House. The United States imposed new sanctions on Tehran following Iran's ballistic missile tests.
"Iran is playing with fire," Donald Trump tweeted.
"Ivan the Fool" outplayed the global elite: Clinton calls with congratulations, and Obama is consoled only by the fact that the sun will still rise
Democracy works in the United States: Republican Donald Trump won the presidential election with a solid advantage, which has already been dubbed an event stronger than Brexit. Democrat Hillary Clinton, to the accompaniment of the sobbing of her headquarters, admitted defeat. BUSINESS Online experts urge you not to have any illusions: it is unlikely that Trump will climb into kissing Russia. Nevertheless, the triumph of the billionaire confuses many cards and brings down the prices of oil and stock futures in an unprecedented way.
Donald Trump won the US presidential election. To date, he has received the required 270 electoral votes for the triumph.
HOW TRUMP HID FROM ENEMIES BEHIND TRUCKS WITH SAND
The world is in shock, Europe is at a loss, Barack Obama in mourning, and supporters of the "iron" Hillary Clinton in tears: Republican candidate Donald Trump won the US presidential election. To date, he has received the 270 electoral votes required for the triumph (even more - 276, RIA Novosti claims in its infographic). Democratic candidate Clinton has no more than 218 votes so far. However, she has already admitted defeat and called Trump with congratulations. He himself announced this in his staff speech shortly after summing up the preliminary results of the election campaign.
“I just got a call from Clinton,” the billionaire reported. She congratulated us on our victory. She worked hard and we are grateful for her service to our country. Those of you who did not support my candidacy, I call on you to support and help so that we can unite our country. We will work together to renew the American dream. I have worked in business all my life, unleashing human potential around the world, and I want to do the same now with our country. Everyone will be able to realize their potential. We will be the first, our infrastructure will be incomparable. We have amazing economic plan, we will learn to get along with other countries that want to be friends with us. America will never again settle for less than the best. We will make the American dream come true. I want to tell the world community: we will behave equally to everyone else, we will seek dialogue and partnership, not conflict.”
For the first time in many years, Russia had "its own candidate" in the American elections. Not because he was recruited by “Russian intelligence” or “received money from Putin” (all this is rather from the category of fantasies of the Clinton campaign headquarters), but because he was seriously and sincerely rooted for on the other side of the ocean. And the point, I think, is not only in his encouraging statements about his readiness to "get along" with Vladimir Putin and Russia, but also in the archetype itself. The eccentric Trump talked and did stupid things endlessly, but until the last moment he was terribly lucky, and for this he was extremely dear to the heart of the Russian voter. As for Clinton, who declared that she would remove Putin in three months, there were no illusions - she was presented as a cold and calculating movie villain. In a word, Trump was lucky, like Ivan the Fool from a Russian fairy tale, who challenged Kashchei (Barack Obama) and Baba Yaga (Hillary Clinton) and fearlessly went into battle with the dragon of the transatlantic elite, including almost all major media. At the same time, Trump was forgiven that he was not “Ivanushka” at all, but a real classic American, for whom the interests of the United States are paramount, and in his hands is not a sword-hoarder, but billions of dollars, with the help of which he acquired power over the global world and nuclear button.
By the way, in the elections, the apparently reckless billionaire, on the contrary, showed himself to be a very zealous owner and spent only $66 million on the campaign from his own pocket instead of the promised $100 million. Another $7,000 cost a giant cake in the shape of Trump's bust (who would have thought that a "misogynist" has such a delicious bust), delivered to his campaign headquarters tonight in Moscow. However, as the journalist of the ABC television channel made a reservation in his Twitter Katherine Folders, the cake is a donation.
To the accompaniment of sobs from their headquarters, the Democrats admitted their defeat
Photo: Gina Moon, RIA Novosti
On the eve of the election race, Trump and Clinton were betting like racehorses wealthy people USA and UK. The total amount of bets exceeded $140 million. As the analytical resource Oddschecker assured on this occasion, the Republican was 8% more likely to bet on than the Democratic candidate, despite the fact that his victory in the elections was presented to the media as something from the realm of fantasy. Apparently, people with money guessed something ...
Republicans celebrate their candidate's victory
Both candidates followed the voting from New York, where Hillary Clinton was the first to vote on the morning of November 8, along with her husband Bill, the 42nd President of the United States. The ritual step, as usual, was accompanied by photo flashes and an intrusive video broadcast of the American media. The Democrat, still infinitely self-confident, pompously smiled at the camera and waved her hand to her supporters, who answered her with an enthusiastic roar. After that, she went to solemn speech to the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center,
New York State is rather hostile to Donald Trump. Here, according to the latest information, he won only 36.15% of electoral sympathies against 60.14% of his rival (respectively, 29 votes of the local electors went to Clinton). In the city itself, the alignment for Mr. Donald turned out to be completely frightening: 25% versus 75%. Therefore, near the polling station of this most grandiose American metropolis, the billionaire was greeted with trumpet cliques not only by a support group, but also by a meeting of protesters. Without embarrassment, Trump, arm in arm with his wife Melania, whose feminine virtues the world could appreciate thanks to the erotic photos scattered over the network, marched to the ballot boxes to fulfill his civic duty. A screenshot of a CNN broadcast later went viral on social media, showing the Republican in that sacred moment when the ballot hit the ballot box. The candidate's gaze is fixed on Melania, while he seems to be spying on her actions. Trump doesn't know who his wife is voting for joking Internet users.
I must say that after a personal vote, Donald Trump immediately headed to his skyscraper in Manhattan, known as the Trump Tower. The tower immediately turned into a besieged castle - trucks filled with sand were driven up to it, ostensibly to prevent terrorist attacks. But it seems that the Republican was not only afraid of mythical terrorists that day - he had enemies and cooler ones, and these people, just like him, his family and friends (“With my family and friends,” Trump wrote on Twitter from -under the cover of trucks), closely monitored electoral fluctuations. And watched with increasing bitterness and anger.
Photo: kremlin.ru
BARACK OBAMA: "WHAT HAPPENS, THE SUN WILL RISE IN THE MORNING"
Hasty TV reports showed their viewers the kilometer-long queues that lined up on November 8 at polling stations in the United States. At first, journalists excitedly talked about the successes of Hillary Clinton and her team, but then the tone began to change dramatically. In general, it was reminiscent of textbook anecdotal behavior French press during the flight of Napoleon Bonaparte from the island of Elba in 1815. Then the Parisian newspapers, as you know, were full of headlines like: “The Corsican monster has landed in the Bay of Juan”, “The ogre goes to the Route”, but as the situation changed, the reporters softened and eventually issued the headline: “His Imperial Majesty enters Paris faithful to him” .
The New York Times (NYT) and other anchors American editions they didn’t write about Trump as a cannibal, but epithets like “rude”, “reckless”, “sexist”, “racist”, etc. prevailed in their publications in relation to the Republican. Now the same in the NYT, which previously officially supported the candidacy of Clinton, prophesy "monster" Trump the probability of victory in 80 - 95%.
Already after 8 a.m. Moscow time (and, accordingly, after midnight on the North American continent, which means the official end of voting), 244 of the 270 electoral votes required for the triumph were concentrated in Donald Trump's hands. Hillary Clinton at that time had only 215. Photos and videos from the Clinton campaign testified to the atmosphere of deep despondency that seized numerous feminists, who until then, with a pencil in hand, voluptuously tracked the first favorable results for them. Many did not hesitate to cry. Of course, at the same time, at the Trump headquarters, toothy fellows with light shade skins merrily uncorked champagne.
“The sun will rise no matter what the outcome of the current general election in the United States turns out to be,” Barack Obama, still incumbent US President, hastened to console his fellow citizens. “No matter what happens, the sun will rise in the morning and America will still be the greatest country on earth.”
However, this promise, like many others, Obama has not yet fulfilled: it is now dead of night in the overseas power. And on this night, as journalists report, skirmishes between supporters of Trump and Clinton are already beginning.
Meanwhile, how the balance of power changed during the election day, one could judge not only by the black owner of the White House and by the faces of the fans of this or that candidate. Voting results were broadcast online right on the facade of the Empire State Building in New York. And as the scoreboard turned red (red is the symbol of the Republicans), and the blue color (the symbol of the Democrats) faded and receded, New York plunged more and more into the night from which Obama, Clinton and their team no longer looked forward to getting out.
According to CNN's late-night (morning) report, Donald Trump is confidently winning in 26 states. Alaska, Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia, Tennessee, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Alabama, North Dakota, Wyoming, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, Montana, Missouri, Idaho, Ohio voted for him , North Carolina, Georgia, Iowa. The victory in Florida, which is located near the border with the unloved Republican Mexico (where the peso collapsed against the backdrop of Trump's victorious reports), was especially difficult for him, but it brought 29 electoral votes. After that, even the triumph in California, which gave her 55 electoral votes, did not save Hillary Clinton's position. In total, the Democrat leads in 18 states. In addition to California, these are Vermont, Illinois, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, New York, Connecticut, New Mexico, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Virginia, Nevada, and the federal District of Columbia.
Michael McFaul: “Putin interfered in our elections and succeeded. Well done" Photo: kremlin.ru
"It's over," he tweeted. former ambassador United States in Russia, known as a close associate of Clinton. “Putin interfered in our elections and succeeded. Well done,” he praises the President of the Russian Federation, who, in his opinion, is the only one to blame for Trump’s victory. Later, however, the ex-ambassador deleted the tweet.
Leader of the right-wing French National Front party Marine Le Pen on the contrary, rejoices. She congratulated the Republican in advance, without waiting for the official results to be announced. “My congratulations to the new President of the United States, Donald Trump, and to the free American people,” she wrote in such a short speech on the social network.
Leader of the British Independence Party and Brexit ideologue Nigel Farage applauds "Old Donald": "If Trump wins, it will be bigger than Brexit," he tweeted. An American journalist agrees with him Charles Frago: “This is Brexit-2,” he says. “No one believed that the UK would leave the European Union, and it happened.” We add that no one believed in Trump's victory either, but it seems to have happened.
Europe, devoted to the values of the EU, is completely out. Minister of Defense of Germany Ursula von der Leyen on the air of the German TV channel ARD shared her experiences. “When I saw how the situation was developing, I experienced a serious shock,” she said. “I think Trump knows that this was not an election in his favor, but an election against Washington, against the establishment.”
As a result, Hillary Clinton not only canceled the salute in her honor (this happened exactly at the start of voting day), but also refused to speak to her supporters. Satisfied Donald Trump, on the contrary, expressed a desire to appeal to his compatriots.
Meanwhile, global stocks plummeted on the back of winning reports from Donald Trump's campaign headquarters.
THE VICTORY OF THE BILLIONAIRE CRASHED THE EXCHANGE AND THE RUBLE AND CAUSED A REDUCTION IN THE PRICE OF OIL
Having won, the Republican Party receives control not only of the White House, but also retains a majority in the House of Representatives. According to the latest count, the Republicans won 223 seats with 218 needed to control the House. At the same time, only 160 congressmen took the seats from the Democrats.
Meanwhile, global stock indexes have collapsed against the backdrop of victorious reports from the campaign headquarters of Donald Trump. As of 07:20 Moscow time, futures for major US stock indices fell within 3-4%. Dow Jones fell by 3.5% (by 650 points), S&P 500 - by 4.26%, Nasdaq - by 4.1%. This is bigger than the 9/11 crash. But US Treasury bonds and gold rose in price.
Oil is getting cheaper. The cost of January futures for a barrel of Brent crude fell by $1.5 to $44.6. December futures for WTI crude fell 3% to $43.60 per barrel during trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX).
It is expected that the dollar will definitely fall in price against major world currencies, such as the Swiss franc and the yen. This, however, does not apply developing countries. In Russia, the shy ruble, as usual, began to dive down. The dollar exchange rate with settlements “tomorrow” at 10:06 Moscow time on Wednesday grew by 0.25 rubles to 64.01 rubles, the euro exchange rate - by 1.38 rubles to 71.65 rubles, follows from the data of the Moscow Exchange. The MICEX index fell by 1.4%, RTS - by 1.5%.
It remains to add that against the backdrop of the joy of some and the despondency of others, a strange incident occurred in New York: on November 8, the duty commandant of the Russian Consulate General in this city died. According to preliminary data - from a heart attack. According to the New York Daily News, the 63-year-old employee lost consciousness after the fall and died at around 7 am at the consulate general checkpoint. He was diagnosed with a head injury. “The police are investigating,” a spokesman for the consulate general told the newspaper.
Clinton at the Kul Sharif Mosque Photo: shaimiev.tatarstan.ru
HOW CLINTON WALKED AROUND KAZAN SIX YEARS AGO AND PROMISED SHAIMIEV TO CALL HIM “FOR ADVICE”
By the way, Kazanians know firsthand what Hillary Clinton, who lost the American elections, looks like, and the prominent Democrat herself, unlike many Americans mired in regionalism, knows exactly where Kazan is located on the world map. In October 2009, a special plane delivered the then US Secretary of State to Tatarstan. The visit took place as part of the politician's European tour, during which she predictably decided to visit Russia, choosing only two cities for this: Moscow and Kazan. Let's remember how it was.
As we now understand, this was the heyday of Clinton's "criminal activity" in terms of sending "secret" messages to the right and left emails that the FBI and, of course, the restless Donald Trump are currently blaming her. In particular, just in the fall of 2009, Mrs. Hillary, according to information from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, received an important letter from the White House staff labeled "Top Secret" and immediately forwarded it trustingly to her daughter Chelsea. It is possible that this happened around the same time when, at the Kazan airport, when she got off the ladder, she was offered to taste chak-chak, and then they were taken exactly to Kul Sharif, where nikah was read in the prayer hall. As eyewitnesses recall, the iron American lady was at first confused, and then resolutely congratulated the newlyweds.
It is clear that during the Kazan tour, Hillary Clinton desperately tried to please the people of Tatarstan, and she apparently succeeded. The Democratic Party candidate, hated by many American voters, then smiled a lot and charmingly, looked at Iranian carpets and Tatar ornamental paintings, clicked her tongue and was sincerely surprised that 10 US citizens took part in the construction of the mosque (which was reported to her by Ramil Khazrat Yunusov, who in those years was the imam of the "showcase" Muslim temple of the Republic of Tatarstan). In the Cathedral of the Annunciation, where Clinton visited after Kul Sharif, she covered her trademark hairstyle with a scarf and lit a candle in front of the Kazan Icon of the Mother of God, specially brought here on this occasion from the Bogoroditsky Monastery.
The proximity of two majestic temples, the symphony of two religions was called in Clinton's language "tolerance" and "political correctness", which means that she deserved all kinds of praise, which she received when she met Mintimer Shaimiev, then - the President of the Republic of Tatarstan. “Tolerance and mutual understanding characterize the Tatarstan society,” Shaimiev echoed. - When they ask me why this is so, I say that this is primarily because of the education of our people. Kazan has always been an educational center in Russia.” From the leader of the republic, Mrs. Hillary also learned that the Republic of Tatarstan is "a kind of bridge between Islam and Orthodoxy, between the West and the East" and, in this capacity, has already established trade relations with European countries and the USA, as well as comprehensive contacts with the Arab world.
And the "Arab Spring", and the war in Syria, and the conflict in Ukraine were still ahead, so not a single cloud that came running from the future spoiled the duty courtesy of the American. “It is a great honor for me to visit Kazan and Tatarstan,” she told Shaimiev, explaining that in her view, the Republic of Tatarstan is an example of how people of different nationalities and religions can move towards a common future.
They showed Clinton and a statue of a winged leopard, installed in the presidential palace, with the motto engraved on it: “Buldyrabyz! We can!" The Secretary of State was struck by the coincidence of this "slogan" with the campaign slogan of Barack Obama "Yes, we can!" (Yes we can!) “She was joking, she says:“ When did you get this? “I say:“ Six years ago. Well, then, it turns out, he says, we took it from you,” Mintimer Shaimiev later recalled laughing.
In addition to the snow leopard, Clinton also toured Kazan University with a monument to the half-educated student Vladimir Ulyanov installed opposite, assessed KAMAZ vehicles with American Cummins engines, and in parting said to Shaimiev: “I will call you, Mr. President, because you can do a lot with your advice. to give not only for Russia and Tatarstan, but in general for all people who want to live in peace.”
I wonder if you called? Will he call now? In the meantime, her Kazan photo with a candle and a headscarf is spreading across social networks: “She went to the monastery.”
“They already had an actor, now let there be a clown”
Photo: Anton Denisov, RIA Novosti
“TRUMP CONTINUES THE BREXIT LINE, AND CLINTON IS GANGSTED FINANCIALISTS”
BUSINESS Online asked its experts to evaluate what Donald Trump's victory means for the world and for Russia in particular. Should Moscow wait for a reset in relations with Washington?
Alexey Mukhin- director of the center political information:
Trump's victory won't mean anything good for Russia in the near future. First, Donald Trump is an unpredictable politician. If everything was clear with Hillary Clinton and a certain dialogue was built, then we will have to build a dialogue with him again. Secondly, Donald Trump, as a novice politician (and no one can deny this), will be forced to form a team under the influence of the Republicans. So, the contours of Donald Trump's future team do not bode well for Russia, many Republican representatives here, to put it mildly, do not even shake hands, but it is quite obvious that they will occupy key positions in the new president's administration. In this regard, in the near future, apart from bright hopes and a desire to wake up in the morning and have new relations with America, nothing good can be expected.
The electors have already voted for Trump, the gap is quite large. In principle, there is no intrigue, although, of course, I think that there will be some surprises. As for the campaign, it was dirty. And if Hillary disputes the results of this election, the Trump team will still have to suffer. For the rest, the people of America have made their choice in the form in which they are accustomed to making it. We do not have a habit of criticizing it, unlike the same Europeans and the same Americans who willingly criticize the Russian electoral system. But, as they say, feel the difference between Russian and American elections. Ours, in my opinion, are much more honest and representative than American ones, not to mention transparency.
Andrey Fursov— historian:
- You should not have any special illusions, since the matter is not in the US president himself, and the US has long-term interests. Of course, the situation, if it changes, then not much. However, there will certainly be changes. The point here is not Trump, but the forces that he represents. The fact is that Trump's confrontation with Clinton is, in fact, a confrontation with banksters, these are gangster financiers who have bet on Clinton. It is very significant that both BlackRock and Larry King, generally the largest financial structures invested in it. These are the people who simply need to keep the dollar, who need financial globalization, which has been going on for 30 years, and military conflicts are needed to maintain it, etc. Trump is backed by those forces, not only in America, but also in Europe, who are not satisfied with financial globalization. By the way, it is very significant that a person associated with the Rothschilds, Abramovich, made a symbolic contribution to the Trump campaign. In this respect, Trump's line continues the Brexit line - this is the struggle of a certain part of the Western European elite against financial globalization, not against the United States in general, but against banks and that part of the corporation that is associated with them.
Trump's victory will mean reformatting the very domestic political, domestic economic situation in the Western world as the core of the capitalist system. A few days before the election, an article appeared very influential person, Jeffrey Sachs, who said that Clinton would be a continuation of Obama's course. So Jeffrey Sachs said that this would mean that in another 4-6 years the US would simply be overwhelmed by the military spending that they incur around the world, America should be focused on its own problems. It was a very clear signal to those elites who support Clinton to turn the other way. And Trump's victory will mean a very important thing, the consequence of which will be the macro-regionalization of the world system, that is, the collapse of the global system into large regions. This, in general, corresponds to our interests, of course. In addition, ceteris paribus, the likelihood of major regional wars decreases with the arrival of Trump in the White House. But, I emphasize, there should be no illusions here. Trump is simply the lesser of two evils.
Now we are talking about electoral votes. Trump gets around here. Of course, all sorts of things are possible, because there is a lot of money at stake. I repeat, if BlackRock has already invested, and this is 4.5 trillion dollars, this is more than the Rothschilds, the Fed. You can imagine what is at stake.
"IF CLINTON WON, SHE WOULD BE LIKE A MOUSE UNDER A BROOM"
Valentin Katasonov- Professor of the Department of International Finance at MGIMO, Doctor of Economics, Russian economist and head of the Russian Economic Society. Sharapova:
“These elections are unique because a game without rules has begun in the United States. I even noticed that if before all the same, some positive aspects related to the presentation of programs prevailed in the programs and speeches of presidential candidates, now there is a war of compromising information. Even from an ethical point of view, this creates a very unpleasant sensation. Moreover, it is clear that people who are not in a positive mood are not able to lead the country. And it seems to me that the moral atmosphere in America is "at the level of the plinth."
As a professional, I became interested in the activities of the Clinton Foundation, so I studied American sources. And they note the grossest violations of American law, the law of other countries. If we talk about violations of American law, then this is a violation tax legislation, a violation of laws that prohibit receiving grants and all kinds of donations from countries with so-called undemocratic regimes. It turns out that in this case America is showing not even double, but triple standards. The example of this Clinton Foundation shows that the American Themis simply blindfolded and does not want to notice obvious things.
As it turned out, back in early 2015, long before the start of the election campaign, reputable publications like The Wall Street Journal had exposés about the Clinton Foundation. Therefore, it is not surprising that US law enforcement agencies behave in a strange way. Even the FBI, which dealt with these so-called October scandals, the email scandal and the foundation scandal: they start an investigation, then they close it, then they start it again. We are all adults and we understand that this can only mean one thing - someone is pulling the strings.
The current elections are very different from the elections of the decades after the Second World War. There is a lot of interesting, new, and all this still requires its reflection and digestion. Well, for example, how did the non-systemic candidate Trump come about? This has never happened before! Accordingly, the rules of the game worked out for decades are violated. Such, for example, as the need to evenly distribute all the "eggs" in all baskets - to bet on all candidates.
I followed how the US election campaign was financed. And even in previous elections there was complete financial parity. And now it turns out that Clinton has three times more funding than Trump. This is unprecedented! This has never happened in the history of the United States, at least not in the post-war period. There is a lot here that will influence the course of the United States, regardless of who comes to power in the White House.
If Clinton had won, then as president she would have acted like a mouse under a broom. Because the revelations that have been thrown out provide complete control over this lady, even if she is considered the hostess in the White House.
It's more interesting to understand what's going on behind the scenes. And behind the scenes, apparently, they lost some control over the situation, and this, of course, is unpleasant. And let them not delude themselves: although Trump seems to have come to power, it will also be difficult for us to build relations with America. Because they will put a lot of pressure on Trump, up to physical pressure. We remember the story of President John F. Kennedy. And most importantly, there was some kind of systemic failure behind the scenes, and I think that this reflects some kind of reshuffling of forces. So both presidents are not very comfortable for us.
Dmitry Drobnitsky- political scientist, Americanist:
— It's about not about the crisis of American democracy. Rather, it is about the crisis of the American political system. Once it has created a situation in which two candidates participate in the final, who have record anti-ratings in the history of the United States. These are people who do not like the voters. And many of those who voted for Clinton or for Trump would gladly vote for a more likeable candidate.
It is clear that I am not talking about appearance but about their political programs. Among other things, it is clear that the bipartisan American system, which has developed today, itself gave rise to this crisis, and something will surely happen to it. My guess is that the Republican Party, as we know it today, has simply ceased to exist, and either a major transformation or a split awaits it. At the same time, in Democratic Party the same thing happens. But the fact that until the finale head to head with a representative of the establishment was a non-systemic candidate who did not hide what he would do with this establishment if he came to power, and even promised to imprison Hillary, and at the same time he still won - amazing!
And this shows that American democracy, for all its archaism, is generally working. Therefore, it is clear that she politic system will be transformed, but to say that democracy has become obsolete, in the American sense of the word, is just not right. We have all become experts on the US electoral system. We know that it is attractive, that elections are, in the true sense of the word, public policy. But this is the democratic nature of this system.
It is clear that, on the one hand, the establishment did everything to prevent Donald Trump from getting through. But, on the other hand, it is impossible to say that democracy does not exist there. We would not have seen Donald Trump there at all if democracy did not exist there. As for electoral fraud and everything else, they are possible, as in any other country. There are no absolutely clean systems - they will definitely try to use administrative resources, fraud, and whatever else. It is only necessary to understand that in the conditions of fierce competition of political forces, it is very difficult to commit fraud that can seriously affect the conditions of elections. At the same time, each of the candidates has an additional option - an appeal against the election results...
Hillary Clinton's victory would mean the continuation of President Obama's policy, only, alas, in a much tougher version. Clinton is not just the epitome of the Washington establishment. In some ways, this is the embodiment of the Washington consensus on foreign policy - aggressive enough, associated with the establishment of democracy around the world, with pressure on democratic regimes, including our country. But among other things, Hillary Clinton, alas, chose an attack on Russia in the form of pre-election rhetoric. And she blamed Russia for any scandals that took place in her campaign headquarters ...
Becoming president, she would not get rid of all these scandals. There will be an ongoing investigation by the FBI, Congress and everything else. And she would have already as a president began to "run into" Russia. And then she would have to answer for her words and take some actions in relation to our country. In this sense, this is a very dangerous trend.
As for Donald Trump, my main concern is that our foreign policy elite, our partyocracy, is used to talking to globalists. With George W. Bush, with Barack Obama. There are no people in our Foreign Ministry who would talk with an American patriot - those who would have very strained relations with globalism. And Donald Trump, despite all his good words about Russia and Putin, is a very tough patriot of his country. Can we talk to a person who says "America First"? I get the impression that most of our partyocracy is simply not ready for this.
"PRESSURE ON RUSSIA ON THE EXTERNAL BORDERS WILL BE REDUCED"
Oleg Matveychev- political technologist:
- You need to understand that Trump wins in spite of the entire US establishment, that is, the entire state, the entire state bureaucracy, all the media and everything in the world, including thanks to the strongest opposition in his own party, that is, even half of the Republicans, roughly speaking, do not supports. This means that even if he has good will, as he stated during the election campaign, in relation to Russia, the desire to negotiate, this entire state machine will resist. Therefore, we obviously will not see any drastic steps. But what can be said with confidence is that Trump, his people, his team are not very big specialists and have never been seen in organizing "color revolutions" and similar coups. And in the program, Trump stated that he was not going to do this, in general, to devote some kind of foreign policy great attention, democratic assistance to other countries, spend money on it. Therefore, it is likely that pressure on Russia along the external borders will be reduced, that is, we will see that support for Ukraine, all kinds of unfriendly regimes in all kinds of Baltic states and Moldova, etc. will decrease. Most likely, the situation in Syria will be relegated to the background, written off to Obama and his administration. As for all kinds of lifting of sanctions, there is no need to be very optimistic, because here the economy comes into play and the US benefits that they have from the fact that relations between the European Union and Russia have worsened. On this, the States partially earn or in the future can earn. Therefore, if Trump wants to change something, he will demand some concessions. It is not clear what concessions we can make in this case. Therefore, in any case, this is a better development than it would have been with Clinton, who would have presented us with all sorts of surprises. But even if Trump succeeds in his plans to reformat the economy and everything in the world, then most likely the world will have a long transition period, and in this sense, Russia as part of the world will also suffer. In any case, one should not expect any breakthroughs in the economy. Most likely, the crisis phenomena in the world connected with the restructuring of the American economy will hit us too.
The fact that the electors will not vote for Trump, but for Hillary, is not excluded. There is no such thing in the American tradition, but demarches of individual electors are quite possible, because the system can resist. The question here is to what extent there are internal inter-elite agreements. If they clearly understand that they have nowhere to retreat at all, then such options are also possible. If they are given guarantees that no one will touch them for their old sins, then they will all tolerantly raise their paws and say: “In the traditions of American democracy, we shake hands with the winner.”
The crisis of American democracy has been talked about for a long time. There is, for sure. This is a rather archaic system, in principle, legislative both in terms of public administration, and even more so in terms of elections. But they say it's tradition. And so, of course, there great amount problems, they have been repeatedly pointed out. Only yesterday it was said that 40 million voted early, which, as you understand, is already a powerful percentage. True, our opposition is not heard, which would be indignant at this, because when we have 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 times less early voting, then there are squeals and screams. And when it is done in America, it is normal.
Pavel Salin- Director of the Center for Political Science Research of the Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation:
- I would not jump to conclusions that Trump can become the President of the United States. It's just that the general public in our country does not represent all the intricacies of the US electoral system. Suppose there was a precedent in 1976 when a presidential candidate received both the majority of the popular vote and the majority of the electoral votes, yet another president was elected within the framework of elite consensus, this was not regarded as a constitutional coup. In 2000, the situation is more widely known - Gore defeated Bush on the basis of popular votes, but not on the number of electors. So now the candidates go head to head. If Trump fails to consolidate the advantage, then we need to look at what will happen in December, when the electors will vote.
Let's say Trump has already won. We have a serious illusion that a Trump victory is actually a Russian victory, and a Clinton victory is a Russian defeat. But over the past couple of months, a more realistic concept has begun to prevail in power, according to which Clinton, if he wins, may turn out to be a less difficult candidate for Russia than is commonly believed, and Trump, if he wins, may turn out to be a more difficult candidate for Russia than is commonly believed, one by one. for a simple reason: no matter who wins the American presidential election, he is very seriously bound by the foreign political situation and domestic political obligations to the elites. Trump is bound by these obligations, maybe a little less than Clinton. Therefore, to say that they will act in accordance with their pre-election statements is at least naive. So if Clinton wins, maybe she has serious anti-Russian ambitions, but she will be limited by the objective decline of America's influence in the world, one way or another, she will have to negotiate with Russia. As for Trump, on the other hand, he will be objectively limited by the dissatisfaction of the American elites, whom Russia in 2014 gave a very serious slap in the face to their reputation in the eyes of all the world elites in the event of the annexation of Crimea. Therefore, objective circumstances will shift candidates from their desired position, say, Clinton towards a more pro-Russian position, and Trump, on the contrary, towards a less pro-Russian position.
Rafael Khakimov- Director of the Institute of History. Marjani AS RT, director of scientific programs of the Kazan Center for Federalism and public policy:
- Trump's victory for Russia, perhaps, will even mean an attempt to reset in relation to America. The anti-American rhetoric that used to be is now forgotten; Sergei Kiriyenko has appeared in our office of the President of the Russian Federation, and he is not one of those “patriots” who have been building an ideology until now. And although Trump has repeatedly spoken out in favor of Russia, sanctions will not be lifted - this is understandable. But there may be some kind of reboot. And renewal of attempts to negotiate on Syria - all this can be. At the same time, I do not expect any changes in relation to Tatarstan. That's how we work. We did not feel any special sanctions, only a couple of our enterprises, in my opinion, felt them. And so we have a neutral position. Even when there are some difficult relations with some country, our diplomatic function is to be softer, so that on occasion to be something like an intermediary or a channel for negotiations.
I do not think that Trump's victory will somehow affect our elite. After all, we do not have any kind of party division - into Democrats, Republicans. And in general, the ideology is very similar to the United States, and even there the difference between Republicans and Democrats is small. A sharp change in policy when another candidate comes to power should not be expected. After all, it is not the president who controls it, but his party and entourage.
I would not call what is happening a crisis of American democracy. There is a crisis of democracy in general, but it is precisely elections in America that are dishonest and difficult. There, everyone follows each other and there are many newspapers that are interested in catching someone and raising their rating on this fried material. Therefore, it is too early to talk about the crisis. America remains one of the most democratic countries.
"It's FUNNY WHEN PEOPLE CHOOSE BETWEEN A WOMAN AND A CLOWN"
Andrey Tuzikov- Head of the Department of State, Municipal Administration and Sociology of KNRTU-KHTI:
- Reasoning that allows the idea that someone from the US political elite is some kind of hidden supporter, potentially better or worse partner, is not entirely correct. Any President of the United States defends national interests of their country. Everything else is constructs that are created by the media. Each of them is more constructive in some matters, less so in others. But in general, each of them will firmly protect the interests of the United States. Least of all they will think about you and me. To say that the elections will somehow affect Russian elite also at the level of speculation. The Medvedev government is Clinton's henchmen - this is all at the level of rumors. I can tell you a lot of rumors, for example, about Masonic lodges or reptilians. This is all from the category of weakly proven opinions.
Are US elections democratic? You know, this is how the modern world works, that both the media and readers live in the situation of the “agenda” that the mass media produces. This is the reality that people perceive. None of us lives in the USA, is not familiar with the political elite from the inside. The root of this question is that there is some premise that there is some ideal democracy. The answer will disappoint you: it doesn't exist. The fact that they have a two-stage system, and we have a one-stage one - and which is worse or better? From the position that everything is solved in one process, it is better, of course. The American system was created as an attempt to neutralize the populists. The average 19th-century American did not leave his native village further than 8 - 10 kilometers. How could they know who this or that candidate is? Therefore, the idea was that the authoritative representatives of the state would cast their vote. But the joke is that in almost 30 of the 51 states there is a law that requires electors to vote exactly as the population voted. This is the root of the scheme in the US. Yes, indeed, if you scan all 120 million voters, and in total they can vote for one candidate, but due to the fact that different numbers of electors are elected from different states, the outcome of the presidential election may be different. The US electoral system in this sense is not entirely clear to people accustomed to direct logic. The Americans themselves criticize it, but the tradition is still observed.
Alexey Konnov — CEO Center for Analytical Research and Development:
- The past elections mean nothing to Russia. Behavior during the election race and behavior during the presidency are two big differences. More than once the American system has demonstrated this. I think there is some background, backdrop, people who put it on. Perhaps there will be some movement, such as what he said "he cannot live without Russia." But he is not alone in deciding this, he also has a congress, and so on. Yes, it is possible that there will be an ostentatious warming of relations. But it’s not like Hillary is supposedly bad there, and Trump will kiss all of Russia on the lips. You know, every electoral system has its pros and cons. There is direct and indirect voting. And I think that in this case, with a certain degree of assumption, the elections were adequate and quite fair. Electors are also chosen by someone. It cannot be said that the principle of checks and balances in the American electoral system is the worst in the world.
Talking about a crisis in American democracy is difficult. Each nation chooses the one who is worthy. For me personally, it's funny how people choose between a woman and a clown. On the other hand, all the pre-election cries after the inauguration of the president will be calm and without unnecessary gestures in one direction or another. Of course, I would like to see the choice between a normal person and a normal person. But in this case, what we have is what we have. You can call it a crisis in American democracy, or you can call it the very existence of American democracy. This is a demonstration of the same american dream when a person can achieve anything with his desire. They already had an actor, now let there be a clown.
Oleg Zaznaev— Head of the Department of Political Science of the Institute of Social and Philosophical Sciences and Mass Communications of KFU:
“There won't be a big catastrophe, because the United States works like a well-oiled system and the president cannot significantly break this system. Of course, policy variations are possible. But I think that Trump during the elections and Trump as president are two different person. He will take a more moderate position than he did during the election campaign. This outrageousness will disappear. What will this mean for Russia? Trump seems to be a more interesting candidate for us, since he expressed sympathy and willingness to cooperate with Russia. To a greater extent, perhaps, Trump is like a black box with some elements of surprise. It is difficult to say how exactly the foreign policy will be built. There is a slight hope for curtsies towards Russia, but so far this is fortune-telling on the coffee grounds. Clinton's position is clear, but as for Trump, there is no clarity yet. In any case, all this will come back to haunt Tatarstan in the same way as for Russia as a whole.
Well deserved win, @realdonaldtrump! I predicted it.
A photo posted by Vladimir Zhirinovsky (@zhirinovskiy) on Nov 9, 2016 at 1:26am PST
TRAMP-param-param-param-pa. Tram-pam-pa. GREAT CHOICE! #soyuzcartoon80
A video posted by Ministry of Culture (@mincult_russia) on Nov 9, 2016 at 12:43am PST
Wind of change... Congratulations to all citizens and residents of the United States on the New President!
A photo posted by Pavel Astakhov (@rfdeti) on Nov 9, 2016 at 1:03am PST
Donald Trump won the US elections. During the election race, Trump expressed restrained and pragmatic assessments of relations between the United States and Russia. Hillary Clinton's campaign, by contrast, was anti-Russian to the point of schizophrenia. And it didn't work. I think Trump's success testifies, among other things, that there is a serious demand in American society to improve relations with our country. It is difficult to say how President Donald Trump will behave, but he will have to reckon with this request in any case. During the last elections, the international community was clearly demonstrated the "peculiarities of national democracy" in the United States. This is closedness, denial of access to foreign observers, including Russian diplomats, numerous frauds and even shooting at the polling station. I have no doubt that if something similar happened in any other country, the State Department would certainly declare such elections illegitimate. Of course, if they were won by a candidate objectionable to the US authorities. Against this background, the Crimean referendum, the results of which the United States does not recognize, looks like a model of democratic procedures. The concept of democracy in America is seriously devalued due to the fault of the current American establishment. But now the American people have hope for positive change. #CrimeaRussiaForever #elections #usa #russia #electionssha #electionnight
A photo posted by Sergey Aksenov (@aksenov.sv) on Nov 9, 2016 at 1:02am PST
In the campaign slogan of Donald Trump - "Make America great again" - a key word was found, it came last, and this word is "again." Over the past two months, US policy has again been reminiscent of what it is remembered from the Cold War. The owner of the White House returned to the old and proven relations with NATO, China, Syria, Israel, Iran, the European Union, Russia; he does not support Marine Le Pen in Europe and does not even fight free trade that interferes with the local producer.
Twist the president's arms
The version that Trump's war with the establishment ended in victory not for Trump, but for the establishment deserves special consideration. At least, that is what Syrian President Bashar al-Assad believes, believing that Trump could not cope with the leadership he inherited. "Every president in the United States who wants to become a true leader has to eventually take and swallow his pride, turn around 180 degrees, otherwise he will have to pay a political price," Assad said. It is possible that the Syrian leader is referring to Trump's Republican predecessor. President George W. Bush came to power with an isolationist program, but did not pursue it for long - until the September 11, 2001 attacks.
The version about the difficulties of the White House in a clash with the establishment is confirmed by a leak from the German authorities in German. In the high offices of Berlin, they allegedly believe that Trump has become “incompetent” in the Russian direction, since he has lost room for maneuver. In Germany, according to this information, they proceed from the fact that Washington will not be able to take any steps in relations with Moscow, no matter what the original plans were: Trump was cornered.
Another fact that fits into the same outline is the reaction of the President's son Eric to the bombing of the Syrian base of El Shayrat. “What the strike on Syria certainly showed was that there is no connection with Russia,” the politician’s son was too obviously delighted with the excessive proof.
If Trump was forced to change, what leverage could be involved? As soon as the president took the top post, his opponents were already talking about impeachment. Despite the fact that the majority in the US Congress is controlled by Republicans, hostility large group of them, centered around Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, made such a prospect very real.
There is something else important: Trump was convinced that it is impossible to govern the country if his goals are not shared by a third power - the judiciary. Under current US law, judges have the ability to suspend presidential decrees, de facto paralyzing the execution of those that run counter to established practice. In practice, this means that it is impossible to change anything too quickly and abruptly, relying only on presidential powers.
Trump was persuaded
The point of view of the vast majority of US politicians excludes the possibility of pressure on Trump, as well as the existence of the "Deep State" - a community of politicians who govern the country against the will of the president. “Some of the things he said during the campaign.<…>I think now he himself understands that he needs to act differently. He is learning his job,” Senator Mitchie McConnell comments on the changes in the White House. “What I see now looks much more like a conventional Republican administration. I think it's very good," praises Trump, his former bitter opponent Elliott Abrams.
Trump could be persuaded by members of his own family, whose role in the campaign was underestimated. After the bombing of Syria, the media learned that the president made this decision under the influence of his daughter Ivanka, whose interest in politics was not reported for a long time. Her husband Jared Kushner, on the contrary, made his choice a long time ago - he is a member of the left Republicans. “We cannot agree with you, you are simply a Democrat,” old Trump adviser Steve Bannon told Kushner.
However, it is Kushner's influence that is steadily increasing in recent weeks. As for Bannon, CNN is seriously considering firing the adviser soon. Rumors about this decision, allegedly already made by Trump, have been circulating for a long time.
Trump misunderstood
The version that Donald Trump was not going to unfold the American political course at all also has the right to exist. In her favor is the negotiating manner of the president, who loves to "put pressure" on his interlocutors. So, Trump’s legendary words about refusing to defend Estonia, in fact, “forced” European countries increase their military spending. Having made sure that the estimates of the countries of the alliance will be increased (this will save the United States itself), Trump stopped scolding NATO. "The Alliance has changed for the better, and the President doesn't scold it anymore," White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer says with satisfaction.
Will Trump be the next Bush?
Experts believe that in the coming months, Trump will continue to search for "his own face." “There is no need to talk about a return to the neoconservatism of the 2000s, Trump’s policy is too chaotic for this, and the president himself simply lacks his own convictions. Bush's policies were dictated by his values, and the current president doesn't even have that,” skeptical Program Director of the Valdai Club Timofey Bordachev.
Deputy Director of the Center for Political Technologies Alexey Makarkin believes that a return to the imperatives of the 2000s is possible, but with only one important limitation. “Trump opposes protracted military operations such as those under Bush. He negatively assesses this experience. With it, one can expect point actions, local operations, but still not big wars", - says the expert.
Photo: Facebook/President Donald J. Trump
Donald Trump became president of the United States on the promise of changing the face of American politics and handing power back to the people. We recalled the key promises of the new head of the White House and examined which of them were fulfilled and which were not.
January 20 marked the end of Donald Trump's first year as President of the United States. In The Pact with the American Voters, Donald Trump published promises that he was going to fulfill in the first hundred days of his presidency. A year later, you can see how the promises of the first 100 days were fulfilled and what was done in 366 days, because 2017 was a leap year and the president added one more day to fulfill his promises, RIA writes.
Among the promises kept
Limiting the number of regulations
On January 30, Trump announced that he had signed an executive order limiting the number of regulations: rules were adopted according to which, when a new federal statute is passed, two existing norms should be abolished.
Prohibition on lobbying the interests of other states
On January 28, Trump signed an executive order barring former members of the presidential administration from engaging in lobbying activities for the organizations for which they worked for five years after leaving office. At the same time, the document does not talk about the full five-year ban promised to engage in lobbying activities. In addition, the decree does not apply to members of Congress.
US withdrawal announcement
He regarded the partnership as one of the main threats to the US economy. The country joined the TPP during the presidency of Barack Obama. Among other things that Trump managed to do on the first day of work was the announcement of a large-scale tax reform.
In 2017, Trump planned to help create 25 million jobs through massive tax cuts and tax simplification, combined with trade reforms, regulatory easing, and lifting restrictions on US energy.
During the year of the Trump presidency, the number of jobs in the United States increased by 1.8 million. Since there is progress in this area, this pledge can be categorized as "In Progress".
Stricter penalties for violating the visa regime have not been introduced.
In his first 100 days in office, Trump issued 3 presidential executive orders to tighten immigration laws, and all 3 were courts.
New procedures not entered
It was planned to change the rules for issuing visas and introduce more severe penalties for staying beyond the period stipulated by the visa.
Enhanced screening of all persons entering the US
The introduction of new immigrant screening procedures to ensure that those who are allowed into the country respect the American people and share their values can only be called partially introduced: customs officers have the right to check tourists' gadgets and seize them for 7 days if the tourist refuses to name password.
Federal prison sentence for re-illegal entry into the United States after deportation is not introduced
It was planned to introduce at least a two-year term in federal prison for re-illegal entry into the United States after deportation.
Also in Trump's plans was to impose a 5-year sentence for repeated illegal entry for persons convicted of a serious crime, multiple violations or subjected to two or more deportations. In addition, there are no sanctions against countries that did not accept deported migrants.
Contributions to the accounts of low-income families
Contributions to the accounts of low-income families are made on the principle of parity co-financing - that was the president's plan.
When it comes to families and family finances, here is a collection of promises:
The tax for families with two children is not reduced;Tax-free savings accounts for childcare and elderly care are not open;Employers are not encouraged to help with childcare;There are no tax deductions for child and elderly care expenses;
So far, it has not been possible to fulfill the promises related to health insurance:
The Law on Affordable Health Care has not been repealed (Obama care); Control federal system medical care for the poorMedicaid) is not transferred to the state level, failed to ensure the ability to buy health insurance in another state.
On January 20, Trump signed an executive order partially repealing the Affordable Care in America Act. In March, Congress held hearings on the termination of Obamacare. But Trump failed to win the support of the required number of congressmen. As a result, on March 25, the president decided to withdraw the bill. On October 12, Trump signed a new executive order to begin the repeal of Obamacare.
Introduction of Medical Savings Accounts
Donald Trump has promised that health savings accounts will replace Obamacare. Since the President signed a new executive order on October 12 that repealed Obama's health care reform, it can be said that he has taken some steps to fulfill this promise.
In the field of education, it was planned redirect the flow of public spending on education so that parents have the opportunity to send their children to public, private, independent, specialized, religious schools or to provide them with home education. Until this is done, parents will be able to choose schools for their children. Also, unified educational standards have not yet been canceled.
In addition, the budget of the Department of Education was cut by 13.5%, and it is not known how this will affect the fate of vocational and technical education.
The US stock market has reached record highs, oil prices remain low, consumer and small business economic expectations are quite upbeat, and inflation is under control.
