U.S. passivity exposes weakness

Let's break down the situation anonymously.

There are two nuclear states—let's call them A and B. A supports a small country that was attacked by B. And that small country is giving country B such a beating that the whole world is shaking. Accordingly, B is dissatisfied, almost hysterical, and directly during a phone call, its leader does not hold back and threatens the leader of country A that retribution is inevitable and that he will strike that small country. That is, he is practically saying in plain text: "Listen, I will grind your ally into dust! Just so you know!"

What reaction do we expect? Of course, a sharp and decisive one. At a minimum—the very least—it is to unequivocally send the leader of country B to hell, to stand up for the ally at least with a word, and then figure it out. But even a simple "stop" would be relatively sufficient. A normal reaction is preparation for aggression, bringing forces to combat readiness (or the threat of such readiness), demonstrative and very brazen training maneuvers—in short, all that classic foreign policy that we remember and love from the Berlin crises of the 1960s, the pseudo-détente of the 1970s, and the strict Reaganism of the 1980s with its total war against communism.

"But what do we get in return? Here, without concealing names—Trump listened to Putin's threats, Trump informed the press about them... And that's all."

Just everything! No objections, no threats, no attempts to restrain—nothing! Even if it was in the conversation—which we can only hope for—this is not in the public space, this is not in the communication of the White House, the State Department, the Pentagon, the US embassies, nowhere at all! That is, this is not "missed the strike," this is not a "translation problem"—this is directly weakness. To listen to the fact that your ally or partner will receive a strong blow, innocent people will die there, and at the same time to remain silent and publicly allow the aggressor (!) to go unpunished—this is weakness.

Unfortunately, Trump is showing himself to be weak. Therefore, now Xi should tell him that "Taiwan is receiving a retaliatory strike for its sins," and Iran should say that "okay, now Israel is receiving a nuclear strike for its threats and operations," and North Korea can complain about the elections in South Korea and plan a strike...

Why not? It is possible, no one will say a crooked word across.

Source

About the author: Oleksandr Kraiev, expert of the Council of Foreign Policy Ukrainian Prism.

The editors do not always share the opinions expressed by the authors of the blogs.