Follow us on social

google cta
Dimitri Medvedev  and Donald Trump

Trump vs. Medvedev: When talking tough is plain turkey

Exchanging nuclear threats like this is pure theater and we should not be applauding

Analysis | QiOSK
google cta
google cta

President Donald Trump ordered U.S. nuclear submarines to be positioned in “the appropriate regions” after former Russian President Dimitri Medvedev reminded Trump of Moscow’s nuclear capabilities ad told him to watch the apocalyptic series “The Walking Dead.”

The war of words started over Trump’s threats to impose sanctions if Russia doesn’t comply with ceasefire in 10 days.

Both Medvedev's remarks and Trump's response are pure theatrics. Having refrained from the use of nuclear weapons over the past three years, Russia is obviously not going to launch them in response to a new round of U.S. sanctions — especially since it has successfully overcome several previous rounds.

Trump is right to ask of his new sanctions, "I don't know if sanctions bother him (Putin)." This almost amounts to admitting that the new sanctions are pointless in terms of putting pressure on Russia and are really intended to defend Trump against domestic criticism.

Trump's announced — or alleged — "deployment" of U.S. nuclear submarines is also completely empty. The U.S. has nuclear submarines capable of striking Russia on permanent deployment.

Medvedev and Trump are both trying to look tough for domestic audiences. The rest of us are not however required to applaud this theatre. At the same time, Trump is right to say that words matter, and there should be no place for empty theatrics in a matter as serious as the threat of nuclear war. President Putin should silence his increasingly erratic and provocative subordinate. Trump should take heed of his own words and moderate his own often overblown language and threats.

Putin for his part is correct to say that "in order to approach the issue (and end to the Ukraine war) peacefully, we need to have detailed conversations, and not in public." This would require the Trump administration to prepare a detailed plan for peace and develop a confidential "back channel" through which to present it to the Russian government.

However, if such confidential discussions were to have any chance of success, it would also be necessary for the Russian government greatly to moderate its present conditions for a peace settlement.


Dear RS readers: It has been an extraordinary year and our editing team has been working overtime to make sure that we are covering the current conflicts with quality, fresh analysis that doesn’t cleave to the mainstream orthodoxy or take official Washington and the commentariat at face value. Our staff reporters, experts, and outside writers offer top-notch, independent work, daily. Please consider making a tax-exempt, year-end contribution to Responsible Statecraftso that we can continue this quality coverage — which you will find nowhere else — into 2026. Happy Holidays!

Top photo credit: Dimitri Medvedev (Anton Veselov/Shutterstock) and Donald Trump (Lev Radin/Shutterstock)
google cta
Analysis | QiOSK
Trump
Top image credit: President Donald Trump addresses the nation, Wednesday, December 17, 2025, from the Diplomatic Reception Room of the White House. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

Trump national security logic: rare earths and fossil fuels

Washington Politics

The new National Security Strategy of the United States seeks “strategic stability” with Russia. It declares that China is merely a competitor, that the Middle East is not central to American security, that Latin America is “our hemisphere,” and that Europe faces “civilizational erasure.”

India, the world's largest country by population, barely rates a mention — one might say, as Neville Chamberlain did of Czechoslovakia in 1938, it’s “a faraway country... of which we know nothing.” Well, so much the better for India, which can take care of itself.

keep readingShow less
Experts at oil & weapons-funded think tank: 'Go big' in Venezuela
Top image credit: LightField Studios via shutterstock.com

Experts at oil & weapons-funded think tank: 'Go big' in Venezuela

Military Industrial Complex

As the U.S. threatens to take “oil, land and other assets” from Venezuela, staffers at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank funded in part by defense contractors and oil companies, are eager to help make the public case for regime change and investment. “The U.S. should go big” in Venezuela, write CSIS experts Ryan Berg and Kimberly Breier.

Both America’s Quarterly, which published the essay, and the authors’ employer happen to be funded by the likes of Lockheed Martin and ExxonMobil, a fact that is not disclosed in the article.

keep readingShow less
ukraine military
UKRAINE MARCH 22, 2023: Ukrainian military practice assault tactics at the training ground before counteroffensive operation during Russo-Ukrainian War (Shutterstock/Dymtro Larin)

Ukraine's own pragmatism demands 'armed un-alignment'

Europe

Eleven months after returning to the White House, the Trump administration believes it has finally found a way to resolve the four-year old war in Ukraine. Its formula is seemingly simple: land for security guarantees.

Under the current plan—or what is publicly known about it—Ukraine would cede the 20 percent of Donetsk that it currently controls to Russia in return for a package of security guarantees including an “Article 5-style” commitment from the United States, a European “reassurance force” inside post-war Ukraine, and peacetime Ukrainian military of 800,000 personnel.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.