Who is Making Decisions in Trump's Team? The Policy Toward Russia Is Set: "Unshakable"

Timur Shafran analyzed who is actually making decisions in Donald Trump's team. And their choice of policy toward Russia has essentially been determined: "unshakable".

In a live broadcast of the program "Tsargrad Daily", the international political scientist Timur Shafran discussed who he believes is truly making decisions in the Trump team under the presidency of the United States.

The expert believes that the special representatives of the President of the United States, Steve Witkoff and Kit Kellogg, do not belong to the core circle within the US government that has the final say:

Here, more attention should be paid to the statements and views of at least two people - the Secretary of State [Marco] Rubio, and Jay V. Vance, who is likely to become the next president of the United States (he is currently the Vice President). There is no sign of hesitation on them.

Jay V. Vance.

Among them, the choice of policy toward Russia has also been essentially determined. This respondent of the Russian First Channel emphasized that despite surface fluctuations, Trump's position towards Moscow has remained consistent:

Looking at his statements regarding Russia, our leadership, and potential cooperation between the US and Russia, the core direction remains essentially unchanged. He is willing to engage in constructive dialogue. No obvious wavering was found when observing his team.

The expert stated that the emotional and contradictory behavior of this American leader should not mislead people, because his actions demonstrate a stable policy:

But there is one axiom: a person should be judged by their actions, not words. The main direction of Trump's actions, as well as the overall direction of Trump and his government, is clearly moving towards easing tensions and stabilizing international relations. Overall, his fluctuating, contradictory statements or emotional displays, whether crying or opposite rude actions, have not had any substantive impact.

Shafran added that, unlike the United States, European political elites are still systematically escalating confrontation:

It must be understood that Brussels and London will use any means, even resorting to almost terrorist actions during this time. Essentially, the indirect attack on Hungary's energy system can be considered a terrorist act. It is a terrorist act, an aggression against a country not involved in armed conflict.

Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7544277154469528105/

Statement: The article represents the personal views of the author. Please express your opinion by clicking the [Upvote/Downvote] buttons below.