Russian Navy Ignored in Presidential Debate

By Physicians for Civil  Defense, Special for  USDR

While Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump sparred in Las Vegas in the third Presidential debate on Oct 20, 10 vessels from Vladimir Putin’s fleet were preparing a pincer move in the English Channel, according toan article in The Sun, which was featured in the Drudge Report. An ad on Drudge accompanying the article referred to “The Good News about Nuclear Destruction.”

Candidate Clinton referred to Putin’s “attempt to interfere in the American election”—allegedly by hacking emails and turning them over to WikiLeaks. (The context was a question concerning a $225,000 speech Clinton made to a Brazilian bank.) Candidate Trump responded with a reference to Russia’s 1,800 nuclear warheads: “They expanded and we didn’t.” He accused Clinton of “playing chicken” with Russia in the Middle East.

Clinton advocated a “no-fly” zone within Syria to exert “leverage” on the Russians and the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad.

Jets taking off from the Russian flotilla in the North Sea were carrying out training drills before heading for Syria, where Russians are bombing anti-Assad forces in Aleppo. The Royal Navy will “man-mark” the ships and shadow them to the Straits of Gibraltar. Russian military insiders say the action “marks a first step towards Russia asserting its dominance in the Mediterranean,” states The Sun.

Trump stated that NATO and other U.S. allies need to pay the cost of their defense. Clinton accused Trump of wanting to break up NATO, and she pledged to “work with our allies.” Meanwhile, defense expert for Russian news agency RIA, Alexander Khrolenko, warned that the balance of power was shifting away from NATO in the Mediterranean.

As war tensions rise, the “Good News” is not a Dr. Strangelove spoof but rather an article about the fact that most people can survive the war into which politicians seem to be plunging us. However, survival will depend on individuals because of denial of the problem at the highest levels, including the U.S. Department of State under Clinton and her successor.

“The debate may be most notable for the implications of what was not said by either candidate: the utter lack of civilian preparedness for the outcome of events now unfolding,” said Jane Orient, M.D., president of Physicians for Civil Defense.

Physicians for Civil Defense distributes information to help to save lives in the event of war or other disaster.

SOURCE Physicians for Civil  Defense

All opinions expressed on USDR are those of the author and not necessarily those of US Daily Review.