Fact is that the highest military officer of the United States has pronounced himself clearly against Clinton’s idea of a no-fly zone over Syria which she said she would immediately enact after being president, while back in 2013 she has said about the same idea:
—A no-fly zone over Syria would mean the death of uncountable Syrians.
It is not the first time that Clinton changed her opinions so drastically, for as we all know, her husband did the same.
So Trump has just repeated what this high military officer said which in summary is:
—A no-fly zone over Syria implicitly compels the Russians to back off in Syria for protecting the Assad regime. This would clearly be a cause of WW3.
If we follow what Putin said over the last 2 years or so, this is absolutely correct and realistic as an assessment.
Also see that President Obama voiced criticism at Clinton and a no-fly zone fully identifying with the statement of the military commander as a realistic assessment of today’s political reality.
As always, the solution is easy but it’s habitual thinking, ingrained habits and grandiloquous strategies that prevent easy solution from manifesting in political life around the globe.
The United States and Nato need to declare a change of strategy in Syria to make a compromise with Russia that will have positive consequences for all parties involved. They have to back down with the intention to oust the Assad regime. That’s the only and quite easy-to-do concession they have to make in order to gain Russia’s collaboration, and it’s so much the more appealing to me as it is in full conformity with international law. Why?
To oust a regime or a sovereign state is always critical under Article II, 2 United Nations Charter for it represents an interference in the internal affairs of a foreign sovereign state. Humanitarian considerations are on a different plane, they are not under presently valid international law a cause for ousting a regime without violating the basic foundation of international law which is the principle of sovereignty.
I have clearly stated in my books that sovereignty is an outdated and peace-impeaching paradigm but it is unfortunately still our current world order.
So as this is still the basic principle of international law, Nato was from the start wrong with the idea of ousting the Assad regime and Russia was from the start right in wanting to not interfere—but they are of course not right in terms of the humanitarian agenda when it goes to practically defend that regime. Here is where Putin, too, overstepped the line.
Thus, as both parties could admit their mistakes, a basic line of cooperation is to make out on which Trump and Putin could agree. And honestly, my intuition tells me they WILL agree on that if against all the odds Trump is elected.