Glory to Ukraine!
Glory to the defenders of Ukraine and all modern civilization!
- The foreign policy of one person: without ambassadors in more than half of the world’s countries; without a National Security Council; without any way to learn about spontaneous decisions other than through the tweets of this very person
▶ It has long been wanted to analyze what is happening with the formation of U.S. foreign policy and the mechanisms for making foreign policy decisions in the era of the 47th president.
And on Thursday morning, a very respectable media outlet, the world’s oldest British news agency Reuters, published a large article, which resulted from a journalistic investigation and analysis conducted by its authors (Andrew R.C. Marshall, Humeyra Pamuk, John Shiffman, Graham Slattery, John Irish, Tim Kelly, and Andrea Shalal).
As presidential threats, personal envoys and hollowed‑out embassies reshape U.S. diplomacy, allies are often ignoring Trump’s rhetoric and forging new channels to navigate decisions shaped more by personalities than institutions https://t.co/SwiUxQUcWK pic.twitter.com/4EYZ3m6Aw1
— Reuters (@Reuters) May 21, 2026
The article is very large (almost 10 pages), with many details. A full translation could be done, but probably not many would be interested in reading such a long text.
However, the examples provided in the article illustrate the assessments and conclusions made by the authors, which completely coincide with my own assessments and conclusions.
Therefore, let’s use some of the examples and data from the article to confirm the ongoing analysis, which I offer for your attention.
What’s happening with American foreign policy now has never happened before. At least in the modern history of the U.S., after World War II. It’s the policy of one person, the 47th president. He formulates it himself, relying on his “impulses” (and that he makes all decisions based on impulses is known from his interview with Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, which he gave back in 1989 and with which Bob Woodward begins his latest book “War”).
The foreign policy of the United States is closely and naturally intertwined with security issues. Therefore, throughout all presidencies after World War II, the National Security Council (NSC) played a crucial role in developing this policy. The NSC was specially created immediately after the war to analyze everything happening in the world and provide the president with decision-making options—options with an analysis of the consequences of various decisions and actions. The task of the NSC is to develop recommendations with alternative options and coordinate all political decisions in the realms of foreign policy and security. After decisions are made, the State Department implements these foreign policy decisions. This was the case for 80 years. It was practically the same during the first Trump administration. Now, things are different. On January 20, 2025, the 47th president assumed office with an NSC staffed by analysts and specialists in all aspects of security issues—PROFESSIONALS who had worked there under different presidents from both parties, with extensive experience, especially enriched by the experiences described by Bob Woodward in his book “War”—experiences derived from recent global events, primarily the full-scale Russian aggression against Ukraine and the war in the Middle East. There were over two hundred such professionals in the NSC. The 47th president effectively dismantled the NSC. After the dismissal of the National Security Advisor Mike Volz, there were mass layoffs of staff. Currently, according to an article in Reuters (supported by data from other sources), a little over two dozen people work at the NSC. Not only are they unable to perform the tasks the NSC always did, but this work is simply not in demand today. According to the authors of the Reuters article (and this information is presumably from firsthand sources familiar with the NSC situation), the staff does what they can, but no one is interested in their advice, meetings to discuss urgent issues and develop recommendations are not held, and they learn about the directions of foreign and security policy just like the rest of the world—from the tweets of a single person on his own social network. Hence, Truth Social is always open on their computer screens, ready for a tweet that might announce another twist or turn in foreign and security policy.
You don’t have to look far for examples. Just a few days ago, the Pentagon announced the withdrawal of 4,000 American troops from Poland. Following this, Pentagon representatives justified the decision—this decision was made after lengthy analysis and is completely in line with the president’s policy of “America First,” with Europe needing to care for its own security. And then, on Thursday at 4:26 PM, just at the end of the workday, a tweet from the 47th president suddenly appeared:
“Based on the successful election of the current president of Poland, Karol Nawrocki—whom I proudly supported—and considering our relationship with him, I am pleased to announce that the United States will send an additional 5,000 troops to Poland. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President Donald J. Trump.”
The “remarkable” justification – I’m friends with Navrotsky (because he’s a very right-wing politician), so I’ll send additional troops to Poland. Not because there is a real threat to the security of Poland, all of Europe, and the US itself – the threat of spreading Russian aggression. Not because the US is following its NATO alliance commitments. Not because the US is defending common values of democracy, freedom, and human rights. But because Poland has an extreme right-wing president.
Two weeks ago, the president announced, also in a tweet, that since Chancellor Merz is a “bad person,” he is reducing the number of US troops in Germany.
Another source of information about foreign policy decisions and concepts for employees of the NSC, the Pentagon, and the State Department coincides with ours – the television. There you can watch the latest TV show staged by the 47th president. He holds them almost daily, sometimes in connection with the visit of a foreign leader, sometimes just for the sake of presenting something that holds no real significance but provides an opportunity for monologues, disseminating a stream of consciousness. On Thursday afternoon, he declared on such another TV show from the Oval Office, responding to a journalist’s question about whether the US is willing to let Iran charge a fee for every ship passing through the Strait of Hormuz, that the US is “considering such a possibility.” Think about it! The Strait of Hormuz was open to international navigation until February 28. No one has ever charged a fee for ship passage through it. And now Iran demands payment for each passing ship. And the 47th president states that the US (in his person) is considering such a possibility. Adding: “we fully control the Strait of Hormuz.” It turns out that “we fully control,” but we are considering allowing Iran to charge for its use.
Well, fine (that is, nothing fine), foreign policy decisions are made by one person, without NSC advice. Does anyone advise him? According to a Reuters journalist investigation, he listens to a very limited circle of close individuals. His friend, golf and business partner Witkoff, who has no diplomatic experience. His son-in-law and business partner Kushner. Ultra-right conspiracy influencer Laura Loomer. White House Chief of Staff Susan Wiles.
And how is foreign policy implemented? The usual practice, as already mentioned, is that the State Department implements it. One of the main ways is through US embassies. Through them, connections with allies are usually made. Important information comes through them. All American projects in other countries are carried out through them. And now? The US has diplomatic relations with 195 countries. In 109 countries, there are currently no ambassadors. Think about it, in more than half of the world’s countries, the US has no ambassadors! The US started a war with Iran without having ambassadors in all countries bordering Iran, and in all the main countries of the Persian Gulf.
Typically, the majority of ambassadors are professional, career diplomats. Only a minority are presidential political appointees. These appointees usually have political experience, such as former senators, members of the House of Representatives, or governors. With Trump, it’s exactly the opposite. Of the 86 ambassadors currently serving, more than half are his political appointees. However, only a few have prior political experience. Most are his business partners, financial donors to his campaign, or relatives without any diplomatic experience or knowledge necessary for ambassadorial roles. Typical examples include appointing Kushner Sr., the father of his son-in-law Jared Kushner, as ambassador to France, and a former friend of his eldest son as ambassador to Greece.
The State Department itself has been thoroughly dismantled. After Trump entered the White House for the second time, about three thousand people—15% of the professionals there—were either fired or resigned. Some experienced diplomats left due to disagreement with Trump’s policies. For precisely this reason, U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Bridget Brink resigned. Acting U.S. Chargé d’Affaires in Ukraine Julia Fischer is also resigning for the same reason.
There’s no one to analyze information or provide expertise. Most people have been fired due to suspicion of disloyalty to Trump or for allegedly holding liberal views. For example, experienced professional diplomat Nate Swanson, the chief expert on the Iranian nuclear program and other countries’ nuclear programs, was fired in January 2026 at the insistence of, guess who, Laura Loomer (yes, the ultra-right propagandist close to Trump) because he “was appointed by Obama.” Along with him, six others from the department handling expertise on the Iranian nuclear program and other countries’ nuclear programs and who participated in all related negotiations were also dismissed.
As a result, negotiations on the Iranian nuclear program are conducted by individuals with no diplomatic experience—Vitkoff and Kushner. They are not accompanied by any experts at these negotiations. In fact, Vitkoff and Kushner handle all other major diplomatic negotiations without any experts either.
Foreign states that need to orient themselves in American politics and decisions cannot do so traditionally, i.e., by contacting the U.S. ambassador or the State Department. Ambassadors are absent in more than half of the countries. Most of those present are entirely unprofessional and unable to inform the host country representatives about the essence of American politics and decisions—the decisions can be found in tweets or statements on one person’s talk show. They are also useless in terms of contact with the State Department.
Therefore, governments of countries needing to interact with the U.S. or understand nuances of American politics reach out to those within the inner circle of the 47th president, like Vitkoff, Kushner, and Wiles. Traditional connections and approaches, traditional diplomatic channels simply do not work.
And another aspect: Is there a need to respond to every tweet and statement made by the 47th president on his talk show?
Let me quote two paragraphs from an article in Reuters.
“Trump turned diplomatic norms upside down, unleashing a constant stream of threats—targeted not only at adversaries like Iran but also at allies, including Denmark, Canada, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Governments had to weigh: would a public response help defuse tensions, or would it only exacerbate them?”
This was exactly what happened in early April after Trump threatened that Iranian civilization could be wiped off the face of the earth. Officials from the UK, France, and Germany prepared a joint statement—which one European diplomat described as “tough”—but ultimately decided not to publish it.
“In the end, we reasoned: every time he ‘barks’ like that, he doesn’t ‘bite’,” said a diplomat involved in the preparation of this statement. European officials believed that a ceasefire between the US and Iran was still possible and feared that a public reprimand might push Trump to continue the bombing. They refrained from commenting. By the end of that same day, Trump announced a ceasefire.
This episode taught many US allies an important lesson: silence may be the safest response to Trump’s most radical threats.”
“President Trump’s statements constantly changed, so over time we stopped reacting to each of them,” noted Takeshi Iwaya, a member of Japan’s ruling Liberal Democratic Party, who served as foreign minister until October 2025. “Any reaction could only provoke unnecessary retaliatory actions.”
There are 975 days left until the end of the story titled “Fear: Trump in the White House” © (the title of Bob Woodward’s book published in 2018).
Thank you to everyone who read. Take care of yourselves and your loved ones. Take care of each other, help each other. Good health to everyone.
Ultimately, what happens in the world depends on us. Whether we fight against evil, do Good, remain mere spectators, passively waiting and believing that someone somewhere will decide something for us, or whether we fight against evil and do everything possible for Good to triumph.
We must not let evil win. The triumph of evil would mean the end of the world in which we live. We cannot allow that. Especially now.
Ukrainian friends, I embrace and love you all. Please take care of each other, I earnestly ask you.
Ukraine is and always will be.
And evil will be defeated and punished. Undoubtedly.
