An alternative story about Hillary Clinton as the President of the United States of America would look like unscientific fiction if there were not a few “buts.”
The federal news agency suggested how different our world would be today if the Democratic candidate Hillary Diane Clinton came to power in the United States three years ago.
Unlike Trump, who so far has been focusing on the issue of the US-China economic relations, Clinton’s policy is most likely to be diametrically opposed.
Within the concept of a global geo-economic world, which the ideology of Democrats is based on, China is not a clear threat to the U.S. – until its economy is integrated with the American. In this case, the global financial elite quite normally earns money both in the U.S. and China – this fact even has given rise to the term “Chinamerica” to describe the symbiosis of the two countries.
However, such countries that are the least integrated into globalist trends, for Washington, are only a convenient “consumable” within a world’s point of view. The US State Department under Clinton would conduct a number of effective operations that expanded the US geopolitical influence precisely through such countries of the economic periphery.
The inspiration for the Arab Spring events, the development of the civil war in Syria, the overthrow and murder of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, the preparation of the ground for Euromaidan in Ukraine – this is an incomplete list of Secretary of State acts.
Moreover, the Clinton campaign officially supported the protests of the Russian opposition in the winter of 2011-2012 aimed at overthrowing the current Russian Power. Clinton’s appointee in Russia, US ambassador and at the same time “expert on color revolutions” Michael McFaul ran those protests.
The treatments of the US State Department under Clinton and bordering conflicts with Russia were illustrative. In particular, Hillary had close ties with the political leadership of Georgia. In the event of her presidency, pressure on Russia on the Russian-Georgian agenda would have increased significantly, and Washington is likely to turn the North Caucasus into another theater of hostile activities.
BEATING THE HEADSTRONG
An inertial scenario would likely keep to another field of American politics. So, no “destruction” of Obama’s legacy which Trump likes boasting about so much today, would not have occurred in an alternative reality: all existing trends would have been fully realized in a more radical way.
In particular, Hillary has repeatedly stated that taking tough measures against Syria and its leader Bashar al-Assad is one of the key tasks of her future presidential term. Clinton offered to completely destroy Syria’s Air Force with a massive attack. Under President Clinton, there would have been a direct overthrowing of Assad by force that would probably lead to the division of Syria.
In turn, the easing or even complete cancelling of sanctions over Iran and Venezuela would contribute to lowering world prices for energy resources which would negatively affect the Russian economy and force oil-producing countries to mostly obey the U.S. As for the restoration of relations between the U.S. and Cuba, with the canceling of the trade embargo announced by Obama, could undermine allied Cuban-Russian relations and force Havana to enter the American channel.
At the same time, with respect to Russia, Hillary Clinton would, surely, stand for the most severe economic sanctions. In her opinion, the most effective strategy to obstructing Russian global influence could have been implemented. Clinton has repeatedly criticized the Trump administration for its soft economic policy towards Moscow. Besides, the same doctrine would be used by the Democrat President against Ankara who was also accused of the concept of reviving regional Turkish influence which was unacceptable within the planned triumph of world globalism.
The ultimate goal of such a concept of“triumphant global peace” would be a creation of two economic blocs under the U.S. Clinton has been and remains an active supporter of the unrealized agreements on the Transatlantic Partnership with the countries of the European Union and the Trans-Pacific Partnership with the countries of Latin America and Southeast Asia.
Natalia Veselnitskaya – official website