(((Foreign Policy))): "The Kremlin Really Believes That Hillary Wants to Start a War With Russia"

An American embedded within Moscow’s top foreign-policy brain trust explains why Putin and his cadres are backing Trump.

If Hillary Clinton is elected president, the world will remember Aug. 25 as the day she began the Second Cold War.

In a speech last month nominally about Donald Trump, Clinton called Russian President Vladimir Putin the godfather of right-wing, extreme nationalism. To Kremlin-watchers, those were not random epithets. Two years earlier, in the most famous address of his career, Putin accused the West of backing an armed seizure of power in Ukraine by “extremists, nationalists, and right-wingers.” Clinton had not merely insulted Russia’s president: She had done so in his own words.

Worse, they were words originally directed at neo-Nazis. In Moscow, this was seen as a reprise of Clinton’s comments comparing Putin to Hitler. It injected an element of personal animus into an already strained relationship — but, more importantly, it set up Putin as the representative of an ideology that is fundamentally opposed to the United States.

Even as relations between Russia and the West have sunk to new lows in the wake of 2014’s revolution in Ukraine, the Kremlin has long contended that a Cold War II is impossible. That’s because, while there may be differences over, say, the fate of Donetsk, there is no longer a fundamental ideological struggle dividing East and West. To Russian ears, Clinton seemed determined in her speech to provide this missing ingredient for bipolar enmity, painting Moscow as the vanguard for racism, intolerance, and misogyny around the globe.

The nation Clinton described was unrecognizable to its citizens. Anti-woman? Putin’s government provides working mothers with three years of subsidized family leave. Intolerant? The president personally attended the opening of Moscow’s great mosque. Racist? Putin often touts Russia’s ethnic diversity. To Russians, it appeared that Clinton was straining to fabricate a rationale for hostilities.

I have been hard-pressed to offer a more comforting explanation for Clinton’s behavior — a task that has fallen to me as the sole Western researcher at the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Moscow State Institute of International Relations. Better known by its native acronym, MGIMO, the institute is the crown jewel of Russia’s national-security brain trust, which Henry Kissinger dubbed the “Harvard of Russia.”

In practice, the institute is more like a hybrid of West Point and Georgetown’s School of Foreign Service: MGIMO prepares the elite of Russia’s diplomatic corps and houses the country’s most influential think tanks. There is no better vantage point to gauge Moscow’s perceptions of a potential Hillary Clinton administration.

Let’s not mince words: 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. The most damaging chapter of her tenure was the NATO intervention in Libya, which Russia could have prevented with its veto in the U.N. Security Council. Moscow allowed the mission to go forward only because Clinton had promised that a no-fly zone would not be used as cover for regime change.

Russia’s leaders were understandably furious when, not only was former Libyan President Muammar al-Qaddafi ousted, but a cellphone recording of his last moments showed U.S.-backed rebels sodomizing him with a bayonet. They were even more enraged by Clinton’s videotaped response to the same news: “We came, we saw, he died,” the secretary of state quipped before bursting into laughter, cementing her reputation in Moscow as a duplicitous warmonger.

As a candidate, Clinton has given Moscow déjà vu by once again demanding a humanitarian no-fly zone in the Middle East — this time in Syria. Russian analysts universally believe that this is another pretext for regime change. Putin is determined to prevent Syrian President Bashar al-Assad from meeting the same fate as Qaddafi — which is why he has deployed Russia’s air force, navy, and special operations forces to eliminate the anti-Assad insurgents, many of whom have received U.S. training and equipment.

Given the ongoing Russian operations, a “no-fly zone” is a polite euphemism for shooting down Russia’s planes unless it agrees to ground them. Clinton is aware of this fact. When asked in a debate whether she would shoot down Russian planes, she responded, “I do not think it would come to that.” In other words, if she backs Putin into a corner, she is confident he will flinch before the United States starts a shooting war with Russia.

(1/?)

archive.fo/t5ZEY

Other urls found in this thread:

historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=neoconinfluence&neoconinfluence_us_policy_areas=neoconinfluence_russia_and_central_asia
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

That is a dubious assumption; the stakes are much higher for Moscow than they are for the White House. Syria has long been Russia’s strongest ally in the Middle East, hosting its only military installation outside the former Soviet Union. As relations with Turkey fray, the naval garrison at Tartus is of more strategic value than ever, because it enables Russia’s Black Sea Fleet to operate in the Mediterranean without transiting the Turkish Straits.

Two weeks ago, Putin redoubled his commitment to Syria by conducting airstrikes with strategic bombers from a base in northwest Iran — a privilege for which Russia paid significant diplomatic capital. Having come this far, there is no conceivable scenario in which Moscow rolls over and allows anti-Assad forces to take Damascus — which it views as Washington’s ultimate goal, based in part on publicly accessible intelligence reports.

Clinton has justified her threatened attack on Russia’s air force, saying that it “gives us some leverage in our conversations with Russia.” This sounds suspiciously like the “madman theory” of deterrence subscribed to by former President Richard Nixon, who tried to maximize his leverage by convincing the Soviets he was crazy enough to start a world war. Nixon’s bluff was a failure; even when he invaded Cambodia, Moscow never questioned his sanity. Today, Russian analysts do not retain the same confidence in Hillary Clinton’s soundness of mind.

Her temper became legendary in Moscow when she breached diplomatic protocol by storming out of a meeting with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov just moments after exchanging pleasantries. And the perception that she is unstable was exacerbated by reports that Clinton drank heavily while acting as America’s top diplomat — accusations that carry special weight in a country that faults alcoholism for many of Boris Yeltsin’s failures.

Cultural differences in decorum have made the situation worse. In Russia, where it is considered a sign of mental illness to so much as smile at a stranger on the street, leaders are expected to project an image of stern calm. Through that prism, Clinton has shown what looks like disturbing behavior on the campaign trail: barking like a dog, bobbing her head, and making exaggerated faces. (To be clear, my point is not that these are real signs of cognitive decay, but that many perceive them that way in Moscow.)

Another factor that disturbs Russian analysts is the fact that, unlike prior hawks such as John McCain, Clinton is a Democrat. This has allowed her to mute the West’s normal anti-interventionist voices, even as Iraq-war architect Robert Kagan boasts that Clinton will pursue a neocon foreign policy by another name. Currently, the only voice for rapprochement with Russia is Clinton’s opponent, Donald Trump. If she vanquishes him, she will have a free hand to take the aggressive action against Russia that Republican hawks have traditionally favored.

Moscow prefers Trump not because it sees him as easily manipulated, but because his “America First” agenda coincides with its view of international relations. Russia seeks a return to classical international law, in which states negotiate with one another based on mutually understood self-interests untainted by ideology. To Moscow, only the predictability of realpolitik can provide the coherence and stability necessary for a durable peace.

For example, the situation on the ground demonstrates that Crimea has, in fact, become part of Russia. Offering to officially recognize that fact is the most powerful bargaining chip the next president can play in future negotiations with Russia. Yet Clinton has castigated Trump for so much as putting the option on the table. For ideological reasons, she prefers to pretend that Crimea will someday be returned to Ukraine — even as Moscow builds a $4 billion bridge connecting the peninsula to the Russian mainland.

(2/?)

Moscow believes that Crimea and other major points of bipolar tension will evaporate if America simply elects a leader who will pursue the nation’s best interest, from supporting Assad against the Islamic State to shrinking NATO by ejecting free riders. Russia respects Trump for taking these realist positions on his own initiative, even though they were not politically expedient.

In Clinton, it sees the polar opposite — a progressive ideologue who will stubbornly adhere to moral postures regardless of their consequences. Clinton also has financial ties to George Soros, whose Open Society Foundations are considered the foremost threat to Russia’s internal stability, based on their alleged involvement in Eastern Europe’s prior “Color Revolutions.”

Russia’s security apparatus is certain that Soros aspires to overthrow Putin’s government using the same methods that felled President Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine: covertly orchestrated mass protests concealing armed provocateurs. The Kremlin’s only question is whether Clinton is reckless enough to back those plans.

Putin condemned the United States for flirting with such an operation in 2011, when then-Secretary Clinton spoke out in favor of mass protests against his party’s victory in parliamentary elections. Her recent explosive rhetoric has given him no reason to believe that she has abandoned the dream of a Maidan on Red Square.

That fear was heightened when Clinton surrogate Harry Reid, the Senate minority leader, recently accused Putin of attempting to rig the U.S. election through cyberattacks. That is a grave allegation — the very kind of thing a President Clinton might repeat to justify war with Russia.

(3/3)

Matt Lauer, that piece of shit, was shilling hard against Russia during that "debate".

Normals are also exhibiting anti Russian sentiments, without much to back them up. Completely brainwashed, giving into group think.

God help us if Hillary wins. I don't want war.

They've been running the propaganda nonstop building up for it
gotta blow up those chinks and russkies user or else they'll get rid of democracy

Putin won't be president forever. He should just laugh, blame Hillary for causing the deaths of billions, then let his nukes fly.

The DNC leaks showed that the US doesn't care about Democracy. The same could be said of monumental US support for extremist undemocratic states like Saudi Arabia.

Democracy is just a meme, at least the US support for it. They don't care about it at all.

How can they get rid of something we never had?

whoever wins we lose

Putin's a smart guy. He's not going to let it become a real nuclear war at least not before Trump wins. We all know that Trump wants an alliance with Russia instead of war, and when the god emperor wins this stuff will blow over.

The strangest saddest thing about all this is that Hillary wants to start world war three simply because Trump wants to prevent it. She's so closeted and out of touch that she has no idea about the consequences of all the shit she's flinging at Russia.

The Balts and Poles really need to make leaving NATO their first priority
It's idiotic in the extreme since NATO will not fight and die for them, we're just using them as pawns to close in on Russia and try to provoke another war
But what am I saying, if you try to leave, you'll get a color revolution within the month

I make a point to bring up the fact this will be WW3 and bring up the draft. The latter, especially after all that huff about extending the draft to women, makes them change their minds quick.

A state with no enemies cannot survive, it will break itself apart with internal strife. She knows exactly what she's doing, and from a certain point of view it's not even wrong.

Nice try

We have real enemies and don't need fake ones. (((they're called ISIS)))

We have plenty of other shit to deal with already but she'd rather ignore that while provoking Russia and blaming them for her own faults like poor security leading to leaks.

Your logic doesn't make sense since we are being flooded with people who don't care about this country or its people already in programs ran by people either too greedy to care or who hate white people. We already have enemies, and they are among us:

Jews

Remember that to Hillary and lots of influential """"advisors"""" ISIS is a tool that can be used, mass immigration is a business benefit and so on. She's creating an enemy to suit her reality. Don't like it but don't think it's only her brain damage talking.

we already have ISIS and north korea as enemies, and potentially china.

This. Both a top military intelligence chief in Israel and an Israeli think tank have recently stated that the continuing existence of ISIS "serves a strategic purpose", as it prevents Iran from aligning itself with Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, backed by Russia/China. This was also more or less stated in the leaked DIA report from last year.

It's stupid.

The USA can't survive a new cold war, if the soldiers and generals are to fight for the right of their children to be a hated minority in their own countries.

reminder that jewish neocons have been trying to start a war with russia since the 1970s: historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=neoconinfluence&neoconinfluence_us_policy_areas=neoconinfluence_russia_and_central_asia

Jews.

Miss Hillary is a pawn. She is doing what she's been led to think is right.

Jews.

The war she starts with Russia, the nuclear war, will not be hers. It will be her manipulators.

Jews.

a liberal will express a change of opinion but that doesn't mean the brainwashing has been reversed.

Both Putin and Hillary are globalist, anti white kike shills. They just fight over who is #1 good goy.

I don't know friendo. I'm no Putin worshiper but it really seems he doesn't want to play the globalist game anymore.

That's an interesting one, because I don't think that's universally true. Shitlibs hate Russia because they've been told to, but otherwise liberal or apolitical young men have told me they admire Putin for being a real leader. I'm pretty optimistic that the American population is sick of overseas adventurism, and the idea of picking a fight with the Bear is a lot more serious than invading Goatfuckistan.

This. But it seems that Russian kikes have some feud with western kikes over how to rule over goyim.

Fucking Americans, every time

Libs hate them because of their anti-faggot laws

It's all shitlibs and patriotards. Which is a not insignificant portion of the population. Just look at how many fags we get filtering through this board – especially lately – creaming their pants over ZOG weaponry and worshiping the human garbage that dons its uniform.

Anyone noticed the author's name being Clinton Ehrlich?

Honestly, these claims have as much substance as the "Trump is a kike shill" claims. Which is not to say that they don't have substance, but if they're true then you should already be holing up in an unpopulated area with as many bullets, medicine tablets, water bottles and cans of food as possible, because there is truly no hope against kike globalism if that's the case. The fact that you're still here parrotting the same shit doesn't help your case.

I should have said "no hope of ending globalism peacefully."

In just 20 years, the entire Cold War situation has flipped. Russia represents Conservative Values and Capitalism and the US represents Oppressive Leftist (cultural) Marxism.

Back in the 80's Russia would criticize us as evil racists etc. Now we are the Communists demonizing them as racists.

Well, yeah. That what she has been campaigning on. "Vote for me and I will start a world war with Russia" is part of her platform.

A vote for Trump is a vote for world peace.

Democracy means totalitarian rule by Jews against the will of the people. Learn your newspeak definitions.

No, she wants to start it because Russian Nationalism stands in the way of Globalism. Trump has nothing to do with it, if Hillary were running against Jeb she'd still be trying to start war.

I don't even think she cares about globalism. Hillary is 100% whore. She wants ww3 with Russia because the people who pay her want ww3 with Russia. I don't think it goes any deeper than that with her. But the people who pay her want globalism because they are banksters, kikes, saudis, etc.

Those people are globalist corporate kikes. They want globalism because it will let them more efficiently extract wealth from people, while allowing them to move between nations like the rootless parasites they are.

The US still represents capitalism. Capitalism is extremely left wing and is tailor made to embrace cultural Marxism.

Why won't Russia just kill Soros?

They've got a warrant out for him.

The chinks need to die though.
Russia is cool.