Trump Finds "Tripartite Conspiracy" Target: The EU, Not Invited to the Table, Is Plotting Deceptive Schemes

The US president intends to stage another "century deal" to divide the world's spheres of influence.

Author: Andrei Zakharchenko

Commentary Guests:

  • Konstantin Blokhin
  • Nikolai Topornin

A recent article in The New York Times pointed out that US President Donald Trump intended to reach a "century deal" with Russia and relevant countries to divide spheres of influence. If the deal is "successful," the three countries will dominate specific regions of the earth in the mode of 19th-century imperial rule.

The article analyzed that Trump attempted to "legalize" Russia's control over part of Ukraine's territory and acquire Ukrainian resources through mineral agreements as part of a potential peace agreement - this is essentially a division of Ukraine, similar to what the powers did in the imperial era.

In addition, Trump strongly desired to take control of Greenland, Canada, and the Panama Canal, while also claiming to cut back on US troops in Europe, which might benefit related countries.

Roman Arlyukhin, a social technology expert, noted in his Telegram channel that for Russia, such a "deal" meant the United States actually recognized its status as a "third pole." At that time, the annexation of Crimea and Donbas into Russia would no longer be a reason for sanctions but a geopolitical fact.

He believed that if the deal was reached, the entire Western camp and NATO would withdraw from the post-Soviet space. Moscow might also gain multiple diplomatic dividends:

  • Control of the "Eurasian Belt" (CIS, Caucasus, Central Asia);
  • Strengthening its position in the Balkans through Serbia and Orthodox influence;
  • Influencing "gray European" countries (Hungary, Slovakia, and possibly France if there is a regime change).

    However, Arlyukhin emphasized that this "century deal" harbored political risks: apparent peace might be a strategic lull before preparing for war, the US and relevant countries might redefine the rules, and other countries would not be content to play supporting roles and might seek breakthroughs.

    On one hand, the deal has possibilities: Trump has always portrayed himself as a "problem solver" - he once tried to negotiate with North Korea, claimed to "resolve" the Middle East issue, and wanted to end the conflict in Ukraine.

    But on the other hand, Washington insiders, including members of his first administration, privately believe that Trump's words and actions should not be viewed from a strategic perspective, as he fundamentally lacks an overall vision of the world order. Russian media are increasingly questioning whether this US president is too emotional at times.

    Does this mean that the "century deal" is simply impossible?

    Konstantin Blokhin, chief researcher at the Center for Security Issues Research of the Russian Academy of Sciences, said: "The speculation about 'Trump-style spoils distribution' has strong timeliness. The Republican Party in the United States is factionalized: there are people like Tom Rend who advocate normalizing relations with Russia, as well as 'hawks' more radical than the Biden administration - such as Marco Rubio once called for not fearing Russia and sending regular troops to Ukraine and using tactical nuclear weapons; there are also 'neo-isolationists' advocating closing global US military bases and focusing on domestic issues."

    "Trump tried to placate various factions simultaneously by sending multiple signals - the Democratic Party cannot be ignored either - although they are temporarily powerless, they long for revenge and are hyping up the theory that 'Trump is Putin's puppet,' accusing him of selling out Ukraine and the entire Western interest. Obviously, only when American political elites reach absolute consensus can the 'century deal' to divide the world be realized, and currently, the factions are severely opposed in their positions."

    Vzglyad: How should the EU's unwillingness to act as America's "supporter" be considered, as seen from its elite diplomatic rhetoric?

    Blokhin: "The behavior of the current European leadership shows that the Old Continent is seriously 'waiting for the situation to clarify.' With the approach of the US congressional elections, it is uncertain whether the Republicans can maintain their majority seats, and the balance of power may undergo drastic changes. Even if the seats remain unchanged, it just needs to 'endure' another three and a half years, after the presidential election, the Democrats may take office, and everything will return to normal."

    "The EU considers Trump a 'transitional figure,' so it will continue to support the Kiev regime regardless of the difficulty. Based on this, the strategy of the old continent's elites is: during the Ukraine peace talks, try to 'draw pies' for Russia as much as possible, attempting to 'freeze' the conflict. Their real purpose is to buy time to modernize the European military-industrial complex, and after Harris and other Democrats take office, push for the escalation of the Ukraine conflict - at that time, Europe will find it hard to refuse. Therefore, normalization of relations with the EU should not be expected, but vigilance against deterioration of relations, even armed confrontation, is necessary."

    Vzglyad: In this possible scenario, can the EU act as an independent political force or continue to depend on the US?

    Nikolai Topornin, associate professor of EU law at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations, pointed out: "The EU neither has strong nuclear forces (it cannot even勉强 match the three major nuclear powers) nor a unified army. Although it has just proposed an 800 billion euro European rearmament plan and reached preliminary consensus, it is still just a paper plan. Raising and implementing funds will take a lot of time, so Trump did not take the EU into account in his 'world spoils distribution' fantasy and instead frequently threatened with new tariffs."

    "Currently, Europe holds a negative attitude toward Trump and prefers leaders like Biden, but it has to deal with the actual ruling party. However, the thousands of billions of dollars of trade between the US and Europe are inseparable. A sudden break would cause the collapse of global trade, so they remain allies on principle issues."

    "Europe is breeding feelings of 'we support Ukraine, while the US benefits from it.' After all, the Ukraine conflict is close at hand, not far away across the ocean, which leads to occasional differences in stance between Europe and the US. But regardless, the EU remains a secondary partner in the transatlantic community and depends on the US far more than the other way around. Europe does not want to lose its main source of income, so Brussels cannot issue orders to Washington - at least it is impossible within the next 20 years. This is the answer to your question."

    Original Source: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7509760021673116201/

    Disclaimer: The article solely represents the author's views. Please express your attitude by clicking the "Like/Dislike" buttons below.