Despite Donald Trump demonstrating of greater realism in foreign policy than Hillary Clinton, it is obvious that Russia will have very serious issues if either of the two candidates is elected president of the United States, according to Valdai Club programme director Dmitry Suslov.
During the first US presidential debates, the candidates made no new statements on foreign policy issues. Hillary Clinton continues to promote a more hawkish, anti-Russian foreign policy. She claimed that Russia is to blame for hacking attacks on US Democratic Party servers, trying to interfere in the US’ internal affairs and in general conducts a wrongful, destabilizing foreign policy.
Trump disagreed with her, noting that there is no proof to the accusation. It is obvious that Trump seeks more constructive relations with Russia, but this desire is linked to Trump and his circle’s seeking to have Russia on their side in a more acute confrontation with China. Trump made it clear during the foreign policy segment of the debates that he supports a tougher policy on China, which he sees as the United States’ chief strategic rival.
This runs counter to Russia’s national interests, and would become a serious problem in Russia-US relations if Trump wins. When it comes to Russia’s national interests, neither of the candidates is in harmony with them, and Russia would have serious problems if either of the candidates is elected president of the United States.
In general, Donald Trump has more realistic views. Fighting terrorism is the area where Donald Trump is stronger, not because of his experience, but because of his views, which could mean a rather constructive agenda for cooperation with Russia. Hillary Clinton continues to repeat ideologems claiming that the main reason for the creation of ISIS and the upsurge of terrorism in general are authoritarian regimes. According to her, Russia and Iran are to blame for the inability to destroy ISIS, as well as the continuing war and violence in Syria, which directly contradicts reality. Clinton’s victory would destroy the remains of Russian-US cooperation in Syria and the fight against international terrorism. In the case of Trump’s victory, we would most likely boost this cooperation.
The foreign policy portion of the debates took up relatively little time. For the most part the debates have focused on internal political and economic issues, where Clinton appeared more confident. She was assisted by both the audience and the moderator, who interrupted Trump much more often than he interrupted Clinton. Clinton most likely made a better impression on the centrist-oriented voters (and it is the centrists who decide the outcome of US presidential elections), and looked more competent and prepared. As a result of the debates, the polling gap between Clinton and Trump will increase in her favor, and for now, she has made a significant contribution to achieving victory. However, there are two more debates coming up, on October 9 and 19, and we should wait for their results before making further predictions.
