Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton represent two diametrically opposite approaches. Hillary means of spreading democracy policies, war, “humanitarian interventions”, American hegemony, globalism, and struggle with Russia. It’s no coincidence that the neoconservatives whose primary aim is the destruction of Russia as an important Eurasian power zealously support her.
Trump transferring the priority focus to national issues and represents a rejection of American expansionism. A refusal of globalization characterizes him as the interests of average Americans, not transnational corporations in favor of national interests.
His negative remarks about Muslims and Trump’s military rhetoric against Iran shouldn’t mislead onlookers. Trump was an ardent opponent of the Iraqi campaign and he can not unleash a military clash with Iran, but rather a just cooling of relationships which would boost the profile of conservative forces inside Iran who urge a close alliance.
Cooling relationships wouldn’t lead into a major battle. Unlike his adversaries, Trump isn’t oriented towards war. At once, Moscow would be pulled by Trump out of Beijing’s tenacious embrace.
Trump is prepared to give more sovereignty to Korea and Japan, which would allow for more active co-operation between these states and between Russia and them. Consequently, equilibrium or a fresh balance of power could come in the Pacific area.
The transport of all of Ukraine to Russia’s management doesn’t endanger America as a national power. NATO nations like Hungary, Poland and Romania could reach territorial gains by maintaining their former territories controlled by Ukraine now. American citizens’ cash wouldn’t normally visit fighting with a Russian menace that is legendary, but towards significant aims due to their state.
The interests of average Americans is not going to be changed.
So, while not much time is left exacerbate old disaster tendencies, or at the very least Obama is running to begin a fresh war. Really, the US’ raising the building of missile defense systems, deals with previously unbiased Finland and Sweden on military co-operation, and military presence in Europe in Romania and Poland with launchers effective at adapting medium-range missiles are elements of the strategy.
In this strategy, the US’ national interests, which need policy changes in specific situations, are given for theoretical principles which are in fact the interests of another lobby or state groups. Democracy and Ukraine are so unimportant for the initiators of the bill. Considerably more significant is the aim of quitting Trump.
The fact the present US government’s activities will not be always logical, with examples being the unsuccessful coup attempt in Turkey, the failure in the Arab Spring strategy and Syria, suggests a weakening of their hegemonic hold and an increase in the threat of actual crash. At some stage, these folks could allow the situation get out of control and escalate into a nuclear war that is real.