Had Hillary Clinton won the election, Russia would have never been the same. There would have been, with great likelihood, a war with Russia and then transformed it into a puppet state. Or another solution to disrupt the regime.
Germany as a puppet state
My regular readers know it so if you don’t, please don’t stop the reading.
The German Empire wasn’t defeated in WW1 completely, so they regrouped and the same banking dynasties and super-rich wanted the same – even if it should be a war.
So Hitler consolidated the power nobody has ever wanted and they lost the war – completely, therefore left Germany as a prey for foreing powers.
Germany now
Their leader is permanently wiretapped by the CIA (they only claimed it was temporary), their chancellor has little power. Germany is controlled by USA, French and the UK parts (economically).
Of course, Germans came with their own oligarchy but it still cannot match with the aforementioned.
Germany may want but cannot get a nuclear power because that would reshape the world order.
Hillary Clinton and her close ties to the super-rich controlling America
This is not a conspiracy in any way. Mainstream media wrote it, of course not flat-out, it went like “connections to Wall Street”.
Hillary Clinton, likely the most skilled person who has ever run for office, would manage the interest groups (which they wanted themselves). She would have consolidated the power and reshaped the whole US political process entirely.
Hillary Clinton and war with Russia
I have been told when asking what army is the strongest (and it was before the catastrophic performance of the Russian army in Russo-Ukrainian war) that US has the strongest army by a landslide, then is nothing, blank space, then comes Russian and China.
Hillary Clinton was fearless, knowing the huge advantage US would have had in a war with Russia.
The first shockwave
In the first shockwave of a US-Russian war, American forces would strike Russia’s command centers, radar stations, and military headquarters. Cruise missiles, stealth bombers, and coordinated cyberattacks would dismantle key communication nodes within hours. Russian field units would suddenly find themselves blind and confused, unable to receive fresh orders.
At the same time, Russia’s satellites would come under attack. GLONASS, the system Russia relies on for navigation and targeting, would be jammed or partially destroyed. With their battlefield communication paralyzed, many Russian units would struggle to regroup or coordinate any meaningful defense.
The US Air Force would move swiftly to seize control of the skies. Russian airbases would be bombed relentlessly. Many aircraft would be caught on the ground, burning before they could even take off. Russia’s air defense network, though formidable on paper, would be overwhelmed before it could organize an effective response.
Naval response
Naval warfare would erupt immediately around Russia’s coastal regions. The US Navy, with overwhelming superiority, would strike Russia’s Black Sea and Baltic fleets. Russian naval power would suffer devastating losses in the first days, further weakening the country’s ability to project force or defend its own coasts.
American attacks would also target Russia’s logistics lifelines. Fuel depots, military warehouses, and railroad hubs would become priority targets. With key supplies cut off, Russian ground forces would quickly face shortages of fuel, ammunition, and replacement parts.
In Moscow and other command centers, the psychological impact would be severe. Leadership paralysis would set in as top decision-makers faced broken communication lines, destroyed infrastructure, and growing uncertainty about the battlefield situation. Many Russian field commanders would hesitate to act without fresh orders, deepening the chaos.
War with Russia and nuclear power destruction
Russia’s nuclear forces depend on a chain of command that must stay intact: the president, the defense minister, and the chief of general staff have to approve a launch. If these figures were killed, cut off, or neutralized in the first strikes, Russia would struggle to authorize any nuclear retaliation.
Some nuclear missiles require real-time communications to unlock. Without verified codes and confirmations flowing through secure channels, the launch systems could lock themselves automatically. Even mobile nuclear units, like Russia’s road-mobile ICBMs, need authorization procedures that could be jammed or blocked electronically.
Western planners also thought that massive early cyberattacks could freeze Russia’s nuclear command systems. Viruses, electronic warfare, and jamming operations could confuse or cripple the networks linking the president to the launch facilities. If the US moved fast enough, they might “blind and deafen” Russia’s nuclear forces before the leadership could react.
Russian confusion
There was also another technical assumption. Many of Russia’s early warning radars and satellites were considered old and vulnerable. If the US destroyed these assets at the start, Russian leaders might not even understand the full scale of the attack in time to authorize a nuclear response. Confusion, broken communications, and fear of launching blindly could paralyze decision-making for critical hours.
Finally, some experts speculated that in a deep crisis, individual Russian commanders might hesitate to use nuclear weapons without absolute confirmation from Moscow. Fear of unauthorized launch consequences, personal survival instincts, or technical obstacles could slow down or block a retaliatory strike.
In short, under these theories, a perfectly timed and overwhelming US attack could — in principle — prevent Russia from using its nuclear weapons at all. Not by defeating the missiles physically, but by smashing the brains and nerves of the system before it could react.
Hillary Clinton didn’t mind the risk of war with Russia
However, and this is very important, even the best American generals and planners admitted that this would be extremely risky.
It would require near-perfect intelligence, total surprise, and flawless execution.
A single surviving Russian submarine, a single mobile launcher, or even a lower-level commander with access to launch codes could still retaliate and kill tens of millions of people.
This is why, despite thinking about it in theory, no American president ever seriously pursued a “first disarming strike” doctrine against Russia. The risk of missing even a few retaliatory weapons was simply too high.
Hillary Clinton, if not war, would have used soft power
It is not always about a war. Capitalism, as the rule of the richest, has its interconnected system of banks, families and so on.
Soft power could have averted war and changed Putin’s regime.
Conclusion
If Hillary Clinton became a president, Russia would have become a puppet state with some semi-autocratic (because Russia is not ready for democracy leader being wiretapped.
All of the economy and natural resources would be American, therefore when you are rich, you control the politicians.
Putinism as ideology would be destroyed, replaced by something else.
Putin chose to not to be indebted by banks, therefore averting their influence.
And if a military solution would be excluded, Putin’s Russia would likely be over.
By the way, France, without the genius of Charles de Gaulle, would have been a puppet state just like Germany. But it is not.
Leave a Reply