Trump may be less antagonistic to Russia, and he claims that he wants to end the "false song of globalism", while Clinton wants antagonism against Russia (she promised to set up a no-fly zone in Syria for Russian skycraft). That's it. In 20 countries polled over Trump against Clinton, only Russia liked Trump more. Chinese, Indians, Japanese, Brazilians, they all hate him. And their leaders hate him, as well.
*Trump is still for America abducting any foreigners they want without any kind of trying and hold them and torture them without any proof.
*Trump is for greatening the military budget.
*For, as official policy, going on with obsessive NSA spying in other countries.
*For sending footsoldiers to the Mashriq.
*For lowering foreign help spending.
Peace talks with North Korea is a great idea, but it won't make a difference in the end unless we plan on abandoning the south.
Actually, now that the Together Democracy has the National Gathering's majority, I think relations will cool down a bit, from when the New Frontier party ruled. They plan on re-opening the Kaesong Industrial Site, and they (along with all parties except for the New Frontier) are trying to push the Americans out of Korea. So yes, America should "abandon" the south.
His threats of leaving NATO are idiotic. Leaving NATO is even more stupid.
It won't really affect anything. America will end it's formal alliance and just be an informal ally of other NATO countries.
The European union has proven it is a pussy when it comes to fighting the Russian bear.
Russia doesn't pose a threat to the EU; some EU countries like Hungary have lifted most sanctions as it hurt their economy too much for the sanctions. Let's be real: Russia is not going to invade Latvia or something, when there are way better other, safer targets, like resource-rich (and currently on America's blacklist) Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Ukraine.
I highly doubt Russia would Invade Europe the day after NATO dissolved but there definitely would be " Coups " in the Baltic states, Belarus, Finland, Armenia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Mongolia and maybe even Poland.
Russia is nowhere near as powerful as you believe. The risks of invading the EU are way too high. Britain and France are both proven core weapon countries, recall. Belarus and Armenia, Russia, Kazakhstan, and Mongolia, they like Russia (and China's much more likely to do something like that in Mongolia, it would be bad relations with China if Russia did it). As for Georgia, they did invade it in 2008. And NATO did nothing. Nor did NATO do anything in 1992, in Pridnestrovia, or in 1991, in Georgia. Nor many other conflits, that just were not in its interest; not worth it, like the Tajik Civil War (where the
Students and other violent Islamic extremists tried to take over the government and were semi-successful). Thankfully, NATO didn't escalate those wars.
USSR Incarnate would pop up except only a lot stronger.
I doubt, even if Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and all the others unified, that it would even be more powerful than America. Maybe as powerful as India, but do you realise how small these countries are?
What you're saying is in the same category of likelihoods as Iran rebuilding the old Iranian Kingdom all the way to modernday Albania and India. They're just nowhere near powerful enough.
The USSR today holds up of Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan, and to be Tajikistan. Now, Russia is trying to reel Ukraine back in, but it's failed quite a bit, partially from foreign "support" of the ultranationalist Ukrainian government, and it's economy is pretty bad. Now imagine that with Poland or Latvia, some stable economy that's part of the EU.
How did HRC do as Secretary of State, in charge of foreign policy?
Quite loads of that isn't her blame.
Destabilization of the Middle East through the Arab Spring?
She did not begin the Arab Spring, though she is to blame for quite loads of what's happening in Syria and Bahrain.
