WASHINGTON DC, The United States – US President Donald Trump has told the New York Post that he is willing to clarify the incident in the Kerch Strait, coming a day after American media accused Trump of ‘failing to condemn Russian aggression’.
The White House chief is interested in whether Ukraine has warned the Russian side before Ukrainian ships breach the Russian border and are subsequently detained in the Kerch Strait.
“There was a question — was a warning given? Did they [the Ukranian vessels] let them know they’re coming through? Because they have a system I guess. It’s been working,” Trump said.
Posing this quite legitimate question, was enough for the generally pro-war, unipolar, Deep State controlled media to lambaste Trump. CNN, in their November 28th edition, ran a piece – snapped below, in which they accuse Trump of, “leaving the task of criticizing Moscow to the outgoing US ambassador to the UN. When asked how he felt about the clash, Trump said, “not good. Not happy about it at all.” He seemed reluctant to blame Russia, adding, “we do not like what’s happening either way. And hopefully it will get straightened out.”,”
Amidst growing concerns about ‘Fake News’, CNN has apparently distorted the facts and reasoning in play. Their headline and article proceeds from the erroneous premise that aggression has taken place, and proceeds to leap to the false question of why the president did not condemn this allegation of aggression.
Political scientist Andrei Suzdaltsev commented on the words of the American leader, stressing that Trump will have to make a political decision.
“He must make a very important political decision: if he fully support Kiev, the Ukrainian jurisdiction over the Crimea and the Straits of Kerch, then he, of course, takes a tough anti-Russian stance,” said Suzdaltsev.
According to the analyst, Ukraine recognizes ‘de facto’ Russian control over this region, over international waters and the strait, where any merchant ships from Russia and Ukraine can pass. This was recognized in September when some Ukrainian ships passed by, asking for help from the Russian nautical guide and getting in line, according to the general rule.
“Now we have a question of principle: or Washington says that ‘in fact’, Russia controls the strait, then Ukraine has made a provocation. But if the US position is similar to the position of the other western countries, they will continue to accuse us. So this is a cross-cutting issue that Trump must now determine,” Suzdaltsev concluded.
Yesterday, Russian President Vladimir Putin commented on the incident in the Kerch Strait, stressing that it was a provocation organized by the Ukrainian president on the eve of the presidential election.
On Monday, the Supreme Rada, the parliament of Ukraine, approved the introduction of 30-day martial law in certain regions of the country along the border with Russia, as well as along the Black Sea coast and sea of Azov.
The decision was made following an incident between Russian and Ukrainian ships. On November 25, three Ukrainian navy ships – Berdyansk, Nikopol and Yany Kapu – crossed the Russian maritime border, violating international law. A decision was made to use weapons. The Ukrainian ships were detained. Russia has opened a criminal case for breaching the border.
At the same time, Trump’s diplomacy should not be understood as anything which falls outside of the conventional framework of realism in International Relations. Ultimately, he would like to give Russia as many low-cost passes as possible – assessing those things which he has control over against those things which he doesn’t – and use these to possibly leverage a reciprocal change in Russia’s treatment towards Iran and China.
Interestingly, Trump’s tough stance on Iran regarding sanctions, also works in the interests of Russia, placing Russia as an important middle-man in regional matters, and playing upon the rift between Ankara and Tehran. At the same time, Trump has not pushed against Iran in its role in Syria, and in so doing both upsets and confuses Tel Aviv – on the one hand, pleased with the diplomatic gesture, chiefly symbolic, to move the U.S Embassy to Jerusalem. On the other hand, the U.S has not done anything regarding Russia and Iran’s success fighting ISIS and terrorism in the Levant.
The present split in the U.S power structure exists on several layers, which relate to both internal social and economic policy, and international policy. That said, the two are tightly linked, given the U.S imperial presence on the world stage.
At issue is whether the U.S should work on weakening Russia, which would theoretically strengthen the U.S position versus rising powers like China later on, or whether the U.S should work directly on weakening China – the long term real power player – by coaxing Russia into a somewhat more neutral position. Trump has favored the second policy, and appears to be backed by a strong minority of military planners and strategists within the U.S security and intelligence structures.
In truth, it is highly questionable whether either plan can work. In many ways, these are marketing strategies, which have the effect on global discourse of buttressing the notion that the U.S continues to be a dominating world player. In contrast, U.S power has waned over the last decade considerably, with many experts realizing that the U.S’ debt-driven economy plan, to defeat the USSR, left itself ‘gutted and ruined’, symptoms which were delayed by the use of currency debasement and concealed by its debt driven economy. Reality came knocking in the 2007 period, and since then the U.S has seen rising powers like China and regional hegemons like Iran make tremendous strategic and economic advances.
U.S media appears committed to the ‘weak Russia’ policy, meaning that the traditional vectors of the U.S deep state corporatist powers such as NBCUniversal , a multi-media combine with General Electric and other U.S military-industrial complex players, hold considerable sway over U.S policy itself.