TRUMP-PUTIN DUO BETTER THAN A CLINTON-PUTIN WAR?

BY ILAYDA NIJHAR

The much anticipated US Presidential elections are swiftly approaching with the world eagerly awaiting to see who will be the new leader of the Western world. Yet the two candidates, Clinton and Trump, are generating more controversy than ever before in the history of US elections. One of the candidates has simply retorted nothing short of misogynistic and xenophobic remarks throughout his entire gruelling campaign and has personally endorsed the rise in racial hatred. Yet the other candidate at hand representing the Democratic party who is dubbed to become the first female President has single handily prepared a case for a new world war. With both failing to engage with the real issues in the US some of which include domestic law and order and failing education standards – both candidates are guilty of doing nothing to address these and are instead creating and stirring more commotion. While the world patiently holds it breath for whatever may ensue on the 8th of November, one particular world leader has played an active role in the election events, Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Clinton has pursued her rhetoric of aligning most of America’s misfortunes at the door of Russia. She has made her distaste and aversion of Russia no secret and continues to cause more pandemonium at every opportunity she gets. Only recently WikiLeaks, more commonly known as a whistleblowing website, released emails from John Podesta – Clinton’s campaign leader. Podesta’s emails exhibited the justification behind Clinton constantly drawing attention upon Putin’s and Trump’s purported link which would in turn enable her to avoid greater issues. Such may include her strategy towards tackling ISIS or even the current Syrian crisis. It is apparent that President Putin has become agitated by the condemning language which Clinton has used towards him and his administration during the US election campaign. In response Putin has sent Clinton harsh replies stating that if she continues to incite insults towards the ‘Motherland’ then as the leader of his country he will be obliged to ‘confront’ her on this matter. He went on further to say that the reasoning behind the former Secretary of State Clinton’s remarks was to ‘distract the American people from the country’s real problems and does so by merging voters against Russian and Iran, the ‘two common enemies’.

In light of this, the US government claims that the Kremlin has formulated a number of cyberattacks against the Democratic National Committee in an attempt to rig the election process. Interestingly, however, the Republican nominee has remained sceptical of what the Democrats are claiming. Trump has endorsed and openly shown his support towards the Moscow regime and may have even extended an open hand to amend frosty relations between the leading nations. In return Putin has stated that although he does not have a preferred candidate, he will be ready to pursue diplomatic ties with whichever new leader may be elected. The unprecedented investigation by the FBI in the final days of the election campaign into the continuing saga of Clinton’s emails is a gift for the Trump camp. It is difficult to call what the FBI investigation made public but it may have had an impact on Clinton’s poll lead. What we have witnessed over the course of this campaign is a shift from the traditional rhetoric between the US and Russia. It seems that the two potential political situations can lead to either constructive trusting relations or perpetual war. The election has also attracted the attention of many ordinary Russians who are keeping a close eye on the events which unfold in the US with many feeling that the result will have a significant impact on their country. In a recent poll, 30% of Russians believed that ties between the US and Russia could potentially improve should the Republican Trump be victorious. In stark contrast, 50% believed that if Clinton were to be named as President then the relations between the two nations would undoubtedly worsen.

The West and more importantly the US voters have been presented with two offers in the form of Clinton and Trump which seem to be no better than one another. Anyone who believes and subscribes to basic notions of humanity wouldn’t even dare imagine voting for Trump yet is it in anyone’s best interest to vote for the alternative based simply on preventative measures and obligation? Whatever the outcome beholds next week, we can only hope that diplomatic peace and mutual association is the main priority for the President elect as Obama, the Nobel Peace laureate, prepares to vacate the Presidential Oval office.

2.10.2016, London

İlayda Nijhar