Is Trump a Pro or Anti-Russian President? No One President is So Poorly Understood
- The idea of Russophobia is selling too well. Go ahead, Vyacheslav Alekseevich.
Vyacheslav Nikonov, member of the State Duma: Surprisingly, Trump is a very strict President when it comes to Russia. At the same time, he's the most pro-Russian politician in the US establishment. Things have gone pretty far, and the US can put almost any labels on Russia right now. The society will support it. Most people think that not enough economic sanctions have been imposed on Russia. In this context, the US follows a longstanding law in strategy and geopolitics that impressions and allegations matter more than the reality does. This is how it is in politics. The arguments we've heard here about the UK and German weapons in Syria will not be heard in the US. They don't have the media that will be interested in the truth. From this point of view, from this perspective, the US is somewhat hopeless.
However, if we take a look at Europe, the situation there is completely different. They have the political power and rather influential people who actually want to know this. They're not in the basic media that have pretty similar positions. For instance, Theresa May's position in the UK. The person who has worse press in the UK isles than the Russian President is Jeremy Corbyn. He is the opposition leader, the Labor Party. By the way, the Conservatives only beat the Laborists by 0.5% at the latest election. The Conservative is the minority party, and the government coalition also depends on the Irish nationalists' votes. They actually disagree with Theresa May in many ways. However, May's ratings are dropping significantly. Corbyn's ratings, who notes all these facts and talks about them in the UK Parliament because they can't be ignored, are growing. Recently, I've read some things about Corbyn that you won't typically read about the opposition leaders in the Western countries. For instance, The Economist Magazine. They like to publish horrible articles about him. One of their latest articles was about the most influential people in Corbyn's circle. Are they the followers of Lev Davidovich Trotsky or of Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin?
- Wow.
- This is a serious controversy, and they don't know who Jeremy Corbyn is closer to. He asks reasonable questions, including some that are asked by the objective investigators in Syria. In France, there are people who'd voice what Macron is hiding, and what the main French media are hiding. They have the left candidate, Mélenchon, who organizes rallies to protest against various things. There is also Marine Le Pen who has her own way of delivering the information. Currently, Macron's ratings are dropping rapidly. The message that no French missiles have materialized anywhere, even though the French Army struck Syria 'pretty hard,' won't make Macron any more popular either. This is why these politicians are somewhat digging their own graves, undercutting Russia and its image. I think that Europe is starting to realize that full solidarity in this direction is absolutely self-defeating. It's no accident that Germany refused to play 'Bombing of Syria.' It's no accident that Germany will demand the US to make sure that anti-Russian sanctions don't affect the German companies that are still interested in working with our country. Thus, the world hasn't completely become black-and-white. There is also room for geopolitical games there. Of course, we should also remember that the world doesn't consist of only Russia and the West. There are still plenty of people left, and there are more of them than in Russia and in the West. Besides, they have more economic and political influence.
- So, we've covered that, and they keep criticizing Trump. However, the situation is extremely tense, we shouldn't relax. It's clear that even more fun awaits us.
- I don't see the current situation as extremely tense. There was a tense moment connected to that attack. I think that information-wise, the US has forgotten about it already, the Congress will still work on it, though. Actually, for me, all these events around Syria are all very serious from the following point of view. Please note that the US forces in Syria haven't proved themselves until now. For several years, the US and its 60 allies waged a war against ISIS. Until Russia got involved, 80% of Syria was controlled by ISIS. They had no success there. Basically, ISIS was neutralized by the Syrian Army with the support of the Russian Aerospace Forces. Take this attack conducted by 3 countries, which are the strongest NATO countries besides Turkey. The French missiles never made it to the targets at all. They weren't even detected by the radars. The UK missiles never made it, either. Only one-third of the US missiles made it. What does this mean? This means that the Western military machine is probably currently incapable of solving large military tasks. Why? The US spends more money on their military than any other country. Their military expenditure is 700 billion rubles, I mean, dollars, the American rubles. Russia only spends 46 billion. The strategies are completely different. The US strategy is to ensure global presence and global domination. All its money and armed forces are spread in a thin layer all over the globe. Russia's strategy is to ensure the country's absolute safety. This defines the least part of strategic goals and focusing on our priority goals, like Syria. This is why the US, as we could also see on the example of North Korea, is ready to blow the trumpets and commit certain forces, but the US armed forces are, in fact, incapable of performing a military operation without using nuclear weapons that it has plenty of, just like we do.
- I wouldn't underestimate them.
- However, this is quite typical of them. In this situation, Trump could have taken a tougher position, and it was dangerous. Perhaps, we shouldn't underestimate him. But, why couldn't the US do anything against ISIS? Or, perhaps, it didn't want to do anything. This required a big investment of its resources and military force. I'm not inclined to underestimate the US armed forces, but these events prevent us from overestimating them either. As far as the US influence goes, it has strong economic leverage. Americans can exercise military pressure. But, even in the case with North Korea, it wasn't the military pressure that forced Koreans to negotiate. They were never against it. It's more likely that the Koreans' perseverance made the US negotiate. It also convinced China to ensure North Korea's safety, without which it would never negotiate with the US. This means that the US will keep relying on non-military power and influence. With us, it's the sanctions policy. With China, it's trading wars. This also definitely includes the destabilization of the post-Soviet states. There's definitely a serious US trace in what's going on in Yerevan right now. Its presence is obvious in all current events in Armenia. I'm pretty well aware of their domestic political landscape. We all know that the largest Embassy is there.
- The second largest. The second largest Embassy in Europe, it's bigger than the one in Moscow.
- Way bigger.
- And this is the result.
- Wherever there is such a big US Embassy, the situation will be tense. However, we must say that Armenia isn't Ukraine. It's not about the size. The current Armenian political class, political elite are mostly the veterans of the Nagorno-Karabakh War. They know what force is and how to use it. They'll never run off like Yanukovich did. However, the US will keep playing all its hands. This is what it does in the global politics. It will keep using their partner connections, including with Poland. Especially since Poland is currently in some sort of political vacuum within the EU. They've declared their own position, their national interests, the fact that they are against same-sex marriage, the fact that they are a Catholic country, etc. This has made them Europe's outcast, but not a US outcast. The latter will use the Polish card along with other cards. The great geopolitical game has always been there, and it always will be. We, as an independent center of power, should increase our force factors in this game.