That there is a deep state within the state is, in my opinion, due to the fact that people prefer to be lied to rather than truthfully experience a government that does not conceal its hostility towards other states.

Someone who is a child of the mind that one should not show such things, i.e. open hostility, is incapable of recognizing that it is only the open unloved word that could cause the addressed to counter this open hostility by wanting to and being able to resolve it by means of the resulting possibility of talks (diplomacy, dispute resolution). Only when a conflict is publicly acknowledged can one begin to resolve it.

Let's take a married couple as an example. Husband and wife separate. There is a lot of resentment between them. The wife, however, claims not to harbour any such feelings. On the contrary, she denies the conflict.

She tells her mutual friends that she only has good intentions and is only trying to help her ex to improve. She sells her true intention to take revenge on him as a good-hearted concern for their children. She uses the children's loyalty to her as leverage - even in court - and says that she has no ill intentions towards their father, but that the children are afraid of him. She wants him to undergo a violence prevention programme so that everyone will be better off in future. She speaks to her friends with great compassion about her ex's psychological problems. She is involved in social organisations such as ‘Violence in Marriage’. When asked whether she hates her ex, she either reacts with indignation or is ‘very sad’ that she could be misunderstood in this way, etc. etc.

By denying her hostility, by denying that she is capable of this hatred, she builds up a wishful construction of herself as a good person. In doing so, she deprives her ex of any opportunity to resolve this conflict, as she is in no way interested in the conflict ending (!). She needs her ex as a permanent enemy so that she can continue to live out her projections and experience herself as a victim rather than a perpetrator.

The ex-husband is condemned by her to keep her in his attention for the rest of her life.
In doing so, she damages all relationships with the ex-husband, her own, those between the children and their father as well as those between him and the family or circle of friends.

In the same way that the wife enlists others to harm her ex-husband, that is, to use her ‘government’ covertly rather than publicly, and if she manages to keep the ex-husband unaware that his ever-increasing difficulties are the result of his ex-wife's actions, without her ever coming out publicly and admitting that it is she who helped for friends breaking up with him, him getting into trouble at work, etc., she has managed to procure proxies to fight her battle for her. But saying "What? There is no battle."

The woman squares the circle by completely cutting off contact with her ex-husband and never speaking to him herself in person, even making it impossible for her friends to stay in touch with him (through begging, crying, luring = emotional blackmail) and instead having them expressing open hatred towards him as her proxies. So that she needs not doing that and have her vest polished in that regard.

This example between man and woman shows that it is of course much more difficult to organise a proxy war on her part and to conceal her involvement in it than it is with the deep state. It was only for illustrative purposes.

So when Trump shows his obvious hostility to heads of state or governments, this is a nasty openness for people who prefer to be lied to. But only this openness - as nasty as it comes across - is an occasion and opportunity for the recipient of hostility to analyse/react to it. By enabling the recipient to meet prejudice diplomatically. To reduce the emotional party's fears and paranoias, to meet its insecurities through giving reassurances that the addressed does not harbour the very exact emotions themselves.

Now, if the recipient is as insecure or insincere as the sender of hostility, problems really pile up.

To end corruption, the people below (using this term for a lack of a better one) need to become truthful to themselves and to see their own deeply rooted corruptible character. If someone invites you to dinner and then talks all evening about the ex, you better pay for your meal yourself, and tell the person that he or she shall come to peace with themselves, instead of fighting a war against someone onto whose life one has voluntarily ended ones influence by separating table and bed.

The officials, like Trump and Putin, better say to the public that they are aware of the deep conflicts they had been either promoting or denying themselves, and that the future relationship between them will be a tough challenge to both of them. That it will be difficult instead of easy, but that they are welcoming to learn from such difficulties and come out cleaner than they entered. That none of them needs and wants proxies.