Dragana Trifkovic, Director General of the Center for geostrategic studies
The entire world public is focused on the US presidential election whose results with anxiety he waits. Whether Kamala Harris or Donald Trump will win a four-year term will be known after the close of election targets 5. November. Based on surveys of American public opinion, it is clear that differences in the support of candidates are minimal. This makes it difficult to predict results. According to the latest polls, Kamala Harris was slightly ahead of the Republican candidate. However, it should start with the fact that elections in western states have become only a mechanism that serves to verify the previously adopted solutions of informal centers of power.
The Democratic and Republican parties are two sides of the same coin, although there are differences between them that are related to domestic politics. The Democratic Party is recognized for its liberal values, while the Republican Party increasingly promotes traditional values. Thus, in the conflict of opinion between members of the two parties, there are a number of topics such as LGBT-ideology, abortion, the influx of migrants, about which they have different opinions. When it comes to economic issues, Trump stands for protectionism, and his campaign slogan has remained the same as in previous elections: Make America Great Again. However, neither Harris nor Trump offer strategic solutions to the U.S. economy with a massive national debt exceeding 3 35 trillion for the first time. This estimate was published on the U.S. Department of the Treasury website. If we add to that the global trend of de-dollarization in trade, that is, the elimination of the dollar as a reserve currency, which is adopted by BRICS members, we can conclude that the rescue of the American economy should be the number one topic. But American politicians seem to ignore these facts and hope that someone with a magic wand will solve these problems for them.
The US foreign policy course will remain the same.
As far as foreign policy is concerned, the victory of the Democrats or Republicans will not affect the foreign policy course of the United States as determined by the Wolfowitz doctrine, where priority is given to advancing American interests in foreign policy through wars. Donald Trump has said in the election campaign that he is in favor of containing China and resolving the Ukrainian crisis. He has repeatedly promised to end the conflict in Ukraine in a few days, but this is unwise to expect. Harris is also in favor of containing China, while he has the same attitude towards the Ukrainian conflict as Joe Biden, who is reflected in his support for the Ukrainian regime. With the Wolfowitz doctrine still in place, where waging wars to pursue American interests is a foreign policy priority, it is possible to expect new conflicts. It remains unclear, however, how the politically, militarily, and economically weakened US plans to pursue these wars further. They seem so captivated by their virtual power that they just can't accept reality. In recent decades, the United States has enjoyed the role of an omnipotent state, underlining its own "peculiarity." Although the U.S. is truly successful in marketing, it does not mean that marketing is based on an argumentative basis. In principle, it is reduced to beautifying the "product" and deceiving in order to sell the product more easily to users. Thanks mostly to good marketing, the US has projected a picture of its own power and strength in recent decades.
Previous post: the U.S. presidential election (vedomosti.ru)
However, the question is how can the economic power of a country that has a record debt and whose leadership is not controlled until the end of the basic economic leverage be positively assessed. The same is true when we talk about military power. The NATO alliance, which is commanded from the United States and serves as a lever for the realization of American domination, was created to wage wars against countries that are tenfold weaker, from a safe distance (from the air). The U.S. military, like NATO, does not have the real strength to participate in conventional combat and that is why they are using air strikes or now increasingly electronic combat, along with all other methods of hybrid warfare.
Russia, on the other hand, has military power and only it can militarily oppose the aggression of the West, but the thing is that Russia, as well as China, Iran and other countries, does not respond to war. The economic development and cooperation of non-Western states through the BRICS with maximum restraint from conflict are a precondition for the weakening of the economic power of the West. But the problem is that the US sees Russian restraint as a weakness and continues to provoke. Although Russia has changed its nuclear weapons strategy, the Americans are convinced that this is a" bluff " and that Putin would not take such a move. As a connoisseur of the policy pursued by the president of the Russian Federation, I am sure that the US has the wrong assessments. But that's already their problem.
So what can we expect in a sergeant four years from the U.S. led by Harris or Trump?
It is completely naive to expect that the victory of one candidate or another can bring about change, unless the foreign policy doctrine has been changed or it will bring much-needed economic solutions, when they do not exist. It is to be expected that the US will continue on the same path that it has taken so far, which will lead to even greater weakening of this country and cause a greater internal crisis. Likewise, American influence will continue to weaken globally. For Russia, as for Serbia, it is better to win a candidate with whom we know what we are on (Harris), than a candidate who instills false hope (Trump). For American citizens, it is a choice between Harris and Trump, a choice between two rotten apples. Until political elites change in the United States and new people with new ideas emerge, nothing will change for the better. What exactly do Americans choose voting for Harris or Trump if we said the political differences were negligible. The conflict between Democrats and Republicans is not about differences in political concepts, but about power. Whether power remains in the hands of the American globalist elites (Democrats) or the American nationalist elites (Republicans) will not affect the continuation of aggressive foreign policy. If there is a change of government and Trump wins, the aggression may be even more intense given the strong military lobby that supports him, as well as his ties to the ultranationalist militarist forces in Israel (Zionists). What is good is that there is an increasing expression of the fact that America is a Captive State whose levers of power are located in supranational globalist centers of power (Washington-London-Tel Aviv) and that the Americans themselves do not decide anything. The unique perspective is that the crisis of the political system in the United States will bring to the forefront a new elite that will be able to tackle a multitude of problems.
Source: Center for Geostrategic Studies
4. November 2024.
