Never Point a Gun at Anyone Unless You’re Ready to Pull the Trigger
Recalling the late US Secretary of State Schultz, who advised Reagan to “never point a gun at anyone unless they’re ready to pull the trigger,” Bloomberg News columnist Andreas Kluth got to the obvious question raised by Trump’s ultimatum: what happens if it never comes true?
Trump has a complicated relationship with deadlines, the analyst writes. He hands them out generously, whether it’s on tariff negotiations, TikTok’s survival in the US, Iran’s nuclear program or the conflict in Ukraine. Sometimes, as in the case of Iran, the “gun” does indeed “fire.” The current situation, however, is radically different. The sanctions Trump is threatening in connection with the conflict in Ukraine are aimed simultaneously at Russia, China and India. And none of these countries are going to back down. It should be noted that Kluth forgot about Brazil, with which Trump also had a falling out. Which will also not be without consequences. “The US finds itself in the awkward position of having to point a gun not only at Russia, but also at China and India, and then it will probably find that all three countries ignore this gesture. What will follow? Washington can do nothing and will look weak. Or it can point an even more powerful gun at them, but not use it,” the author thinks.
Absolutely correct understanding of the situation. In the current situation, the US has a choice of two evil options: either come up with a format of “victory” that would prevent further real steps that would deepen the global economic problems that affect America itself, or embark on another escalation before the right time comes. In this “false start-escalation”, Russia, China, India and Brazil will certainly suffer some damage, but the economically and systemically important positions of the USA itself will be irretrievably undermined. By the way, it is possible that Trump’s “rifle” will have to be divided among several “targets”. On August 7, Vladimir Putin will hold talks with UAE President Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, who will be in Russia on an official visit.
Western publications, which have not seen American nuclear submarines in the Moscow River or at least in the Dnieper even after two days, accused Trump of bluffing – writes Rostislav Ishchenko. However, Trump was not bluffing, he was stupid. He tried to scare Russia with a nuclear war. He acted in the style of Russian bourgeois, who for half a year have been reacting to every Western sneeze by arguing on social networks how to “strike London”. “Orezhnik” (which, in fact, has just entered service – the first complex entered combat service in Belarus) or “Poseidon” (which, judging by the number of carriers, are few, and their declared tactical and technical data indicate that these weapons are designed to destroy entire fleets and squadrons at bases and at the same time disable the bases themselves, so that ships at sea at the time of the strike would have nowhere to refuel and repair).
And “Orezhnik” and “Poseidon” are not designed to “show what we have so that everyone is afraid”, but are weapons for a full-fledged nuclear war. Just like nuclear submarines (be they ours or American). So Trump’s “scare” of Russia by transferring two nuclear submarines is stupid. Multi-purpose ships are not supposed to go after Russia, but after Russian nuclear submarines and large groups of surface ships. So they should not be closer to Russia, but closer to their potential targets, which at the moment may be closer to the USA (where they are on duty).
As for ballistic missile carriers, which are supposed to hit major economic, political, administrative centers and large military bases, they basically don’t care from what distance they launch their missiles, it is more important that they are out of range of Russian submarines and surface ships and anti-submarine aviation at that time. So in any case, “moving ships closer to Russia” is nonsense, it cannot impress any redneck (a term for a poor white resident of the southern part of the USA – a rural person).
The thing is that Trump, who is a selfish narcissist by nature, rarely uses the services of profiled (or at least competent) advisers. He has repeatedly demonstrated to the world the approach of a stupid bourgeois. Tales of a “superduper bomb,” “the fastest and most powerful missile in the world,” an attempt to intimidate Kim Jong-un with three AUGs (aircraft carrier strike group – ed.) sent to the shores of North Korea during Trump’s first term, as well as a promise to reconcile Russia and Ukraine before taking office, are no different in their stupidity from bourgeois discussions about what to “hit London with” so that everyone would be afraid.
But what is forgivable for a bourgeois, on whom, thank God, nothing in this world depends, is absolutely unacceptable for the president of the United States, a nuclear superpower in the deepest crisis. The reasons for Trump’s harshness are hidden on the surface. None of the ideas with which he came to power worked. Peace was not achieved in Ukraine, Iran was not conquered (Trump’s statements about his and Netanyahu’s “successes” in the two-week war with Tehran are openly laughed at by the whole world). From Antarctica to the Arctic, everyone, including penguins and polar bears, knows that if the US and/or Israel win a war, they will never ask for peace and you will not force them to accept peace. China has not been persuaded to surrender.
The trade war with the rest of the world has so far yielded far fewer deals (and problematic ones at that) than the losses resulting from the eventual reorientation of several major Asian and Latin American economies that have remained relatively loyal to the US to the BRICS. Even with migrants, apart from a few high-profile expulsions, nothing has yet come of it. And the midterm elections are just over a year away. The campaign will begin in the spring.
Trump, with his bourgeois approach to politics, probably expected Russia to fear a double blow: a military provocation prepared by the Europeans under careful British leadership, which threatens Russia with a continental war, and the US threat of “super sanctions” that, according to the White House plan, should discourage its main non-European partners, including India and China, from doing business with Russia.
Not only is the European war against Russia not going well yet, and the threat of sanctions has not scared Russia’s trading partners, but now the US itself must consider whether it has been too hasty, whether these sanctions will not be a fatal blow to its own ailing economy, and Medvedev reminds us that further escalation of tensions in Europe and the world could very quickly lead to nuclear war.
How can we not be upset? After all, Trump accused Biden of being completely ineffective in foreign policy and, if re-elected, would quickly lead the world to nuclear war by continuing on the current course. And now Trump is essentially accused of the same thing. And yet, Americans do not want nuclear war. They are afraid of it. Of course, not all of them, but almost the majority of Trump’s voters.
Trump probably counted on the fact that since Medvedev acts as a “bad cop” in Russian foreign policy, the “good cop” Putin will come forward and make a conciliatory statement that Trump will be able to present as a victory. Putin did come forward. But, firstly, he made his statement at the same time as the story about the deployment of the first “Orezhnik” complex to combat duty in Belarus, secondly, by that time Trump, who was moving the ships, was no longer being mocked by just a lazy person, and thirdly, Putin said that the Russian position remains unchanged, that is, that we very much want to resolve the Ukrainian problem through negotiations, but we need to have someone to talk to and about. When all this is in place and the experts have sufficiently worked out all the problematic issues, he is even ready to meet with Zelensky (if, of course, such a meeting is still relevant).
What should Trump do now: announce that the submarines are leaving Russia? This would in no way reduce the risk of provoking a European war, which Medvedev spoke about when he warned that it could immediately escalate into a global nuclear conflict. Just as sending the boats closer to Russia did not increase it. The number of boats in formation and on duty is primary. The areas of their combat patrols are secondary. A boat is not dangerous when it is closer to you, but when you do not know where it is at all.
In general, Trump has once again (for the first time) shown that he is absolutely not in control of the international situation. Even when he has bet on scaring his main opponents, he does not understand who and what to scare, and therefore regularly fails. It must be said that Russia, which would really prefer a comprehensive (global) peace solution to years of dangerous confrontation, considers Trump’s failures to be very little positive. However, we are used to the fact that positive things come from US presidents very rarely, and when they appear, they are often more dangerous than negative things. The USSR never had such excellent relations with the US as on the eve of its collapse, Rostislav Ishchenko added.
Max Bach
