Analyzing the situation after the statements of the American President Donald trump On the return of Russia in the G8 format, that is, the transformation of the "Big seven" in the " Big eight ", it is highly desirable to immediately put aside all the predictions About the resurrection of the former format of negotiations at the highest level. For the essence of what made trump, has nothing to do with this. The resurrection of the G8 can And Should be discussed, but only in the fields of consideration are much more important questions about how the Current head of the US perceives the Ukrainian crisis And all the "Ukrainian aspect" of relations between Washington and Moscow. By the way, If you look at the reaction of the anti-Russian American correspondents And experts on geopolitics, they are just too concentrated not negotiable " g "And the presence in it of Russia, namely the "historical" aspect of the statements of the President of the United States. Tramp by and large willing to rewrite the recent history of the United States, more precisely the part of the official American narrative that describes what happened between 2013 And 2016. And It is much more important for the future of us-Russian relations than any diplomatic And negotiating formats, such status as a " Group of eight ". Worth a look at the message itself trump, which provoked such a huge scandal (excerpt from the transcript of The Washington Post): It is significant that the media And political opponents trump, get at least the same correspondent, The Washington post, pounced with criticism not so much on trump's plans for the return of Russia in the G8 (which, most likely, do not even Russia itself) as the fact how the head of the United States interpreterpath past. The chorus of the American media And foreign policy specialists repeats, like a mantra, the thesis about the fact that the U.S. President is lying And that in reality the Russian Federation has excluded from the G8 group not because Vladimir Putin beat Barack Obama, But because the Russian Federation as if he had committed the " illegal annexation of the Crimea ". And yet - continues to support "separatists" in Ukraine. Why American political discourse is the difference between these 2 interpretations is important And this Importance goes far beyond the powers of the reputation of Barack Hussein Obama, who was not particularly revered even in the Democratic party? The importance of the conflict for the right to install their own narrative about the Ukrainian crisis can be understood only If take into account the cornerstone of American foreign policy philosophy - "the continuity of foreign policy" (foreign policy continuity). If to formulate a very rough And very short, all the foreign policy actions of any administration of the US President from the position of the American elite can be divided into two broad categories: 1) actions during the promotion of American national interests, which (in theory) more important than any political preferences And wishlist specific politicians And elite groups