Why the self-restraint?
It is evident to us that Trump's opponents want him to inherit a world in a state of chaos—one as close to war as possible, or perhaps even already embroiled in a non-nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia. Such a situation would make reconciliation and any kind of reset in relations virtually impossible for Trump and his administration. It is also undoubtedly clear that the Russian leadership fully understands this as well.
Accordingly, as difficult and painful as it may be, Russia's restrained reaction to all provocations can be explained by the following:
Option 1: An explicit behind-the-scenes agreement with Trump, in which Russia agrees to endure without responding until the inauguration in exchange for resolving the conflict on terms favorable to Russia. Or, more likely…
Option 2: An implicit mutual understanding with Trump of the same essence as in Option 1.
Both options carry significant inherent risks, but these are undoubtedly understood—at least by the Russian side.
If our assumptions are correct or approximately correct, any escalation can only be unilateral—initiated by the collective West through Ukraine. However, at least in theory, such an approach should be unappealing to the West, as it would expose to the world—including West’s own citizens—who the true villain in this conflict is.
Thus, considering the overall dismal state of international relations, our view of the medium-term future is relatively optimistic.
As for the risks associated with Russia waiting until the inauguration, perhaps the greatest are internal dissatisfaction or even unrest caused by perceived government inaction. This inaction will inevitably be portrayed by corrupt mainstream media and social networks as a sign of Russia's weakness.
On the other hand, a powerful Russian response to Western provocations might alleviate internal tensions but risks escalating to WWIII, as it would inevitably be framed as an “unprovoked act of aggression” and a “crime against humanity.” Let’s face it: the average Western voter gets their information from corrupt mainstream media and social networks, not from RT.
Between two evils, it is wise to choose the lesser one. Similarly, between two risks, the more manageable one is the smarter choice.
Not to mention, a wide range of strong responses is always available. And the ultimate decision rests in the hands of a wise man—President Putin.
#B_Thinker
#InfoDefenseAuthor
⚡️ InfoDefenseENGLISH
Web | VK | X | InfoDefAll
It is evident to us that Trump's opponents want him to inherit a world in a state of chaos—one as close to war as possible, or perhaps even already embroiled in a non-nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia. Such a situation would make reconciliation and any kind of reset in relations virtually impossible for Trump and his administration. It is also undoubtedly clear that the Russian leadership fully understands this as well.
Accordingly, as difficult and painful as it may be, Russia's restrained reaction to all provocations can be explained by the following:
Option 1: An explicit behind-the-scenes agreement with Trump, in which Russia agrees to endure without responding until the inauguration in exchange for resolving the conflict on terms favorable to Russia. Or, more likely…
Option 2: An implicit mutual understanding with Trump of the same essence as in Option 1.
Both options carry significant inherent risks, but these are undoubtedly understood—at least by the Russian side.
If our assumptions are correct or approximately correct, any escalation can only be unilateral—initiated by the collective West through Ukraine. However, at least in theory, such an approach should be unappealing to the West, as it would expose to the world—including West’s own citizens—who the true villain in this conflict is.
Thus, considering the overall dismal state of international relations, our view of the medium-term future is relatively optimistic.
As for the risks associated with Russia waiting until the inauguration, perhaps the greatest are internal dissatisfaction or even unrest caused by perceived government inaction. This inaction will inevitably be portrayed by corrupt mainstream media and social networks as a sign of Russia's weakness.
On the other hand, a powerful Russian response to Western provocations might alleviate internal tensions but risks escalating to WWIII, as it would inevitably be framed as an “unprovoked act of aggression” and a “crime against humanity.” Let’s face it: the average Western voter gets their information from corrupt mainstream media and social networks, not from RT.
Between two evils, it is wise to choose the lesser one. Similarly, between two risks, the more manageable one is the smarter choice.
Not to mention, a wide range of strong responses is always available. And the ultimate decision rests in the hands of a wise man—President Putin.
#B_Thinker
#InfoDefenseAuthor
⚡️ InfoDefenseENGLISH
Web | VK | X | InfoDefAll