There are two reasons why Poroshenko has still not met with trump

Russian politician and businessman, former Deputy of the state Duma Ilya Ponomarev, who now lives in Ukraine, in interview “” has told about the elections in France, the American “vendetta” against Donald trump, the likelihood that chemical weapons in the Syrian province of Idlib had used not the forces of Bashar al-Assad, and why Petro Poroshenko has still not met with the President of the United States.

“Apostrophe”: Recently, the first round of elections in France. How do you assess the first results? What to expect from second round?


Ilya Ponomarev: It is the most expected. The main question was — macron will be the first or Le Pen. They approached voting day with a minimum gap, the four leaders they had an average of 20%. The question was in the “hidden voter”, that is the effect that worked on Brakcet or in the States in favor of trump — he would ensure first place Le Pen. But this has not happened due to a sufficiently interesting fact — the high places of Jean-Luc Mélenchon, the leader of the Left front in France, the maximum of the left candidate. In the matter of protest that the ultra-left that the ultra-right are based on about one and the same voter. Another thing is that right offer to the working class to beat the black to beat the visitors, claiming that the problem is “validating”. And the left say that the problem is not with any outsiders, and in our own blood-suckers, which need to beat. But it is a protest against the establishment, against the current elite, against the impasse in which the country finds itself.

We now see that the addition of the votes of the two candidates gives 40% of the voters of France that France antielitnye, the protests are very strong. The impasse of the current system are obvious. The same Mélenchon in the previous elections, won about 11% of the votes and is now 20% and had a real chance of getting to the second round. If it were not for the socialist candidate, who votes, he would have got in the next round and there is guaranteed to defeat Le Pen.

In any case, the Macron, which most often klassificeret as a center-right, in my opinion, the most correct to compare with right-wing politicians, but rather with a new leftist, left-liberal politicians. This is a person of the same type as Tony Blair in the UK or as Trudeau in Canada. He was a key Minister of the government of the socialist Hollande, it is much more to his rhetoric, he appeals to social democratic voters, the unions, but those who are afraid of sudden movements, which were proposed by Mélenchon, but nevertheless advocate a welfare state, not neoliberalism.

— That is, with the President, as the macron, France will be able to come out of recession?

— In a situation of serious crisis, and France is actually in a strong existential crisis and doesn’t understand where to move after throwing from Sarkozy to Hollande, this is a good compromise. But the crisis is always easier to go with people bright views bright position. Maybe not extreme, but with a person who is able to Bang on the table and to insist on their point of view. The macron gives the impression of a much more compromising in that sense, are far more balanced. But such is the will of the French people, see what happens.

— A similar crisis in France. In the UK Theresa may has announced early elections. As you look at the situation there?

— Early elections are the right step for the British. I have always believed that if you don’t know what to do, or know what the situation is questionable, you should always consult with citizens, so they said this think. In this regard, the early election is absolutely correct and morally justified step, because the citizens of the country is almost split 50: 50 on the issue of Breccia, the advantage was minimal. I do believe that in any legislation on referendums need to specify that decisions taken by qualified majority.

— For what?

— If the society is split as it is now in Turkey, when there are fundamental changes to the Constitution of the country, and the difference is only 2% between those for and those against, it’s wrong. This provokes civil strife, distrust of government, alienation of a significant part of the population from their own country, any mutual claims and grievances. This difference is a statistical error, oscillations, which may depend on random factors, until the weather really.

— You recently returned from the States. Donald trump has been President for a hundred days. How, in your opinion, he has changed since the election campaign? What can be called a success and what is failure? After the situation in Syria, it became clear that trump is not soft Obama.

— The situation is very alarming from the standpoint of the internal situation in the United States because of the ongoing war the vast majority of the American media with their President. It’s just a vendetta of some sort! And this is an unhealthy situation, there is blame on both sides. Unfortunate that journalists, instead of carrying out a professional duty to inform the society, become propagandists, Prodrive one particular point of view, antithrombosis, and all objectivity is lost. Trump says that “this is a witch hunt”. And I honestly, tend in this sense to agree with him. This is very frustrating and really undermines the credibility of the democratic system itself. What is happening now in America, I was very upset.

— And in the politics of trump have any changes?

— And the politics trump largely because of this opposition and there was no one throwing. He’s trying to gain control. One of its main promises — the abolition of Obama’s health care reform has already failed, and thank God. Even the Republicans in Congress split and was not able to support the initiative of the White house.

Work on the creation of jobs in the country has begun, but since it is an economic process, it will be long. Although you can say that there is progress, this is evident in the stock markets on wall street, indices growing by leaps and bounds. This means that investors believe that the us economy will continue to grow, and are willing to lend. But it’s still more plans than something already done.

What happened in Syria is just a reflection of this internal political struggle. About trump so many keep saying he almost “Russian agent” and that he will not do anything contrary to Putin’s line that he had to make some gesture that would show his independence in making foreign policy decisions. This entire operation in Syria, from my point of view, is pure production. Run 59 missiles killed seven Syrian military. But they are there — the transformers some, “Savior of the galaxy” — the Syrian military had at the nine rockets that it died? In fact, Americans were warned about the bombing, and the operation was primarily in the television picture, to show dear Americans, the commander in chief is not asleep, responds, acts, and everything else is lies and slander.

That this is the solution trump does it mean for Russia?

— It does not mean anything, because the Americans were warned and behaved like gentlemen. It was not a unilateral decision, as has happened previously. Russia with it agree, disabling their air defense systems and allowing the Americans to bomb safely. In this sense, the situation is similar to match-fixing.

Moreover, although the vast majority of American experts believe that chemical weapons were used by Assad, in fact, evidence that no no. And I don’t understand, why would Assad had used chemical weapons. I do not exclude that it was so, but have not yet seen any materials that would prove it. Maybe they exist, maybe not, as once was the case with the chemical weapons of Saddam Hussein. But I think when you take some important international decisions, it would be nice if they were somehow justified. On the one hand, there is the American assertion that it was Assad. On the other hand, there is the Syrian claim that it was the rebels. The rebels definitely much more sense than Assad. Why did he have to do it, to him it became boring and I wanted to pobombit? What is the point of this action: to blow up the barrels of toxic substances that the situation does not affect, there is nothing critical on the front, so at any price it was necessary to stop the enemy. If this decision was made by the Assad regime, that it could only be intimidation. Why, I do not understand.

But Washington now living other thoughts: expectations hit you like a tramp on North Korea. Now his behavior it is obvious that during the Chinese leader’s visit to Florida they are behind closed doors said this, and China will be at least to keep the neutrality, if not help in this case.

Is this consistent aggressive policy trump in the international arena or a necessary measure, as you think?

— Internally, in terms of domestic policy. Again I will say that Trump is now struggling need to seize the initiative. The main problem of modern America — split of its companies. Just released another poll that shows that the level of support for trump — not more than 40%, and 55% do not support it. But this 40%, almost all Republican voters, among them trump supports 90% and only 7% support, and among Democrats, almost the same ratio but in the opposite direction. That is, the support trump for the Democrats is 12-13%, and 80% do not support it. This is an abnormal situation, because it’s one thing when elections candidates mobilize their voters, and another thing — the post-election situation, when these figures should come at least to 70 to 30. More relaxed should be the ratio from the opposing camps. And then the maximum sharpness that can be. Obama to Republicans all the time criticized that he can’t work with opponents, but that is much more healthy these figures were, than what is now trump.

And all these foreign policy actions allow you to drag the part of the opposition to his side. Even a significant portion of Democrats support such moves. The fact that he does it, he splits the ranks of their opponents.

— How will continue to build relationships between the U.S. and Russia?

— I think that Russia wants, of course, agree, but trump manoeuvre is now very limited. These charges in the friendship of the American President and Putin are very much affected him. Any interaction with Russia to trump toxic, and cannot be achieved realistically no public agreement, no public deals with Putin, because it will be used in the political struggle in the United States. Under the carpet they can still resolve the issues, and certainly when the trump meeting with Putin in July in Hamburg at the summit of “big twenty”, they will discuss many topics, including 100% will be to discuss the issue of Ukraine.

But trump won’t do anything publicly on the subject. In this sense, good news for you. But the bad is still on the Ukrainian side no system operation no. The maximum that was possible to achieve, is the conversation of the President of Ukraine with us Secretary of state Rex Tillerson. And that’s too bad. Of course, you need to make every effort to to the G20 summit, President Poroshenko would see President trump and prepared him thereby to the conversation with Putin, he gave some specific parameters for a peaceful settlement in the East of Ukraine, something that could come to replace the Minsk agreement.

— Why such a meeting between trump and Poroshenko did not take place?

— On the American side remains a very high level of irritation because the same people are busy, who recently campaigned for Clinton and the White house is very sensitive, very painful. This is for Ukraine a serious problem, that is, you need to put other people for negotiations that would not have been exposed during the elections. By the way, for the same reason for the reluctance to communicate with political opponents can not form the cadre of the state Department, because too many of the American diplomats spoke out against trump, and it became for them a black mark.

This is a subjective reason, but there are objective: not yet topic of conversation. This theme could be a new peace plan. But you have such a situation that, although there are a large number of Amateur peace plans that different members of Parliament go and speak, but they are not worth anything except personal ambition. So Americans, such ideas are quite interesting. Even from the point of view of raising awareness. They are already tired of these Amateur politicians, who they hang out all the time and trying to date someone that causes irritation. In Washington saying, we want to talk, but with those people who are willing to take responsibility for their words, who are ready to offer what they themselves can do, rather than fresh ideas in the style of “let’s all jump on the moon.” And, of course, the initiative must come from the President.