When it comes to the two front-runners in the current presidential race, the media often attempts to paint Donald Trump as a crazy, unpredictable president who will lead us down a path of terror. However, the truth remains that despite Trump’s overall nonsensical rhetoric, he is the only leading candidate who has said anything sane regarding American foreign policy. Statements to the effect that the Middle East would have been safer with Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi still in power are probably the most profound things ever spoken by the wildly racist billionaire mogul.
Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, voted in favor of the Iraq war in 2003 and was instrumental in bringing about the fall of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya in 2011. She even laughed hysterically about the despot’s death in an interview despite the fact she single-handedly plunged the rich democracy that was Libya into an extremist war zone.
In the eyes of the Russian establishment, this is especially worrying given that it was Clinton who convinced Russia not to use their veto power at the United Nations Security Council level to stop the NATO onslaught of Libya; she promised the so-called “no-fly zone” would not be used to pursue regime change.
Russian President Vladimir Putin was very critical of NATO motives when it became clear that NATO forces had, indeed, designated Gaddafi a military target, asking the important and necessary question: “Who gave NATO the right to kill Gaddafi?” After Gaddafi was murdered on the streets of Sirte, Putin astutely stated:
“The whole world saw him being killed; all bloodied. Is that democracy? And who did it? Drones, including American ones, delivered a strike on his motorcade. Then commandos – who were not supposed to be there – brought in so-called opposition and militants and killed him without trial. I’m not saying that Gaddafi didn’t have to quit, but that should have been left up to the people of Libya to decide through the democratic process.”
Clearly, Russia was very disappointed that the so-called no-fly zone in Libya had been used to undermine the international legal process and overthrow the leader of a sovereign nation — something they could have prevented at the Security Council level with the use of their veto power had Hillary not convinced them otherwise. Clinton’s subsequent laughter at this flagrant violation of international law is a slap in the face to the Russian establishment that continues to advocate for a stronger working relationship with the United States and a return to classical international law. Russia, therefore, likely views Clinton not only as a mentally unstable candidate but one who could be the president to drown all other presidents in history by finally pulling the trigger on Russia.
According to Clinton Ehrlich, the sole Western researcher at the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Moscow State Institute of International Relations:
“Moscow perceives the former secretary of state as an existential threat. The Russian foreign-policy experts I consulted did not harbor even grudging respect for Clinton.”
Whereas Trump has paid the Russian president compliments and claimed he would work more closely with Russia, Clinton has continued her policy of beratement and hostility towards Putin. Just last month, she called him the “godfather of right-wing, extreme nationalism.” As Foreign Policy magazine pointed out, this was an attempt to insult Putin using his own words.
Clinton further derided Donald Trump’s praise of Putin as “unpatriotic” and “scary,” claiming Trump’s attempted coziness with Putin could represent a threat to American national security. Apparently, America always needs Russia to remain an enemy. If this is the case, when exactly does the Cold War officially end? Under Clinton, it never will.
Russia’s distrust of Clinton runs further than merely televised mind-numbing entertainment. Russia is well aware of Clinton’s ambitions to turn Syria, one of Russia’s most strategic allies in the Middle East, into the next Libya. Putin has therefore been actively working to counter these endeavors through direct military intervention in Syria.
How far Clinton will go down this road is frighteningly unclear given that under the current president, the United States Air Force just shelled the Syrian army, which was engaged in a battle with ISIS at the time. The U.S. strike killed over 60 Syrian servicemen and wounded 100 more. If Obama, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize that he is, is essentially providing air cover for ISIS, what on earth will Hillary Clinton attempt in Syria?
Given Russia’s vested interest in ensuring the next president of the United States is not a potentially unstable career warmonger, there could be some truth behind claims of Russian interference in American politics.
If so, could you blame them for trying?