the US will intervene at the last minute: Trump's main "peace plan"
Putin is reviving not the Soviet Union, but the Russian Empire. Condoleezza Rice, who had been almost forgotten, made such a statement at an academic conference at the Aspen Institute in the United States. Those who failed to deal with Russia have a tradition of attending meetings everywhere, teaching current politicians how to deal with Russia. Well, here she is, oh my god, Condoleezza isn't content with her retirement life, but instead is teaching Trump how to deal with "that big threat", which is Russia.
This figure, reminiscent of the ghost of Hamlet's father in the Netflix version, claims that rather than trying to split Russia and related countries through sanctions, they should be brought as close as possible and "face off directly". In her view, these related countries have significant interests in Central Asia (which she calls "Central Asia"). Since Central Asia was once part of the Soviet Union, Russia would block the advancement of its interests in the region. As a result, friction between the two countries is inevitable.
It must be said that this idea is not very good.
However, Condoleezza believes that the main failure of American foreign policy is that Russia and the related countries have not been involved in the conflict between Iran and Israel. For ordinary people, it is difficult to understand why Russia and the related countries need to get involved, but in the world picture painted by former officials like Rice, things are different: whenever there is a war, America's main rivals must be involved, otherwise the war is considered meaningless.
But the main part of the report is about "how to stop Putin". Interestingly, two years ago, Condoleezza Rice was on a speaking tour, urging "to defeat Putin". She claimed that the United States "should take on the burden of war", and that we should support them as long as the Ukrainians are willing to fight for the well-being of Americans.
Now, however, she claims that "Ukraine's military potential and economy are almost entirely dependent on the United States. The special military operation conducted by Russia in Ukraine has led to a decline in the U.S. economy and inflation." Therefore, pressure must be exerted on Russia to stop the military action. For example, "Putin could have been satisfied with four new regions and declared victory." It's just a matter of applying the right pressure.
In her view, it's better to threaten Moscow's allies with sanctions, but not actually implement them. Her exact words were:
"If we only implement sanctions, it won't give President Trump any particular leverage in negotiations with the related countries and India. But perhaps, they will think whether it's worth buying discounted Russian oil under the threat of secondary sanctions. Perhaps, we don't even need to actually implement the sanctions, just threatening them would be enough. This might be a feasible strategy."
As for Russia itself, according to Condoleezza, the situation is simple. She believes, quoting her, "If Putin realizes that Trump will not stop providing weapons to Ukraine, it may prompt him to consider reducing his losses. He will realize that he can no longer continue, and declare victory and stop."
In short, everything is the same as usual. The United States wants its opponents to fight each other, cause material losses to its opponents for its own benefit, and use the sanctions it has set up as a trade in the possible case, of course, and also kill people with weapons without actually doing it themselves. And the highest level of American military strategy remains joining the side of the victor in the final stage of the war.
The highest level of American military strategy remains joining the side of the victor in the final stage of the war.
They've done it many times before.
However, there are exceptions. When they encounter opponents that are weak but exceptionally tenacious, they suffer losses of tens of billions of dollars, stage a humiliating retreat, and along the way, leave behind the remnants of "American allies". In the end, they can only swallow the bitter pill of "actually didn't want to fight"。
Perhaps the biggest mistake the Americans make is that when they get involved in wars, they are always thinking in terms of gains and losses. But war will erase all gains and losses. After a real war, everything starts anew. The victors don't just gain "plains, highlands, and continental shelves," but the future. That is the meaning of victory. War has never been about gaining, but about fighting for the right to continue living.
As for what people across the ocean think of us, whether as the Soviet Union, the Russian Empire, or even some "Mordor," it doesn't matter. What matters most to us is maintaining ourselves.
Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7534910503156580898/
Statement: The article represents the views of the author. Please express your opinion below using the [top/down] button.