The meeting between Lavrov and Tillerson: Washington will not present its vision of the world to Moscow. He hasn’t get any.

On the agenda there are key issues of Russian-American relations: Syria, Crimea, Ukraine, nuclear and missile parity, sanctions, relations with Iran, North Korea. For both parties, this is an opportunity to lay out maps on the table and to present each other their strategic vision of the world order, as well as plans for solving specific problems. Theoretically, such a discussion should have come to be the main leitmotif of the meeting. Having a more or less clear idea of what each country wants strategically, both Russia and the US could more competently build a policy towards each other, understanding what they can expect from each other.

Already in the pre-election speeches and in the selection of Trump's foreign policy team, a combination of mutually exclusive principles and figures - supporters of the realist approach and neocons and liberal interventionists - was noticeable. As far as compromises with the republican establishment, Trump's original anti-hegemonistic, realistic, anti-globalist message (Steven Miller was the main speechwriter) on the understanding of America as a great, but national power, was blurred. The influence of the neocons increased.  The structures of the Israeli lobby and personally the son-in-law of Trump Jared Kushner contributed much to the process, although some of the neocons (John Bolton, Walid Phares, Joe Schmitz), were initially surrounded the future US president, having common points with figures such as M. Flynn and S. Bannon on the basis of anti-Muslim and anti-Iranian sentiments.

If realists (Bannon and people close to him, Tillerson) do not strive for a tough confrontation with Russia and their vision of the world is consistent with how the Russian side sees it, then the representatives of the CFR and the neocons are determined to conflict. The difference between liberal globalists from the CFR and the neocons is only that the latter are ready to confront China, while the former are interested in preserving the Chimerica model as the core of the globalization process and understand the danger of war on two fronts. This model certainly does not describe the complexity of the relationship between these three camps. Bannon, for example, started his career at Goldman Sachs and is associated with the founder of the infamous Blackwaters Eric Prince, now working with China, neocons are represented in the CFR, etc.