by Ghassan Kadi
As the world sits and watches the horrors of the American elections, many non-Americans are relieved that they don’t have to choose between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton; and for obvious reasons.
Hillary comes from the old school of American politics; for bad or for worse. Her “reign”, if she makes it, will be a virtual continuation of the Obama administration. Even if she implements changes, and even if she decides to put boots on the ground, bigtime, somewhere on the globe, it is highly unlikely that she will surprise anyone in whatever she does and does not do.
After all, Obama was once the candidate who was different in many ways. Not only he had an African American origin and a non-Anglo/Christian name, but he spoke differently, he displayed intelligence, eloquence, and made big promises like closing down Guantanamo Bay prison. And who can forget his “Yes we Can” slogan? Who can forget his amazing speech in Cairo? Yet, soon after his inauguration, he proved that “no he cannot”, and yet instead of quitting honourably, he decided to hang on and seek another term.
Whilst the die-hard Democrats and other defenders of Obama give him credit for trying, and excuse him for many of his failures and blame them on the George W. Bush legacy of high debt and two unfinished wars, fact remains that he was unable, and perhaps unwilling, to keep his election promises.
There is no reason whatsoever that can persuade anyone to believe that the much less intelligent Hillary, with all her history standing as a testimony against her, will be able to create the kind of changes that Obama was unable to implement.
Therefore, and to be realistic, the best we can expect out of Hillary is no action at all. Otherwise, how will she deal with Obama’s mess in Ukraine and in the South China Sea other than by intensifying American involvement? Will she be more remembered as the American President who led us to WWIII more than she will be remembered for being the first American female president? We shall hope not.
Enter Donald Trump.
If we concede that Western politicians will step on their mothers’ graves to get elected and re-elected, if we already know that they will lie and make election promises that they will break, then is it not rational enough to predict that if Donald Trump gets elected, he will too break his election promises?
Because of who he is, his body language, his demeanour, and all that is associated with him, it is only “natural” to see Trump trying to rally up the redneck vote. What else can he lure them with other than with guns and white-supremacist ideologies? After all, who else would vote for him?
Whether or not he is going to keep those election promises is another story. But why should he be in this regard any different from any other Western politicians who lie to their people in order to get elected?
If Hillary Clinton is a mega-warmonger as many understandably argue, then what about Donald Trump? Will either would-be president actually drag America into a huge war?
Contrary to what many analysts argue, I do not believe that America is seeking war with either Russia over Ukraine or China over the South China Sea islands. American foreign policy makers may be short-sighted to put it mildly, but when it comes to huge military gambles, they will have to heed the advice of the military, and the military knows well that America should not engage in an all-out war with either Russia or China; let alone both at the same time. Invading Iraq and Afghanistan was different. Russia and China are major, if not super, nuclear powers.
America seems to be putting the pressure on President Putin personally rather than attempting to engage in a war with Russia. America is trying to portray Putin as a dangerous man, in the hope to raise anger and dissent within Russia against him. After all, the sanctions are only intended to hurt Russian civilians, and the one to blame, America hopes, will be seen as President Putin. This is in fact backfiring and the popularity of Putin seems to be forever on the increase.
Ironically, America cannot play the sanction game with China due to its extreme reliance on Chinese imports; all the way from T-shirts to, ironically, iPhones . America has no option with China other than playing a cat-and-mouse military game, as it does this with Russia as well, in order to keep the tensions high and attempt to make Russian and Chinese citizens unhappy with their leaders; which will not work. More importantly perhaps, and for the purpose of domestic consumption, American leadership needs to continue to flex muscle and present to its citizens that their government has its eyes on the ball, it is in charge of national security and continues to be the world leader and the strongest nation on earth.
Off to Western Europe. At the end of the day, NATO does not serve Western Europe and does not bring it security. On the contrary, it is putting Western Europe in harm’s way.
An election win of Donald Trump can take Western Europe in many directions; two are the most probable.
By the time the next French presidential general elections are held in May 2017, and soon after that, the next general election in Germany in October 2017, the new American President will have had a few months in the Oval Office to assert his/her position regarding many issues that are vital to Western Europe.
With growing dissent in Western Europe to pro-immigration policies and the ensuing rise of the ultra-nationalist-right, left alone and without any American influence, Western Europe is likely to make some shift to that version of right, the extent of which cannot be predicted.
If by then Trump is the man and the Whitehouse boss, and whether or not he fulfills his “promises” about immigration, segregation, gun laws, deportations and the like, it is highly likely that he will challenge his NATO allies regarding funding. With the Brits contemplating the BREXIT option soon, and with some voices beginning to rise in Germany and France calling for quitting NATO already even many months before the upcoming French and German elections, any push by Trump to put more financial pressure on NATO funding by Western Europe will push the latter more to the nationalist right and distancing itself from existing alliances that will be blamed for the problems associated with the status quo.
To make it potentially even more difficult and more embarrassing for NATO, if the current trend of events continues, by May 2017 or so, NATO would have had huffed and puffed in Western Europe for more than three years, its sanctions against Russia would have proven ineffective and more damaging for Europe than for Russia, and with Ukraine already swaying, if by then it has not but totally collapsed, NATO would not be very far from imploding. All it will need is an inner conflict and the funding issue Trump is about to bring in, could just be the proverbial straw that can break the camel’s back.
To recap, a Trump win may push Western Europe towards the nationalist right and away from the USA and NATO. The other possible direction for Western Europe is more of the same and waiting for an inevitable disaster of many potential kinds and magnitudes. But this scenario is more likely following a Clinton win.
Love him or loath him, if elected, Trump is likely to become a game changer, again for bad or for worse. Even if he does not approach the NATO funding issue at all, it is almost certain that he will upset many people, including many allies; especially the Europeans. Furthermore, as many world leaders and politicians have already made anti-Trump statements, if elected, and if he doesn’t light up the fire with them, they will. Any whichever way, a Trump presidency is likely to weaken America’s global diplomatic position and strategic alliances, and this cannot pass without having a negative impact on the solidarity of NATO.
Is it possible that the Trump card will be the one that will create a domino effect that will inadvertently bring the NATO house of cards down? No one can be certain, but no one can categorically deny that it is a possibility.
Interesting article with an interesting political slant. So, if I vote for Trump then I’m a red kneck (intended misspelling) white supremacist according to some expert. I’ve been called a lot of things but never those two classifications.
So, lemme see here. I write as many of you know and perhaps this expert would like to read some of my writings before hanging tags on me for how I may or may not vote. As I shift my chaw of ‘baccy from one cheek to another and spit a long stream of ‘baccy juice on to the hood of my neighbor’s new Benz, I guess I’ll have to reconsider the type of music I like. Gone will be the classical and opera, the Pyatnitsky and Kuban Kossak along with good waltz, Big Band, etc etc. Guess I’ll have to stop going to St. Nikolas and go to the Baptist Church on Simonka. Got to stop taking care of the lawn and gardens, get an old and beat up pickup to put under the tree and hang a rusted and junque motor from that thar big branch aoverhangin’ the front of that thar ride that I’se gonna restore. Got to stop taking such good care of ma dawgs and let ’em jes wander ’round dirty and let ’em eat from the naybers garbage can. Shucks, thet thar is a good ‘un, I’ll let the chillin’s do the same. Why should I feed ’em when the kneck next do’ can?
Or perhaps I should start wearing a combat uniform and boots, even to Church, carry an AR with a Colt 1911 on my belt, shave my head and get one of them crooked cross tats on my haid. Won’t have to shave much up thar, though, if a danged fly lands on ma haid danged thang will slip off an brake a lag.
Decisions, decisions, what to be and who to vote for.
No unknown, or known for that matter, ‘expert’ can or will have any sway in how I vote. Tag me as you will but you will never know what is on the absentee ballot I mail in. Not that it makes any difference, that ballot will end up in the trash long before it gets to the vote counters, it’s the way it is. I’ll mail it in anyhow. If it gives one moron ‘back home’ some heartburn it’s worth the effort.
Never The Last One https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00ZGCY8KK
An Incident On Simonka https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01ERKH3IU
A third book well on it’s way to completion.
“) white supremacist according to some expert”
-Anyone born with white skin in the western world is a white supremacists according to PC experts.
You write as though all white supremacists are red necks. How odd.
I was just talking tongue in cheek about the gist of the article. There is no cultural or physical marker for any political or cultural trait or for that matter obsession. Don’t matter tall or short, wide or narrow, four toed of five, black, white or plaid. Takes all kinds and generally consists of all kinds for anything.
Man, I really enjoyed your comment !
Hi Ghassan ! Good article…but I haven’t noticed European countries disliking Trump actually…although for the rest of the article I agree with you…
The bad news is that Moody’s – that foundation place that does financial predictions and also has made predictions for the US elections since 1980… correctly….has predicted Hillary winning….I hope America proves them wrong at last…
Honestly this post shows a shocking lack of knowledge about Trump and his general policies(white supremacist is so ridiculous I almost spat out my coffee, maybe nationalist but race is completely irrelevant to him and that’s obvious from both this election and his past, the only reason Hispanics are mentioned is because they’re the largest and most obvious illegal immigrant group, not because there’s some anti-Hispanic agenda) and his knowledge of Clinton was pretty meh as well honestly. Moreover given the fact Trump has specifically bitched about NATO, specifically said he doesn’t give a (removed MOD) about defending the japs and europeans if they won’t help pay for it themselves, very specifically called out globalism, and specifically called for a more diplomatic rather than militarist path on many issues, (Korea and Palestine in particular, as well as a rapprochement with Russia,)
I find this whole article pointless, as what it says “nato will suffer under Trump” is obvious as Trump SAYS nato will suffer under him if everyone else in it doesn’t step up, and let’s be honest most won’t, and the American political understandings of the author seem too weak for him to have much legitimacy.
Interesting article by Ghassan and interesting reply as well.
“e supremacist is so ridiculous I almost spat out my coffee”
-You must be new to this site, don’t be surprised, that is the official ideology of this site, the saker himself describes W.Europe as “white supremacist.”
Many from the west come here and get the impression this is at the very minimum a conservative site. But they couldnt be more wrong.
I think I agree with you Anonymous.
The thing I wonder is whether “anonymous” and Trump are aware that NATO´s aim is not to “defend” “japs” or Europeans. NATOs only and main ambition is to sell weapons (specially US made). Therefore the need to create enemies over and over again.
-What is ultra-nationalist-right? In W.Europe nationalists are generally left economically. While the left is right economically supporting globalisation and massimportation of cheap labour. The left is also a strong believer in racial ideologies.
second that :
Ferry was twice prime minister of France, from [1880-1881, 1883-1885]. He is especially remembered for championing laws that removed Catholic influence from most education in France and for promoting a vast extension of the French colonial empire.
“I repeat, that the superior races have a right because they have a duty. They have the duty to civilize the inferior races …”
a good old socialist … to which the president of France ” Poodle Flamby” first visited his tomb when he was elected
“If by then Trump is the man and the Whitehouse boss, and whether or not he fulfills his “promises” about immigration, segregation, gun laws, deportations and the like”
-What statement has Trump made regarding segregation?
If Russians wanted to invade Sweden they could just go through the Migration Board like everybody else – https://youtu.be/y8mnaPK6Bno
This article contributes nothing . Pretty worthless observations by somebody who has very little knowledge of the American landscape
Absolutelly agree ..to many ppl on this site..Little know about political landscape(Kadi) why it really appear here !!!
What you describe here in relation to Europe applies only to the elite. The us-led corrupted, payed and indoctrinated political academic artistic and economic elites.
us has lost the hearts of the people here in Europe in the aftermath of 9/11. Russia has won it. Those of us who really care for our families and our nations know that us is and was never a supremacy God-elected nation. We know that us only exists of war and violence. There are no more any values attached to this country.
All we hope is that Europe won’t be destroyed by the fall of the empire, a fall which will take place very soon and already has begun.
The reason why Russians and Russophiles like Trump is because he ‘says’ he will make a deal with Putin, and does not demonize Putin and Russia as Hillary Clinton does.
So I would like to point out:
His mentor Roy Cohn was the notorious lawyer involved in the McCarthy hearings that destroyed any rapprochement with Russia by looking for commies everywhere. Cohn was also associated with organized crime figures.
Trump has been a boxing promoter, which he implicitly notes is corrupt and rigged.
He has been in the casino business, which is notorious for its connections with organized crime.
He has gone bankrupt, according to what I read, 4 times, and the general sense of the man is that he is basically pretty sleazy.
In the one speech that I watched, he started off by talking about how corrupt the System is (true), and that Bernie Sanders had his campaign rigged against him (true) .
He talked about Obama care being a failure or perhaps a scam (my characterization)–true.
So he is sounding kind of leftist.
Then he ended his speech talking about how the US military and specifically the airforce is weak. Jet fighters can’t be properly maintained. He wants to defeat ISIS (good, if true). But he apparently feels that the US military is underfunded, when in fact, he omitted the fact that the Pentagon has never passed an audit, and that somewhere between 2.3 and 8 trillion dollars has been unaccounted for since 2001.
Why is he talking about getting NATO vassals in Europe to spend more on their militaries and the that the US offence budget needs to be increased, pleading poverty for the greatest purveyor of violence in the world?
So he talks about ‘making a deal’ with Putin, while preparing for more war with a retooled and renovated military. What’s the need, if he does not want war with Russia?
Take a look at his foreign policy advisors, which is a pretty short list but one of the key figures is Jeff Sessions, an extreme right wing former Senator, who is definitely no peacenik.
So Trump comes with a shady business background, a shoot from the hip speaking style which speaks truth on the one hand and plays to the –forgive me for saying so–redneck aspiration to Make America Great Again.
USA Uber alles. Yee haw.
Maybe he will deal with Russian fairly, but if his main platform plank is to rebuild the US military to make it win wars, personally, how is this different from the genetic American disposition to destroy everything in its way, or demand hegemony.
The overriding momentum in his presidency, will be the same as almost every other presidency, with the possible exceptions of FDR, who, wanted Henry Wallace to be his Vice President. FDR took a sudden turn for the worse health wise, circumstantial evidence of his being poisoned slowly and his VP Wallace shunted aside by the usual gangsters who have run the Democratic Party all along. And puppet Truman installed to get the Cold War going. Oh, and dropped nukes on Japan to intimidate Russia.
JFK wanted to end the Cold War with Russia, and he was gotten rid of.
Add it all up, and Trump is as likely to signal a new direction away from warmongering as Jill Stein, the Green Party presumptive nominee is becoming President. That is, slim to none.
When I was in Moscow, my young Russian guide bad mouthed Putin and Stalin. After listening to her for awhile, I finally said, “My country wants to destroy your country”.
People hear what they want to hear, and hope that Trump will present a change of direction. Maybe so, ‘t would be lovely, but there is a substantial amount of Russian opinion, as exemplified by the recent exchange of a top Russian journalist with Lavrov, who are not taken in by efforts at diplomacy with a country that has an addiction to war and a serial record of breaking agreements and treaties.
Good luck with Trump. Given Clinton’s urge for a war with everything, including Russia, betting on Trump is as likely to result in a change of policy as there is of winning at a Trump casino.
your characterization of Trump “shady business background” is wrong in the extreme
In NJ the review process by the gambling control board is rigorous – he is not “mobbed up”
as to Roy Cohen thats nonsense – Roy Cohen was largely over by the time Trump went to work in the early 70’s – he my have hored him for a job or two but his mentor was his father- who had to pay all the pols one time or another to advance his agenda in NYC – Donald worked at his knee from the age of 10.
Look he talks a lot but his policies would turn the system upside down with Russia and the world order – Washington is not a place for nationalists – they are for the NWO only – they use US assets because they are free and it has a reserve currency – as that no longer exists they will move on to another host which i why they want Russia and its 9 time zones and $100 trillion in undeveloped reserves
As for his adulation of and demand for funding an already over funding of the US military, his own words speak for themselves.
As for Cohn,
The Daily Mail is not exactly a left wing rag.
If the US follows its history and if Trumpet cannot be brought to heel, then, should he be elected (which seems very unlikely to me) there will be a victory parade – in Dallas. If he can be brought to heel and becomes el presidente, then the parade will not include a “tragedy”. Either way Trumpet is of marginal importance. Ms H, on the other hand, will bring another sort of parade – no doubt in Red Square after NATO is defeated near Moscow.
Smashing article that allows one the time to think and ponder and weigh things up, thank you Ghassan Kadi.
Something that struck me are the effects, or non effects of sanctions on Russia, and their ironical, non applicability on China, as being possible indicators of the nature of the connection between both countries.
Considering the worlds collision course, food and water may be the most desired commodities of the future. One cannot eat an iPhone or drink a T shirt, after all.
Totally agree Ghassan. Great analysis
Hillary “much less intelligent” than Obama?
Please define “intelligence”…
Obama displaying “eloquence”? Yeah, only when his teleprompter works.
And note: I’m not a fan of Trump either. But I don’t see any contradiction with him wanting to revamp the US military, which is, by my understanding of Saker’s own articles, behind the Russian, and at the same time wanting to “make deals” with Putin.
Conclusion: between a catastrophe that *will* happen and one that *might* happen, I would choose the latter.
If Hillary is to be elected, no woman would have a chance in presidential election in the future.
I think there are two major ways to look at the presidential election:
(1) A scripted event with actors
(2) A non-scripted random walk with inputs from establishment, etc.
If (1) then the president has long been chosen and their policies and choices will satisfy whatever overarching goals the PTB have – if that’s a hot war with Russia, or a neutering of the white majority voter (through Hillary or internal civil strife) – then that’s what’ll happen.
If (2) then our choices do matter, nuance in the candidate is important, and there’s a future we’re all stakeholders in.
Regardless of (1) and (2), some recognizable facts: the US/NATO alliance is pre-positioning munitions, ABM, and, soon, first strike capability throughout the Eastern Eur. countries.
Given the concocted 9/11 event and response, Gladio, and other events used to drive public perception, it honestly seems like (1) is the most likely scenario as they would not sit idly by and watch their delicate goat-rope democracy drama that’s been laying a golden egg for the MIC just evaporate.
Aggree, or man. Thanks for the analysis, I am usually laconic or honestly just lazy to write long comments.
Or man. The world would be mostly radioactive and the last thing any survivors would need for continued survival is a presidential election. Mineshafts might be in demand though.
Yes but that’s because there won’t be a future after her
The expert have followed the news from RT or Sputniknews. That means typical western way of the news uptil there are something concerning Russia then it suddenly are more objectiv. Soo the expert just relay what the western news told him. Nothing about Trump didn’t want to go into Irak, he pointed out that USA have a close ally in the ME that supports ISIS(didn’t name the ally). And it’s the same with Hillary. But disturbing that the picture of Trump gets wrong.
I’d to have the Saker discuss any Intel tactics he thinks would be used by the establishment to further the faux war on terrorism.
Are recent events in Orlando simply baiting version 9.0 to get us to support a further re casting of the Middle East? Just like the Ukraine coup was spun against Russia and Putin?
The demise of NATO? It would be a good thing. NATO is a relic. It’s continued existance does not enhance European security, it destabilizes it.
A poor article, and clearly, Ghassan doesn’t understand much about the USG and the power behind it, since he doesn’t mention the neocons, which is a major failure and destroys his argument. He also doesn’t know that the neocons are arrogant and even mad, including hitlery, and are provoking both Russia and China like madmen – but then, that is what evil does; to hell with the consequences.
Ghassan this is not a bad essay but : you are not the saker and your understanding of American politics could be better . Is there not a topic where you could share a unique or provocative
viewpoint because of ethnic or geographical characteristics ? Thanks anyhow
It is very unlikely that Trump will be elected. It was demonstrated quite clearly during the Democratic primary that the shadowy billionaires pushing the Clinton candidacy have the capability to force the election outcome to conform to their wishes. The FBI investigation is certainly no threat. They will simply not allow it to produce a result that threatens Clinton’s candidacy.
Ghassan Kadi… I do wear a shirt with a collar & a tie… Why ?? Because I’m hiding my red neck ???
Mazel Tov to you Ghassan Kadi …..
As an ex-pat 70 year old American, I find plenty to be irked about with this article which shows a full ignorance about the country. But I think the thing that irks me most is the constant reference to Obama as “intelligent.” Obama is far from intelligent. The man cannot put two cogent thoughts together without a teleprompter scrolling a speech someone else wrote. He was well trained by the CIA in neurolinguistic programming in reference to speech cadence presentation and that is the limit to his vaunted intelligence. During a recent appearance his teleprompter stuck, leaving him (literally) almost speechless. A true “empty suit.” Interestedly, not one undergrad poly sci major in his class at Columbia remembers seeing him. Like Sandy Hook and the Boston Marathon, Obama himself is a false flag hoax.
That was an example of Obama’s true eloquent intelligence in action without a teleprompter.
So, you are saying a Trump presidency would likely weaken NATO, are you not? This is a damned good thing, if so. For all the dangers some believe his presidency would bring, if he weakens NATO and curbs US intervention abroad, it all seems worth it. Even DPR President Alexander Zakharchenko has spoken with a measure of hope about Trump: