Rotislav Ischenko, an analyst for 'Russia Today' had an interesting take on the American elections. While the Russian public prefers Trump because he is viewed as an antagonist of the American elite epitomized by Hillary Clinton, Ischenko is rooting for Clinton. Republicans, excluding George W. Bush, generally proved themselves more skillful practitioners of international politics who skillfully manipulated Russia. The Clinton Administration began the American overstretch that committed resources to meaningless and unachievable goals. Therefore those who would prefer a weakened America should hope for a Clinton victory that would translate into America's continued decline.
A translation of Ischenko's article appears below:[1]
'A Democrat Means A Guaranteed And Accelerated Continuation Of The Current Decline Of The American Supremacy'
Vitaly, Vk.com/13studiya, May 27, 2016.
While Clinton and Trump are fighting in the ring, the public cheers for Russian President Vladimir Putin.
"Most Russian experts, observers and even ordinary citizens who exhibit as much interest in the American electoral campaign as in the Olympics or the Football World Cup, side with Donald Trump in this race. This comes as no surprise.
"Firstly, Hillary Clinton is a lady who is too unpleasant in all respects. Secondly, her revoltingly negative attitude to Russia is widely known. Thirdly, Trump is outrageously flamboyant and he fights the traditional American elite. Who in this world likes the traditional American elite? In short, the Russians, without any reservations, are giving the People's Choice Award to Donald Trump.
"One must admit that Donald Trump can become a better president for America than Hillary Clinton. At least, a Republican may give it a chance, whereas a Democrat means a guaranteed and accelerated continuation of the current decline of the American supremacy.
"But the Russians who side with Trump are hoping he will be a better American president for Russia as well. This view is, however, problematic. I would even call such hopes groundless and, if we could vote in the American elections, I would deliberately give my support to the former State Secretary and the wife of the 42nd president of the U.S. [Hillary Clinton].
"Here are my considerations: Firstly, historically the policies of the Republicans have always been more flexible and less dogmatic. Even [U.S. President Ronald] Reagan who proclaimed the USSR to be 'The Empire of Evil' quickly realized what advantages Washington could gain from the [former President of the Soviet Union] Mikhail Gorbachev's version of de-escalation of tension and became the best friend of the Soviet Union. His successor, George Bush senior, also a Republican, even actively campaigned against the USSR breakup. He even visited Kiev specifically in order to convince the Ukrainian elites aspiring for independence that they would be much more comfortable in the Soviet Union.
"The 40th and the 41st U.S. presidents [Reagan and George H. W. Bush] were not altruists. Their thinking was less straightforward than that of the Democrats, and they knew that the direct way to their goal is not necessarily the shortest. As part of the theory of indirect action, they tried to hug the USSR to death, and they almost succeeded. In fact, they did not need the Soviet Union to collapse. They only wanted to weaken it and reduce it to the rank of a junior partner who would pull chestnuts out of the fire for the American hegemony even more effectively than the EU.
SUPPORT OUR WORK
"It was a beautiful operation that should have led to the clear victory of the U.S. with the least costs. Even the collapse of the USSR did not invalidate it - just made it more complicated: now it was Russia that had to be hugged to death.
But then the Democrats came, represented by the Clintons, and they ruined everything. They rushed to stake out a claim on seemingly important but, in reality, strategically meaningless territories (in particular, in Yugoslavia). At the same time, the policy of deterrence against Russia was applied more and more noticeably in the post-Soviet territories.
Moscow grew wary, and public opinion in Russia, initially favorable to the U.S., became diametrically opposite. The chance was wasted, and the U.S. entered an exhausting race to maintain its supremacy, which has by now stretched its battle lines and eaten practically all the free resources, at the same time allowing Russia to concentrate, consolidate and launch a counter-offensive.
'The Foreign Policy Paradigm Determined By The Clintons... Did Not Allow The U.S. To Choke The USSR/Russia In The Least Costly And Most Effective Way'
Obama's Democratic administration proclaimed that it was aware of the necessity for significant reforms. The Nobel Peace Prize laureate [U.S. President Barack Obama] did make an attempt to break with the past, fold military activity all over the world, avoid confrontation with Russia and China, and concentrate on the domestic problems of the U.S. He failed for a number of reasons.
"Firstly, [Obama], personally, was not ready for the presidential office. Obama pronounced stirring speeches more often than tried to implement his own ideas.
"Secondly, since he understood little in foreign policy, he tried to focus on his domestic reforms (necessary, but insufficient), and gave the run of the foreign affairs to the same people who had implemented the idea of global 'pawn-grabbing' [a tendency of foolish chess-players] during Clinton's term, neglecting the U.S. strategic interests.
"Thirdly, by the time of Obama's presidency, the U.S. had advanced so far in the implementation of the idea of violent suppression of all potential foreign opponents, it had adhered so long to the tactics of 'conquer everything, lose nothing,' that without a single iron directing will that would implement an alternative comprehensive concept, neither the military nor the politicians nor the diplomats were able to break out of the vicious circle of decisions the inevitability of which was dictated by previous decisions.
"As a result, Obama became trapped by Clinton's foreign policy, ruinous for the U.S., which had been implemented before by Clinton himself and then by the Republican administration of Bush junior. During the latter's term, the inability of Washington to suppress all its opponents by force became evident, but Bush junior had neither experience nor will sufficient to turn the state ship around. Besides, for most of Bush's term, the U.S. was euphoric about its formal foreign victories (Iraq, Afghanistan), and this inertial motion did not arouse any significant concern in anyone except a small number of domain specialists.
"On the whole, the foreign policy paradigm determined by the Clintons that has lasted as the leading one for six presidential terms of three presidents did not allow the U.S. to choke the USSR/Russia in the least costly and most effective way. The same paradigm caused the U.S. to overstrain itself; its resource base is no longer up to the task of global domination.
'When We Deal With Hillary, We Deal With An Unpleasant But Predictable [Politician]... Trump Is Not Burdened By Rules Of Morality, At Least Not More Than Hillary'
Today, the Washington elites are facing a choice again. They can pig-headedly continue the same policy of pressure by force, hoping that the opponent will break before the U.S. is exhausted. In fact, today it means hoping for a miracle, like the coup of 1917, which took Russia out of the First World War and delayed Germany's downfall by 18 months. Hillary Clinton is a supporter of this policy.
We understand what she will do and how. We understand we will have to deal with hysterics, attempts to apply pressure, blatant rudeness and undisguised threat of war. But we also understand that it is not Hillary who will decide whether or not to push the button. And the people who will decide are much more level-headed. In short, when we deal with Hillary, we deal with an unpleasant but predictable and see-through politician who will continue to lead the U.S. along the way towards resource overstrain.
"Trump is no Bush junior. He is the focus of all the strong points of the Republican party. He is not burdened by rules of morality, at least no more than Hillary. But he is more flexible and sees other ways of solving the American problem, besides the pig-headed direct pressure. Above all, Donald Trump understands that without stabilizing the economy and the financial system of the U.S., all its claims to world domination are no more than wishful thinking, and the U.S. is in danger of quickly becoming 'Upper Volta' with missiles".
"One must realize that Trump is not alone. Of course, he speaks against the traditional Republican establishment, but it does not mean he does not enjoy the support of influential back-stage circles, who have become aware of the ruinous character of Clinton's policy and are trying a more creative approach. Without powerful support (taking into account how the American press is controlled by the party elites), Trump would simply never have been given the opportunity to speak. All his billions would not have sufficed for a serious campaign. One can assume that Trump will try to offer the U.S. something like the policy Putin has been implementing in Russia.
"Firstly, [Trump seeks] an acceptable compromise in foreign policy. The U.S. reduces its activity in the major conflict areas, on condition that it saves its face. Secondly, [he will shift to] focusing on domestic problems. That is, tough reforms leading to painful but decisive revitalization of the financial and economic systems, in particular, at the expense of the outside world (Trump has already acknowledged the possibility of the U.S. defaulting). Thirdly, play on the contradictions of the remaining major players, whom the U.S. will find it easier to play off against each other in the context of reduced international activity, because their necessity to defend themselves from common danger - Washington - will disappear, but the mutual contradictions will exacerbate.
"The U.S. is now in a very difficult situation. It is far from certain that Trump's reforms will save it. It is far from certain that Trump will be allowed to implement them. But Trump is the U.S.'s chance at revival, after which it will be able to return to an aggressive foreign policy under more favorable conditions. Whereas Hillary Clinton is Washington's guaranteed way into the abyss. After her, no Trump will be able to save America."
Endnote:
[1] Ria.ru, May 19, 2016.
