The Kremlin Really Believes That Hillary Wants to Start a War With Russia

Foreign Policy.com ^ | September 7, 2016 | Clinton Ehrlich

[Ancesthntr]

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.

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.

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.

[Ohioan]

You are too kind. Putting America first is no different that parental love for a child. It flows from similar concepts; indeed is partially rooted in the Fifth Commandment. Any Federal Office holder who does not put America first, has violated their oath of office; has betrayed the most sacred trust. Calling such loathsome reprobate a "Globalist," masks the actual level of culpability.

As my article linked above argues, there is no way to read the Constitution, and not see that it requires putting America First, if you are a Federal Office Holder. If Hillary is so full of hatred for her own heritage that she is unable to see that; that is the controlling issue for many of us--even if she were not otherwise unfit for office.

[Always A Marine]

I agree that Hillary Clinton is a warmonger, as are more than a few of her fellow-travelling Globalists who hide in the Republican Party. What unites the Globalists against Donald Trump is that Trump is a nationalist who opposes their vision of a borderless world. I was mistaken to have supported Ted Cruz despite his pro-TPP and squishy border positions, and am thankful that Trump won the nomination.

[Gideon300]

“I can’t believe anyone is stupid enough to start a war with Russia.
Not even Hillary!.”

I believe she could, and would. She’s a power-mad wannabe dictator champing at the bit to show the world a woman can be just as strong and as mean as any man. “Hear me roar!” Her ego would prevent her doing anything else.

Compared to the muzzie threat there is very little ideological difference between the US and Russia. As rough around the edges as we may see the Russians, they would make much better friends than enemies. China seems hell-bent on becoming competitive for the world’s most powerful military. When that happens it would be to our treat advantage to have Russia on our side rather than theirs.

[GrandJediMasterYoda]

Don’t forget: If it wasn’t for the media, she would be in jail right now and nowhere near running for President. Try to imagine if they treated the Clintons the way they treated Nixon. If this woman wins this election, every American citizen who loves this country should absolutely boycott the ENTIRE media establishment. Half this country leans right, that’s 160 million people. No more CBS, NBC, ABC even Fox news who have been attacking Trump regularly now on orders of Rupert Murdoch. Do not watch their TV shows, do not visit their websites, think of every possibly way they make money and completely eliminate it from your life.

[ETL]

It was the Soros-supported demonRats that appeased Putin on such critical things as missile defense and the NewSTART nuke deal, as well as the Iran nuke deal.

Aug 2015

___________________________________________________

From Real Clear Politics, Sept 10, 2015...

"In a 2014 New Yorker interview, Obama said his goal was to create a 'new equilibrium' in the Middle East.

In the short run, at least, his signature diplomatic undertaking can be counted on to bring more violence to this volatile region.

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, as the [Obama-Putin Iran deal] agreement is formally known, provides the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism an infusion of somewhere in the neighborhood of $100 billion of unfrozen assets and a great deal more of continuing revenues as businesses and governments around the world rush to profit from oil-and-gas-rich Iran's reintegration into the world economy.

The agreement relaxes the international isolation of the Islamic Republic and ratifies Tehran's status as a nuclear threshold state. And it relieves restrictions on Iran's acquisition of weapons, including ballistic missiles. ..."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/09/10/iran_deal_throws_sparks_on_mideast_tinderbox_128034.html

[realcleanguy]

Good Article, and yes it appears Hillary is laying the groundwork to declare war on Russia and do to Russia what she helped do in Egypt, Libya, Yemen and Syria. War is what she wants. Destroying the nations and the world is her goal. She is a danger to all mankind

[Mamzelle]

Since Putin could remove Soros at any time, I doubt the reasoning here.

[exDemMom]

Well, look at the way Hillary destabilized the entire Middle East, all because she apparently had a grudge against Muammar Khaddafi (for what reason, we will probably never know).

The way she is talking about Putin and Russia, we have reason to be concerned. Her finger will be on the nuclear button, and she is notoriously unstable. Could she decide to take drastic action against Moscow, for her own twisted reasons?

Russia is no longer the belligerent of the Soviet Union. We have every reason in the world to continue dialog with them in a civilized manner. Trump is the person to keep that dialog going.

[silentknight]

If Hillary wins we go to war with Russia

If Trump wins we go to war with Islam.

You decide.

[silentknight]

I should add this

We go to war with Islam in some attempt to fix what Hitlery and Obambi did to the Middle East.

[trisham]

Trump.

"On June 16th, when we started this journey, there were 17 candidates.
I was told by everybody, 'Do not go to Iowa. You could never finish even in the
top ten.' And I said, 'But I have friends in Iowa. I know a lot of people in Iowa.
I think they'll really like me. Let's give it a shot.' They said, 'Don't do
it.' I said, 'I have to do it.' And, we finished second,
and I want to tell you something,

I'm just honored, I'm really honored."

Donald Trump
Iowa 2/1/16

[Little Ray]

Have gotten tired of American lives and treasure being spent abroad for ingrates who ruin everything we try to do for them (either the locals or our own State Department), I would be happy to see China and Russia trying to pick up the pieces.
Let them go broke and wear out THEIR armed forces.
And it would be extinction level events for the ingrates in the ME when they PO the Chinese or Russians.

[McGruff]

She’d probably want John McCain as her Secretary of Defense. He’s just itching to start WW-III.

[sergeantdave]

Hillary is insane, and it’s our duty to bring her down this November.

[Bobalu]

[Sam Gamgee]

I actually thought she turned into a hawkish Republican when she said that about Russia. I thought most liberals loved the remnants of the old Soviet republic now that Putin is turning the page back 100 years.

I doubt she would actually do anything than be Putin’s lap dog in reality. She was trying to appeal to Russian doubters among Republicans and moderates.

[Sam Gamgee]

I still think Russia needs to be put in its rightful place at least diplomatically. They do fund terrorism and Iran after all, so need to be held to account.

[ReaganGeneration2]

“follow the money”

Agreed!
(a) Putin probably didn’t donate to the Crime Family.
(b) Anti-Assad nation-states in the Middle East did

No doubt power is also involved. A war helps raise her stature and power to new heights.

Many people’s greatest apprehension with Trump is he’s “unhinged”. Trump can win over these millions by being anti-war-with Putin or Assad, or China for that matter.

[Ancesthntr]

“Compared to the muzzie threat there is very little ideological difference between the US and Russia. As rough around the edges as we may see the Russians, they would make much better friends than enemies.”

---

I grew up near the Lakehurst NAS, Ft. Dix and McGuire AFB complex (it covers much of central NJ). ALL of that was leased to Russia in the late 1800s and early 1900s as a test firing range - they’d test their artillery with the brand-new DuPont powder from just over the river in Delaware.

The point being that we and the Russians were friendly with each other. The only thing that divided us during the 20th Century was Communism - i.e. ideology. We are natural allies - Western, mostly Christian, nations striding over continents, with interests throughout the world, with (mostly) well-educated and ambitious people who enjoy the benefits of scientific research and the new technology it provides. We value stability - why screw with a world system that largely works for us?

There is no reason for us to be at odds. They have their sphere of influence, we have ours. The have their allies and enemies, we have ours. Some of our enemies (present or potential) are common to both - Islam and China, to cite the 2 800-pound gorillas in the room. We should be easily able to sit down with their leaders and basically carve the world up into spheres of influence (not control, mind you, but influence), with rules about stepping over those lines (like “never” or “only if attacked by one of those countries” - the diplomats can work out the details). We SHOULD cooperate vs. various enemies, and we SHOULD increase trade that benefits both countries. We’d have to agree to less spying on each other - and both mean it and make it stick. The goal would be to move from the present position of wary adversaries, to wary allies, and then to actual friends. This will take time, effort and some degree of trust (of the “trust, but verify” sort), but it is very doable.

But not under Clinton. She is unstable, uninformed and arrogant, and the single biggest risk factor for a world war if elected.

[ETL]

Both the islamo-nazis AND a re-emergent expansionist Russia under KGB Putin are threats to the US.