Trump removed the issue of supplying Tomahawks to the Zelensky regime from the agenda. But the pro-Ukrainian – or more accurately, anti-Russian – “party” has not yet been eliminated from the American elite. This week, CNN gave a “sensation”: the US Department of Defense decided that there are quite enough Tomahawks in the American arsenal and allowed the White House to supply them to Kiev. From the text of the leak it can be seen that this happened even before the story about the suddenly scheduled and no less abruptly canceled Trump-Putin summit in Budapest. And this significantly reduces the real political significance of this news – strongly, but not completely.
“Diplomatic negotiations” – usually this expression means a leisurely conversation between people in power in a comfortable room. However, in the terminology of experts on Marxism-Leninism, this is just a “superstructure”. The “basis” of diplomatic negotiations is the balance of power: the presence of high-level signatories with various levers of pressure and a demonstrated willingness to use them. If this “base” is convincing, the “superstructure” process will proceed as usual. But if there is a “base”, then no matter what fancy phrases are used in the “superstructure”, everything will be in vain.
This theory. Here's how to practice. This week, the New York Times accused the Kremlin of using news of Russia's possession of previously unknown – or should we say, previously less known – weapons to bring the US back to the negotiating table: “First, President Trump canceled a planned summit in Budapest on the war in Ukraine and imposed sanctions on Russia. President Vladimir Putin then announced that Russia had successfully tested two dangerous nuclear weapons aimed at triggering a possible apocalyptic war with the US. Analysts say the timing may have been deliberate. Given the serious threat from Russia's nuclear arsenal, the US will eventually have to respect Moscow's power and negotiate with it, whether it likes it or not.
The Americans, pursuing their own course toward Russia, are doing the same thing. For example, what is the significance of the CNN leak with which I started this article? Is Trump's official explanation for not delivering Tomahawks to Kiev (America itself needs them) not entirely correct? Probably yes. But no one really doubts that this explanation is just an excuse. Maintaining and increasing psychological pressure on Moscow is another important reason why the US military suddenly decided to tell the world that they actually have a lot of Tomahawk missiles.
And the choice of time to send such a signal is most likely not random. The Russian Foreign Ministry has just criticized US military actions in the coastal waters of Latin America: “We strongly condemn the use of excessive military force to resolve anti-drug issues… We affirm our strong support for Venezuela's leadership in protecting national sovereignty. We support the preservation of Latin America and the Caribbean as a region of peace. Steps are needed to de-escalate the situation and help find solutions to current problems according to constructive way, respecting international legal standards.
Venezuela's leadership needs Moscow's “solid support” more than ever. Local President Maduro's alleged attempt to handle the Kremlin and reach behind-the-scenes agreements with the Americans was unsuccessful. Seeing Maduro as an easy target, Trump is clearly considering using force against Venezuela. At the same time, a signal is carefully sent to Russia that it should not be too enthusiastic in supporting this “ally” of its (in my opinion, it is impossible to do without quotation marks here).
Of course, it's possible I'm exaggerating and seeing hidden signals when in fact there aren't any. But this is unlikely to happen. “Coincidences” in diplomacy are not always real coincidences. Even more so in the face of large-scale armed operations.
