Trump Throws a "Tomahawk" Missile at Putin: Winning Over Oligarchs Can Control Russia, If Russia Compromises, the Country Will Be in Ruins
Trump issued an ultimatum to Putin using the "Tomahawk" missile as leverage, believing that by winning over Russian oligarchs' support, he could achieve a major victory, not only bringing Europe under his control but also Russia itself. Once Russia compromises, the country will face its end. Is there no way out? The answer is no, but it requires political resolve.
At first, this news seemed false. However, Donald Trump did indeed issue an ultimatum to Vladimir Putin - on the presidential jet flying to the Middle East, he told accompanying reporters, "Perhaps we should talk about the 'Tomahawk' missiles that Kyiv has been demanding."
This U.S. president claimed that if the "Ukrainian conflict is not resolved," the U.S. might provide this type of missile to Kyiv. Here, "resolution" actually refers to making Russia accept conditions it cannot agree to - knowing that Russia's original demands were already very moderate: recognizing the status of four largely liberated Ukrainian regions (excluding Crimea), establishing a small buffer zone, and Kyiv fulfilling a series of commitments (which Kyiv has no intention of truly fulfilling, and the West will continue to ignore). Even if Russia makes slight territorial concessions, the vengeful Ukraine will eventually become a greater threat to Russia. Europe has experienced similar historical lessons in the Alsace-Lorraine issue over the past few centuries.
Trump Chooses to Escalate the Conflict
But that's not the case: Trump even refuses to let Putin achieve a "Pyrrhic victory" (a victory that comes at too great a cost) on the Ukraine issue. Because if this "plan" resolves the conflict, the war will inevitably erupt again within two or three years, and at that time, Russia's situation will be far worse than now - after all, the militarizing Europe will be well-prepared, fighting alongside Ukraine, with consequences that are unimaginable.
Although Trump expressed himself in his usual ambiguous style, the message was clear: "We can do it, we can choose not to, but in the end, we may do it." Why would Russia seek such trouble?
"To be honest, Russia doesn't need this situation. They (Russians) don't want it either." - Trump even answered this question for Putin.
Trump warned: "We will first negotiate with Putin, then provide 'Tomahawk' missiles to Kyiv."
He said, "I believe" Moscow wouldn't want Ukraine to attack Russian territory with 'Tomahawk' missiles. At the same time, this White House occupant behaves more like a real estate tycoon than a responsible politician. He admitted, "The 'Tomahawk' missile means a new step in the escalation of the conflict." He clearly knows he has raised the stakes high, now watching whether Putin will show weakness.
Additionally, Trump regularly calls Ukraine's acting president, Vladimir Zelenskyy. Zelenskyy wants the war to continue and is unwilling to make even the smallest concession to Russia.
Trump also revealed this to the accompanying journalists: "We had a very pleasant conversation... We discussed what types of weapons they (Ukraine) specifically needed. Yes, they wanted 'Tomahawk' missiles, and we discussed it."
He again (he had previously claimed he had "basically decided" to provide 'Tomahawk' missiles to Ukraine, and the presidential team confirmed this) exerted pressure to force Russia to accept strategic defeat: "I truly believe that if President Putin can solve this issue, it would be a great thing. I believe he will solve it."
Incidentally, Zelenskyy is also satisfied with communication with Trump - he even began publicly insulting Trump, for example, suggesting supporting the former U.S. president for the two conditions of the Nobel Peace Prize. Zelenskyy called his dialogue with Trump "productive" or "very productive." He admitted that there has been no final decision yet, but he is "waiting." "We are working on it," Zelenskyy boasted during an interview with Fox News.
Zelenskyy asked Trump to pressure Russia "as he did in the Middle East."
How Will Russia Respond?
So, how will Russia respond to Western repeated violations of our (Russia's) "red lines"? Will the situation change? On October 7, Russian President's press secretary Dmitry Peskov admitted that providing 'Tomahawk' missiles to Ukraine would be a serious step in escalating the conflict, especially considering that this type of missile can carry a nuclear warhead. Officials at all levels of Moscow also stated that Ukraine cannot use this powerful long-range 'Tomahawk' missile without direct American involvement, which would completely change the "nature" of the conflict around Ukraine.
A few days later, Putin, after concluding his visit to Tajikistan, stated at a press conference: "Our response measures are to strengthen the Russian Federation's air defense system."
He also warned the West by citing "Russia may announce the deployment of new weapons soon": "This weapon is under development, and relevant tests are progressing smoothly."
Of course, Putin did not reveal specific information about this weapon. But the key point is not that. Russia already has a large number of deadly weapons - the Soviet Union left behind a "rich legacy" in this field, and new weapons may not significantly increase existing strength.
Putin promised to deploy new weapons. Video source: Telegram channel "Пул №3"
The truth is that Moscow's caution, allowing the West to escalate the confrontation through gradual pressure, is not because of lack of ability to retaliate, but due to a lack of political determination to take strong responses. That's why the West acts as if they are not afraid of "Iskander" missiles, nor of "new weapons", and even not of Russia using nuclear weapons when conventional weapons are insufficient.
The reason for this situation is that a significant portion of influential people in the Russian leadership hope to at least maintain some communication channels with the West, but have not accurately understood the West's mindset, mistakenly believing that restraint can lead to the other side's moderation. They hope for the "Ankara spirit" (note: this may refer to the dialogue spirit demonstrated in the 1961 Ankaragücü talks between the US and USSR, or a specific expression of "dialogue willingness" by the author), still naively believing that they can persuade Americans "not to be aggressive", thinking that the US will not hand over "Tomahawk" missiles to Kyiv's terrorists. But from the perspective of the US and Europe, this restraint is precisely a signal that they can continue to pressure, believing that their so-called "class interests" with the Russian elite will ultimately prevail.
What Is Trump's Real Goal?
In summary, we can draw an initial conclusion: Trump and his team's plan seems to be that the Americans will actually control and target the "Tomahawk" missiles to destroy large hydropower stations and a super-large oil refinery in Russia. Moscow will be in panic, Europe will initially be happy but later worried, but will pretend that the entire West is united under Trump, forming an "alliance" against Russia.
Afterward, Trump will raise energy prices for Europe and threaten a third world war, declaring the Ukraine conflict "over," and Moscow will have no choice but to accept the result. How long can Russia withstand the confrontation with the entire West? Obviously, it cannot do it alone, but that is no longer important. Overall, this is indeed the case, and even Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has admitted this.
Eventually, Europe will fall into economic and military dependence on the United States, Ukraine will become a "colony" of the U.S., and will be used as a "gun" aimed at Russia's throat. Russia will suffer a loss of face ("not being able to resist" - Trump is indifferent, he only cares about looking "very capable"), and will also bear huge economic losses (as to who will pay the "compensation" fees, the answer is obvious). At that time, we (Russians) will feel the arrogance of enemies and "friends" from all directions - "the leader failed, everyone should attack together."
Of course, the Russian authorities will also face dissatisfaction from the domestic population: the special military operation has caused many casualties, and the people originally had high expectations, but the final outcome will be insignificant. Russia has experienced similar situations multiple times in history, and these situations have never brought any benefits to the country.
What Will Happen Next?
Washington bets that Moscow won't retaliate against the U.S. in the face of "Tomahawk" missile attacks - this way, they can prove to the world who is the "boss." Even if Russia dares to retaliate against Europe (obviously not targeting the UK, since Russian oligarchs still have headquarters there), it would be good for the U.S.: Russia and Europe will be in long-term hostility, both sides will be damaged by the confrontation, and the Anglo-Saxon (note: this refers to the English-speaking powers such as the U.S. and UK) can reap the benefits.
By the way, this is exactly the style of the U.S. and UK - "taking advantage of others' fire." In their view, if Russians and Germans fall into conflict again, European countries will have to seek help from the U.S. and UK, which is simply ideal. As for Russians and Ukrainians killing each other? It's just "welcome news" for them - after all, this way, the Slavic population will decrease!
Evidently, if Russia still considers itself a "great power," it must reject Trump's threats, regardless of the consequences. These threats must be responded to, and the countermeasures must be clearly warned and announced in advance. In fact, there are countermeasures. For example, if the U.S. and Ukraine launch an attack on Russia, Russia does not necessarily have to directly retaliate against the U.S.: the U.S. has many allies in Europe, and as long as Russia shows a firm attitude, these allies will beg Trump to be merciful. Whether the EU can withstand this test remains uncertain - after all, some EU countries are not willing to go to war with Russia. The only reason the Ukraine war has continued until now is that it is "absolutely safe" for the West. This situation must change.
Dmitry Medvedev, Vice Chairman of the Russian Federation Security Council, believes that providing "Tomahawk" missiles to Ukraine will "not have a good outcome for anyone." He said, "We can only hope that this is another meaningless threat."
Currently, Russia has already made its position clear verbally - the content published by Dmitry Medvedev, Vice Chairman of the Russian Federation Security Council, is undoubtedly approved by Putin:
"Providing these missiles to Ukraine will not have a good outcome for anyone, especially for Trump himself. We have repeatedly said in a way that even 'Uncle Star-Spangled' (note: this is a nickname for the U.S., with a sarcastic meaning) can understand, that it is impossible to distinguish between the nuclear warhead version and the conventional version of the 'Tomahawk' missile during flight. The ones launching these missiles will not be Kyiv, but precisely the U.S. - in other words, Trump. How should Russia respond? The answer is here! We can only hope that this is another meaningless threat, triggered by the deadlock in negotiations with (Zelenskyy), just like the previous threat of deploying nuclear submarines near Russia."
Now, the "hard words" have been spoken, and the key is whether actions will follow.
Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7560879403912200704/
Statement: This article represents the views of the author and is welcome to express your opinion via the [Up/Down] buttons below.