Noosphere management by Donald Trump

And yet, the speech of the new US representative to the UN, Nikki Haley, with a sharp condemnation of Moscow and a demonstration of America's readiness to follow the previous course, turned out to be rather unexpected.

Nimrata Nikka Randhawa Heila is an American politician, a member of the Republican Party. Permanent Representative of the United States to the United Nations since January 27, 2017.

In particular, Ukrainian diplomats say that it caused a shock on the Russian side. However, later - leaving a small window for dubious "openness to dialogue", the press secretary of the White House, Sean Spicer, confirmed that Hala's anti-Russian philippic is the agreed position of the new American government.

Moreover, some time later, Federica Mogherina held a successful meeting in Washington with the incoming Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. According to the results of this meeting (although it was mainly devoted to Iran), it was declared that the EU and the USA will continue the agreed political line in relation to Russia - the sanctions will continue to apply until the full implementation of the Minsk agreements. Of course, pressure on Ukraine can also be included in such a wording, but Kyiv, as it appears, has already adapted to similar gestures of the West, provoked by the actions of Russian agents in the establishment of Western states. As for Tillerson, he was quite possibly carried away by Mogherina's sweet words about a subject previously unknown to him, not understanding very well what could be "bad" in continuing the previous line. After all, bureaucrats are insidious and always present this as the best solution.

Rex Wayne Tillerson is the US Secretary of State since February 1, 2017.

At the same time, Tillerson himself - in his American rear - found himself in an awkward position, since Trump suddenly rejected the agreed candidacy of Elliott Abrams, who held important positions in the administrations of Reagan and Bush Sr., for the position of first deputy secretary of state. Moreover, for an extremely minor reason - it turned out that Abrams had previously spoken about the unwillingness of both Clinton and Trump to hold the presidency. National Security Adviser Michael Flynn also fell into the act - his negotiations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak became the subject of close interest of the opposition (and not only), and there was even talk of limiting the adviser's access (?!) to classified information.

At the same time, Trump himself has suddenly improved in relation to China and seems to have agreed to continue the "one China" policy - why, in this case, did he encourage Taiwan until recently? Thus, it can be argued that chaos reigns in the system of organization of American foreign policy today. As for the optimistic ones - for Ukraine and the Atlantic unity - declared by the White House and the State Department, they should, apparently, be regarded as the fear of the new cabinet to take any drastic steps. Which looks very reasonable considering the temperament of the president, who has already managed to quarrel with Australia on the same spot and make other rather strange concessions. It is not surprising that the Dominican newspaper confused the photo of Trump and the actor parodying him, Alec Baldwin - and, let's hope, this mistake will not become a reason for an American military invasion.

"Trump-Baldwin"

One way or another, the associations with Moscow are still creating a lot of problems for Donald, and as a potential "agent of influence", he seems to have turned out to be completely useless. The White House is drowning in the swamp of unrealized first-person wishes - so, having encountered the resistance of the judicial system, the government began to draft a new anti-immigration decree that looks quite helpless. It is logical to assume that the bureaucracy has begun to envelop the newcomers in the American political elite and soon they will stop struggling, unless, from time to time, they allow themselves antics in the style of Boris Yeltsin (although it is believed that Trump is a teetotaler).

In that case, the question remains - what will America's foreign policy be then, if the intention to offend Iran and screw up immigration is left in parentheses? In the case of the appointment of the neoconservative Abrams, it would be possible to speak clearly about the ideology, but Trump's volatility again confused the situation.

However, soon the 45th president will probably begin to pass off unpredictability as his own foreign policy style - he will introduce new sanctions against Cuba, establish contacts with Zimbabwe, sign a free trade agreement with Bhutan, support Nicolas Maduro, withdraw the USA from the UN... Space for conjecture continues look quite wide. The thing is, it seems that Trump is used to zero-sum games - for example, as with bankruptcies, where he received everything (untied hands), the state - nothing, and creditors were left with nothing. But it doesn't happen that way in politics - even in ideal conditions for a republican president.

First, in order to use these conditions, Trump still needs to become a Republican president, but for now he resists submissively following the party line in foreign and domestic politics, appearing as a "fighter against the elite" (which Putin's servant Margarita Simonyan likes very much, based on her recent article). It will be funny if it is Trump, and not Obama (to whom this comparison was glued in every way) who turns into the new Carter, an isolated one-term president. By the way, Carter is almost the only ex-president who clearly supported Trump - since he also won the election against the will of the party establishment.

Secondly, one must learn to negotiate - for example, in order to achieve the appointment of his candidate to the Supreme Court, the president has two ways. The first, and he is inclined to ignore the opinion of the Democrats in the Senate (the so-called "nuclear option" - approval by a simple majority); vtorio – to achieve a solidarity vote. In the first case, the Democratic Party will go into deaf opposition until 2018, and the president will be harassed by investigations at all levels. In the second, compromises are possible. And so - in everything.

In foreign policy, it is difficult to imagine how Trump will be able to destroy NAFTA, which has largely functioned for a long time at the technical level of interaction between the bureaucracies of the three countries. And how to overcome the resistance of state governments - including in the NAFTA issue, because the states bordering Canada receive a lot of benefits from the existence of this bloc? In general, so far the negotiator from the president comes out unimportant, and the international situation is saved from a full-scale World War I crisis by the inertia set by Obama. The elites of both parties, officials, lobbyists and the press - today consider the president as a source of threats and concrete the Oval Office in every possible way, the high level of stress is reflected even in the behavior and facial expressions of the press secretary of Spicer, who is forced to voice fantasies about ghost voters and other similar things.

Historical experience, it must be said, inspires optimism - for example, the French kingdom survived several rulers of madmen who failed to cause it significant harm, and the Habsburg empire was not able to be destroyed even by a completely official psychopath Ferdinand I. True, he voluntarily renounced power and was during the life of the bride, subjects of the "Good". Perhaps the same is true with Donald Trump - after all, the institutional system of the USA has worked out a mechanism of behavior in such circumstances. And the owner of the White House has not yet resorted to criminal methods of governance against which this system is defenseless.

Maxim Mikhailenko