Trump Might Be Even More Dangerous for Russia Than Hillary
- Any nation which does not totally and unconditionally subordinate its interests to Washington will be destroyed
- The basic policy of Washington remains 'containment' of Russia and preventing Eurasian integration
- Trump agrees with American policy, but wants to recoup America's strength before confronting Russia
During the last six months there have been discussions over whether Trump can beat Clinton and how much Russia would benefit. I think Trump can win but will not necessarily do so, and things could become even worse.
Trump could win because he would defend US interests, not Russia’s. As formulated by the ruling elite, America’s interests are absolutely antagonistic to those of Russia.
Moscow can coexist peacefully with Washington. But for Washington, peaceful coexistence is nonsense. Its principle is: “if you don’t kill them, they will kill you”.
What to Expect After the US Elections
On this, the American elite is united. The split, expressed in the fight between Clinton and Trump, – the first major one for the presidency since Kennedy – is not about loving or hating Russia but about the best way to destroy Russia.
Clinton represents a political group that believes the US can push Russia around.
Trump represents the isolationists who claim that those who want to punish Russia know the USA is no longer the world leader. They favor taking a step back, ramping up means and only then attacking.
As a matter of fact, Trump’s strategy toward Russia is the same one Putin used toward the US. Having discovered that America’s resources are limited and that Russia could win the resource race without a head-on collision, Trump’s allies suggest shifting to a resource-saving strategy.
But any deviation has its limits, beyond which it becomes a disaster. There is a line that the USA will not cross, even if Trump and the isolationists win. America will scale down the global confrontation, focusing on dealing with domestic problems in years to come.
The “thin red line” that the USA will not cross until it goes for world hegemony – is a “cordon sanitaire” between Russia and Europe, cutting Eurasia in half, hindering its trade, economic and geopolitical integrity.
Likes and Dislikes
Only ignorant people think the US is concerned about the overthrow of Lukashenko in Belarus. Minsk still hasn’t dumped all the achievements of socialism. They did in Russia, but does America like us any better? You don’t have to be a brilliant politician to understand that even in the event of mutually beneficial cooperation, the US will still detach Belarus from Russia, without any resistance of the Belorussian elites.
But let’s imagine that the US doesn’t like Lukashenko. Why did they overthrow the pro-American regime of Yanukovich in Ukraine? The leaders of the Party of Regions are telling the truth when they say that Ukraine had a more anti-Russian policy under them. Besides, it was sustainable, and didn’t tear the country apart by civil war. Did the US really not understand what the takeover they financed would lead to? Is it possible American presidents felt the same personal dislike toward Yanukovich (and Kuchma before him)?
Assad was a totally Westernized president, who carried out pro-Western reforms in Syria, removed his troops from Lebanon, scaled down the confrontation with Israel, obeying the USA in practically everything. What has he done to displease them?
And Erdogan – whose country has been a member of NATO for more than half a century, providing air bases, supporting anti-government troops in Syria and storing nuclear bombs that can be used only against Russia,– why did they try to overthrow him?
What all these cases have in common is that their leaders all respected US interests and followed its foreign policy. But they weren’t ready to sacrifice their trade and economic interests.
The economic interests of all these states dictate pursuing trans-Eurasian trade and economic integration from Lisbon to Kuala Lumpur.
The economic interests of the USA dictate preventing trans-Eurasian ties, imposing unprofitable agreements on trans- Pacific and trans-Atlantic cooperation. But they fail to ‘persuade’ Russia, China and the EU to stop trading with each other directly and do so through the intermediary of the United States.
To stop Eurasian economic integration, there must be an impassable barrier – a “cordon sanitaire”. Aside from the Baltic States, that destroyed their transit potential voluntarily, with their own hands, are there any states where the elites don’t have problems with the US?
If you want to live peacefully, destroy your transit potential and drown in poverty. Then even NATO and the EU will accept you. If your economic well-being is more important for you, the USA won’t capture your territory, they’ll just set you on fire.
That’s why the same bloody chaos is happening everywhere. It’s cheap and safe. There can’t be any transit routes through the territory of a country where a permanent war is going on.
Trump can officially refuse to support the Nazi regime in Kiev, accept Assad’s right to continue ruling in Damascus and even remove the anti-Russian sanctions. But US policy will still be aimed at maintaining the “cordon sanitaire” along the western borders of Russia, in the Baltics, Ukraine and Syria. They won’t leave either Lukashenko or Erdogan alone.
Only one response is possible: create so many transit routes that they can’t be closed with a “cordon sanitaire”. Gas pipelines on the seabed, one’s own ports in the Baltic and the Northeast Passage, keeping the Belorussian “window to Europe” open, increasing the capabilities of the Kazakh transit route make a“cordon sanitaire” meaningless.
But the soonest these projects can be realized is between 2025 and 2030. Until then countries will have to suffer. Their third option is to become Moscow’s ally and hide under its nuclear umbrella, which US has thus far feared to play with.
That’s why the “pro-Russian” Lukashenko still rules, while the pro-American Kuchma (who came to power at the same time) retired long ago.
Click here for our commenting guidelines