
© Donald Trump by Gage Skidmore, Uncle Sam by James Montgomery Flagg, Hillary Clinton by C-Span
During the last six months there have been discussions over whether Trump can beat Clinton and how much Russia would benefit. I think Trump can win but will not necessarily do so, and things could become even worse.
Trump could win because he would defend US interests, not Russia's. As formulated by the ruling elite, America's interests are absolutely antagonistic to those of Russia.
Moscow can coexist peacefully with Washington. But
for Washington, peaceful coexistence is nonsense. Its principle is: "if you don't kill them, they will kill you".What to Expect After the US ElectionsOn this, the American elite is united.
The split, expressed in the fight between Clinton and Trump, - the first major one for the presidency since Kennedy -
is not about loving or hating Russia but about the best way to destroy Russia.Clinton represents a political group that believes the US can push Russia around.
Trump represents the isolationists who claim that those who want to punish Russia know the USA is no longer the world leader. They favor taking a step back, ramping up means and only then attacking.
As a matter of fact, Trump's strategy toward Russia is the same one Putin used toward the US. Having discovered that America's resources are limited and that Russia could win the resource race without a head-on collision, Trump's allies suggest shifting to a resource-saving strategy.
But any deviation has its limits, beyond which it becomes a disaster. There is a line that the USA will not cross, even if Trump and the isolationists win. America will scale down the global confrontation, focusing on dealing with domestic problems in years to come.
The "thin red line" that the USA will not cross until it goes for world hegemony - is a "cordon sanitaire" between Russia and Europe, cutting Eurasia in half, hindering its trade, economic and geopolitical integrity.
Comment: Obviously both stories can't be true. Funnily enough, the first WaPo article includes a picture of the hospital "after the airstrike", and it's still standing - it is obviously damaged, but there is no sign of it being destroyed or collapsed. So that was obvious war propaganda. As for the second story, there's probably some truth to it. But there is no evidence the chlorine was launched by the Syrian government.