By Matt Underwood Kremlin envoy proposes a ‘Putin-Trump tunnel’ to link Russia and US, and honestly, the whole thing feels like something ripped straight out of a satirical news show. The idea, as it’s been floated, involves a 70-mile underwater or underground link, a physical connection between the two countries. The purported goal? Unity, or so the proposal suggests. The details are fuzzy, but the scale is ambitious, envisioning a link that could, in theory, transport people and goods.
This proposal doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It’s connected to a specific personality: Donald Trump. The concept itself seems tailor-made for him, a grand gesture of infrastructure and potentially, a symbol of a closer relationship with Russia. This is where the context becomes incredibly important. We’ve seen Trump’s open admiration for Putin, and his hesitancy to criticize Russia. This history casts a long shadow on the proposal.
The financial aspect is also striking. The cost projections, while speculative, are still in the billions of dollars. And, the proposal’s supporters seem to be counting on using technology from Elon Musk’s The Boring Company. While Musk has built tunnels, the scale and the environment (under the sea) present huge challenges, and it feels like an attempt to leverage Musk’s name and brand to add a layer of credibility. The practicality, though, feels like a secondary concern.
What’s being transported through this tunnel? Who even needs this tunnel? That is a very good question that has also been asked. It is hard to see the logistical or economic benefits of such a project. There are so many hurdles, from the technical complexities of building a tunnel of that length and nature, to the environmental concerns. This is before you even consider the geopolitical implications of a direct, permanent link between the US and Russia, or the fact that they’re offering to build the tunnel in return for leaving Ukraine.
This proposal doesn’t exist in a vacuum, though. The response has been overwhelmingly negative. The initial reaction seems to be disbelief, confusion, and a healthy dose of cynicism. Some see the whole thing as a joke, a distraction, or worse – a potential security risk. People are asking legitimate questions about the motive behind it. Why? How? And, perhaps most importantly, why now?
The speculation about ulterior motives is rampant. Some perceive the tunnel as a back door, a way for Trump to potentially escape accountability. Others see a potential pathway for Russia to exert influence over the US. The phrase “Trump’s asshole” or variations of that seems to have quickly become a shorthand for the tunnel, a commentary on the perceived nature of the relationship between the two leaders and the potential for exploitation.
There’s also a clear undercurrent of distrust. The fact that the proposal comes from the Kremlin, a source of information that is often viewed with skepticism in the West, is a major factor. The history of Russian interference in US elections, the ongoing war in Ukraine, and the general state of political tensions between the two countries all contribute to the general feeling that there’s something not quite right about this proposal.
If you consider the technical challenges, the environmental impact, and the sheer audacity of the idea, then the whole thing is hard to take seriously. But the political implications, and the potential for a renewed, or amplified, influence by Russia are certainly worth keeping an eye on. It raises questions about the future of US-Russian relations, and the motivations of the individuals involved. This is especially true if you view the project as just the newest in a series of events that seem to erode our democratic norms.