Let’s face it, it looks like Trump will win, despite the bitching and moaning of the so-called “liberal” press in the US 1. Obviously the US has a certain history of assassinations (or attempts thereof) of its presidents, so it’s possible that Trump may not serve a full term. Nevertheless, humor me … let’s pretend Trump will be the next POTUS.
Let’s compare him to Hillary Clinton, his opponent, first. Clinton had a big part in creating the failed state in Libya. She used her own private mail server during her term as secretary of state and when the fact came to light she had it cleaned up thoroughly before handing it over to the authorities. One has to realize that the archival of government activities is a big thing in the USA.
Both, Clinton and Trump, are filthy rich, of course. Which distinguishes them from the vast majority of US-Americans, but not so much from each other. But then, the senate is full of millionaires, too. And the rest of those in the senate could be described as “aspiring millionaires”.
So in regards to closing the wealth gap, I don’t think Trump will be an improvement. I would have seen this with Bernie Sanders at the beginning, but given how he bent over backwards to endorse Clinton, I have to concede that my hopes in him were possibly unjustified in the first place.
Trump however, seems realistic about some points. Not all points, mind you (think about the wall at the border with Mexico). For example Trump concedes that one can’t expect the Crimea to be handed back to Ukraine and says he’d acknowledge the Russian Crimea.
He also stated that there are no Russian soldiers in eastern Ukraine. Which acknowledges the fact that there are no official Russian troops in Ukraine, but does not contradict the established fact that Russian fighters 2 were and are fighting alongside the eastern Ukrainians. So in essence the term “Russian” for some of the fighters in eastern Ukraine denotes their citizenship, rather than their affiliation with the Russian military. When we look at how many US military personnel were and are deployed officially and unofficially in many countries 3 the alleged military involvement of Russia in the Ukrainian civil war at this point would seem almost harmless, though.
The main reason why I almost like the idea of a President Trump, however, is his stance on NATO. Trump says that he would make the pledge to help NATO members who are under attack dependent on whether or not these countries pay their share 4. This would fall just short of simply quitting NATO, triggering its collapse.
Why I like that idea? The “alliance” has been obsolete ever since the fall of the Soviet Union and after the Warsaw Pact member states disbanded, and has even become a warmonger since. NATO has pretty much managed to expand to Russia’s doorstep, and considerably so after the Soviet Union dissolved. They managed to make the Intermarium NATO territory, undoubtedly an existential threat to Russia.
Clinton’s presidency would exacerbate the standoff between NATO and Russia, potentially leading to the final world war. Clinton is a proponent of NATO. Everything points to Clinton condoning or even seeking a regime change in Syria. Russia sees Syria with Assad in power as its ally. And looking at the US-sponsored regime changes after WW2, they have brought anything but democracy to the affected countries.
But if we can believe Trump 5, this could possibly be avoided. Imagine it, Trump the candidate with the most aggressive rhetoric might be doing more for world peace than Nobel peace prize winner Obama ever did. Just reinforces the notion that politics these days is a really bad form of satire.
// Oliver
- I’m merely using the terms as they’re used in the US, I dislike how they are used as insults inside the US, however [↩]
- … e.g. soldiers off duty in the Russian army or ex-soldiers released from the Russian army [↩]
- including Ukraine, by the way [↩]
- Members’ defense spending is supposed to amount to 2 % of their GDP. [↩]
- and I really don’t have too much confidence here [↩]