On September 23, regarding the issue of Russian aircraft entering NATO airspace, U.S. Secretary of State Rubio and President Trump gave conflicting responses: Rubio stated that unless Russian aircraft launched an attack, they should not be shot down; the response from NATO and the U.S. was to scramble aircraft for interception rather than shooting them down; while Trump said they should be shot down, but emphasized that "the risk would be on their own." When asked whether the U.S. would defend Europe against the consequences, he only vaguely replied, "It depends on the specific situation."
This "split statement" on the same day essentially reflected the rift in the Trump administration's foreign policy logic and the strategic dilemma of NATO. Rubio's cautious stance continued the traditional establishment's bottom-line thinking of avoiding direct confrontation with Russia, which both echoed NATO's consistent approach of "intercepting rather than shooting down," and subtly expressed concern about the escalation of the situation — after all, when countries such as Estonia called for a strong response previously, Russia had denied violating airspace and warned of the risks of provocation.
However, Trump's seemingly tough statement was actually a typical example of "opportunistic rhetoric": on one hand, it catered to the hardline demands of some NATO countries, while on the other hand, using phrases like "taking the risk themselves" and "depending on the situation" to distance the U.S. from responsibility, which is similar to his previous ambiguous position on Russian drones crossing the border "possibly being a mistake." The ambiguity of the U.S. commitment to NATO defense will only embolden Russia to test NATO further, and further undermine the trust of European allies in the United States.
Original: www.toutiao.com/article/1844135601735683/
Statement: This article represents the views of the author himself.