Clinton DNC leaks and Russia

Cannot really do a group of postings on the DNC email hack and not mention the allegations of Russian involvement, as well as some other issues regarding Russia. Now, at the risk of agreeing with Putin, in this instance, we shouldn't dismiss the contents of the emails themselves. Don't get me wrong, a foreign power possibly meddling in our elections is concerning, on the other hand, rather fair play considering the long list of games we've played regarding elections in other countries. If Russian intelligence is meddling, they learned from us, and frankly, from Clinton.

I will say, it is somewhat plausible to see that elements in Russia would certainly prefer a Trump administration to a Clinton one. Trumps foreign policy is scattered and inconsistent, and could very plausibly lead to a weakened NATO, among other things. A Clinton foreign policy, while also terrible, is more consistent, and would leave Russia playing second fiddle to the US. Personally, I'm not very bothered by the US stepping back from playing world superpower. If Trump's foreign policy was less aggressive and more consistent, I mean even be more interested in considering it more attractive. As it stands right now, it's a strange mix of nationalism, protectionism, and aggressive isolationism.

Now, any discussion regarding Russia and foreign policy would be lacking without including the latest reports of Russian officials being told to send any relatives living abroad home, along with growing tensions over operations in Syria. An issue, in my opinion, that we are on the wrong side of, if we must have involvement at all, but that is a complicated matter for another post...the point here is that a part of the growing tensions is over the leaked emails and the possibility of an outright shooting war. Now, certainly, if there is proof, solid proof, that Russian intelligence was actively involved, we may well have some cause to be upset and take diplomatic action. I would also argue we should take it as a taste of our own medicine and stop messing with elections of other sovereign countries. Not to mention, messing with elections and foreign powers favoring one or another candidate is really nothing new, and is hardly a matter worth bloodshed over. 

I will however, say that, in regards to Russia, a hawkish Clinton is likely to further push confrontations, not only continuing our misguided Middle East policies, but in Eastern Europe. An unpredictable Trump might be better, or he might push the button. Or go to the other end of things and declare a "peace in our time" with Putin (I know, I know, Godwins law, sorry...)

Keeping all of this in mind, Johnson stands out as a very attractive option. He would continue to work with and honor NATO alliances, but would seek diplomatic solutions. He would return our focus to our own affairs, but remain consistent regarding foreign engagements. Don't confuse isolationist with non-interventionist. Johnson is the latter, and, I would argue, in these troubling times, the type of leader I would prefer at the helm

It is very likely, from considering her hawkish stances, that warfare would continue under Clinton, and likely lead to direct confrontation with Russia. It is very plausible under a Trump administration that he would cut the strings with NATO entirely, sacrificing Eastern Europe to a new Soviet regime, or that he would swing to the other extreme and just push the button if provoked, he's an unpredictable wildcard that, apparently, Putin and Russia may well prefer.