Read the original text at Facebook of Bohdan Yaremenko.
The third, the last presidential debates in the United States has ended.
Clinton entered the debates, having a comfortable 7-8 percent advantage over an opponent Donald Trump. This, according to the vast majority of reviewers determined the manner of behavior and strategic task of each of the candidates.
Trump needed a decisive victory to change the dynamics. He should not only look, but sound like a presidential and be significantly more convincing than Clinton.
Hillary Clinton had simply not to lose.
Trump realized this task and did everything possible to win. The first 25 minutes.
During this period, we talked about the right to bear arms and abortion. And indeed the impression that there is a discussion of decent wise people who have different positions, but have a strong case and are ready to calmly and confidently defend them.
But after those opening 25 minutes nature of Donald Trump took over. Or maybe Hillary Clinton managed to get an opponent off balance. And so it began skipping from topic to topic, failed to respond to a direct question, cutaways and even affectation of the opponent.
Even if in the opinion of the moderator of State Hillary Clinton did not have a clear plan in the field of immigration, her thoughts in this area, as well as its economic program was played, in my view, convincing.
Hillary Clinton raised the question of Russia in a very radical way - in fact, it sounded like an accusation that Donald Trump trust Putin more than the US intelligence agencies, all 17 of which stated that Russia interferes in the elections in the United States. Moderator discussion, which on the eve of all thought if you do not absolutely pro-Trumpian, it has definitely anti-Clinton, was forced "to press against the wall," Donald Trump's question whether he trusts the application of US intelligence against the Russian intervention.
Trump escaped, but denied the "love of Putin" ("I do not know Putin"), accusing Clinton and Obama that Putin tricked them all over - from nuclear weapons to Syria. But later he returned to the same theme "rigged elections," which is likely in the US cleverly planted on the Russians. It was almost sensational. I do not think any of the presidential candidates in US history hinted that he could not recognize the election results. The Kremlin uncorked champagne (smuggling, bypassing the Russian sanctions imported to the Kremlin on the way from Berlin).
In other matters of foreign policy and security Trump justified and explained his past, diplomatically speaking dubious claims that with the skill of a juggler were tossed by Hillary Clinton.
Then everything went as usual. Trump was "unconvincing" in a statement that no one respects women more than he does. Clinton could barely deal with accusations that the moderator and Trump sounded, with regard to its use of electronic communication and the position of state secretary to refill her and her husband's private foundation. Trump had nothing to say in his defense of tax evasion, in addition, such as Clinton, have created laws that allow it to tax these games ...
Whatever it was, Hillary Clinton looked more "presidential." Trump understood it, so he traditionally tried to compensate this impressive difference by a “convincing” thesis - she has spent 30 years in politics, she is part of the establishment, she, her husband, and her President Obama has done a lot of mistakes or have not done anything to America was powerful and prosperous.
Therefore, returning to the beginning, Hillary Clinton had a simpler task on this debate. And, it seems better to deal with it. Impressive victory or defeat did not happen.
Now, obviously, until the end of the election campaign, the parties will focus not so much on how to get new supporters, but to encourage those who have come to the polling stations, and demotivate opponent adherents.
Well, the word "Ukraine" was not used by the condidates.
I have no illusions about the role and place of Ukraine and "Ukrainian issue" in American politics. This is not a tragedy and generally prevents our work in the United States. But it is important to understand that the picture four boy - victims of the bombing of Aleppo - is now more expressive than two years the information efforts. To which I was involved. Neither the Syrians nor the Ukrainians did not get the support that asked Washington and had hoped for.
Will this situation change? The question would be answered after the US presidential election, in some three weeks.