Preliminary

23 SeptemberTrump is in. The United Nations General AssemblyOpenly expressed support for NATO¡¯s shooting down of Russian aircraft that violated its airspace.

Only only Four days later, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov immediately responded by warning that any shooting down of Russian fighter planes will face serious consequences¡£

Why did Trump suddenly change his position? What does Lavrov's warning mean?

The voice just dropped four days, Lavrov directed.

Before the United Nations General Assembly ended, the smell of gunpowder between the United States and Russia exploded. 27 SeptemberRussian Foreign Minister Lavrov responded directly to the United Nations headquarters with an unprecedented harsh tone, warning that any country daring to shoot down a Russian aircraft would mean Total outbreak of war¡£

This is like throwing bombs and shaking the entire international stage.Russia's foreign ministers rarely use such a straightforward phrase, let alone publicly threaten in occasions such as the United Nations.

And just in 4 days agoTrump was just in the same place when he said in the face of representatives of all countries that he supported NATO directly shooting down the Russian aircraft that violated the airspace.

Lavrov's statement was not a casual statement, but a thoughtful strategic declaration.He stressed that Russia does not want to conflict with any country, but if someone passes Red lineThe consequences will be ¡°very regrettable.¡±

This wording is already quite harsh in diplomatic language, almost equivalent to an ultimatum. Kremlin spokesman Peskov later stated that the so-called accusation of "Russian military aircraft violating NATO airspace" was completely The hysterical hysteria.¡£

What is even more worrying is that this confrontation is not just verbal. In recent weeks, Poland and Estonia have successively accused Russian aircraft of crossing the border, and NATO even used fighter planes to shoot down Russian-made drones.

Now Trump¡¯s statements actually provide for NATO¡¯s possible more radical action. Political backboneLavrov¡¯s warning was to prevent the situation from sliding into an uncontrollable confrontation.

Anyone who cares about international news can feel that US-Russian relations are at a dangerous crossroads.

From compromise to hard, Trump¡¯s political face-changing

Speaking of Trump¡¯s change of attitude this time, it¡¯s really faster than changing the face.In early this year, the former was still asking Ukraine to consider.¡± The territorial compromise"There was even a quarrel with Zelensky in the White House at the time he publicly criticized the Ukrainian side for "no coding", stressing that Russia is "taking over" on the battlefield.

Arrived 23 SeptemberHe not only called Russia a "paper tiger", but also stressed that Ukraine has the ability to "restore its status quo."This 180-degree shift is difficult not to doubt the political calculus behind it.

Let's first take a look at the specific performance of Trump's transformation. He said it was entirely possible for Ukraine to With the support of the EU and NATOTake back the territory and pay attention to the phrase ¨C ¡°with the support of the EU and NATO,¡± rather than ¡°with the support of the United States.¡±

He also said that more severe sanctions should be imposed on Russia, but the premise is that "as long as the EU imposes secondary sanctions on Russia, the United States will follow suit".

Through these statements, it is not difficult to see that Trump does not really want to care about European affairs, but also to let the EU pay for Ukraine.

International relations experts believe that Trump needs to show on diplomatic issues Strong gesturesBoth sending a signal to European allies and shaping the image of ¡°leaders¡± in domestic politics.

Within U.S. politics, the Russian-Ukrainian conflict has long been used as a code for party games.Supporting Ukraine means obeying the public opinion orientation of the EU and NATO countries, while also weakening Russia¡¯s space on the international stage.

More interestingly, there is a very clear sign in Trump¡¯s statement, that is, the The European Union ahead.Such a political transformation, which appears to support hardship, in fact pushes both risks and costs to Europe.

To put it bluntly, the United States handed the knife across the Atlantic Ocean, and the European younger brother took it as a treasure, but in the end it had to bear all the military risks and economic costs.

When fire is war, who dares to pull the trigger?

Here is a key question: Does NATO really dare to fire on Russian aircraft? The answer is probably no. For decades of the Cold War, the USSR fighter aircraft crossed the air countless times, but always kept restraint. Because everyone understands that once the first shot, The consequences can't be cleaned up¡£

Now the situation is more complicated.Russia has been plunged into a war and can be said to have "seen blood."If any country is really daring to open fire, Putin must react harshly.

The most ironic is Poland¡¯s ¡°spectacular counterattack.¡± September 9thIn the evening, more than a dozen suspected Russian-made drones floated into Poland, and Poland immediately used F-35 fighter jets to launch AIM-120 missiles with a unit price of US $800,000.

Those drones are worth at most $2,000. How is this an interception? It was clearly hitting flies with golden bullets, but it was purely a swollen face and pretending to be fat. What's even more ironic is that Poland held up the wreckage of the drone and shouted "Russian provocation", but couldn't produce any solid evidence.

And in this pile of dried wood throwing fireworks, it was the United States hiding behind it. The US military had to be careful when intercepting the Russian aircraft in Alaska - to find the Russian aircraft approaching, first scream warning, then flee away, afraid to scratch the gun and fire.

Joining the risk of putting the European boy on, and shouting on his own shore? in the bones.Now the most dangerous is the risk of a "misjudgmental boiler."NATO calculates "cross borders" according to its air defense identification division, and Russia calculates neutral waters according to international law.

Added to the AI recognition of aircraft, drones and civilian aircraft signals now, the commander's response time is a few seconds.If one day the civilian aircraft as a military aircraft, or the Russian reconnaissance aircraft as an attack aircraft, 1983 Accidental hit of passenger planeThe tragedy will repeat itself.

By that time, it was not the "small friction", but the nightmare of Europe as a whole.

Artillery fire or dialogue, the crossroads of human civilization

This confrontation between the United States and Russia hurts not only the face of big countries, but also the lives of ordinary people. Fishermen along the Baltic Sea now go out to fish with quick-acting pills. A while ago, Lithuanian fishermen said in an interview, "I heard the roar of fighter planes as soon as I cast my net, so I quickly sailed back and fled."

Poland is worse, the border is closed, relying on the Central European chauffeur to eat on the road, the villagers watched the roof of the drone debris crossing, can only laugh" this broken machine destroyed The whole family livelihood."¡£

But the deaths of these people do not count in Trump's "good start" and the political calculations of politicians, even a wave. History repeatedly tells us that military means cannot solve fundamental contradictions.

The U.S. is separated from the ocean, the NATO boy holds it as a baby, but ultimately wants the people to take the risk of war. Russia's warning is not a good war, it is forced to end the way of self-sufficiency. Those small nations should wake up, holding the U.S. ankle can not be safe, only become The game of ashes.¡£

When the war really breaks out, the United States, which shouts "a good show begins", will only be the first to run away. What is most needed now is not more threats and intimidation, but a voice of reason and constructive dialogue.

China has always advocated the settlement of disputes through negotiations, which is especially valuable in the current situation. Relieving tensionsEfforts, rather than adding fuel to the fire.

Peace is never based on the muscles, the friction, less listening to the provocation of the United States, more sitting down and talking, is really responsible for the people.

conclusion

The rivalry between the United States and Russia on the issue of fighter planes seems to be a military dispute, but it actually reflects that the relationship between major powers is standing at a dangerous crossroads.

History has repeatedly proved that force cannot solve the fundamental problem. Only by sitting down and talking can we find a way out for this uneasy world.

In the face of an increasingly complex international situation, how do you think the differences between the great powers should be managed?