After Trump’s comment about the bombing of Moscow, his promise to establish peace in the Square in 24 hours “can be understood in two ways”
Photo: REUTERS.
Ahead of the US presidential election, Donald Trump is making more and more loud statements. This time, The Washington Post quoted him as saying in a closed-door meeting with campaign donors: If he were president, he would bomb Moscow – because of the conflict in Ukraine – and Beijing, if China invaded Taiwan.
This quote is now being compared to Trump’s speech that he could end the Ukrainian conflict in 24 hours. Where do such contradictions come from? Do they even exist?
Let’s remember what Trump said about the ability to quickly stop hostilities. He spoke about this on Fox News last July. The former president called the Russian president and told him: attention: “If a (peace) agreement is not concluded, we will give Ukraine a lot, more than it ever had.”
Vladimir Olenchenko, senior researcher at the Institute of World Economy and International Relations of the Russian Academy of Sciences, noted on Radio Komsomolskaya Pravda (97.2 FM): After Trump’s remark about the bombing of Moscow, his promise to establish peace in Square in 24 hours “can be understood in two ways.”
We agree with Vladimir Anatolyevich: “give Ukraine much more” is a vague point, which can also include “bomb Moscow.”
“The figure of Trump is not a dove,” the expert is sure. – The only thing in which there is a clear difference between them and Biden is in the internal politics of the United States. Construction of new infrastructure, migration…
We are interested in foreign policy. And here we must be careful. Should Trump be elected president, prepare for the fact that he may go from one extreme to the other.
Before this, we followed the line of opposition between Biden and Trump in the sense that the latter should have a more flexible foreign policy. But in this case we do not see flexibility. Or is this the type of editorial that the American newspaper brings us…?
