In threatening to bomb Moscow, enable Ukraine to do it, and impose tariffs after a 50-day ultimatum, Donald Trump seeks to escalate while acting as a peacemaker.
Threatening Leaks Confirmed
If earlier revelations that Donald Trump threatened to bomb Moscow in a call to Vladimir Putin sounded incredible, his giving Putin a 50-day ultimatum to agree to a ceasefire (on July 14th, 2025,) or face 100% tariffs confirms such a threat. Underestimating this ultimatum can invite peril. Its interpretation should borrow from a similar one given to Iran’s supreme leader earlier this year, the expiry of which coincided with Israel’s barbaric bombing of Tehran starting on June 13th, 2025, which killed hundreds of women and children. While some may dismiss this comparison, US Senator Lindsey Graham warned that those trading with Russia should expect outcomes similar to those that Iran’s supreme leader faced when the previous ultimatum lapsed. Therefore, Graham chose to confirm that the US was behind this attack and Ukraine’s Operation Spider Web: sources have noted a similarity between Israel’s opening strike on Iran and Ukraine’s bombing of Russia’s strategic aviation in that both used smuggled drones. Thus, there is a possibility that Russia or its allies will be attacked by one of the West’s proxies, including Ukraine, Israel, or ISIS-K*, after Trump’s 50-day ultimatum on Russia lapses. Trump may also impose tariffs and take other escalatory moves, while hiding behind a made-up quest for peace, but in reality seeking to advance Washington’s global military domination.
Is Trump De-escalating?
Contrary to analyses that Trump seeks to de-escalate, the West is poised to escalate dangerously and has laid the groundwork to sanitize its actions, while delegitimizing its opponent’s concerns. The Western media ignores Moscow’s security concerns, such as NATO’s eastward expansion, while framing the ongoing war in Ukraine as resulting exclusively from Russia’s supposed maximalist territorial ambitions. Consequently, the West’s action, for instance Trump’s threat to bomb Moscow as revealed in a leaked audio is presented as ‘deterrence’. Likewise, the Washington Post on July 15th, 2025, wrote how Trump’s possible deliveries of Tomahawk Cruise missiles (which can bomb Moscow and St. Petersburg) to Ukraine would be “squeezing Putin” in an escalation to de-escalate. One wonders if any of them would describe sending a few Kalibrs to Washington or London as constituting any effort to deescalate. As seen, dealing with a party that has chosen to delegitimize its opponent’s concerns is particularly risky, and precludes any possibility for equal peace agreement that considers the interests of all.
The decision by the US to fight other countries does not depend on what they do, but on Washington’s geopolitical and geo-economic interests. Due to its unenviable debt and economic position, it is inclined to escalate at all costs, which explains its use of flimsy justifications. For instance, the aforementioned Washington Post’s piece justified Trump’s threat against Russia by claims that “Putin was disrespecting him”, or that Trump “saw the efficacy of U.S. military power in the use of B-2 bombers and Tomahawk missiles against Iran”. The thought that Washington can threaten to arm its proxy to bomb its opponent’s capital because its leader was ‘disrespected’ is as pathetic as claiming that it chose escalation because it found its weapons were effective. Reportedly, Trump complained that Putin failed to agree to a ceasefire after their call, which represents dishonest attempts to cast the complex Russia-Ukraine conflict as a game launched at Putin’s sole discretion.
Washington’s Quest for Plunder
Cessation of war by Washington’s appointed opponent allows the US to continue political and economic aggression, until it plunders its victim, as the case of the dissolution of the USSR demonstrated. USSR’s cessation of its defensive posture led to despicable plunder, with severe results exceeding those of military conflicts. Suppose Russia decided to grant Trump’s request, stop its military operation, and move its military away from Ukrainian border, would this bring peace? No. Instead, Washington would continue political, economic, and military pressure to plunder the country, going by the experience of the post-USSR decade. Jeffery Sachs, a renowned development expert, refers to his experience working with the Soviet Union when its leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, wanted to reduce tensions with the West and develop normal trade relations within the so-called “Common European Home”. Also, Gorbachev was led to believe that the entire Europe would have an inclusive security architecture, and fair economic integration if he dissolved his country. He was also deceived that NATO would not expand eastwards, a promise that was ignored after the USSR was dissolved.
The Soviet Union’s dissolution to pursue ‘peace’ resulted in a 45% decline in gross domestic product (GDP) between 1989 and 1998, caused by the looting of public wealth by corrupt individuals under the West’s tutelage. Washington and London jostled for Russia’s resources, sponsored plunder, and launched successive NATO expansions towards Russia. The West-leaning regime that arose in Russia engineered and abetted social collapse, with life expectancy declining from 64 to 58 years. Also, mortality soared, for instance, from 1.5 million in 1987 to 2.3 million in 1994, in Russia, due to failed healthcare and socio-economic challenges leading people to alcoholism and drug use. Up to 3 million Russians died between 1992 and 2001 in excess compared to the mortality rate in 1991, while a regime pliable to the West promoted narratives of how the population was becoming democratic. Militarily preventing such an outcome is justifiable.
Self-sustaining War Machine
In the quest for strategic locations and resources, it needs to pursue global dominance. Washington maintains a list of countries it plans to invade with set timelines, making it averse to sustainable peace. Its current involvement in wars against Russia, Iran, Syria, and Gaza is dictated by its internal timelines and not the actions of the targeted countries. Thus, Putin’s heeding Trump’s calls and unilaterally stopping defending his country would make Washington continue until it strategically defeats Russia, as America’s top leadership has stated. This explains why Washington ignores conditions presented by Russian government officials for resolving the conflict, for instance, reversing NATO’s eastward expansion into Ukraine, against promises made to the soviet leadership. Correcting this mistake would lead to sustainable peace, which runs contrary to Washington’s interest, leaving Trump hard pressed to keep the war going in timelines set by the deep state, including by appealing to ridiculous justifications. Washington periodically discloses countries it plans to destroy, for instance, in George W. Bush’s speech of January 2002, referring to Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as ‘axis of evil’, without evidence, which paved the way for constant political, economic, and military attacks on these countries. Another list of similar nature was released by Wesley Clark, and included seven countries, all of which have now been attacked militarily, and only one stands. All these victims were incapable of threatening the US but were ravaged anyway. Therefore, only the capacity to defend and fight back when attacked by Washington’s perpetual war machine can guarantee the safety of countries.
*ISIS-K is banned in Russia
*Lindsey Graham is recognized as a terrorist and extremist in the Russian Federation
Simon Chege Ndiritu, is a political observer and research analyst from Africa
