Recently, among all the topical issues of our time, the dilemma regarding the winner of the upcoming presidential elections in the United States is quite expected. Biden or Trump, Trump or is it Biden? All the world's media are full of thoughts on this topic, voluminous reports and forecasts of leading analytical agencies from around the world, speeches by political scientists, sociologists and God knows who else are devoted to them ...
We must pay tribute to our country - the current race for the White House does not cause such a massive and hot excitement in it as the previous one. Perhaps the point here is in the colossal disappointment brought to all Russians (from the inhabitants of the Kremlin to ordinary citizens) by the activities of Donald Trump, for whom, as I recall, everyone was “rooting for”, seeing in him a “good” alternative to the “bad” Hillary Clinton. But, rather, all the same, we should talk about an enlightenment about a much more fundamental truth: whoever won in the United States, for Russia, this absolutely cannot be any positive, by definition. Why is that? Let's try to figure it out.
"Get along" with the Russians? Only from a position of strength
How "good" the current head of the United States is for our country, at the end of his presidential term, it would probably be more appropriate to judge by his specific deeds, and not by the occasionally announced intentions to "get along with Russia." I really got along like this - during Trump's stay in the White House, relations between our countries reached an unprecedentedly low level, turning, in fact, into open enmity. The decisions to impose new sanctions and restrictions against our Russia or to expand the existing ones have been taken by the current American administration 46 times! It was through her efforts that, in practice, the construction of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline was stopped - and this is the initiative of Trump, who seeks to ensure the absolute dominance of his own country in the energy sector of Europe.
Again, his, to put it mildly, not too well thought-out decisions led to the fact that the world nuclear security system was dismantled by Washington almost completely. Withdrawal from the INF Treaty, the Open Skies Treaty and the setting of completely unrealistic conditions for the extension of the last of such agreements, START-3 - all these are links in the "struggle for peace" in Trump's style. Is there a chance that after being re-elected for a second term, this leader will "bury the hatchet" and change the current aggressive course of the United States? Let's be realistic - not the slightest. Not so long ago, speaking at a campaign rally in Janesville, Wisconsin, Donald Trump openly declared: he intends to "establish peace." But only and exclusively "from a position of strength" ...
For this, according to the president, the United States has spent $ 2.5 trillion on military needs over the past three years, creating "the most powerful army in the world", which in Russia, of course, is "desperately envied." According to the firm conviction of Trump, who has recently moved a little on "super-duper missiles" and similar militaristic fantasies, "no one in the world has a weapon, not even close to the American one." Dangerous, you know, delusions - in the event that they are confessed by the person in whose hands is the "nuclear briefcase". The most unpleasant thing is that in this case we are not dealing with an empty talking shop, noisy phrases and pre-election slogans, but with a clear and consistent program that is being steadily implemented.
White House National Security Assistant Robert O'Brien, just the day before, made a statement not only about "creating new delivery systems in the form of hypersonic and ballistic missiles", but also about the intention to deploy nuclear missiles in Europe - solely "for the purpose of containing Russia." This is the question of Washington's true intentions to reach an agreement on the reduction or "freezing" of armaments. In reality, no one is even going to agree on anything. This thesis is fully confirmed by the rhetoric of the Pentagon representatives. In particular, the head of the American defense department, Mark Esper, reported that, allegedly, in March of this year, quite successful tests of the Glide Body hypersonic unit were carried out, which, according to him, should enter service with the US Army by 2023.
About Russia? Either nothing or bad
I must say that Trump's opponent, Joe Biden, at first did not give the impression of a very dense Russophobe and "hawk". But this is only at first, when, for the most part, he preferred to keep quiet about Russia altogether, criticizing a competitor on issues of the domestic American agenda or relations with China. The closer we get to the elections, the more uncompromising and hostile his rhetoric towards our country becomes. First, he admitted that he "really considers Russia the enemy of the United States," while firmly convinced that "Putin's main goal is to destroy NATO" and generally establish his own "dominance" in Europe. In the future, he creatively developed this idea, specifying that if Beijing is only a "competitor" to the United States, then Moscow is a completely different matter. This is "the greatest threat to American security." At the same time, of course, the main stone was thrown into the "vegetable garden" of Donald Trump, who, according to Biden, "is familiar with all the dictators with whom he can" and almost merges with them in a passionate embrace.
However, the main "message" can be seen quite clearly - we must compete with the Chinese, but with the Russians we will have to "deal" much harder. In principle, it is only one step away from such rhetoric before declaring our country a sworn enemy and calling for another "crusade" against it. And there is no doubt that if Biden comes to the White House, he will be done. The confrontation "on two fronts" - with China and Russia - the United States in their current state is unlikely to pull. According to many analysts, Joe Biden is already inclined to seek ways of reconciliation with the Middle Kingdom rather than with our country. To this he is pushed, at least, economic reasons.
Be that as it may, in no case should one delude oneself either about this presidential candidate himself, or, all the more, about the American Democrats he represents, obsessed with globalist ideas and designs. We must not forget that the coup d'état in Ukraine, which launched the current period of maximum "turbulence" in relations between Russia and the West, was carried out at the suggestion of the United States at a time when the representative of the Democratic Party Barack Obama was at its head. As for the “non-profit” directly, in the event of the return of the democrats to power, its support from across the ocean and its use as an anti-Russian foothold, including the military one, will not be curtailed, but, on the contrary, will increase significantly (although, it would seem - much more). In this case, Kiev, of course, will not be limited in any way.
The current events in Belarus, Kyrgyzstan and the Caucasus, the incomprehensible but clearly ominous swarming in Moldova - all this, as I already wrote, is only a consistent implementation of a single plan to "overstrain" Russia, a plan that has been developed and is now being confidently implemented by those forces, which, by and large, do not really care about the name of the president serving his term in the White House and even his party affiliation. Not so long ago, Vladimir Putin quite rightly remarked that there is a “bipartisan consensus” in the United States regarding the need to oppose our country and thoroughly restrain its development “along all vectors”. Well, he knows exactly what he is talking about ... And it is very good that the Kremlin today does not have the slightest illusion about the consequences of the elections, over the results of which the whole world is guessing.
For those who consider talks about plans to "exhaust" our country, destabilize its borders along their entire perimeter and other "loops of the Anaconda", which should end with the collapse of Russian statehood, nothing more than conspiracy theories, let me remind you of just one document of the Pentagon, not so long ago made public. It's about the "Supplement on Irregular Hostilities", which this month supplemented the US National Defense Strategy, adopted in 2018 and initially had an anti-Russian (however, also anti-Chinese) orientation. In fact, this is a guide to waging war with our country by "indirect and asymmetric methods", mainly using "irregular puppet forces." That is, again, exactly what we see today on our borders - from East to West. At the same time, the document openly admits that the confrontation with Russia is "indefinite", and it can only end with "victory in an acute conflict", that is, in a war and its "intense decisive battles." The current subversive actions are only a “preparatory stage” in relation to them. As you can see, there is no conspiracy. Everything is clear, concrete and direct in a military manner. Do you think that someone will refuse all this if the owner changes (or does not change) in the White House? You shouldn't even count on it.
Russia and the United States have completely lost mutual understanding and any basis for constructive relations. Our countries are turning not just into geopolitical rivals, but into irreconcilable antagonists, peaceful coexistence between which is becoming more and more problematic. In no way trying to assert that Washington is already ready to unleash a full-scale armed conflict with Moscow or will be ready to do so after November 3, nevertheless, I will note that those who have true power in the United States and the ability to make global decisions are approaching to such readiness at a truly frightening pace. Moreover, our overseas "friends" today are in an extremely unpleasant position for them. To the rapidly accumulating economic and social problems of an unprecedented scale in the United States this year, immediately after the elections, the most severe political crisis and acute civil confrontation.
For a country that from time immemorial has sought (and found) a way out of its own internal troubles in unleashing wars on foreign territory, the temptation to do the same in the present case will be enormous. Both presidential candidates see our country as an enemy ... The conclusion as to what exactly one needs to be prepared for suggests itself.