What to make of Trump's nuclear sub threat?
Following a verbal exchange with former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, US President Trump has announced that he will send two US nuclear submarines to "appropriate regions". The details remain confidential. Prior to this, Medvedev had criticised the US ultimatum to Russia to end the war in Ukraine, saying it was a threat and a step towards war, which Trump in turn described as "foolish and inflammatory". The European press takes stock.
You don't mess around with nukes
With some issues showmanship is ill-advised, the Süddeutsche Zeitung warns:
“US nuclear-armed submarines are constantly on duty and capable of striking targets in Russia at any time from any location in the world's oceans. That is the essence of nuclear deterrence, which has kept the nuclear powers in check for decades. There is no need to move nuclear submarines into 'appropriate regions' for this. When Trump posts this on the internet it's just grandstanding designed to impress a global audience. That doesn't make it any better. You don't mess around with nuclear missiles, not even in verbal sparring matches.”
Not even sabre rattling
Trump is once again grabbing the spotlight, blogger and officer Yuri Kasyanov writes on Facebook:
“Sending two nuclear submarines to 'appropriate regions' is by no means a preparation for war - it's not even sabre-rattling. It looks more self-promotion on Trump's part. During the Cold War, dozens of nuclear-armed submarines patrolled these regions constantly, strategic bombers were on constant alert, and megaton warheads on intercontinental missiles targeted cities with millions of inhabitants. There's no need to worry, guys, two nuclear submarines are a trifle, nothing. This is not how nuclear wars start.”
Ignore Medvedev's threats
Trump should show more restraint, Die Presse advises:
“The Medvedev factor must be taken into account. The former Russian president has found his niche making profane remarks about the West and talking about reducing European capitals to nuclear ashes. These threats have worn thin over time. Until now the West has responded calmly to them, or not at all. And that's how things should remain. For a US president to stoop to responding to Medvedev is vexing.”
Equally adept at jibes and humiliation
Political scientist Vladimir Pastukhov praises Trump's threatening gesture in a Telegram post taken over by Echo as a cleverly communicated action:
“Now Moscow needs to be convinced that it wasn't just one of Trump's jokes. But I believe in Trump: he's crazy enough for this. Putin finally seems to have found an equal opponent. ... I would particularly like to emphasise the good work of the advisors who pointed out to Trump that in this situation they can really get their claws into the overconfident Medvedev and pretend that Putin doesn't even exist. It's cunning and humiliating at the same time, exactly the kind of jibe that Putin himself is so fond of.”
Let's hope a fuse won't blow
For Reflex, the situation is as follows:
“The impatient Donald Trump, who tried to end the war in Ukraine with a few 'friendly' phone calls to mass murderer Putin, has apparently had enough. ... The question is whether the two superpowers are just bluffing with nuclear weapons, as we've seen so often in the past, whether they'll continue with the usual form of strategic deterrence, as Washington is doing, or whether they'll resort to open blackmail, as Moscow is doing. All this raises the question of whether, under certain circumstances, there is a real threat of a nuclear conflict if a short circuit occurs somewhere in the system.”
Ambiguity factored into the equation
The Irish Times reflects on the similarities between the two countries' nuclear doctrines:
“Both Russian and US thresholds for the use of nuclear weapons, particularly their first-use, have long been deliberately ambiguous. ... Ambiguity, it is argued, forces adversaries to consider the possibility that any aggression could provoke a devastating nuclear response. ... Both the US's and Russia's nuclear doctrines, the latter revised as recently as last year, do not limit their options to responses to nuclear attack by others. ... Both leave the ultimate decision to press the nuclear button not to parliaments, but to their two presidents, Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin.”