|This editorial appears in the November 4, 2016 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
Hillary Clinton Will Start World War III
Nov. 1—Throughout her campaign for President of the United States, Hillary Clinton has seized upon every opportunity to demonize Russia and Russian President Vladimir Putin. She has accused him of interfering in the U.S. presidential elections through sophisticated cyber-warfare. She has accused Putin and Russia of plotting an invasion and reconquest of the three Baltic States, which all happen to be members of the NATO Alliance. She has accused Putin and Russia of grabbing the Crimea and of plotting to take over eastern Ukraine, totally ignoring the fact that her longtime protege, Victoria Nuland, oversaw the bloody Maidan coup that installed a Banderist, pro-fascist regime in power in Kiev. She has charged Russia with war crimes and other atrocities in Syria, as the Obama Administration, in which she served, backs jihadists from Al Qaeda and allied foreign terrorist groups in their grab for power in Damascus.
Clinton and her campaign surrogates have even accused Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump of being a KGB dupe or asset, simply on the basis of the GOP nominee’s pledge to negotiate with Russia, and his acknowledgement that Putin is a strong leader—something that Clinton herself seems to be acknowledging, given her larger-than-life accusations that the Russian leader is out to conquer the world.
All of this would be tragi-comic, were it not for the real-world consequences. If Hillary Clinton is elected President on Nov. 8, there is a greatly heightened probability that her actions will rapidly lead to confrontation with Russia—and that will assuredly lead to World War III, a war fought on a global scale with thermonuclear weapons, meaning the end of life on Earth as we know it.
Just take the Syria war as a microcosm of Mrs. Clinton’s policies. During her four-year tenure as Secretary of State under President Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton was a leading advocate of the “regime change” policy first declared by President Obama in early 2011, at the outset of the Syrian war. She pressed for the arming of the Syrian rebels, long before the emergence of the Islamic State, but at a point that the Syrian opposition was already dominated by Salafist fighters, many affiliated with Al Qaeda.
As a Presidential candidate, Clinton has doubled down on those demands, calling for the creation of a “safe zone” inside sovereign Syrian territory. Her leading campaign national security advisers have demanded even more: a no-fly zone and direct attacks on the Syrian Air Force—regardless of the presence of Russian military forces on the ground and in the air over Syria.
This all goes well beyond the range of exaggerated campaign rhetoric. For reasons that only her psychiatrist can know for sure, Hillary Clinton has developed a deep, irrational hatred for Russia, and, particularly, for President Putin.
Given the intensification of fighting in Syria, and given the NATO deployments to the very western edge of Russia—in the Baltics, in Eastern Europe, and along the Black Sea—such an irrational attitude towards the world’s second largest nuclear-weapons state is beyond dangerous. It is a virtual recipe for thermonuclear extinction.
There was a time, back during the 2008 Presidential primaries, before Hillary Clinton walked through the Obama trap door, that she could credibly raise the issue of who can be trusted to receive that “3 AM call” signaling a major national security crisis, that required calm, experienced judgment from a President and commander-in-chief. If ever she had that temperment and leadership skill-set, she has shown, with her flight-forward, McCarthyite venom towards Russia and Putin, that she no longer has it.