The US presidential elections are getting closer and, like it or not, we are watching a straight fight between two completely polar candidates – Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. They provoke each other traditionally, making out of the challenge for the presidency a show that is akin to an American sitcom.
Nevertheless, the results of these elections will make clear, which one of the elite US groups will have a dominant influence on the US foreign policy.
The elections’ results are the most relevant issue for the member countries of NATO: it is no secret that the US gives the most support to the alliance, allocating enormous funds from the budget. Clinton, as the future president, is the best option in this context, because her election campaign has an overt anti-Russian rhetoric, and this means a possibility to keep financing NATO as an opponent of the Russian Federation’s Army and the CSTO (the Collective Security Treaty Organization – Ed.) is obvious enough.
While Trump delivers a completely different rhetoric. By the way, it is not clear why the ‘pro-Russian’ label is pinned on him. There is a possibility that the US financial support of the NATO members will decrease in case of his presidency. 2% of GDP is similar to the sentence for small countries and the allocation of these amounts of funds is a disabling burden. The heads of the European countries realize all possible difficulties, which is why they, especially the Baltic countries and those, who have recently entered into the alliance, support the Democratic candidate. According to the head of the US Foreign Policy Research Center Sergey Samuylov, these states are ‘actually financial dependents’.
Clinton is trying to craft an image of the US as an omnipresent state that gives a lead to the whole world and has influence on everyone and everything, making agree with any opinion of the State Department. At the same time, the United States will never be hold criminally responsible for crimes they committed. Obama, being in the same boat with Clinton, commented the US Congress’s law adoption to sue Saudi Arabia and even said that “it was a dangerous precedent and they were responsible for everything they had done”. Perhaps, none of victims dared to declare the rules violation of the international law, and outside observers held their tongues. It is worth noting that as soon as any country defends publicly its interests, which are contrary to the US views, this country has various problems: colour revolution, coup, sanctions, civil war, intervention, bombing without UN Security Council’s consent. I do not rule out that Hillary might try to rehabilitate a failed experience of NATO’s expansion and to increase its funding significantly as well. What will it give the US? They wish to increase their influence, and therefore, control. What alliance members will get? They get dependence on the US, and, as a consequence, a lack of their own political opinions.
It is obvious that the results of presidential elections in the US will influence on the Ukrainian foreign policy. Hillary Clinton is likely to continue Obama’s work, encouraging disorders and chaos in the foreign countries for the sake of own interests. Trump does not hide a desire to improve relationship with Russia and he does not care about Ukraine, its NATO’s membership and supporting it. I do not even rule out the fact, when Ukraine will be left with nothing, it will seek Russian support.
The fate of most European countries depends on the autumn presidential elections in the US. How can we talk about democracy and independence, if people have to live by the American rules in alliances created by the US? The alliance with the United States is a choice without choice.
Evgeny Orlov, the DPR People’s Council deputy