Read original article at eurointegration.com
Dismissal of FBI Director James Comey became one of the central scandals in US politics.
Such resignation itself is an extraordinary phenomenon. In order to ensure the political neutrality of the FBI, according to informal rules, its head remains in office for 10 years (Comey was appointed in 2013).
However, this resignation became truly scandalous after the investigation of possible Trump’s team links with of Russia, which was led by the Office of Comey. New FBI head resignation gave serious reason to doubt the motives and purposes of the US president.
Trump has never been "normal" candidate or president. Distrust to him was showed not only by his ideological opponents - Democrats, but by party colleagues also. Now in American politics is growing confidence that, firing Comey, Trump wanted to disrupt Russian investigative trail that leads to its immediate environment. In this situation, opposing the president, who is one step away from accusations of illegitimacy – is a matter of honor for anyone who considers himself an American patriot.
Here are another two suspicions. Comey was removed from the office while he continued to testify in Congress. Moreover, the resignation took place before the meeting of Foreign Minister Lavrov and Trump – could it be the gift to Putin?
The first conclusion that arises - any legislative initiative in the US will be blocked because the Democrats (and some Republicans also) become even more united in opposition.
In this situation, presidential administration is unlikely to succeed thinking about the development of foreign policy. Any foreign policy steps will be subordinated to the logic of fighting the Congress.
There can be no great achievements, no health care reform or adoption of new strategies to combat international terrorism - it will be about survival of administration. In this situation, its steps in the international arena will be used to distract opponents and public opinion from another scandal.
Trump shows increasing dissatisfaction with how its press office copes with the negative reaction of media on the activities of the administration, in particular, regarding the explanations given in connection with the resignation of Comey. The US president has threatened to not only reconstruct the service but also give up the daily briefings at the White House.
Trump intends to explain his position, refusing intermediaries - via Twitter, and increasing the number of personal interviews.
He also considers the opportunity to hold press conferences every two weeks.
Threats of Trump to replace the activity of one specialized administrative unit by himself show another dangerous trend. With an ever increasing pressure the president is more inclined to further personalize the management process.
There is a growing distrust to the team members. Indirectly, the resignation of Comey indicates this, as well as increasingly heard talks of Trump’s dissatisfaction with National Security Advisor McMaster.
In this situation, decision-making becomes the prerogative of an increasingly narrow circle of people, and often - in general will be a private matter of the president.
What does it mean? As far as the circle of getting involved decision-making advisors will be narrowed, and the president alone will take the final decisions, the likelihood of errors significantly increases.
A new round of scandal regarding Trump’s possible transmission of classified information during the meeting with Lavrov, and discovery of source clearly indicate it.
Such situation is catastrophic for the foreign policy. International problems are too complicated, so an adequate assessment of the situation is impossible without the involvement of many experts and many state institutions. Accordingly, a strong trust to their advice and recommendations is needed.
But obvious is the loss of confidence of the US president to those bodies of the state apparatus, which are designed to inform him about the situation in the world, to explain the possible consequences of administrative steps and follow instructions.
Now we are witnessing the comic situation, US President is blackmailing the head of FBI by secret recordings made during their meetings.
James Comey better hope that there are no "tapes" of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) 12 мая 2017 г.
It turns out that president is watching his secret services!
In this situation, the administration will become increasingly blind and deaf in international politics. But intelligence agencies also do not trust the president and may hold information, refuse to raise potentially dangerous topics (it means any topics unpleasant for Trump), and may even sabotage the president's decision.
This conflict threatens to paralyze foreign policy.
Another important point - the resignation of Comey increases the politicization of intelligence, their further involvement in the political struggle, whereas ideally these structures should stay out of politics.
FBI, CIA, NSA and other US intelligence institutions weren’t indifferent observers during the presidential campaign. They didn’t stand aside from scandal of possible president's entourage links with Russia.
Reaction of Trump, who accused the intelligence services of fulfilling the "order" of Democrats did not add sympathy for the new president. The spiral of mutual hostility spinning hard enough, and the strike on FBI director may become a turning point, after which the normal relationship between intelligence services and Trump wouldn’t be longer the question.
Exactly the investigation Trump’s team ties with Russia drastically changed attitude of administration towards Russia and the possibility of establishing a dialogue with it. Both countries step back to the lowest level relationships.
From this situation, Ukraine won because there was no bargaining (and now it is hardly possible) to resolve the conflict in Donbas in exchange for other arrangements. But this victory is still too unstable and depends on Ukraine.
This situation of mismatch and suspicion between the president and government institutions involved in developing US foreign policy not only reduces fulfilling foreign assignments, but blurs their vision.