Is this a good or bad thing, or somewhere in between. Two years ago they were our mortal enemy. I would think a much improved relationship with Russia would be good or am I being too simplistic. Your thoughts?
I think that “two years ago, they were our mortal enemy” is also too simplistic (and inaccurate). The U.S. has been at odds with Putin’s government on a number of issues over the past few years (including the Ukraine, and Russia’s computer hacking), but “mortal enemy” isn’t even close, IMO.
Would it be better if the U.S. and Russia were on a more positive footing? Certainly, if for no other reason than they’re still the two biggest nuclear powers, and two of the biggest military powers, in the world (not sure where China would be ranked), and lower tensions between the two countries would be a good thing for everyone.
However, if improved relations with Russia amount to “go ahead and keep doing what you guys are doing, we’re totally cool with you guys taking over territory and apparently trying to influence our elections and hack our government’s computer systems”, then, no, it’s probably not a good thing, for the U.S.
A relationship with a pro-democracy, free non-monopolistic market facing, humanitarian-focused Russian president and government would be fantastic, a historic fusion that could work together to make all of Europe and Central Asia a developed, economically unified federation in which internal social and political disagreements were dealt with using fair diplomacy rather than strife and warfare. Unfortunately, the opportunity for this passed by nearly twenty-five years ago when US foreign policy under Bush and then Clinton took a primarily “wait and see” approach to supporting Boris Yeltsin, failing to provide support to the faltering Russian economy when falling oil prices and internal conflicts with former CPSU hardliners on economic transformation and privatization policies resulted in a collapse of the Russian economy and the free grab of formerly state-run energy, manufacturing, telecommunications, and finance institutions by a small group of corrupt oligarchs.
The current Russian Federation is essentially run as dictatorship by Vladimir Putin. You know, the guy who stole a Super Bowl ring from Robert Kraft just to show that he could. The guy whose political opponents and detractors have died in various unexplained accidents, murders, and poisonings. The guy who invaded the Crimea under a false flag operation intended to get a foothold on the Ukraine. They guy whose United Russia party has been accused by objective international election observers as orchestrating widespread electoral fraud. Putin, who has endorsed Trump, is widely suspected of using Russian state intelligence capabilities to hack the servers of the Democratic National Committee and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee servers and then release that information in an effort to skew the 2016 US national election.
We should welcome a closer relationship with Russia in the same way a prostitute should embrace her pimp; because he tells her what to do while living off of her earnings and occasionally beating the shit out of her to keep her from getting as far away from his toxic manipulation as possible.
Stranger
Thanks for the response. The “mortal enemy” remark was an exaggeration. My point is that they might show some more restraint because of Trump than they might have from Obama.
Disclaimer: Did not vote for Trump.
But why?
Russia will act in whatever they perceive their best interests to be. How do you think Trump as President will cause them to behave with more restraint?
People keep saying “Good relations” with Russia or China and praising that as a good thing, without being specific. Does this mean overlooking Russian aggression against Ukraine and saying “That’s all fine and good, we’ll pretend it didn’t happen?” Does it mean allowing China to claim the South China Sea in its entirety (which it does?) Does it mean tolerating cyberattacks?
Trump has no experience and a wonky (so far) cabinet; it does not appear that he’s going to have the deep savvy and skill to play pressure games against China and Russia to keep them from making aggressive moves. Putin is going to move in his sphere, and the Chinese in Southeast Asia, and instead of a skilled and knowledgeable watchdog/opponent (as we are now and have been for decades), they will be up against an inept, ignorant administration that can be played like a violin.
Trump will be able to (1) bluster mightily or (2) greatly overreach, to the point of ill-advised military strikes and even nukes. No game in between.
I don’t know, that’s why I’m asking the question. I know I’m being simplistic, but if a friend ask you to stop doing something, wouldn’t you be more inclined to stop than someone you could give a shit about?
…um… band name?
Definitely punk.
To mangle the first rule of foreign relations, Russia has no lasting friends, they just have lasting interests.
The idea that if we were nicer, Russia would stop doing bad stuff, is as naive as thinking that an alcoholic will reform himself if people just asked more nicely.
They are quite restrained as is. It is the US that is doing the pushing.
Like what ‘bad stuff’ exactly?
Invading Georgia and Ukraine, attempting to influence American elections, murdering journalists, and so on.
Putin doesn’t have friends. He has people he can use. To some extent that is inevitable with the realities of international politics.
And I suspect Trump thinks much the same about business, but he may be overestimating his ability to get one over Putin.
Countries do not have friends. Forget Putin; it doesn’t matter who’s in charge. Countries have national interests, and they pursue them.
The US isn’t friends with the UK?
If President Trump asks the Russians to withdraw its troops from Ukraine and they do it, I’ll publicly admit I was wrong about Trump’s ability to handle foreign affairs.
I tend to disagree. It does matter that Putin is in charge in Russia. He’s developed a program of quieting opposition to his domestic policies by promoting an aggressive foreign policy. The invasion of Ukraine was as much an issue of what was in Putin’s best interests as it was what was in Russia’s best interests.
Agreed - leaders matter. A President Gore would likely not have invaded Iraq in 2003. A President Dukakis might not have thought that military force was necessary in response to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Hell, a President McClellan might have cut his losses and signed a treaty recognizing the Confederate States of America and ended the Civil War then and there. Leaders overlay their own policy goals and perceptions of their country’s interests onto whatever those interests might be at that given point in time.