Hillary Clinton may turn out to be an even more aggressive leader than her predecessors
According to her opponent, Donald Trump, millions of Americans perceive Hillary Clinton as an ‘American pathological liar’: as a sacred cow of Democrats and Liberals of every stripe and colour: they swear by their rich mistress who liberally dispenses gifts in return for their tireless efforts. Hillary is exempt from criticism, even though her circle is willing to do anything: bring to light old reports which have been hidden in musty storage-rooms: seek for half-crazed grannies who accuse Trump of sexual harassment or find film footage, which was recorded decades ago, of him in drunken social company with other men. In contrast to this, Trump and his company are beyond dishing the dirt. This is their choice which cannot be denied. But we are entitled to consider a country’s development which would follow Hillary’s (more truly, the Clinton family’s) accession. We are aware of almost the whole agenda to be implemented by this couple straight from the source: WikiLeaks hackers and their partners hacked almost all the most important email boxes used by the Democrats. We know that the Clinton family wants to open the American borders, increase tax rates, maintain an aggressive foreign policy and continue the liberal and Rainbow revolutions. It should be noted that the Democratic Party has achieved a special success in the latter: President Obama announced that he would name warships not after admirals and veterans but after gay and lesbian activists.
On the one hand, some will embrace the fact that the USA, a military power, is slowly destructing itself. But on the other hand, we should recognise that the consequence of a disintegration of the internal political and economic situation in the US has always been the same: Democrat presidents initiate regional wars to refocus people’s attention and relieve the pressure on authorities. Truman launched a war in Korea, Kennedy: in Vietnam, and Clinton bombed Serbia when his popularity was at a critical low. Let us recall that during the first two wars American presidents earnestly considered nuclear intervention. Many modern political experts honestly believe that if President Hillary Clinton starts to loose her popularity, she may turn out to be an even more aggressive leader than her predecessors.
Even now Mrs Clinton demonstrates the highest levels of aggression towards her competitor and towards a good proportion of the Americans who support Trump. The reasons are clear. Hillary committed a series of actions which are classified as crimes: she told a lie under oath before Congress: she deleted thousands of documents from her computer: she used an unsecured connection to carry on a confidential correspondence: she used her position to her own benefit. During pre-election debates Trump declared that if he were to become president, Hillary would be sent to prison. Now the only way forward for her is to win whatever the cost. However, she will not be able to keep guard over her letters for ever. And nobody knows how things will go in four years. It could be argued that if she is cornered, she will not shy from using a level of aggression which may lead the world to the edge of a nuclear disaster…
President Obama, the Democratic Party and, of course, the Clinton family have already defined the main source of their problem. In mid-October Vice President Joe Biden voiced a clear threat to Russia when he said that in response to cyber attacks to the servers of the Democratic Party (which he confidently attributed to Moscow), the CIA and the NSA are planning to launch a massive cyber attack to the servers of the Russian authorities. Moreover, they will do so when it is least expected, and when it will do the most harm to the Russian state.
Therefore, it can be seen that we are talking about an American Administration which equates the Russian state with particular hackers whose location and nationality remain uncertain. From the Vice President, Joe Biden’s, lips has issued an official declaration that the administration is planning to use cyber attacks as a pretext for an intervention into Russian communication systems, including the government telecommunications and management network. Potentially, this could cause irreparable harm. In this connection we unwillingly need to remind the international community that, in contrast to Russia and its allies which never use cyber attacks as a method to obtain military and political privileges, the USA widely applies taps, tracking systems and interventions into the cyberspace of various countries, including its own allies, for the use of specific defense technologies. Having the status of methods of war – like special forces detachments and electronic warfare, so-called cyber centers and methods of digital war are managed by the US secret service, mainly by NSA. Their staff even wear uniforms.
If that is the case, the intention of the Administration falls within the scope of a very important section of international law, namely, Section 3 paragraph B: ‘Definition of Aggression’ which was adopted at the session of the UN General Assembly in December 1974. It describes an act of aggression in the following words: ‘Bombardment by the armed forces of a State against the territory of another State or the use of any weapons by a State against the territory of another State’[emphasis added. – VK]. As we can see, the subject of Joe Biden’s threat is practically an act of aggression.
The continuation of this aggressive rhetoric which was broadcast today on American airwaves, and which includes the demonization of the Russian state and its leaders, may take America too far. In the modern world, an action such as a cyber attack on government agencies may inflict heavy damage on global peace. In any case, it will help redeem Hillary’s reputation, however, it will bring even more harm to the reputation of the US in the eyes of the world community.
So, why does America want to ‘punish’ Russia? First of all, because in spite of the aggressive propaganda campaign aimed at Russia’s course and its leaders, and in spite of the unprecedented political and economical pressure on it, Russia keeps its balance and does not give up its foreign policy principles. As is well-known, the dirtiest tricks are used against Russia: it is accused of ‘continuous war in Ukraine’, ‘killing Syrian children’, holding subversive activities in other regions of the world: it is intended that sanctions against Russia be expanded. And the context of these attacks is illustrated very well by the accusation that these attacks are an attempt by Russia to interfere in the presidential race in order to provide and advantage to Trump who is supposedly more beneficial to Russia.
In the meantime, Putin expressed his clear opinion on the pre-election furor in the US. Answering questions posed by French journalists, he noted that elections of the President of the USA are the business of the American people, however, he added that it would be more interesting for Russia to interact with an American President who is oriented towards maintaining a dialogue with Russia. This phrase clearly reflects a doctrine implemented by Russian leaders: bilateral relations between the countries should not only be equitable, but also positive, well-meaning and based on the will to reach an agreement. The fact that Donald Trump said he was ready to meet and hold negotiations with the Russian President could not be perceived in Russia as anything other than a good sign.
However, this scenario apparently does not match the American establishment’s construct. The Mass media in the US continuously publish various scares which are like water turning the mill of Hillary Clinton’s pre-election campaign. One of these scares was published in the New York Times in mid-October: it was founded on alleged cooperation between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. The newspaper snatched an opportunity to mention that Trump called the Russian President a ‘strong leader’. Of this, no one needs be persuaded: it is recognised by rational politicians all over the globe. But, in contrast to Bill and Hillary Clinton who, based on their high positions, succeeded in gaining personal benefits from international contracts which were concluded between American and Russian companies, Trump has never sought personal profit from contacts with Russian politicians.
Let us note that the accusation that Trump is in collusion with President Putin appeared on the same day that large quantities of emails between Hillary and her closest followers were disclosed in the USA. Amongst those divulged by WikiLeaks, there were a lot of messages which reveal to the public the true essence of actions carried out by the Democratic Party and the mass media which is controlled by it: and the dirty tricks and methods permanently used by Hillary and her circle. For example, it was reported that the Democrats attempted to influence a member of the Supreme Court about the development of calumnious declarations and messages. The volume of the published messages was so huge that it had to be taken into account by Hillary’s campaign office. In total they published over 11,000 digital messages as of mid-October. An additional eight groups of messages were planned to be disclosed by WikiLeaks at the end of the month. However, it has become known that Assange’s Internet connection has been cut, and it is quite possible that the stream of revelations may decrease somewhat.
It was precisely in order to lessen the effect of the ‘revelations’ that both the scandals relating to Trump, and also the accusation that he was in collusion with Russian politicians, were needed. From the very beginning the same goal was served by accusing the Russian secret service of attempting to harm Mrs Clinton’s pre-election campaign. The USIC representative publicly accused the government of Russia of being responsible for the hackers activities, saying that orders for such actions could be issued only ‘by the leaders of a country’. Moreover, the American secret service declared, without any real evidence, that ‘with a high degree of certainty’ – that two unknown groups of hackers were related to the Russian secret service. One of them is allegedly managed by the Federal Security Service, and the second is led by the Chief Intelligence Directorate. For the umteenth time USIC demonstrated its usual incompetence. The NSA is aware of the fact that the electronic intelligence service of Russia controls facilities which have significantly greater capabilities than those of the hackers’, so it does not need the hackers for its operations.
In one article, which focused on the presidential race in the US, the author expressed the view that, as the date of the election in the USA approaches, the pre-election campaign is becoming more and more dirty, dishonest and despicable. This includes not only the mass media’s wide use of lies and libel. More and more, Democrats and liberals from Mrs Clinton’s camp are using dirty tricks and, in practice, criminal activities in order to reach their goal. In America aggressive acts against activists and local centres of the Republican Party have started: in North Carolina the headquarters of the party was bombed. Reports appeared saying that the same people (mainly Afro-Americans and Mexicans) were brought by bus to the voting precincts to vote ahead of schedule to ensure an advantage for democratic voters.
In September 1959 the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev visited the USA. During a meeting with him in New York, the governor of the state, Nelson Rockefeller, declared that he rejected the conjecture by the Soviets that neither of the two major American parties represented the people of the United States. “In any event,” – he declared, – “in New York, which I represent, the people are master”. If he voiced these words today in relation to modern America, many people would laugh at him. Because in full view of the whole world they are trying to make a president from a woman who represents the most self-compromised social group. Even if Hillary wins the elections, no rational person will equate such a group with the whole of the American people.