Hillary Clinton, in a logo action of cynicism, has determined to cast Russia, it’s leader and by extension its people as an enemy of America. An air freshener to hide the putrid smell of her own corruption.
Almost every problem that’s dogged her campaign, in the Wikileaks revelations to the whole effort of her adversary Donald Trump, we are told, can be attributed to a devious Russian plot to undermine American democracy. But not only are the Russians attacking American democracy, as their support to the Assad government in Syria apparently records, but also they are merciless butchers of children and girls too.
Never mind that Aleppo, the city whose circumstances started a thousand New York Times Op-Eds calling for attacks on the legitimate Syrian authorities of Bashar Al-Assad, is currently infested with Al-Qaeda linked Jihadis. Never mind the U.S. is at present engaged in aiding and facilitating Saudi Arabia’s merciless war against the people of Yemen. A war by which it often targets civilians and is at present participating in a deliberate policy of starvation of the Yemeni population.
The Obama Administration, surrogate and a Clinton ally, recently went so far as to suspend all diplomatic relations with Russia. Like this was Secretary of State John Kerry accused Russia of “War Crimes” an exceptionally serious charge and a crude escalation of rhetoric.
Russia is not blind to the significance of such rhetoric and has since concluded the U.S. is now engaged in an undeclared war against it. This explains the recent activities of Vladimir Putin, who recently instructed all government officials to begin bringing any family they may have living abroad back to Russia in addition to holding unprecedented atomic exercises which involved 40 million Russian Citizens. These actions are serious preparations for War.
This can be the heated situation Hillary Clinton will discover herself in when she is, most likely, sworn in on January 20, 2017. This would be a challenging environment for any U.S. president, but particularly so for one that has essentially openly declared that Russia is an existential threat to the United States.
Some pundits have put their hope in the thought that in spite of her rhetoric that, once elected, she’ll sensibly back down from a confrontation which is not in the interest of the United States, and that Clinton is merely lying about her intentions for Russia and Syria. Such high hopes, nevertheless, will not be likely to materialize.
Backing down from her promise to “confront ” Russia and the Assad Authorities over Syria would make her seem weak and discredit her in the eyes of the hawkish elites whose support she depends on. No, Clinton will attempt to intercede in Syria, with the intent of crushing and deposing the Assad Authorities -fly zone. An action which wouldn’t only reaffirm her own self-understanding of “toughness ” into the burgeoning coffers of the Clinton Foundation but placate her Saudi clients, that have poured over 20 million dollars on Foreign Policy.
Russia, nonetheless, stays the 800-pound gorilla in the room with this scenario, especially in light of its pledge to secure the Syrian government by America from cruise missile attacks and possible air. Much to the chagrin of U.S. Neocons, this assurance seems to be much more than bluster, as its deployment of the S300 and S-400 missile systems to Syria has illustrated. These Missile systems find a way to shoot down any intruding U.S. aircraft attempting to apply a “No-Fly Zone.” This really is in additional to the other forces, such as Fighter aircraft and the Russian Naval task force currently deployed off the coast of Syria which would need to be faced in any U.S. intervention.
Under normal circumstances and with a more cautious U.S. President at the helm, these developments would be more than enough to dissuade an U.S. strike on Syria. Yet, we’re not living in ordinary conditions, and a possible Clinton Administration will be anything but cautious.
Clinton, whose formative foreign policy experience was contribution in her husband’s war on an almost defenseless Serbia during the 1990’s, during which she played a crucial part into intervening for the Kosovar Islamists in hectoring him of selection. Later on an excursion to the mafia state after it had seceded from Serbia, she said that “For me, my family and my fellow Americans this is more than the usual foreign policy dilemma, it really is private.”
That is the best technique for understanding much of Clinton’s decision making in regards to foreign policy. Unlike many of her positions on domestic issues, which have a tendency to change with the intellectual fashions of the day, her Hawkish foreign policy has remained a remarkably consistent characteristic of her political life.
It is apparent that Clinton and her staff believe Barack Obama’s more realistic and limited approach to foreign interventions has reduced America’s standing in the world and emboldened the U.S.’s enemies. According to the line of thinking, after the U.S. neglected to apply Barack Obama’s famed red line address on Syria the U.S. lost credibility on the international stage and must, therefore, get it back.
This can be the stated desire of many of Clinton’s sycophants including Michele Flournoy, who is widely believed to be Clinton’s first pick for Secretary of Defense.
“Creating a no-bombing zone would risk escalation with Russia, but this concern is manageable given that neither side wants to enter an immediate struggle and the United States needs to apply some military pressure if it wishes to change Russian and regional calculus and empower more satisfactory performers on the ground,”
The logic being, that in spite of Russian statements to the contrary, when push comes to shove Russia will not have any choice but to bow to the allegedly superior might of the U.S. military and let Clinton have her way in Syria. Given Russia’s stated willingness to protect its interests irrespective of the prices and recent advancements in Russian Military capabilities, this affirmation is questionable to say the least.
Obviously, only time will tell whether Clinton’s hubristic gambit pays off. But Russia isn’t Serbia, or any of the other small powers the U.S. has grown used to intimidating and the outcomes of those preceding occasions should not be used as a guide for how the Syrian disagreement will be resolved. If Clinton and her cabal of Foreign policy dilettantes are not careful, they may discover too late, that they’ve determined to play a game of chicken.