Guest Post: "Russia And China Will Pay A Price"

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by John Aziz of Azizonomics,

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.

From RT:

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.

As I noted back in February:

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.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Scalaris's picture

A simple recipe; build a system that infuses propaganda at every level, starting from the early days of pre-primary education. Fuse a dominant religious system with the abstract notion of a made-to-fit-logic notion of allegiance to a flag, thereby making it a moral/sacred/incontestable duty for the majority of the lower socio-political classes to subconsciously forge a bond with their land and government, through an ethnocentric sentiment, and to eventually align their own personal ego, with the ego/pride of the collective groups being represented by said government.

Same recipe was applied for centuries, admittedly with more ease, to the subjects genuflecting their King of their Realm, while being provided verification through the indisputable legitimization of their master's reign through their own religious system, declaring that as long there is the saying of "by the grace of God, King of some-tribe", all is as they should.

Centuries later, things are as analogous, with the authority being not a King, but an administration of delegates, representing the capital which bankrolls their own "reign", while masking their power with a veil of public approval through wilful choice, thusly strengthening further the notion of belonging to a homeland which represents the same voters who control its very administration, making it even more difficult for an objective observant to question its motives, without being branded as an "non-patriot".

Ironically, the path to profiteering through the ignorance of its own subjects, caused a gradual disintegration of its own importance, leaving its masses with a feeling of complacency and indifference, while wasting their meagre stipend to the machine of commercialization and express food industry, causing the reduction of the pool for those who are both able and willing to defend their land with a true sense of patriotism, and for the remainder of those with a much weakening feeling of ethnocentric disillusionment, to be lured with financial motives that gratify a sense of perverse duty, for the defence of a non-existent enemy.

In conclusion, the ascension of middle classes implies a certain level of higher education for a percentage of its group, and with a newfound level of informational knowledge, subjects are starting to question legitimacies of Gods and purposes, contributing to the undermining of the authority and its actions. For this reason, social underclasses will always be needed to maintain a percentage of any republic's malleable voting base, while the expansion of middle class is kept at bay, due to the limits maintained by the necessary safeguard imposition.

francis_sawyer's picture

I'm still leaning towards the "Hugo Drax" approach & launching 6 Moonrakers into space...

palmereldritch's picture

Speaking of choices, looks like military conscription in China has softened recently:

The amendment seems to refer to an amendment presented at the end of June, which is aimed at recruiting more college graduates to the military. An article published on 28 June in reads:

“China's top legislature Monday started reviewing a draft amendment to the country's military conscription law for the first time in 13 years with the purpose of recruiting more college students.

Time to put that college programming...errr... education to work, no?

And you really shouldn't be so critical.  Because where would the PLA be without good Ol' Uncle Sam?


boattrash's picture

Peter Pan, are you speaking of that daughter that is the "spittin image" of Web Hubble?

A Nanny Moose's picture

$16T in debt, I would say we have yet to pay a dime for anything.

TwoShortPlanks's picture

And my cheque's in the mail too...I swear!

Paul Bogdanich's picture

I would be very careful before discounting these remarks when reminded of the despearte straights the administration is in concerning re-election.  As the author him or herself says,

"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?" 

If we replace the term "force the American agenda" with the phrase "to get re-elected and retain her power" to clarify the meaning of the statment I would think regional war at least.  These people are truly dangerous and one forgets or minimizes that at one's own peril.     

EverythingEviL's picture

Finally someone with some logic other than, "China and Russia will not stand for this!" they may not have a choice

Hedgetard55's picture

The Secretary of Skeez is one skanky ho, eh? Guess she wants the Muslim Brotherhood and her lover's mother to take over Syria also.

El's picture

Predator? Laughing hysterically...sweetie...Slick Willie was prey and Hillary has always worn the pants in that family.

Vampyroteuthis infernalis's picture

Hillary was too busy snuggling up to Janet Reno. She cared less what Slick Willie ever did.

Temporalist's picture

it's a good thing I didn't read that on a full stomach

CitizenPete's picture

That's the only positive I can think of for her too. 

Schmuck Raker's picture

Are you funkin' retarded?

She's a lawyer.

Capitalize "Progressive" as often as you will, it doesn't suck all of us into your narrow, "bi-centric" arguments.

Lucky Guesst's picture

 Ummm she said she was a progressive but the bitch lies so you might be right.

Presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton ran away from the "liberal” tag during Monday night’s Democratic debate, claiming instead that she is a "progressive.”

caconhma's picture

Hillary fits perfectly into the Obama administration. They are both extremely arrogant and corrupt frauds & liars, and absolutely incompetent for perform their jobs. It is a perfect combination for a US national and world catastrophe.

Unfortunately, Zionist-controlled socialist America is very sick.

AnAnonymous's picture

Hillary is the Progressive wife of a sexual predator President.


Hillary Clinton is a US citizen.

mick_richfield's picture

Hillary Clinton, like many of the most powerful 'elected' and unelected people in the US are undeclared agents of a globalist transnational power.

geno-econ's picture

Thought Hillary knew how to keep her mouth shut

salvadordaly's picture

I wouldn't say desperation, I would say more like "need to start WWlll before an election".

There I fixed it for you!

FEDbuster's picture

WW3 before a worldwide economic collapse.  Solves the youth unemployment problem and thins the herd.

Skateboarder's picture

There will be nothing left to collapse if WW3 goes down...

FEDbuster's picture

That's not what "they" think. 

Time to re-read "The Road".

Harbanger's picture

WW3 B4 an economic collapse?  Hmmm...No, not before an economic collapse, it'll never happen.  We need a collapse 1st to motivate the herd into defending the establishment.  Modern Yoots can't and won't ever decide on anything unless it's told to them.  Being "labeled" as something is worse than dying.  They'll never admit it.

torak's picture

Who will pay for my Social Security? 

/sarc off

FEDbuster's picture

As long as they can issue credits, you will get your auto deposit.  It might not buy anything, but you will get your credits deposited into your checking account.

azzhatter's picture

you will be issued spending units. If you are diligent and save your units up you can buy a loaf of bread every other month

john39's picture

they thought that they could bully a Syria intervention through the U.N. security counsel.  They assumed that China and Russia would roll over and abstain.  the NWO appears to be losing the power to intimidate China and Russia.  makes you wonder what has happened behind the scenes.

delacroix's picture

the hubris bubble, is even bigger than the bond bubble.

Coke and Hookers's picture

You're probably correct. It has worked before so they thought it would work again. The fact that it didn't work now is geopolitically significant. It seems Putin and the Chinese are taking their gloves off and we are in fact looking at a new cold war right now. This time the enemy is not communism but everybody resisting political globalization. It's like the Politburo moved to Washington and are running ops from there.

Seer's picture

"makes you wonder what has happened behind the scenes."

Oh, no!  It's all out in the open.  The US is fucking broke!  It's a pitiful yapping dog.

Russia has exports (energy) and China holds US Treasuries.

I'm sure the CUNT (yes, I use this term in the most highly discriminatory way) and the rest of the neocons will be able to round up a bunch of gullible fuckers to catch bullets, but the time is drawing to a close where they'll be able to consider this shit again.

Harbanger's picture

I've been reading some of your comments as a matter of course.  Please hedge at least 10% against yourself.

Element's picture

What's happened is military and geopolitical leverage.

They can do stuff, like turn Afghanistan into an asymmetric proxy version of 21st century Stalingrad, and decapitate or pin down a significant chunk of the Western military's best expeditionary bits.

Even if they didn't get wiped-out (and I hope they don't), they would get such a grizzly thrashing and retreat in such disorder and appalling loss and haste, that the effects and affects, would be as bad, if not worse, than getting cut-off, surrounded and old-fashioned Little-Big-Horned.

Basically, the US and NATO could be thus forced to sue for cease-fire, and to in a very real sense, beg terms for mass withdrawal of their thus surrendered forces. 

Let's not forget, Iran and Venezuela can turn most of the oil flow off, or greatly reduce it, and in such a fight - they would.

The whole Western Allied military 'power-tripping' thing ultimately stands on very shaky grounds, from here on.

francis_sawyer's picture

Oh but wait... The US Navy is going to $26 a barrel 'green' biofuel, so we're saved!

flying dutchmen's picture

these threats might be somewhat hollow,  but if you dont agree with them you are pretty much an asshole..  who in their right mind would agree with syrian tactics..  Zero hedge has a lot of negative posters who probably live in North America, will if you were pretty much any other place in the world they would censor you and i guess in Syria they might just shoot you. The world is a little fucked up but at least we live on the greatest continent...



john39's picture

Sean Hannity, is that you?

economics9698's picture

In America we lose our jobs if we are not politically correct.  The killing will come later.

sullymandias's picture

CIA will kill anyone in the world they please. And you no like Syria?

Precious's picture

Hillary Clinton should take her baskeball and go home.

steelrules's picture


The US created and used Al Qaeda against the Russians in Afganistan, then used them against Libya and now they are being used in Syria.

 Only 2 questions need to be asked did the US use them on 911 and who is the worlds biggest terrorist government?

otto skorzeny's picture

the US army is looking for a few good queers to fight their empirical wars- go join up- tough guy-I'll keep the home fires burning

Seer's picture

Aren't you the macho one!

The Alarmist's picture

I think you mean "imperial wars," or is that a clever twist the rest of us don't get?