Hillary Clinton just made a very memorable statement.
I do not believe that Russia and China are paying any price at all – nothing at all – for standing up on behalf of the Assad regime. The only way that will change is if every nation represented here directly and urgently makes it clear that Russia and China will pay a price
So — exactly what price must Russia and China pay? Should the United States stop buying the debt they issue to support bloated welfare states and fiscal irresponsibility? Should the United States stop exporting consumer goods that fill their stores, and keep their people fat and happy? No — I do not think it is Russia and China who would “pay” in the case of increased mutual antagonism. I think the United States will pay the greater price.
In any case, Russia denies the premise of her argument.
Russia rejects in the strongest possible terms allegations that it supports President Assad in the Syrian conflict. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Moscow and Beijing must ‘pay a price’ for backing Assad.
While I think Russia and China are the thing standing between Syria and another Iraq-style “democratisation”, I do not necessarily think Russia and China are doing the wrong thing. While the Assad regime is certainly inhumane and brutal, the rebels that Clinton seems so urgent to support seem little better — at least judging by their attempt to get British journalists killed in the name of propaganda, and their well-known affiliation with global jihadism.
Can we honestly say that committing guns, blood and money to deposing Assad will guarantee peace and stability? Can we honestly say that the next regime might not be worse? I do not believe we can — especially considering that almost every nation involved in the “Arab Spring” has since elected Islamists to power.
Even with the support of the Arab league, is getting entangled into another messy and open-ended conflict in Russia and China’s backyard really a good idea? Some voices in China are already rumbling that they would be willing to go to war to prevent an American takeover of Iran.
If avoiding nuclear proliferation is our goal, intervention is certainly a bad idea. Qaddafi’s deposition — in stark contrast to nuclear-armed North Korea — was a signpost to rogue regimes that the only way to ensure their survival is to pursue nuclear armaments.
The real question though, is what Hillary Clinton thinks she can achieve through throwing unveiled threats around and destabilising the fragile global system? Is she so fervently committed to expensive and bloody foreign interventionism that she is willing to risk creating a global diplomatic and political crisis in order to get what she wants? How far will she go to force the American agenda? Regional war? Global trade war? World war?
My guess is that her threats are completely hollow.
azizonomics 
Who knows what is Hillary’s campaign and what is Obama’s. Neither knows or cares about anything but politics for power — Obama in 2012 and Hillary in 2016 or maybe 2012.
Hillary is an embarrassment. I cannot understand why anyone would support her.
agree 1000%
Absolutely. A caricature of herself. No, worse than that….
Hillary has lost her “Political Capital”
Apparently the Communist/Socialist/Statists appropriated it!
Her demands border on the laughable.
It’s very embarrassing for America. You cannot just go about threatening countries unless your threats carry weight. If these are hollow words America will lose even more credibility.
I hope Obama is mad with her.
Re the posts about Hillary. “Support” for Hillary has NOTHING to do with her ideas or competence.
In the U.S.: (1) Obama gave her what she demanded — continued prominence/name-recognition/etc. for future presidential campaigning — in exchange for not sabotaging his 2008 election chances. (2) Most U.S. media loyally/blindly support anything and anybody Democratic Party and “liberal”.
International: Would you guys agree that Hillary’s international credibility, like Obama’s, accrues only to the vestiges of U.S. power/moral authority, NOT to personal or administration merit?
Does the Secretary of State job description require the applicant to be a demanding ice queen?
Condaloleezza Rice was just as bad!
Don, I have a lot of respect for the USA. The US Army helped evacuate my Great Grandfather from PNG with shrapnel wounds. Without the USA we would be a satelite of Japan.
But I hear more and more negative opinions of the USA. Your Corporate interest have scuttled international goodwill. George W Bush virtually forced Australia to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. We were either with you or against you. It is like being drawn into a bar fight because your best mate has had too much too drink and can’t keep his mouth shut. You have to back him up when the fists are thrown.
Re Rojek of Jul 08 09:27:22 : Condoleeza Rice is completely different from Hillary Clinton. Rice is a foreign policy scholar, Russian specialist I believe. Like Colin Powell, she was a Reagan pick. She is also an accomplished musician (pianist), and once (while SecState) accompanied Yo Yo Ma.
Hillary is a lawyer politician, and a particularly sleezy one at that — Pork Bellies Gate, Whitewater Gate, Immaculate Reappearance (subpoenaed documents) Gate, Suicide Gate, FBI Gate, Blue Dress Gate. etc. As “co-president”, she demanded and got control of “domestic policy” until her healthcare legislation was trashed by DEMOCRATIC congressional leadership. Both Hillary and Bill disdained foreign policy and held the military and law enforcement in contempt.
Bush-Powell-Rice foreign policy was quite different from Obama’s-Clinton’s, but that is another story.
Perhaps Condoleezza had a tough job and had to “appear” tough. I was trying to compare the bully stare down during foreign policy discussions and speeches. I agree Hillary is jockeying for a future Presidency.
In John’s next post he says the USA has to work with its international partners to solve its fiscal issues. Hillary’s actions now are setting the stage for her political failure in the future, whe. She’ll need all the cooperation she will get.
Or alternatively, for US-optimists like Ambrose Evans-Pritchard (or more likely desperate to find a safe haven country, or fearful that the world order might unravel without a strong US), an opportunity for the US to get back on track (as the gentle kick in the butt will not erase the fact that the US is still a potentially enormously self-reliant & resource rich country, and without catastrophic demographics).
I agree with you. It is a chance for the US to get back on track.
By the way, what happened to AEP? Was he driven to despair by the “total impasse” he mentioned in one of his last posts? I myself actually, after many years of hope, came to believe that unless something significant happens, we’ll soon stick a fork in this EZ-thing (then again, this might be a contrarian indicator).
Two week absence?
Maybe he went on holiday.
AZIZ, et al. PLEASE advise what you see as “the U.S. back on track”!
Basically I was talking about what AEP said, relevant to my quote from Aziz’s post:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/8802462/Protectionism-beckons-as-leaders-push-world-into-Depression.html
Pingback: Guest Post: “Russia And China Will Pay A Price” | TheTradersWire.com
There are no more chancies…. it’s wayyyyy too late.
Pingback: Guest Post: “Russia And China Will Pay A Price” » A Taoistmonk's Life
Pingback: Guest Post: "Russia And China Will Pay A Price" » Since 1998 Hitrust.net = Privacy and Protection
Pingback: “Russia and China Will Pay a Price” « Financial Survival Network
Pingback: Hegemon Blurts: “Russia and China Will Pay a Price”
Stop warmongering or taking cheap shots. If you don’t see a way to force China and Russia to our will then just say so. Get out of the power business and with the money you save on defense you can easily take care of mutalizing our healthcare and pension schemes.
Regretably social-security and health-care are so screwed that even the whole defense budget won’t sufficie to fund them, certainly not in the mid-term.
I would have much more respect for the Democratic party if they made that their priority.
Consider Libya, while Gaddafi wasn’t a Mother Teresa, those who took his place are not girl scouts either.
From human point of view I do not see an improvement. It might actually become even worse if some of the reports about a foundementalist and jiahdist agendas are correct.
From “Western” self-interest point of view Libya wasn’t a success either. At best the oil will flow out of Libya for the same prices and volumes as under Gaddafi.
There was a lot more to Gaddafis death than we were told.I posted about it a while ago.He provided a convenient demon at the time.
Agree with you, oil and other resources is what its all about.
Why does the USA have to think for the entire world? Can’t Russia and China think how they wish? We now don’t stand for bullies in our schools and I think the rest of the world is getting sick and tired of the USA bully. I’m proud to be an American, but I’m not proud to be a killer of people (women & children included) all over the world.
The USA says it wants peace, but only if you think and agree with the USA, otherwise we will bring you into line.
The wicked witch of the west continues to cast her evil spell.I am sure one day I will turn on the TV to see her stood at a dock sending aircraft carriers into battle screaming “fly my pretty’s fly”
Pingback: Guest Post: "Russia And China Will Pay A Price" | Offshore, gold, anarchy, privacy anti-big-brother
Pingback: Hillary Clinton: Russia & China will 'pay price' for supporting Assad - Vid - ALIPAC
Syria is becoming a Sunni/Shia proxy war. Russia and China have clearly aligned themselves with the Shia (for now) and we are de facto aligned with the Sunnis (tough break…) because our relationship with the KSA.
Russia and China are going to “pay a price” for not insisting that Assad stand down and allow the chaotic balkanization of another Middle East post-Colonial pseudo-nation.
After Syria, who stands in the way of a Grand Bargain between Israel and the Middle East? And then there was Iran…
Don’t pay attention to what people say, instead, to what they do.
The United States is a military empire with “bases” in 140 + /- countries. It would seem to me, that what she is saying is EXACTLY what you would say when this is the case.
The United States is what it is because this country has not refrained from using its military might.
This is not to cast judgement but only comment on her statements. If the game is power, then you use it when you have it.
Pingback: “Russia and China Will Pay a Price” [Azizonomics] « Mktgeist blog
I think you have quite widely missed the point.
Hilary isn’t saying “I’m going to get China/Russia for this”
Shes saying to the Germans and their hangers on who bombard the UNSC with demands that America solves the situation, that they (Germany and Co) are going to have to do the lifting.
And not like Libya, where the US was still doing nearly everything up until the last day.
At the end of the day, Russias support for Assad is pretty weak, if Germany REALLY wanted to, it could propose the EU breaks its trade agreements with Russia, and use bailouts ECB policy to lever the others into line.
Russia would buckle, but would remember German interference.
But it wont, because that would entail Germany stumps up some cash and political capital, and its easier to sit at the back and blame everyone else, America for not stopping Assad, America for killing the cleaner when it bombs Assads compound……
China would be harmed by the same, and is far more vulnerable militarily.
If the Euroweeneies were REALLY that bothered about chinese support, they could stump up the cash for privateers to loot chinese shipping in the Indian Ocean.
But they wont, because its easier to support the Annan Plan, because that looks like doing something, and is free
TrT,
Just looks like a bald threat to me. USA’s global military strategy is still broadly aimed at containing China and Russia (which is completely failing as USA is dependent on their treasury-buying and goods-and-components exports).
Germany has no interest in Russia turning off the gas tap. Only thing you’ll get from Europe in this case is hot air. If Hillary thinks that the global community can pressure Russia and China into backing down, she’s dreaming. Export-driven creditor nations get their way far more than lazy debtor nations.
We now live in a world where you can get more honest coverage, that asks hard questions, of American politics from RUSSIA TODAY than you can from the American main stream media. You could not make this stuff up!
If you want to know what is going on in China and Russia watch CNN if you want to know what’s going on in the United States watch RT, Aljazeera and Media of China.
That would only make sense. Do you believe that the English Kings in the 13th century were telling their subjects the entire truth vis a vis their relationship with the Welsh? the French?
This is the way it always has been, and most likely, will always be; and most people well-understand and accept it. It’s not necessarily that people are ignorant, instead, they simply choose to live their own lives without having to constantly concern themselves with the bullshit [lying, cheating, defrauding, outright stealing, i.e., those attributes which essentially define the ruling classes] that has gone on from the beginning of time.
It’s not an unreasonable option to embrace, if you think about it.
Imp.: It’s not unreasonable IF you are willing or forced to be ruled. Chinese, Russians and Arabs are substantially forced, but we who are free better start resisting if we want to remain free! Hello “tea parties” in the U.S.
I thought the Tea Parties were a great thing for democracy. But then some Democrat provocateurs wearing stupid oversized carnival hats in the colours of the USA flag made the legitimate fears and concerns of the legitimate Tea Party attendees look ridiculous and zany.
All protesters should dress in their Sunday best, and refrain from profanity and extreme emotions, otherwise they get victimised as radicals and lunatics.
OWS had the same issues. Badly dressed and unkempt appearances, combined with chanting is a recipe for people to marginalise and ridicule.
Can you imagine if the silent majority silently marched into the den of thieves?
Reply to Rojek of Jul 08 10:11:53 : Are you keen on Tea Parties, OWS, both, or neither?
I am a “member” (no card, dues, loyalty oath) of “Texas Patriots PAC”, formerly named Texas Patriots Tea Party”, . Our only creed is “Limited Constitutional Government, Free Markets, and Fiscal Responsibility”. This is true “grass roots” (bottom-up) activism, and it works. Our (we cover only a small part of Texas) favorite candidates have won every primary election so far. Nationally, starting in 2010, the Republican party (rank and file, not the old timer politicians) has been invigorated — look at the fresh faces in Governorships, the House of Representatives, and even a few (so far) in the Senate. [A long story short: Washington, D.C. and state capital lobbyists have the money for the big campaigns, especially senior (powerful) congressmen. We do better in House districts and state and local elections].
As far as I know, no political Party, media or other ideological critic has ever caught any of the multitude of independent “tea parties”, or their predecessor rallies, in violence, littering, lawbreaking (even lacking local permits), profanity, obscenity, etc.
I not in the USA but I am inclined to support the ideals of the Tea Party. I think OWS has shown lack of restraint and conservatism. This has allowed detractors to ridicule them as Hippies.
Yes, pretty amazing isn’t it, RT is kind of like Radio Moscow during the Cold War, and it comes free with cable TV where I live, no faraway sounding shortwave signals needed. Just don’t look for any coverage of Putin’s nasty deeds on it.
A friend of mine did an internship at one of RT’s offices in the UK and apparently they have a picture of Putin on the wall…
The solution [to gain freedom from] institutional oppression is not in embracing an alternate institution [as they are all (essentially) the same], but instead, in transcending the notion of freedom.
Just as we can not stay young forever, or figure-out much of anything, we will never be “free.” There is no such thing. This is human fantasy.
Freedom is to social man what the after-life to religious man, elegantly packaged hopium for those unwilling to accept that which is right before their eyes.
Imp.: Hey, friend — don’t surrender to FATALism! “Half a loaf (and growing) is better than none”.
Indeed we humans are never TOTALLY free (nor would most of us WISH to be free of relationships and responsibilities); but there are enormous differences in relative freedom, in our ascent from savages, peasants, etc. and currently in South Korea vs. North Korea.
We stay young and live LONGER, especially if we personally follow modern wellness knowledge. We have figured out a helluva lot, and more every day.
Ol’ Thomas Jefferson wrote “I have sworn upon the altar of God* eternal hostility against every form of tyranny** over the mind of man”. He never eradicated tyranny, but he fought and helped win a lot of battles.
* You or I may not, but he believed in God and took his oath seriously. We are the beneficiaries.
** Tyranny is, of course, the opposite freedom.
A typo — the ** should read “……..the opposite of tyranny.”
Sorry — goofed again: ” …. the opposite of freedom.”
Fatalism? I guess you could look at it in that context, but why the drama?
I am not saying that you should not do what you can on an individual basis, but we must all operate under existing conditions. Life rarely cedes to our ideal paradigm shift.
This is why one must make peace with oneself, as only then will you be able to deal with the outside with relative equanimity. Be it Paradise or raging Hell [life], keeping it together inside will allow you the see the truth and react with the greatest efficacy.
After all, DG, what else can one do?
React with the greatest efficacy to accomplish what? Seems to me like a rather hollow life philosophy that isn’t saying much.
Pingback: The Real Fiscal Cliff « azizonomics
The Chinese Premier says: From Market Watch
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/chinas-premier-warns-of-more-hardship-ahead-2012-07-15?Link=obinsite
– The premier, who is due to step down from office early next year, also called for a greater policy focus on the logistics industry, saying that “smooth logistics can boost consumption, which will then help enlarge production,”
Reminds me of Hitler and his Autobahn and Rail networks eastward. I am going to keep an eye on this. Road and Rail infrastructure developments are a natural Keynesian policy response to a collapse in Aggregate demand (And particularly for China – Net exports)
But Credit to China. They are doing the right policy response in that the spending will boost the long term efficiency of the nation.
Pingback: Why I Still Fear Inflation « azizonomics
Pingback: Guest Post: Why I Still Fear Inflation » Since 1998 Hitrust.net = Privacy and Protection
Pingback: Guest Post: Why I Still Fear Inflation » A Taoistmonk's Life
Shrillery Clinton wants War so much Arm her up let her go die fighting for Regime Change instead of our Kids dying in battles that do not concern USA or anyone else for that matter Iraq Libya now Syria yet you hear any mention of maynma Muslims Atrocities?
Remember — Hillery is in the Obama administration.
Pingback: The Last Thing We Need To Worry About? « azizonomics