The most critical questions in this election were pointedly never asked. Do the candidates see nuclear war as "winnable", as neocon think tanks now postulate (and the Rand Corporation has claimed) - and are they willing to use nuclear weapons, regardless of the consequences for humanity? Do they understand the consequences of demonizing Russia and its leader without producing any real evidence to support those charges, of replacing diplomatic relations with expanded economic sanctions and threats of attacks on Russia ? Do they seek a war with Russia in spite of the risk of global devastation ? If so, why?
The world knows Mrs. Clinton to be a war hawk with an atrocious record for failed regime change operations, for destroying societies and leaving the hapless citizens to fester in post-bombing chaos and filth. The devastation of Libya and the civil war in Ukraine, the coup in Honduras were all Hillary operations. (She was also instrumental in continuing the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Somalia). The horrific consequences of these failures have given pause to Obama as the Washington foreign policy elite clamor for more wars across the planet (examined in depth in Pepe Escobar's book, Empire of Chaos). Mrs. Clinton now harps on - promises - a no-fly zone in Syria, which everybody understands means war with Russia and its ally China, both nuclear-armed powers. She appears to be willing to risk nuclear confrontation in order to overthrow the democratically elected leader of Syria and balkanize the nation for the benefit of both Israel and the Saudis. Syria is already shattered, with hundreds of thousands dead and displaced, a catastrophe almost entirely attributable to US intervention and support of terrorist factions. The release of DOS emails has given us all a sickening wake-up call. Not only is the public being duped and manipulated with lies and propaganda, but the amoral lust for unchallenged power and endless war seeps from every communication. How could any woman support another female who had such a dearth of empathy and human dignity that she could cackle with glee as she murdered and exiled millions of innocent civilians; as she overthrew a democratically elected leader in Honduras for the "crime" of raising the minimum wage; Who could vote to give this woman the power to initiate a global war ? Not me.
Throughout the Cold War 1950s and 1960s diplomats walked on eggs in negotiations with Russia, with contingency communication methods in place to avoid a Fail Safe mistake - and thank goodness. They understood what was at stake - the annihilation of the planet earth and all life on it. Since the fall of the Soviet Union the requisite fear of nuclear Armageddon seems to have been lost, while the collapse of dialogue between the White House and the Kremlin raises the risk of a lethal mistake.
In a Spectator essay Rod Liddle wrote , I was sentient only during the latter stages of the Cold War but from what I can remember, the two sides, them and us, behaved for the most part with a degree of rationality and common sense.... Today, when some deranged Tory MP clambers to his feet and demands we start shooting down Russian jets, it is evident to everyone that he is not joking, merely idiotic and dangerous. But it is a gung-ho idiocy which is catching. Every day sees a ratcheting up of the rhetoric against Russia.
Donald Trump has questioned the point of NATO in a post-Soviet world, the need for 800 US military bases abroad, the gross failures of US intervention in the Mideast and the Ukraine - and Russia expert Stephen Cohen agrees with his doubts. Instead of giving his arguments the serious consideration they merit, US MSM mocks him as a Putin lover. Admittedly Trump's understanding of foreign policy is muddled and founded in his personal biases. He thinks war is bad for business - but at least he thinks war is bad.
Russia: the "too big to fail" nation
In 2016 even Zbig Brzezinski understands a concept obvious to every other nation - the multi-polar world. i.e., that the US can no longer 'own' the planet earth, bomb countries at will or win a war against Russia. Even Mr. Brzezinski advises forging ties with Russia and China, implicitly admitting that his "grand chessboard" scheme was fatally flawed. Russia experts, notably Stephan Cohen, agree that taunting Russia with NATO (read US) missile bases pressed against Russia's borders is foolish in the extreme. Some have written that, compared to Mrs. Clinton, Obama is a 'peace-nik for his rejection of war against Russia. As for attacking Russian soil, have the Neocons learned nothing from Hitler and Napoleon? Have they never played the board game "Risk"? Do they not get that Russia, who lost 23 million soldiers and civilians fighting the Nazi invasion, is the original "too big to fail" nation, that it cannot and will not be conquered ? Hubris. Arrogance. What other words are there to describe US saber rattling and anti-Russian propaganda.
Robert Parry at Consortium News compiled a list of Cold War Warnings from former diplomats and Defense Secretaries :
George Kennan, the dean of U.S. diplomats during the Cold War, predicted in 1997 that NATO's reckless expansion could only lead to "a new Cold War, probably ending in a hot one, and the end of the effort to achieve a workable democracy in Russia."
Last year, former Secretary of Defense William Perry warned that we "are on the brink of a new nuclear arms race," with all the vast expense -- and dangers of a global holocaust -- of its Cold War predecessor.
And just this month, President Obama's own former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel warned that NATO's plans to deploy four battalions to the Baltic States could result "very quickly in another Cold War buildup here, that really makes no sense for either side." If "we continue to build up the eastern flank of NATO, with more battalions, more exercises, and more ships and more platforms," he told an audience at the Atlantic Council, "the Russians will respond. I'm not sure where that takes you....Nobody knows where it takes us, and that's the problem. It could take us all too easily from small provocations to a series of escalations by each side to show they mean business. And given the trip-wire effect of nuclear weapons stored on NATO's soil, the danger of escalation to nuclear war is entirely real.
As foreign policy expert Jeffrey Taylor commented recently, "The Obama administration is setting the stage for endless confrontation, and possibly even war, with Russia, and with no public debate."
And this published this morning by Diana Johnstone, author of Queen of Chaos: The Misadventures of Hillary Clinton: It has become crystal clear. For the record, here it is. She has big ambitions, which she does not spell out for fear of frightening part of the electorate, but which are perfectly understood by her closest aides and biggest donors. She wants to achieve regime change in Russia... This ambition is backed by possession of nuclear weapons. I am by no means saying that this plan will succeed. But it is very clearly the plan. The electoral circus is a distraction from such crucially serious matters.
And this from Pepe Escobar's article, Hillary Queen of War: Tehran has myriad reasons to be on red alert if the Full Spectrum Dominatrix gets her hands on the nuclear codes (how's that not scarier than Trump?) She will act as a surefire faithful servant of the Saudi/Israeli alliance. The road map is ready. And neocons and neoliberalcons alike can hardly contain their excitement at seeing in action "a force that can flex across several different mission sets and prevail."
And this from Philip Giraldi, former CIA officer and executive director of the Council for the National Interest: Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton is calling Putin a new Hitler while the New York Times editorializes against "Vladimir Putin's Outlaw State." And the real danger is that the Russian people are watching this display with concern and might soon believe themselves to be backed into a corner by an implacable enemy.... The insistence on the part of the many in the West that Putin must be resisted by using force majeure if necessary is based on gross exaggeration of the actual threat coming from Moscow. That nuclear weapons are now apparently employable in the plans for deterrence on the part of NATO, as well as in the Russian plans for self-defense, should be a terrifying prospect for anyone who cares about what might come next.