On Syria, Trump accuses Putin

The attack of Assad, with chemical weapons, against the defenseless population, living in the area near Damascus controlled by the rebels, once again highlighted the violence of Damascus, perpetrated outside the international conventions. On the political level the most important consequence is represented by the reaction of the American president, Trump, who has explicitly accused Putin, and therefore Russia, of being responsible for the massacre because he protected the dictator of Damascus. This is the first time Trump attacks in a personal way, which until now has never happened. The accusation directly addressed to the head of the Kremlin is a novelty in the relations between the two political figures, who, despite the certainly not excellent relations between Russia and the United States, have always avoided being involved directly in political skirmishes. Even if such incidents had already, unfortunately, occurred, Trump had always preserved Putin from direct attacks, an attitude that had been explained by analysts with the affinities that the two characters have in common. Trump's direct attack can mean that the US president has been forced by the US diplomatic and military world to point out a distance from Putin, both for the methods used, and to prepare the world public opinion for a confrontation in which the United States they could be committed in the first person. However it seems difficult that this eventuality becomes concrete: Trump does not want to be involved in a dangerous conflict and could make these statements to prevent a failure to take a position on the incident could harm American prestige. It is no accident that the current White House tenant blamed the situation on Obama's management, which did not act against Assad, when he used the chemical weapons, already at the beginning of the Syrian crisis. Trump has threatened to hit Syria in response to the use of chemical weapons, it would be the second case, after what happened in April 2017, precisely as a result of the use of chemical weapons against civilians. For now, as confirmed by the US military, each option is being evaluated. There is, however, a possible other reason, not necessarily an alternative to that previously illustrated, but complementary to it, about the causes of the direct attack on President Putin. The severity of the attack and its methods justify the frontal attack on Putin, which also occurs in a moment of difficulty for Trump for possible Russian involvement in his election. Given that relations between the US and Russia are difficult to improve and it is certainly impossible that they can come to a collaboration as advocated by Trump and Putin, before and immediately after Trump's election, the head of the White House could have definitively sacrificed relations with his Russian counterpart, to conquer a position of conflict that makes him less vulnerable, on the political level, by the federal investigation on the Russian interference during the presidential elections. If the hypothesis were true, it would be a sign that Trump could be in great difficulty, but also that he could use every opportunity from international politics to his advantage; on the other hand, the relationship with Putin seems irremediably compromised and exalting the opposition between the two could also allow for gaining consensus within the administration of the White House, even in those sectors that have been so far more reluctant.