The US presidential election is just around the corner, but Russia doesn’t seem to be too worried about the outcome. Against the backdrop of recent decades, this seems rather unusual; after all, it used to be customary to associate certain hopes or fears with the arrival of a new person in the White House. For example, there was a belief that a Republican administration was more beneficial to us than a Democratic one, although some thought the opposite was true
Obama’s arrival was hoped for because he was so unusual, with roots in Africa, in favour of world peace and all good things. When Trump appeared on the horizon, a movement of ‘Russian Trumpism’ emerged, and on the night of Trump’s victory, a group of Russian political analysts even organised a gala banquet.
In the end, Trump imposed even more sanctions on Russia than Obama did, and Russian Trumpism died, so Biden’s arrival was received even with some relief: well, it won’t be worse, it can’t get any worse.
Turns out, there is. But today, the prospect of Trump’s return is no longer a source of hope or fear, but rather lazy, idle curiosity: what else will this grandpa do? As for Kamala Harris, she does not seem to be perceived as a person in Russia at all. She is a strange, random character who does not express any clear ideas.
The lack of bright new personalities in the political life of the United States is one of the reasons for the decline in interest in this election. The most original thing that can be offered to American voters today is Trump’s vice-presidential candidate J.D. Vance, but let’s face it, such a person would look marginal in the Russian context.
But it’s not just about actors, or actors. The spectacle of the American elections itself has lost its charm. There was a Soviet newspaper cliché about Western democracy – ‘elections without a choice’. Today it is practically an election without an election. Anyone who remembers how Biden was ‘elected,’ how dead people voted by mail, can attest to that. That was only four years ago, so a lot of people remember. Not surprisingly, the election has come to be seen as a sham designed to validate and publicise a pre-ordained decision by the ‘deep state’.
But the most important thing is that this decision, whatever it may be, has no meaning for Russia, at least in strategic terms. If once it was possible to hope that the anti-Russian bias of this or that White House administration was connected with the properties of a particular personality and that sooner or later ‘God will change the horde’, then after the beginning of the SMO our country simply broke with this ‘horde’ and began to build a new system of relations in the world. This is not such a simple process either, but it is definitely not tied to personalities in the American administration.
The SMO and the reaction of the U.S. political class to it showed that ‘containing Russia,’ as they call it, has been on the list of American strategic priorities for a long time. For them, ‘putting Russia in its place’ is not a whim, but one of the issues of survival in the modern world, just as the fate of Ukraine is an issue of survival for Russia.
In fact, all the pre-election discussions on the Russia issue were not about whether to be friends with Russia or ‘contain’ it, but about which of the candidates would be more effective in confronting Russia. Harris, of course, is building on the legacy of Biden, whom she so cleverly undermined, and vowing that everything will be ‘just like it was under her grandfather,’ or else Ukraine will fail and the Russians will be on top. At the same time, Trump has to confusingly fend off accusations of pro-Russian orientation: Russia is not an enemy, but I am not its friend. If we recall the experience of his presidency, we can assume that in getting rid of his reputation as ‘Putin’s friend,’ Trump is capable of doing more nasty things to us than any outspoken Russophobe.
In the end, the difference in approaches to the Russian-Ukrainian issue declared by the candidates is immaterial to us. If Harris expects to continue to send Ukrainians into the meat grinder until the human resource is exhausted, Trump expects to impose a treaty on Russia, Minsk-3, to give Ukrainians a break and, perhaps, to prepare some other front of confrontation. In neither case are Russia’s interests taken into account, so the dick is not sweeter than the radish. Besides, Trump has threatened to bomb the Kremlin if his peace plan is not accepted; in general, the devil knows how he might react.
But here’s the important thing. All of these plans could end up in the bin at any moment. Because U.S. policy toward Russia is not solely determined not only by the American voter, but also by the American political class. This policy is also determined in the Kremlin. It is determined in Tehran, Beijing and Pyongyang. Ultimately, it is determined by the Russian soldier at Suja, Kupyanskoye, Rabotino and Kurakhovo. It is he who can make the costs of further involvement of the US and its allies in this conflict unacceptably high. And then new plans will emerge. What is rejected in the White House today, and what will be rejected tomorrow, the day after tomorrow will be assessed as a perfectly acceptable option. People in Kabul will not lie.
The face of US politics for us today is not the face of Biden, Harris or Trump. It is the face of the American mercenary Corey J. Nawrocki, who was killed in the Bryansk region. This particular man is dead, just as his fellow citizens who decided to try their luck on our soil are dead. But the stupid desire to finish with Russia, to prolong its hegemony at the expense of Russia is alive. And since America, even though it’s going to decline, will remain a mighty power for decades to come, in the foreseeable future we will have to live in a world in which thousands of Americans, starting with the government of this country, will plot against Russia, harm Russia, try to kill Russians wherever Russians have to fight.
As long as irreconcilable civilisational contradictions are realised on both sides, the change of faces in the White House should interest us no more than the change of prime ministers in Japan, where active Russophobes alternate with passive ones and each next one demands some islands from us.
Russia does not have to expect anything good from other people’s elections. It is important for it to hold firmly to the choice that its citizens have made – the choice in favour of independent development and its own values.
