During the US presidential campaign Putin praised Trump, favoured Trump, and supported Trump through the use of the Russian intelligence services. They spread false propaganda. Putin also emphasized - and so did Trump - that they can have a good, peaceful relationship.
At the same time Clinton was described very often as hawkish. One of the things that was held against her was that she said that she would use the nuclear option if she would have to. Of course any leader would do that 'if they would have to'.
Why was it convenient to portray Clinton after this sane and average statement as a pro-war agressive person who would be dangerous?
There were three main reasons. For Trump this was good because it discredited Clinton in the eye of some very naive voters who don't understand that nuclear are in a normal case only deterrents, but they can only be deterrents if a leader states that they would use them if they would have to.
For Putin this was good because he has an agressive agenda. In the long term he hopes to destabilize the EU and to extend Russia's sphere of influence over the whole of Ukraine and the Baltic states, as well as possibly Hungary. A US leader like Clinton who is firm and vowes to take action against such agression and stop him was not good for him. He can't afford to go against a firm US leader who could be able to unite with the EU countries and halt him. A weak and confused Trump was much more convenient for Putin. Trump is vain. It appealed to him that such a seasoned veteran of the highest level of international politics like Putin paid him compliments.
For Xi in the background, Clinton's defeat was important for the same reason as for Putin. A capable and talented politician who has a good understanding of international relations and could make use of all that Obama and his team have already established would be able to stop Chinese expansion in the Pacific. For Xi and his Chinese advisors Clinton seemed a much bigger threat than an incompetent newby to politics, like Trump.
This is why all the fake news sites were jumping around emphasizing that Trump is great for being peaceful and having good ties with Russia. It was of course bollocks. The current Russian leadership wants to have good ties with the US only in case they will let them play their game in Europe and West-Asia. If not, they don't care, and Russia will still pursue her goals. This was of course also convenient for the Chinese who coordinate their actions at the moment with the Russians to a very high degree to undermine the stability of NATO, and the US-EU led peace of the current system of international relations.
As it emerges more and more clearly, Clinton would have been a much better choice as president than Trump. She could have won over senior experienced policy makers, she does have normal working relationships with many Republicans (a thing Trump often seems to lack) and she would have been able to stop or foresee many of Putin's and Xi's steps. Her firmness would have been an assett in a climate when two superpowers - China and Russia - are becoming more and more agressive. These countries also happen to be authoritarian states that don't respect human rights, cannot and do not want to provide their citizens with really high quality lives, and do not participate to a high degree in international stability and charitable development projects. Letting such states become more powerful could lead to much suffering everywhere. It turns out that Clinton's hawkishness would not only have been justified, it would have been exactly what was needed in such a time.
UPDATE:
Interesting piece in the Japan Times discussing whether China would actually stand up for North-Korea at the moment. It seems like the Chinese intelligentsia is somewhat divided on this. However, I don't think they would budge. Naive to think they would let the US put troops near their borders.
No comments:
Post a Comment