Russia/USA – From bluff to disaster: submarines nearby, diplomacy distant

It's a one-way dynamic, bordering on the grotesque. Russia is daily bombarded with threats, ultimatums, verbal provocations, and media analyses that completely ignore the facts. Every loss, real or imagined, military or human, is celebrated with complacency by the Western press, which seems to have lost all semblance of journalistic sobriety. In this climate, President Trump is once again dictating deadlines to Russia: first 50 days, then suddenly reduced to 10. But woe betide anyone on the Russian side who dares respond : if Medvedev utters harsh words, the president of the hegemonic country—between receptions on his golf course—reacts piquedly and shouts threats, ordering nuclear submarines to approach the Russian coast.

All of this, of course, is met with complicit silence from the mainstream media, which merely acts as a sounding board without providing any explanation . Yet, what is happening is not a game, nor an exchange of campaign-style verbal skirmishes. It is a dangerous escalation that risks shifting the global strategic balance.

In this regard, it's interesting to report what Pravda.ru said, which—despite Western prejudices—seems to offer a more concrete logic than many Western commentators today. Here are the main passages from the article published on August 2, 2025, in its Russian and English versions:

Heading for a nuclear attack? Trump wants to alter the balance of power off the Russian coast.

Trump threatens Russia with nuclear submarines

President Donald Trump announced on social media that he had ordered the relocation of "two nuclear submarines" closer to the Russian coast. The move was described as a deterrent in case Russian Security Council Deputy Chairman Dmitry Medvedev's remarks "prove to be something more."

"(Medvedev's) words matter a great deal and can often lead to unintended consequences. I hope this isn't one of those cases," Trump wrote.

Interestingly, this time the message was written in regular type, rather than the usual Caps Lock font . This has led many US analysts to doubt that the post was actually written by Trump. However, this does not change the fact that the message was taken very seriously, precisely because it did not appear to be an empty threat.

Medvedev, in a previous post, had mentioned the Soviet Perimetr automatic nuclear response system (known in the West as “ Dead Hand ”), warning that American ultimatums were leading the United States dangerously close to war with Russia.

According to several Western experts, Medvedev is actually Putin's unofficial spokesman, who for diplomatic reasons cannot speak directly. This would also explain why the West has long since abandoned the illusion of a Gorbachev-style "reformist" successor, and calls for direct dialogue with Putin himself are instead beginning to emerge.

A military threat without operational basis

From a strictly military perspective, Trump's move appears more symbolic than concrete. Ballistic missile submarines, in fact, can strike targets thousands of kilometers away: their position relative to the Russian coast has little operational relevance, and their redeployment could even compromise their strategic secrecy.

This is according to Mark Cancian , a retired Marine colonel and analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, among others. He claims that the ballistic missiles these submarines are equipped with have no interception capabilities, but only offensive ones. Trump's words, Cancian concludes, are merely a "political signal to the Kremlin."

An old strategy: bluff and intimidation

Trump had already used similar tones in 2018 against North Korean leader Kim Jong-un , boasting on Twitter that he had a "much bigger and more powerful nuclear button." But those meetings ended in nothing, and today Kim refuses any contact unless the United States recognizes North Korea as a nuclear power.

It is possible, therefore, that even today Trump is trying to “negotiate” with Russia based on nervousness, bluff, and psychological pressure—a strategy that might work with other actors, but certainly not with the Kremlin.

Indeed, in a recent meeting with Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko , Putin announced that the new Oreshnik missile is already in production and will be deployed by the end of the year. It is not a weapon of last resort, but a preemptive and retaliatory strike weapon, with a range of over 1,000 km and destructive capabilities similar to nuclear weapons. According to Russian military experts, the Oreshnik could also be installed on naval platforms, including underwater units.

Conclusion: it is not a game, but a balance on a razor's edge.

The emerging picture is therefore far more serious than the Western press suggests. Diplomacy has been replaced by theatrics, and the risk of an uncontrolled escalation is tangible. The media's double standard—which downplays Western threats and amplifies any Russian reaction—not only distorts public perception, but also impedes a realistic and responsible confrontation between nuclear powers.

As the case of Pravda demonstrates, today a sense of reality is often most present where it is least expected, according to a certain vision consolidated in our latitudes, while the "democratic" centers of information have surrendered to a one-sided and dangerously ideological narrative. What's at stake isn't a leader's pride or a party's prestige, but the very continuation of our peaceful and dignified existence.