…by Jonas E. Alexis
It appears that we are indeed going to have a different foreign policy on Syria in 2017, and that’s really good news. As we have argued earlier, Trump seems to suggest that Assad is here to stay! We certainly will hold Trump accountable for the following words:
“My attitude was you’re fighting Syria, Syria is fighting ISIS, and you have to get rid of ISIS. Russia is now totally aligned with Syria, and now you have Iran, which is becoming powerful, because of us, is aligned with Syria. … Now we’re backing rebels against Syria, and we have no idea who these people are.”
Well, it is indeed mumbo jumbo. If the United States fights the Assad government, says Trump, then the United States will inexorably have to fight both Russia and Iran, two powerful entities that have been supporting the Syrian government since the war started in 2011.
To Trump, that obviously is not a viable option for the United States at all, particularly when millions upon millions of Americans are desperate to put food on the table, to support their families, and to send their sons and daughters to decent schools.
If Trump means business here, then the Neoconservative war against Vladimir Putin is official over.“President-elect Trump noted to President Putin that he is very much looking forward to having a strong and enduring relationship with Russia and the people of Russia.”
This also means that NATO will have a hard time convincing future U.S. officials to wage an ideological war against Russia. Hillary made a huge blunder by perpetually emphasizing that Russia was an enemy of the United States. One can say that this was one of her weakest points. As former intelligence officer for MI5Annie Machon has pointed out, Hillary could have strengthened her foreign policy by making Russia an ally, not an enemy.
On the other hand, Trump is animperfect representative. As a reaction to what smug elites have been doing America for the better part of twenty years or so, decent Americans had no choice but to choose that imperfect vessel. Trump almost certainly will be in cahoots with the Powers That Bebecause politics has always worked that way in the United States. And if you want to understand this issue from a historical point of view, David A. Wemhoff’sJohn Courtney Murry, Time/Life, and the American Proposition is a must.
But Trump was smart enough to take a different position on Russia, and this resonated with sensible people who don’t want a nuclear war.
“If Trump brings his promises to life, it will radically change the situation. We have only seen Trump as a candidate but we are yet to see what [kind of] president he will be.”
If Trump allies with Russia, he will indeed “radically change the situation.” George Soros understands this dilemma very well, and this is one reason why he has been mobilized to stop Trump.
Back in 2015, Soros wrote in the Guardian that Donald Trump is actually dangerous—and here we are not taking issues with Soros on this point because it is premature to agree or disagree with him.
The question is this: Isn’t Soros dangerous as well? Hasn’t he been using his financial power to move the political climate in America and Europe? Why did Jim Grant of the Wall Street Journal call Soros “a carnivore of the first order”?
Soros admitted that his activities in Russia had “negative consequences,” but to him those consequences “were unintended.” That certainly can’t be true precisely because Soros has produced “unintended” consequences on virtually anything he touches.
Soros says that he is “engaged in an amoral activity which is not meant to have anything to do with guilt.” Soros can’t be serious. He helped destroy the Russian economy, supported subversive movements such Black Lives Matter, and even conducted psychological warfare in places like Ukraine and Yugoslavia, but Soros would have us believe that this is all “amoral”!
Didn’t Soros study philosophy at the London Schools of Economics? Why can’t he read Kant properly? Did he draw this conclusion from the intellectual patrimony of the West, or was he operating from an essentially diabolical weltanschauung?
Soros would love his activity to be universal, but at the same time he wants to live in an “amoral” universe! If Soros cannot see that this is a vital contradiction which cannot reconciled, then one should generously suggest that he go back to the London Schools of Economics and ask for a refund because he didn’t learn a damn thing over there.
Jewish economist Paul Krugman was probably right after all:
“Nobody who has read a business magazine in the last few years can be unaware that these days there really are investors who not only move money in anticipation of a currency crisis, but actually do their best to trigger that crisis for fun and profit. These new actors on the scene do not yet have a standard name; my proposed term is ‘Soroi.’”
 Monica Langley and Gerard Baker, “Donald Trump, in Exclusive Interview, Tells WSJ He Is Willing to Keep Parts of Obama Health Law,” Wall Street Journal, November 11, 2016; see also “Trump warns that by attacking Assad, US will ‘end up fighting Russia,’” Russia Today, November 12, 2016.
 “Vladimir Putin Holds Phone Talks With US President-Elect Donald Trump,” Sputnik News, November 14, 2016.
Annie Machon,“‘With Trump’s win we might’ve dodged nuclear bullet,’” Russia Today, November 14, 2016.
 David A. Wemhoff, John Courtney Murray, Time/Life, and the American Proposition: How the CIA’s Doctrinal Warfare Program Changed the Catholic Church (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2015). This book is largely based on archival documents.
 “Putin & Trump discuss Syria and US-Russia relations in phone call – Kremlin,” Russia Today, November 14, 2016.
Kenneth P. Vogel, “Soros bands with donors to resist Trump, ‘take back power,’” Politico, November 14, 2016.
 George Soros, “The terrorists and demagogues want us to be scared. We mustn’t give in,” Guardian, December 28, 2015; see also Zachary Mider,“Soros, Alarmed by Trump, Pours Money into 2016 Race,” Bloomberg, March 15, 2016.
 Paul Krugman, The Accident Theorist: And Other Dispatches from the Dismal Science (New York: W. W. Norton, 1999), 160.