Why Trump Administration Persists With Anti-Russian Policy

© REUTERS / Jonathan ErnstU.S. President Donald Trump (from L), joined by Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, Vice President Mike Pence, National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, Communications Director Sean Spicer and senior advisor Steve Bannon, speaks by phone with Russia's President Vladimir Putin in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, U.S. January 28, 2017
U.S. President Donald Trump (from L), joined by Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, Vice President Mike Pence, National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, Communications Director Sean Spicer and senior advisor Steve Bannon, speaks by phone with Russia's President Vladimir Putin in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, U.S. January 28, 2017 - Sputnik International
Subscribe
It would be naïve to think that the new US administration will make a U-turn in relations with Russia, Dmitry Novikov, First Deputy Chairman of the State Duma Committee on International Affairs, told Sputnik.

US President Donald Trump's entourage is pushing ahead with the anti-Russian foreign strategy, Dmitry Novikov, First Deputy Chairman of the State Duma Committee on International Affairs, suggested.

"Trump's entourage not only wants but is making every effort to ensure that the previous administration's anti-Russian policy is continued," Novikov told Sputnik Saturday.

Sergey Kislyak - Sputnik International
Former CIA Chief: 'Russian Ambassador Kislyak is Veteran Diplomat, Not a Spy'
"One way or another, the Democratic and Republican key figures constitute the American establishment, which has worked out a sort of unified approach toward foreign affairs. Furthermore, all of them represent the interests of large [American] corporations which are seeking to increase their shares in the global market," the Russian politician explained.

In this respect, by exerting further pressure on Russia they hope to gain certain economic benefits, according to Novikov.

"Therefore, it is naïve to think that the pressure on [Russia] will be dramatically decreased after the new administration [occupied the White House]," he remarked.

Earlier, Julie Pace of Associated Press reported, citing US administration officials, that Trump is likely to "shelve" his plan "to pursue a deal with Moscow on the Islamic State group and other national security matters."

"In conversations with diplomats and other officials, Trump and his aides have ascribed the new thinking to Moscow's recent provocations. But the reconsideration of a central tenet of the president's foreign policy underscores the growing political risks in forging closer relations with Russia, as long as the FBI investigates his campaign associates' connections to Moscow and congressional committees ramp up their probe of Russia's meddling in the 2016 election," Pace wrote.

Donald Trump sits with U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) at Trump Tower in Manhattan, New York, U.S., October 7, 2016 - Sputnik International
'If Trump Loses Sessions, It'll Be the End of His Administration'
According to Pace, "a new crop of the US President's advisors," including Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and new national security adviser H.R. McMaster, could have been behind Trump's "new skepticism" about the US-Russian rapprochement.

On the other hand, the recent anti-Trump campaign which targets the US President and his aides over their alleged ties with Russia has seemingly borne fruit.

Speaking to MSNBC's Andrea Mitchel, former CIA Director John McLaughlin pointed out that there was too much at stake for the Republicans amid the ongoing scandal.

"When you look at the political heat it's been generating my experience in Washington tells me… it's going to be impossible for them to get beyond the partisan dimension of it. There is too much at stake politically, particularly for the Republicans," McLaughlin stressed.

The former CIA chief underscored that unless Trump dispels all doubts over his alleged connections with Moscow, his cabinet's cooperation with the Kremlin would be perceived with suspicion and the US President wouldn't have the freedom to maneuver that any leader "needs in dealing with a potential adversary."

Newsfeed
0
To participate in the discussion
log in or register
loader
Chats
Заголовок открываемого материала