Fox News carried a story back in 2009 where Hillary screwed up her gift to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. She learned the lesson the hard way when bearing a gift in a foreign language that translations matter. In this case her chosen word’s translation — implied hostility, rather than peacemaking. It did not take them long at all to call her on it.
The latest breaking news from Putin certainly proves that all her efforts at negotiating with Russia back then have been an abysmal failure. As I reported on October 7, 2016, Putin has suspended the Nuclear Pact Hillary authored. Apparently the little “faux pas” back then was more prophetic than wrongly interpreted.
According to David Haggith, syndicated columnist and guestspeaker interviewed on economy as a equal opportunity critic: Great Recession Blog “Clinton Reset Button with Russia Goes Nuclear -Part 1″
“The infamous Clinton reset button for US-Russian relations turned out this week to be the other proverbial red button used to launch nuclear missiles. Wikileaks documents that will be covered in this series of articles reveal a chain of wars that started due to Hillary Clinton’s diplomacy.
“Tensions between the U.S. and Russia escalated Monday as the Obama administration suspended talks over Syria’s civil war hours after Moscow announced it was ending cooperation with the U.S. on a 16-year-old program for the disposal of weapons-grade plutonium to curb the production of more nuclear bombs.
The Obama administration stopped pursuing diplomacy with Russia amid renewed attacks by Russian and Syrian forces on the city of Aleppo. Frustrated administration officials acknowledged that Syrian President Bashar Assad is making territorial gains with Moscow’s help after the collapse of a cease-fire negotiated by Secretary of State John F. Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. (The Washington Times)”
Clinton Reset button was a bad joke from day one
Hillary Clinton’s state department missed the little detail that Russians read in Cyrillic alphabet, not in Roman. As a result, Russians had to read their own language in the American way. Rather symbolic, I think, of the ham-fisted way in which America has approached Russia on many issues from George Bush onward. “We’ll work with you … our way.”… Ironically, it said “reset” in English only because the policies of the Clinton state department and the subsequent Kerry state department would ultimately reset Russian-American relations back to Cold War status.
…The Department of State, under Hillary’s lead, put out a document recommending war against Syria, that assured President Obama — based on Hillary’s close experience with her Husband’s war in Kosovo — that Russia would never involve itself in a Syrian War if the Obama administration chose to take the State Department’s advice and pursue regime change:
“Russia will never support such a mission [as regime change in Syria], so there is no point operating through the UN Security Council. Some argue that U.S. involvement risks a wider war with Russia. But the Kosovo example shows otherwise. In that case, Russia had genuine ethnic and political ties to the Serbs, which don’t exist between Russia and Syria, and even then Russia did little more than complain. (Wikileaks)”
Hillary’s War in Syria becomes a proxy war with Russia
…US simply miscalculated how involved Russia would get in Syria because they show the state department clearly had a different (but equally imperial) motive than engaging with Russia. In the statement above, they show they didn’t believe Russia would get involved at all.
Russia has placed anti-aircraft artillery in and around areas where Assad’s forces are located, and then issued the following warning late last week: Russia Warns US Not to Intervene in Syria, Threatens to Shoot Down Any Airstrike Attempts (ABC).
David Haggith’s Great Recession Blog “Clinton Reset Button with Russia Goes Nuclear -Part 2-Wikileaks Proves Syria about Iran & Israel” is out now as well.
Wikileaks’ exposure of Hillary Clinton’s emails reveals that US intrusion in the Syrian Civil War is really all about Iran and Israel and is part of a masterplan that started with Hillary’s advice to enter the Libyan Civil War. Hillary’s War is another expensive American adventure in nation building as the US inserts itself into another civil war, ostensibly to restrain ISIS (or “ISIL” as the Obama Admin. prefers); but Obama’s manner of fighting this war supports Wikileaks‘ revelation that US involvement is all about regime change.
Both the US and Russia want to defeat ISIS, but only the US wants to make sure Syria’s President Bashar Assad is overthrown. The United State’s ulterior motive of regime change is the reason it is ineffective against ISIS — because it wants ISIS to do its dirty work — and is the reason for the stalemate last week between Russia and the United States that resulted in a significant move back to cold-war status. I think everyone has generally observed that the US-Russian disagreement is not about how to fight ISIS but about regime change in Syria. What many might not know yet is how last week’s eruption with Russia goes back to Hillary Clinton during her time as Secretary of State.
Wikileaks archive of Clinton emails shows this is Hillary’s War with Syria
In one document labeled “CONFIDENTIAL,” Sidney Blumenthal, a former aide to President Bill Clinton and long-time confidante to Hillary Clinton, wrote the following to Hillary: Wikileaks
“Assad’ s gestures at reform are delusional attempts to recreate the pattern of his own recent past when he gained a modicum of respect from the West. Likely the most important event that could alter the Syrian equation would be the fall of Qaddafi, providing an example of a successful rebellion. (Wikileaks)”
Prior to the fall of Qaddafi, Clinton was being advised to overthrow Qaddafi in order to effect change in Syria. Blumenthal then quotes an article by David W. Lesch, whom he says is “the U.S. expert with the closest relationship with Bashar al- Assad”:
“If Gadhafi falls within the next few months, there will be another model for regime change: that of limited but targeted military support from the West combined with an identifiable rebellion. Not that this can be easily applied in Syria. It hasn’t even been easily applied in Libya, and Syria would be a much harder nut to crack. Furthermore, the Syrian opposition is far from united or being able to establish a Benghazi-like refuge from which to launch a rebellion and to which aid can be sent. But if there is regime change in Libya … it would give the Syrian regime something to really think about….”
US involvement in Libya began at Hillary’s urging shortly after Hillary received this advice from her confidante Sidney Blumenthal. Note that the advice that the overthrow of Qaddafi needed to be connected with “an identifiable rebellion” in Syria means that it needs to be connected with civil war in Syria. US involvement in Libya was, of course, coordinated out of Benghazi, as the advice to Hillary suggested.
The next document obtained by Wikileaks in its acquisition of Clinton’s emails is not advice to Hillary but subsequent advice from Hillary’s state department to the White House. That same document provides evidence the connection between Hillary’s War in Libya and the next war in Syria clearly became a part the Department of State’s strategy under Hillary: (Note how it states that Libya was an easier case, following the wording in the advice Hillary had been given by Blumenthal about overthrowing Qaddafi as a way to make regime change in Syria more accomplishable.)
Where does ISIS/ISIL fit into Hillary’s Wars in Libya and Syria?
If you read the full document, you may be struck as I was by how there is no mention at all of concerns about ISIS/ISIL as a reason to engage in regime change in Syria. That leads me to believe concerns about ISIS were secondary at best in the State Departments advice for US engagement in Syria. Perhaps they were not much more than the necessary cover story for such engagement because many US citizens were already sick and tired of hearing about “regime change.” Regime change was supposed to be the stuff of George Bush, not the center ambition of Hillary’s reset.
…Whether or not Hillary’s War in Libya is scaring Bashar Assad or inspiring his opponents, it did also nicely provide arms for the follow-on war in Syria. The tidy thing about that arrangement is that it might not be seen as US armaments that were attacking Assad directly, especially if the area arrived with Libyan fighters.
Unfortunately, there were unintended negative consequences as so often happens with US-backed regime changes. The US Joint Chiefs of Staff in 2013 assessed that Turkey had effectively transformed the secret US arms program that was shipping through Turkey from supporting “moderate rebels” (whatever a “moderate rebel” is) into supporting all elements of the Syrian opposition, including al-Nusra and ISIS.
The State Department document above reveals that regime change in Syria was the primary objective in a masterplan that goes as far back as the Libyan Civil War … just as much as regime-change was the overt objective in Iraq.
…While Hillary’s goals might seem (to some) to be worth the means she is taking to get there, these regime changes never turn out that rosy.
The US would be a safer place and the world a better place if the US stopped trying to reform the world in its image — a grand globalist goal it scarcely can afford any longer.
“I think she has some good instincts on foreign policy…but they made two big bets in foreign policy, both of which in my opinion failed, one was on resetting relations with Russia, they rest them but in the wrong direction because Putin took advantage of what he took to be Obama’s withdrawal of leadership in the world. The second was to make the deal with Iran about nuclear weapons which was a terrible agreement, basically legitimizes their path to nuclear weapons when he had them desperate for an agreement and we didn’t use our leverage and gave them all that money that they are using to build up their strength and support their terrorist allies. … The thing I am most upset with her about is that she did play a role and still defends the Iran nuclear agreement which I think will come back to haunt us and everybody else in the Middle East.”—Joe Lieberman on Hillary Clinton’s two biggest failures as Secretary of State on Fox News Talk Show October 10, 2016.
I do not know anything about this David Haggith but it seems he is a self-styled economist who has gained a bit of following for his ” predictions of economic trends regardless of political party” including sites like Zero Hedge. Read the blogs and decide though he does appear to lay out a reasonable timeline and assumption, I always think it better others also consider for themselves.
Nevertheless it IS absolutely reasonable that Hillary Clinton and Blumenthal carried on conversations and that Hillary chose to follow his lead despite the antipathy toward him and his shady dealings. It also is reasonable that if Obama’s playbook and that advice dovetailed, that he would follow Hillary’s advice thinking SHE had been intelligently considering all the aspects.
Obviously, Putin has had more than enough of the double-cross and double-speak of this administration. The problem is that the actions of those two (and on the sleazy advice of Blumenthal) may have caused the opening salvo for WWIII which affects ALL of the world but most importantly us in the US.
“US stopped trying to reform the world” Amen to that!