THE BIG BLUFF
Many are starting to ask themselves: “but why does Trump talk so much nonsense?”, and end up answering - wrongly, but understandably - that this must somehow correspond to a strategic plan of the United States.
I would therefore like to try to critically analyze Trump as a character, trying to outline the (possible) reasons for his rather over the top behavior.
Necessarily, I must start from what I have already argued previously; Trump's election to the presidency was an operation carried out by a minority part of the American deep state, marginalized for decades by the block formed by neocons and Democrats, which controlled both the federal institutions and US foreign policy. To reverse the situation, this minority group decided to exploit the mistakes made by the various Democratic presidencies, and the now structural weakness of that party, using a populist leader as a Trojan horse, capable of catalyzing the anger and frustration of a significant part of Americans. Furthermore, Trump offered further advantages from this point of view. First of all, he is not a politician but an entrepreneur, and therefore does not possess the malice of a seasoned politician, accustomed to moving within the federal establishment. In his first term he has already shown that he is quite manageable (all presidents are, but him more so), despite his huge ego - indeed, precisely because of that. And, finally, he is not re-electable. His function, therefore, is essentially to demolish the power structures on which the control of the majority of the deep state is based. The mission, in a medium-term perspective, is to put the United States back in a position to face (and win) the challenges that are posed to its world leadership; a task that is however designed for the next presidency(s).
In this destructive perspective, an explosive personality like Trump responds quite well to the requirements; and it is no coincidence that he is supported by another no less disruptive individual like Musk.
At this point, it is necessary to underline two things. The first is that Trump's action is mainly internal, and must respond to a plan for radical reform of the power structure of the United States. In this sense, even when he deals with international issues, he is actually addressing the internal public, to whom he must convey this idea of an America that is becoming great again - a certain patriotic pride, which serves for political mobilization in support of the reform plan. The second is that Trump - like most Americans - has a very vague idea of the global geopolitical context, and defines his orientations on the basis of the briefings he receives in the Oval Office. This also obviously applies to almost all presidents, who understandably cannot have full and in-depth knowledge of all the dossiers, but in his case this is amplified by the fact that it is not his subject matter. When - for example - he gives the numbers of Russian and Ukrainian losses in the war, it is clear that he does not have a well-founded and direct knowledge of them, but is basing himself on data that is provided to him. Which he then perhaps reworks further in his own way, with the cunning and bravado of the tycoon - Italians who remember Berlusconi know what we are talking about.
And so, in the context of meetings on strategic issues, perhaps he receives the input that the US has a gap in presence in the Arctic Ocean, which must be remedied by increasing the military presence (and control) in areas such as Canada and Greenland, and he transforms them in his own way by launching provocative hypotheses. The purpose of which, in the final analysis, is to disorientate the interlocutors, paving the way - in a rather crude way - for more serious and substantial negotiations.
This continuous barrage of exaggerated declarations, often completely devoid of any sense of reality, also has the purpose of invading and saturating the infosphere, monopolizing the international political debate, placing itself at the center of it. Which is also a way to cover up the absolute vacuity of concrete and realizable proposals. In his claim to exercise power in a hegemonic way, in fact, he intends to propose himself as the standard-bearer of a pax Americana, to be imposed by the mere waving of swords (dreaming of a "peace through force", which smacks of poorly digested Roman imperial reminiscences - "si vis pacem, para bellum").
On the other hand, it is evident that the most complex crises, which manifest themselves around the world, cannot be resolved in a simplistic way; and above all they cannot be resolved without the United States renouncing its hegemonic claims. These crises, in fact, are the direct result of Western supremacy, and of the claim to maintain it at all costs. From this point of view, therefore, it is not so much a question of Trump's personal ability to find solutions to crises, but of a structural impediment, which pertains to the US position itself, and which therefore leaves the president pro-tempore very limited room for maneuver, being able to barely operate in a tactical context, which does not offer (cannot offer) decisive answers, but only seek temporary accommodations. To this structural difficulty, Trump adds this boastful posture of his own, which risks undermining his undoubted pragmatism.
In any case, moving the discussion to a hyperbolic dimension, allows the focus to be distanced from the substance of the issues, chaining it to the form of his statements.
The problem, of course, is the sustainability of this approach. Which is certainly effective in dominating the public debate, but much less in encouraging concrete confrontation. And above all, beyond the media resonance, it works quite well with those - for the most diverse reasons - who have a subordinate role with respect to the wishes of Washington, but very little, if at all, with those who do not feel at all subject to the alleged American hegemony.
Sooner or later, the chatter and the bombastic statements will have to be followed by facts. And the more these differ from the former, the more America's credibility will be - even more - diminished.