Trump, Clinton and Russia

Trump, Clinton and Russia

By Raymond Shipley

The final presidential debate is now over, and what is clear is the two major party candidates could not represent greater differences in world-view. Clinton is openly brazen about her globalist positions, wanting to build bridges instead of walls. Trump is unashamed in his America First, nationalist stance, desiring to put the United States and her citizens before other interests. She is a "progressive" while he is a "conservative." Is anyone really "undecided" at this point?

The mainstream media has painted a dismal picture should Trump get elected, with his finger so close to the nuclear button, and our apparently four minute nuclear response time (thanks Hillary). If Clinton wins, apparently Trump may lead a revolution, as if it isn't already under way. The real question, in that event, could reasonably be whether this government deserves it. After all, King George III and his government was thrown back across the Atlantic by this nation's Founders for far less greed and corruption than has been showcased by Washington. After all, this country was founded upon the principle that the People have the right, and duty, to overthrow a tyrannical government. 

And what of Russia? Unlike the MSM of the West, Russia has made no secret of its preparations for conflict. While America is concerned about rhetoric and safe spaces, they are readying bomb shelters, recalling people from overseas, and sending a fleet of two of its most powerful warships through the English Channel, the aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov and the Kirov class cruiser Peter the Great. Nothing about these actions seem to suggest peaceful talks, nor an unwillingness to fight. 

While Trump is attacked for his assertions that it would be nice if America and Russia got along, Clinton is calling for a no-fly zone in Syria. According to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, a no-fly zone would require the United States and its NATO allies to go to war with Russia. In addition, this would likely mean war with Russia's allies Syria and Iran, as well as possibly China, leading to World War III. Moreover, she is also blaming Russia for hacked emails with little to no proof, and claiming if president she will respond with sanctions and possibly militarily strikes.

Russia has been beefing up its presence in the middle east thanks to the nightmare that Neocon policies created and the progressives exacerbated. Firmly entrenched in Syria, and with Iran offering backup, Russia's position in the area is a favorable one. And with Russia in control of much of Europe's gas and energy supplies, a war with Russia would immediately cripple economies throughout the West even without a nuclear holocaust. With Russia's history of braving all forms of suffering in order to win, it is assured the Russians are not afraid of any inconvenience short of said nuclear war.

In World War II, Germany invaded Russia and came very close to victory. This was despite communist aggression towards Finland and the Baltic states, and a build up of Soviet military in the region. One of the key moves that allowed the Axis to stay in the war long after the tide had turned was bottling the superior Russian Fleet in its home waters at the outset. Had that not been achieved, the Russian fleet could have wreaked havoc on German shipping in the Atlantic and strangled the German war effort long before D-Day. 

In 2016, Russia has shown aggression and built up its military presence the same as yesteryear. But with the bulk of its Fleet on the open ocean the advantage Germany enjoyed doesn't exist, and despite having a vast military superiority the United States has much more to lose. It is clear that Trump is the only possibility for negotiation, while Clinton all but guarantees war. Win, lose or draw, with a Clinton presidency we all lose.

A revolution in sentiments, manners and moral opinions