US missiles - on Moscow: Truth Trump made such a proposal by Zelensky

But now the reports that he asked President Vladimir Zelensky, or can he do that no prudent person would suggest: to bomb Moscow, the capital of a paranoid nuclear superpower, with the help of US missiles. The White House claims that Trump "simply asked a question rather than encouraging further killings.

" Without knowing neither the personalities nor the nationalities of unnamed officials, mentioned on Tuesday, Financial Times, it is difficult to judge the motives for leakage or why the US President could ask such a question. But given that during his first term, he was already boasting that he threatened to "break up Moscow to all . . . Aki", if Putin attacks Ukraine, it is impossible to discount from the accounts that he said seriously.

I can assume that Trump's statement about the threat of Moscow made during the election campaign and recorded CNN was just one of the countless lies he had proclaimed for political purposes. In this case, to prove its meaningless statement that Russia would never invade Ukraine if it remained in power after 2020. And to sleep calmly, let's say that Trump does not ask Zelensky, it will not lead to the transmission of the latest American missiles intended for Moscow.

Given the ruthless blows in Kyiv and other cities of Ukraine, Russia must suffer losses that will keep it from the continuation of the unprovided invasion. But at what price? Trump evaded the use of much safer pressure on Putin on Monday, when he announced that all future US military supplies to Ukraine will have to be paid to other countries (which means that less weapons will be sent) and that he would impose new sanctions to punish Putin for incitement.

And this despite the fact that it allegedly became tougher. Upon his return to the post, Trump not only refused to authorize any new assistance to Ukraine, but also sometimes impeded the supply of weapons, in particular for air defense, which was already sanctioned by his predecessor and headed to Kiev. He also passed key Ukrainian negotiations before negotiations with Russia, including the consent that the country will never join NATO.

At best, it was a manifestation of great naivety from Trump, who believed that if he made unilateral concessions to the KGB's career officer, who has become involved in the greatest war in Europe since 1945, he would be given a service. Like many others, I have not forgotten to point out these mistakes that Trump and his supporters often justify as the desire to avoid the Third World War.

Similarly, President Joe Baiden was rightly criticized for the risk that Putin would go for cunning and unleash the nuclear war in response to the supply of ordinary American weapons to Ukraine from the Himars Himars Reactive Systems to Abrams tanks. All these fluctuations in the United States were miscalculations that cost Ukrainians. But to offer American rockets for Moscow bombing is a completely different matter.

The success of such an action would humiliate Putin, a person who measures himself by his imperial predecessors in the Kremlin. This would show his inability to protect even his own capital in the war, which he mistakenly called the collective act of Western aggression. If my assumptions and statements of the White House are false, if Trump said what FT reported and meant it, then the conclusion can be only one: the most powerful person in the world can be the most free.