For many outside the U.S., the run-up to that country's presidential election appears to be some kind of made-for-TV soap opera. It seems Bernie Sanders was always destined not to win the Democratic Party nomination. It seemed a sure-fire bet that Clinton would.
Clinton, who presses for more attacks on Syria and who sanctions the destabilisation of that sovereign state (see previous link).
And this doesn't even account for Trump, someone who elicits the response of "Only in America!" as the rest of the world looks on with more than a hint of trepidation. One of the things in his favour, however, unlike Clinton, is that he wants to rebuild relations with Russia.
But Trump was always destined to be little more than the fall guy to get Clinton elected. While Trump has his loyal followers, the assumption was that the floating voter would never support such a figure and that Clinton would be a relatively safer bet.
Political analyst Ron Horn argues, Clinton was always the deep state's choice and she was always going to win - by hook or by crook.
So what will the U.S. voter give to the rest of the world by voting in a handmaiden of empire?
What will we, the global public, have to thank the U.S. voter for?
A voter spoonfed and indoctrinated with a diet of CNN/Fox fear-based propaganda about 'Russian aggression' and Islamic terror as well as the U.S.'s role in exporting 'freedom and democracy' to the smoking ruins it helped create in Syria, Libya, Iraq or Afghanistan?
What we will get is what we already have: a trajectory towards a nuclear precipice and, along the way, a continuation of the steely grip of freedom around the necks of weaker states who refuse to bow to U.S. hegemony.
Washington was behind the coup in Ukraine and is now escalating tensions by placing troops and missiles in Europe. The ultimate aim is to de-link Europe's economy from Russia and weaken Russia's energy dependent economy and to also ensure Europe remains subservient to Washington, not least via the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and in the long term via U.S. gas and Middle East oil (sold in dollars, thereby boosting the strength of the currency upon which U.S. global hegemony rests).
As with Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and now Syria, or the much less publicised death and plunder in the Democratic Republic of Congo which Washington and London fuels for its corporations, U.S. foreign policy leaves a trail of death and devastation in its wake. The U.S. has effectively become a 'destroyer of nations'.
The game plan is to destroy Russia as a functioning state or to permanently weaken it so it submits to U.S. hegemony. Washington believes it can actually win a nuclear conflict with Russia. It no longer regards nuclear weapons as a last resort but part of a conventional theatre of war and is willing to use them for pre-emptive strikes.
The situation in Syria is most worrying of all. Another theatre of conflict instigated by the U.S. that now sees it and Russia facing each other directly, with Moscow warning the U.S. about the consequences of its aggression: possible nuclear war.
Washington presses ahead regardless. In the meantime, Russia and China undermine dollar hegemony by trading oil and gas and goods in roubles and other currencies. And history shows that whenever a country threatens the dollar, the U.S. does not idly stand by.
Most U.S. voters seem to believe the lies being fed to them: A public that is encouraged to regard what is happening in Syria, Iraq, Ukraine, Afghanistan and Libya as a disconnected array of events in need of Western intervention based on bogus notions of 'humanitarianism' or a 'war on terror', rather than the planned machinations of empire.
And what of Europe? Former U.S. government official Paul Craig Roberts says a senior U.S. government official told him in the 1970s, when referring to top European leaders, "We own them, they belong to us."
That ownership is clear to see as Europe's politicians lie to their public by dragging Europe into conflicts not of its choosing.
Could it be that the U.S. will sleepwalk the world towards humanity's final war?
Could it be that the hawks in Washington would rather gamble on taking Russia (and China) out while risking all life on the planet?
After all, why would they be any different from their predecessors who appeared to place no value on the lives of hundreds of millions of ordinary people who lived in the former Soviet Union and in Eastern Europe? They were prepared to annihilate vast swaths of humanity with a preemptive nuclear strike.
That mindset persists among the modern-day guardians of empire who continue to display no regard for human life whatsoever. We can hope that the U.S. public finally wake up to the situation. But what chance of that? A public fed a prime-time TV soap opera script based on personality politics revolving around Trump's dodgy past or Clinton's health or integrity, while remaining blissfully ignorant of the real possibility of nuclear war breaking out in Syria.
We can of course hope that diplomacy and sanity prevails.
Unfortunately, the more likely option at this moment is that, in Syria, Russia offers a sufficient enough deterrent to force the Pentagon and the White House to reconsider the course it is on.
Follow HuffPost Canada Blogs on Facebook
Also on HuffPost: