Hillary Clinton's Vitriolic Rhetoric Toward Russia


The presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, has always felt herself to be special regarding her obsession for regal, political power in the imperialist sense of the word. Hilary Clinton, although an established bourgeois, does not have the intelligence of a Catherine the Great, nor does she have the tenacity and élan of the autocratic leader, Vladimir Putin. I mentioned Catherine the Great, because Mrs. Hillary Clinton in her arrogance and vitriolic language - when she discusses her antipathy towards the various complexities of Russia’s foreign policy in relation to the Middle East and its natural concerns about NATO military forces moving ever closer towards her borders - does not attempt to understand the Russian people nor Russian history. Catherine the Great understood the world, she extended the Russian empire by absorbing the Crimea, the Northern Caucasus, not excluding the swath of land of the right bank of the Ukraine. Catherine’s armies dominated south-eastern Europe after her first victory against the Ottoman Empire (1768-74), while previously maintaining her political calmness with Great Britain with the latter’s conquest by major victories in Europe and abroad during the Seven Years War. Catherine was also a patron of the arts and was involved in the creation of the Hermitage museum and founded the Smolny Institute, which was the first education system for women in Russia.

In one word, Catherine the Great understood the powers of diplomacy and war. Ms. Clinton is not such a profound leader, even as an imperialist who does the bidding of a nation who thrives on war and diplomatic arm-twisting.

Russia, with all its political and social problems has a profound history in the past, and part of that past was led by a great woman, Catherine the Great, and one may ask: does the United States have such a woman in the guise of the middle-class client, Hillary Clinton? Mrs. Clinton has more in common with the machinations of leaders on Wall Street and the Pentagon with its generals than the American working class and its great population of national minorities. Mrs. Clinton could never have the political worldly understanding of a Catherine the Great or an Indira Gandhi, who with all her problems played a major role in leading India into the modern world and understood the Soviet Union, although she may not always agreed with its stance, nor is she a woman of the people like Eva Peron of Argentina, whose actions spoke in deeds and not in worthless platitudes. I mention these women of past history who led their countries to profound changes, because they studied and knew the more sophisticated workings of history, and they were engaged with nation-states they did not always agree with in political or even culture terms. This leads one to the question to ask what Mrs. Clinton’s political frustration or hatred towards the Russian Government is based on.

In the second debate with the other aspiring and aggressive presidential candidate, Donald Trump, who verbalizes his histrionic and personal insults to individuals, women and nation-states like China whom he fears, Hillary Clinton who ironically is similar to her opponent in some ways, when it comes to personal accusations but more subtle and clever about it, talked about her position on Putin, the Russian military in Syria and Aleppo. In one of her commentaries about the conflict in Syria and Russia’s involvement, she said to the moderators at the second debate:

“Well, the situation in Syria is catastrophic. And every day that goes by, we see the results of the regime by Assad in partnership with the Iranians on the ground, the Russians in the air bombarding places - in particular Aleppo - where there are hundreds of thousands of people probably about 250,000, still left. And there is a determined effort by the Russian air force to destroy Aleppo in order to eliminate the last of the Syrian rebels who are really holding out against the Assad regime. Russia hasn't paid any attention to ISIS. They're interested in keeping Assad in power. So I when I was secretary of state, I advocated and today I advocate a no-fly zone and safe zones. We need to have some leverage with the Russians because they are not going to come to the negotiating table for a diplomatic resolution unless there is some leverage over them".

The former Secretary of State did not go into the deeper complexities of why the Obama regime broke its agreement with the Russian Government on implementing a ceasefire commitment in Syria and accused Moscow of not living up to its commitments under the September 9th diplomatic accord, except to blame the Russian Air Force and the Assad regime for the tragedy at Aleppo.

The rest of the diplomatic world, including millions of citizens in the Middle East know that the United State Government, along with its allies such as Saudi Arabia and other countries like Australia and Great Britain, have political hands that are not clean regarding the cruel destruction of Aleppo. Military circles throughout the Middle East and beyond know how the United States and some of its allies’ air forces unwontedly killed Syrian Arab Army soldiers outside of Deir al-Zour. At the same time, Mrs. Clinton would be loathe to explain the intentional turning of a blind eye to the intrigues of the so-called moderate rebels by Washington who allied themselves with vicious, terrorist groups like the Levant Conquest Front in and around the great city of Aleppo, this same group which has been affiliated with Al Qaeda for years and only recently changed its name.

Mrs. Clinton who attempts to lay claim to understand the more complex nature of international relationships, does not admit how the United States’ intelligence services intrigues in the fight for Aleppo allowed the jihadists and the CIA backed Syrian rebels to coordinate their attacks against the legitimate Syrian army forces.

Mrs. Clinton never mentioned those intentional political blurred lines of the rebel forces and those of the terrorist groups within Aleppo proper which caused the deaths of thousands of Syrian citizens and children within the rubble and putrid decay of Aleppo, that once great culture center of the Middle East. Mrs. Clinton’s so-called moral credibility on the fate of Aleppo has no resonance within the diplomatic corridors of power of the Middle East and other parts of the world. Hillary Clinton does not have the moral authority to bring the Russian government to the ‘negotiating’ table regarding Syria, nor does John Kerry, the unschooled, diplomat who is the Secretary of State, they have no moral basis to call for the possible investigation against the Russian and Syrian Governments for war crimes in the bombing of Aleppo. It is well documented that the United States Air Force has also committed its own military atrocities in Syria, intentionally or unintentionally. And as more serious world leaders know, the United States is in Syria illegally with its military and intelligence forces, for it was not invited by the Syrian Government to confront the political and military machinations of ISIS terrorist groups nor those dubious rebel factions in Syria. Modern war is the business of killing and it makes no differentiation between military, civilian and children’s’ deaths. Such is the Realpolitik of war in our time.

The former Secretary of State in her rages against the Russian Government’s stance in Syria, also made her comments about Putin supposedly interfering in the United States election for the presidency in 2016. She said to the moderators, the people in the audience at the second debate, along with the millions of views who were watching the circus-like political performance that “But you know, let's talk about what's really going on because our intelligence community said the Kremlin, meaning Putin and the Russian government, are directing the attacks, the hacking, on American accounts to influence our election. Other sites, where the Russians hack information. We don't know if it's accurate information and then they put it out. We have never in the history of our country been in a situation where an adversary, a foreign power, is working so hard to influence the outcome of the election”. What is so interesting about this accusation about the Russian Government’s interference in the internal, political affairs in the United States, is that former and present U.S. regimes have little room to talk, when they have a long and dark history of interfering in other nations’ internal affairs from the Middle East to South American and the Euromaidan affair in the Ukraine.

One should not forget how the United States and Great Britain orchestrated the coup d’état that brought down the Iranian government of the socialist prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953, or how the Nixon regime with the intrigues of Henry Kissinger, the then Secretary of State, played a role in the coup against Allende and his subsequent death along with the torture and deaths of thousands of Chilean citizens who sided with the elected socialist president.

Nor would Hillary Clinton, let alone her naïve nemeses, Donald Trump, would want to discuss with the American people how the CIA played a deep role in the destruction of the legitimate Kiev Government, which eventually led to a quasi-fascist government under the corrupt Petro Poroshenko. It has always been a convenient, political methodology of the bourgeois regimes of the United States to not want to remember or be reminded about their own bloody interference in the affairs of other nation-states. In conclusion, I would say that Hillary Clinton like Donald Trump and Obama wallow in the mud of political hypocrisy, and thereby bring the American people much closer to an uncertain political destiny that may shake the world.