The future of U.S.-Russian relations

by **Turtleneck** 2016-12-12, 13:12

This thread is a safe space for those wanting to have a general discussion about U.S.-Russian relations outside the context of the election.

I was reading this article over the weekend and thought a larger discussion about U.S.-Russian relations might be of interest. The article invites a challenge to history as it has been told on the pages tBin. I have seen quite a few comments about Democrats catering to Russia. That does not seem to be a factual interpretation of history. For starters, Bill Clinton was an enthusiastic supporter of NATO expansion. Many argue that NATO expansion is what provoked Russian aggression from the Georgian war through the present. Flash forward to the present, and it seems the Obama administration thumbed its nose at Russia and was less than cooperative.

As it happens, Obama felt no personal warmth for either Putin or Medvedev, despite all Medvedev’s attempts to be friends with his U.S. counterpart, as Putin and Bush had once been for a time. The White House’s open disdain for the new Russian leader did not help: Senior U.S. officials mocked Medvedev’s gadget mania in front of reporters, saying, “Maybe we won’t sign a deal. Maybe we’ll just send him a text message.”

Medvedev did desperately want to sign the nuclear arms deals, but diplomats on both sides could not settle the details. In the end, an agreement was finally signed, but it was an empty shell — more an opportunity for a photo shoot in front of Prague Castle in the Czech capital, where the signing took place, than a real arms control document. Russia wanted to bind the new agreement to a U.S. commitment not to deploy a missile defense shield in Europe. The Americans flatly refused. As a result, Moscow added and unilaterally signed an addendum to its side of the bargain, reserving the right to withdraw from the treaty if Washington went ahead with installing a shield in Europe.

As the article implies, the reset was a bit of a myth. With Obama it was politics as usual with Russia, which meant mutual distrust and the U.S. doing a bit of taunting. This was the case under Clinton and Bush, and Obama seemingly followed suit. Although with a greater degree of subtlety. In the 2010 National Security Strategy, the Obama administration identified Russia as a cooperating partner in world politics. So maybe there was hope that a genuine relationship based on mutual trust could be forged. Yet by 2015, the Obama administration was identifying Russia as a threat to peace and security.

So this means Trump has a genuine opportunity to direct Russian relations to a place they have yet to go: cooperation based on mutual trust. I think everybody wants good relations with Russia, and they could be a helpful partner in solving the Syria problem. But how far is too far? Good relations should not be predicated on catering to Russia (or any foreign power). Trump has been critical of NATO, will most likely back away from supporting the government in Kiev, and will generally move Russia policy in a less antagonistic direction. Is this a good break from the past or does it simply amount to appeasement?

by **steveschneider** 2016-12-12, 13:38

I'll have to alot some time later to read your articles.

My initial take is there's two current approaches -

Obama - engage in proxy wars through Syria, side with westernized split in Ukriane and apply sanctions to Putin in the Kremlin.

Trumps take - lets normalize relations, join Russia in the fight against Syria (work with the bad guys) and start working on business opportunity. Russia has a lot of oil.

by **I.B. Fine** 2016-12-12, 13:51

My quick response is that Obama's been playing checkers while Putin is playing chess. Obama is busy reacting while Putin is planning 3-4 moves ahead. Trust is nice, but respect is what is required, and Putin has no respect for Obama, which is unfathomable to the big 'O'.
We'll see what direction Trump takes things.

by **steveschneider** 2016-12-12, 14:07

I.B. Fine wrote:My quick response is that Obama's been playing checkers while Putin is playing chess. Obama is busy reacting while Putin is planning 3-4 moves ahead. Trust is nice, but respect is what is required, and Putin has no respect for Obama, which is unfathomable to the big 'O'.
We'll see what direction Trump takes things.

It's very clear the direction Trump is taking it, based on his campaign and staff picks he's looking for a partnership.

If you want a president who's policy is tough on Putin we have good reason to believe it's not going to happen through Trump. It's going to be interesting, the RNC is probably going to be at odds and divided on their support for his stances on Russia.

by Guest 2016-12-12, 14:26

steveschneider wrote: It's going to be interesting, the RNC is probably going to be at odds and divided on their support for his stances on Russia.

Is it better to have diverse opinions within a party or for them to march in lockstep?

by **steveschneider** 2016-12-12, 14:49

LooseGoose wrote:
steveschneider wrote: It's going to be interesting, the RNC is probably going to be at odds and divided on their support for his stances on Russia.

Is it better to have diverse opinions within a party or for them to march in lockstep?

March in lockstep obstructionism to all things Obama.

by **I.B. Fine** 2016-12-12, 15:15

steveschneider wrote:
I.B. Fine wrote:My quick response is that Obama's been playing checkers while Putin is playing chess. Obama is busy reacting while Putin is planning 3-4 moves ahead. Trust is nice, but respect is what is required, and Putin has no respect for Obama, which is unfathomable to the big 'O'.
We'll see what direction Trump takes things.

It's very clear the direction Trump is taking it, based on his campaign and staff picks he's looking for a partnership.

If you want a president who's policy is tough on Putin we have good reason to believe it's not going to happen through Trump. It's going to be interesting, the RNC is probably going to be at odds and divided on their support for his stances on Russia.

My information must not be as definitive as yours. It seems he wants a relationship, which isn't a bad thing, what sort of relationship I don't know. Do you think it is possible to have a better relationship based on mutual respect? Like I said, Putin obviously does not respect Obama, whether he respects Trump or not, I do not know, but would be happy to know where you may be hearing otherwise.

by **Turtleneck** 2016-12-12, 15:35

I.B. Fine wrote:My quick response is that Obama's been playing checkers while Putin is playing chess. Obama is busy reacting while Putin is planning 3-4 moves ahead. Trust is nice, but respect is what is required, and Putin has no respect for Obama, which is unfathomable to the big 'O'.
We'll see what direction Trump takes things.

I am not sure I agree. A lot of people cite Syria as an example of this - that Russia outmaneuvered the U.S. in Syria - but Russia can afford to have a much more limited set of objectives in Syria. This makes the situation far more manageable for Russia.

by **steveschneider** 2016-12-12, 15:40

I.B. Fine wrote:
steveschneider wrote:

It's very clear the direction Trump is taking it, based on his campaign and staff picks he's looking for a partnership.

If you want a president who's policy is tough on Putin we have good reason to believe it's not going to happen through Trump. It's going to be interesting, the RNC is probably going to be at odds and divided on their support for his stances on Russia.
My information must not be as definitive as yours. It seems he wants a relationship, which isn't a bad thing, what sort of relationship I don't know. Do you think it is possible to have a better relationship based on mutual respect? Like I said, Putin obviously does not respect Obama, whether he respects Trump or not, I do not know, but would be happy to know where you may be hearing otherwise.

Of course he didn't 'respect' Obama because he didn't like Obama. Obama imposed sanctions, and opposed him in Ukraine. Up for debate did Obama do enough? Did he get tough too late? Was he not tough enough? Remember Russia has nukes, we can't go too war with them so what could Obama have done differently? I ask that sincerely, I'm open to the notion that things could have been done better/differently.

Putin respects Trump because he's going to weaken NATO, he wants to work with him on Syria, potentially side with pro-russian side of Ukraine and both will make $$$ on oil deals. Tillerson is a friend of Putin and he's the Secretary of State. If you thought Obama was playing checkers, Trump's version isn't even to be opponents rather teammates.

My take on working with Putin, I'm not a fan of it. I think he's a brutal authoritarian and it's hard for me to look past his sins in Syria and Crimea. I think he's dangerous, and lets not forget he's tampering in our election sovereignty, he's supporting the national front candidate in france (holocaust denier party) and his pet propagandist Assange is dumping emails in Germany with an election coming up next year. I agree with Linsey Graham of all people on his take they are trying to undermine democracies.

Turtleneck what say you?

by **I.B. Fine** 2016-12-12, 16:26

steveschneider wrote:
I.B. Fine wrote:
My information must not be as definitive as yours. It seems he wants a relationship, which isn't a bad thing, what sort of relationship I don't know. Do you think it is possible to have a better relationship based on mutual respect? Like I said, Putin obviously does not respect Obama, whether he respects Trump or not, I do not know, but would be happy to know where you may be hearing otherwise.

Of course he didn't 'respect' Obama because he didn't like Obama. Obama imposed sanctions, and opposed him in Ukraine. Up for debate did Obama do enough? NO Did he get tough too late? He got tough? Was he not tough enough? See previous answer Remember Russia has nukes, we can't go too war with them so what could Obama have done differently? I ask that sincerely, I'm open to the notion that things could have been done better/differently.

Putin respects Trump because he's going to weaken NATO, he wants to work with him on Syria, potentially side with pro-russian side of Ukraine and both will make $$$ on oil deals. Tillerson is a friend of Putin and he's the Secretary of State. If you thought Obama was playing checkers, Trump's version isn't even to be opponents rather teammates.

My take on working with Putin, I'm not a fan of it. I think he's a brutal authoritarian and it's hard for me to look past his sins in Syria and Crimnea. I think he's dangerous, and lets not forget he's tampering in our election sovereignty, he's supporting the national front candidate in france (holocaust denier party) and his pet propagandist Assange is dumping emails in Germany with an election coming up next year. I agree with Linsey Graham of all people on his take they are trying to undermine democracies.

Turtleneck what say you?

Please don't confuse "like" with "respect", they do not have to occur together. You can respect Putin without liking him. You know exactly where he's coming from and what to expect even if you totally disagree with him. Obama set a tone early in his presidency that he was not going to stand up for traditional American interests and along with his 'red line' and similar incidents, Putin will not take him seriously, so felt like he was free to do what he'd like. Actually Obama's reluctance to take action in the Middle East, his fear of 'offending', has given Putin the opening he was looking for and he's grabbed it.
I don't know how old you are, but this situation reminds me of when Reagan beat Carter, everyone thought he would start WW3, instead he was tough on the USSR, despite many hand wringers' condemnations, and he put them out of business. Not saying Trump is Reagan, just that unless you're Kreskin Wink

, you don't know what will happen yet.
Oh, and I think we should know if the Russian Govt is hacking our email (is it that hard for our intelligence services?), but I don't think it affected the outcome of the election. I hear Democrat whiners saying the American voters were duped by the Russian hacks,

they will never learn.

by **Turtleneck** 2016-12-12, 19:30

I.B. Fine wrote: Obama set a tone early in his presidency that he was not going to stand up for traditional American interests and along with his 'red line' and similar incidents, Putin will not take him seriously, so felt like he was free to do what he'd like.

The "red line" comment was indeed dumb, but I am not sure what you mean by "traditional American interests." If you're referring to Obama pumping the brakes on the American-led liberal order - democracy, human rights, and markets via intervention - I think you will find some people saying that is a good thing while others say it never actually happened. Those saying it did not happen would refer to Obama following Bush with a surge policy of his own in Afghanistan, Obama supporting Kiev in the face of Moscow, and Libyan intervention.

I.B. Fine wrote:Actually Obama's reluctance to take action in the Middle East, his fear of 'offending', has given Putin the opening he was looking for and he's grabbed it.

Is there evidence supporting "fear of offending" as a reason for a lack of action in the Middle East? I think the bigger problem is that Obama never really had a foreign policy doctrine that defined our vital national interests. Looking back, the foreign policy of his second term seemed to be a function of wanting to be engaged but not too engaged, hence the "lead from behind" approach. In the end, it seemed almost ad hoc at times.

I.B. Fine wrote:I don't know how old you are, but this situation reminds me of when Reagan beat Carter, everyone thought he would start WW3, instead he was tough on the USSR, despite many hand wringers' condemnations, and he put them out of business. Not saying Trump is Reagan, just that unless you're Kreskin , you don't know what will happen yet.

Trump is not promising to be tough on Russia. In fact, if there is concern that Obama gave up space in world politics to Russia, what will happen if Trump acts on his promise to be less engage? I am sure that both Russia and China will be quick to fill any vacuum left by American retrenchment.

by **Turtleneck** 2016-12-12, 19:56

steveschneider wrote:
I.B. Fine wrote:
My information must not be as definitive as yours. It seems he wants a relationship, which isn't a bad thing, what sort of relationship I don't know. Do you think it is possible to have a better relationship based on mutual respect? Like I said, Putin obviously does not respect Obama, whether he respects Trump or not, I do not know, but would be happy to know where you may be hearing otherwise.

Of course he didn't 'respect' Obama because he didn't like Obama. Obama imposed sanctions, and opposed him in Ukraine. Up for debate did Obama do enough? Did he get tough too late? Was he not tough enough? Remember Russia has nukes, we can't go too war with them so what could Obama have done differently? I ask that sincerely, I'm open to the notion that things could have been done better/differently.

Putin respects Trump because he's going to weaken NATO, he wants to work with him on Syria, potentially side with pro-russian side of Ukraine and both will make $$$ on oil deals. Tillerson is a friend of Putin and he's the Secretary of State. If you thought Obama was playing checkers, Trump's version isn't even to be opponents rather teammates.

My take on working with Putin, I'm not a fan of it. I think he's a brutal authoritarian and it's hard for me to look past his sins in Syria and Crimnea. I think he's dangerous, and lets not forget he's tampering in our election sovereignty, he's supporting the national front candidate in france (holocaust denier party) and his pet propagandist Assange is dumping emails in Germany with an election coming up next year. I agree with Linsey Graham of all people on his take they are trying to undermine democracies.

Turtleneck what say you?

I would not say he is a brutal authoritarian nor would I say the U.S. should avoid cooperating with Russia. It is in our interest to do so where possible. Of course this hinges on what may (or may not) have happened in the election.

I agree that Russia is working to undermine liberal democracy. So is China. So is Iran. So are other authoritarian states. Liberal democracy represents a threat to authoritarianism, and they are attempting to reverse the trend toward more free and open societies. Not only are they winning, but I am fearful the Trump administration does not see the connection. The authoritarian bond appears to be greater than any bond the U.S. will have with Russia. For example, Russia is not going to support "ripping up" the Iran deal, and they have deepened formal relations with China through the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

This means we must 1) win the battle of ideas resist the encroachment of authoritarian norms, and 2) cautiously cooperate with Russia when feasible.

by **GRR Spartan** 2016-12-12, 20:02

Trump is going to let Putin have free rein in the region.
The Ukraine will be under Russian control with pro-Russia leadership in place before the 2020 elctions.

by **I.B. Fine** 2016-12-12, 20:12

Turtleneck wrote:
The "red line" comment was indeed dumb, but I am not sure what you mean by "traditional American interests." If you're referring to Obama pumping the brakes on the American-led liberal order - democracy, human rights, and markets via intervention - I think you will find some people saying that is a good thing while others say it never actually happened. Those saying it did not happen would refer to Obama following Bush with a surge policy of his own in Afghanistan, Obama supporting Kiev in the face of Moscow, and Libyan intervention.
Is there evidence supporting "fear of offending" as a reason for a lack of action in the Middle East? I think the bigger problem is that Obama never really had a foreign policy doctrine that defined our vital national interests. Looking back, the foreign policy of his second term seemed to be a function of wanting to be engaged but not too engaged, hence the "lead from behind" approach. In the end, it seemed almost ad hoc at times.

I think 'ad hoc' is a great term. Obama seemed almost disinterested in getting involved until his hand was forced and then he responded in the most minimal way he felt would ameliorate critics at home. There's a reason the US is known as the 'Leader of the free world', because someone has to lead, and who would your rather have than the US? Obama didn't want to offend anyone by leading.
I think we can both agree Syria was totally mishandled allowing it to fester into the quagmire it has become and giving Putin his opening.
Afghanistan, he was pulling out before he surged, because he realized too late he was telling the Taliban just what they needed to do to out last us. Again, playing to the peanut gallery.
Iraq agree or disagree with W's intervention, was stabilized,then Obama walked away, lest he offend his loyalist at home, allowing ISIS to grow into the major problem we are only starting to deal with.
Obama had a moment to show support for the Iranians seeking to overthrow the mullahs, he bit his tongue, lest he offend the mullahs
Egypt's Arab Spring - enough said.
Libya, lead from behind, aka, let the chips fall wherever.

Turtleneck wrote:
Trump is not promising to be tough on Russia. In fact, if there is concern that Obama gave up space in world politics to Russia, what will happen if Trump acts on his promise to be less engage? I am sure that both Russia and China will be quick to fill any vacuum left by American retrenchment.

This will be interesting, I feel like Trump is ready to jump into business/trade relations with both feet, not sure how he'll respond to the corresponding political interests. Doing mutually beneficial deals with Russia is all well and good, but only as long as it's not at the expense of other allies/interests.

by **NigelUno** 2016-12-12, 20:53

LooseGoose wrote:
steveschneider wrote: It's going to be interesting, the RNC is probably going to be at odds and divided on their support for his stances on Russia.

Is it better to have diverse opinions within a party or for them to march in lockstep?

What would Gorbachev say?

by **steveschneider** 2016-12-12, 22:46

Turtleneck wrote:
steveschneider wrote:

Of course he didn't 'respect' Obama because he didn't like Obama. Obama imposed sanctions, and opposed him in Ukraine. Up for debate did Obama do enough? Did he get tough too late? Was he not tough enough? Remember Russia has nukes, we can't go too war with them so what could Obama have done differently? I ask that sincerely, I'm open to the notion that things could have been done better/differently.

Putin respects Trump because he's going to weaken NATO, he wants to work with him on Syria, potentially side with pro-russian side of Ukraine and both will make $$$ on oil deals. Tillerson is a friend of Putin and he's the Secretary of State. If you thought Obama was playing checkers, Trump's version isn't even to be opponents rather teammates.

My take on working with Putin, I'm not a fan of it. I think he's a brutal authoritarian and it's hard for me to look past his sins in Syria and Crimea. I think he's dangerous, and lets not forget he's tampering in our election sovereignty, he's supporting the national front candidate in france (holocaust denier party) and his pet propagandist Assange is dumping emails in Germany with an election coming up next year. I agree with Linsey Graham of all people on his take they are trying to undermine democracies.

Turtleneck what say you?

I would not say he is a brutal authoritarian nor would I say the U.S. should avoid cooperating with Russia. It is in our interest to do so where possible. Of course this hinges on what may (or may not) have happened in the election.

I agree that Russia is working to undermine liberal democracy. So is China. So is Iran. So are other authoritarian states. Liberal democracy represents a threat to authoritarianism, and they are attempting to reverse the trend toward more free and open societies. Not only are they winning, but I am fearful the Trump administration does not see the connection. The authoritarian bond appears to be greater than any bond the U.S. will have with Russia. For example, Russia is not going to support "ripping up" the Iran deal, and they have deepened formal relations with China through the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

This means we must 1) win the battle of ideas resist the encroachment of authoritarian norms, and 2) cautiously cooperate with Russia when feasible.

Yeah, I was reading and listening to some interviews with Stephen Cohen the other day and he more or less has a similar stance as you regarding working with.

I still haven't read your articles, but I've probably bought into western point of view on Russia and more or less line up with a lot of the US government that considers Russian a huge threat. I read Gary Kasparovs recent interview on Trump/Russia and he painted a real grim picture of russia in his article. There was also an interview with the Pussy Riot singer in the NYT and her descriptions of russia were consistent with Gary's. It sounded brutal. I don't think either can go back without the threat of getting killed or going to prison and all they have done was speak up about Putin

I also line with the western EU stance regarding Syria and Crimea/Ukraine.

Trump is a huge question mark to me, he has no experience in government or foreign policy.In my view I'm highly cynical I think he's going over there to open up for business, mainly oil. I think it's a big sell out of our nations principles and it's potentially tossing our allies, folks of the Ukraine and the rebels in Syria all under the bus all for the bottom line.

BTW, as of this typing looks like the rebels are about to fall in Allepo. And I bet somewhere else Gary Johnson is smoking a joint.

by **steveschneider** 2016-12-12, 22:53

Alarming reports of executions as pro-Assad forces swept thru rebel-held Aleppo tonight. UN cites reports of "large number" of atrocities.

---Friends of Putin

by **Blanch32** 2016-12-13, 06:44

fwiw, if Trump is truly putting America first, explain to me how a bad rela with russia helps that. russia really doesn't affect us is any way. they are more of a European and ideally, chinese problem. putting russia against china and nortj korea, can actually help us.

by **Floyd Robertson** 2016-12-13, 07:16

Just wait until Putin threatens Trump with the 20-odd suitcase nukes that have been hidden in U.S. cities since the early 80s.

by **Turtleneck** 2016-12-13, 07:53

Floyd Robertson wrote:Just wait until Putin threatens Trump with the 20-odd suitcase nukes that have been hidden in U.S. cities since the early 80s.

Something you need to tell us, Floyd?

by **Floyd Robertson** 2016-12-13, 08:46

Turtleneck wrote:
Floyd Robertson wrote:Just wait until Putin threatens Trump with the 20-odd suitcase nukes that have been hidden in U.S. cities since the early 80s.

Something you need to tell us, Floyd?

Don't get too comfortable The future of U.S.-Russian relations 2599972566

by Guest 2016-12-13, 09:48

I'm ready to read all of the Russian threads now:

The future of U.S.-Russian relations Ar137407108647685

by **Turtleneck** 2016-12-13, 11:10

Floyd Robertson wrote:
Turtleneck wrote:

Something you need to tell us, Floyd?

Don't get too comfortable

I have no evidence that you're not Putin. Therefore you're Putin.

It's

by **Floyd Robertson** 2016-12-13, 11:20

Turtleneck wrote:
Floyd Robertson wrote:

Don't get too comfortable

I have no evidence that you're not Putin. Therefore you're Putin.

It's

The future of U.S.-Russian relations 200w

by **steveschneider** 2016-12-13, 12:00

LooseGoose wrote:I'm ready to read all of the Russian threads now:

After listening to Kelly Anne Conway's interview last night that's certainly how they want us to view the world.

Must trust Trump. Everyone else is incompetent, and does a terrible job. Sad.

by **Rocinante** 2016-12-13, 12:08

I can't believe what I'm reading. Cooperate with Russia? They are operating as a lean version of the USSR. If the economy of Russia improves to some predetermined level, the State will take over control of all major economic assets again in nod to some iteration of far right populism. This is the goal. Read on Putin's Eurasian Strategy and the influence of Aleksandr Dugin and his 1997 book "The Foundations of Geopolitics" which reads in many places like the ravings of a madman, but has been elevated as a divinely inspired text in many intelligence circles in Russia and reflects, I think, clearly the strategy as it is now playing out in Russian international cyber-espionage and social engineering. Russia's goal is no less than the destruction of western democracy. You think we should cooperate? Hell no. We should dominate. Bring back the Cold War bitches. They've been fighting it behind the scenes since it ostensibly ended. It never ended for them, and when Putin took power, it became their primary strategy again, and they are executing it very efficiently. Russian resources still pale in comparison to the US, yet through the great equalizer of the internet they have found the means to topple the giant. Now is not the time to cooperate, now is the time to catch up to them, and then use our superior resources to beat them back into their right wing racist xenophobic hellhole of a country and let them rot there. I have lots of resources I can share that back up my point, but the names and labels I have used in this post will get you to some good resources with an easy google search. The conclusions are my own, however.

by **steveschneider** 2016-12-13, 12:11

Regarding the red line comment, how can anyone that supports or is open to Trumps approach to Russia diplomacy be critical of Obama's handling of the red line?

Obama was in opposition of Assad, Trump now wants to work with Assad. Seems like if we like Trump's approach then we should be on board with the idea that Obama didn't use military force on our new friends?

by **steveschneider** 2016-12-13, 12:13

Rocinante wrote:I can't believe what I'm reading. Cooperate with Russia? They are operating as a lean version of the USSR. If the economy of Russia improves to some predetermined level, the State will take over control of all major economic assets again in nod to some iteration of far right populism. This is the goal. Read on Putin's Eurasian Strategy and the influence of Aleksandr Dugin and his 1997 book "The Foundations of Geopolitics" which reads in many places like the ravings of a madman, but has been elevated as a divinely inspired text in many intelligence circles in Russia and reflects, I think, clearly the strategy as it is now playing out in Russian international cyber-espionage and social engineering. Russia's goal is no less than the destruction of western democracy. You think we should cooperate? Hell no. We should dominate. Bring back the Cold War bitches. They've been fighting it behind the scenes since it ostensibly ended. It never ended for them, and when Putin took power, it became their primary strategy again, and they are executing it very efficiently. Russian resources still pale in comparison to the US, yet through the great equalizer of the internet they have found the means to topple the giant. Now is not the time to cooperate, now is the time to catch up to them, and then use our superior resources to beat them back into their right wing racist xenophobic hellhole of a country and let them rot there. I have lots of resources I can share that back up my point, but the names and labels I have used in this post will get you to some good resources with an easy google search. The conclusions are my own, however.

I'm with you. Call me old fashioned, but I like my child hood version of the USA that stood up to dictators and regimes.

by **Turtleneck** 2016-12-13, 12:28

steveschneider wrote:
Rocinante wrote:I can't believe what I'm reading. Cooperate with Russia? They are operating as a lean version of the USSR. If the economy of Russia improves to some predetermined level, the State will take over control of all major economic assets again in nod to some iteration of far right populism. This is the goal. Read on Putin's Eurasian Strategy and the influence of Aleksandr Dugin and his 1997 book "The Foundations of Geopolitics" which reads in many places like the ravings of a madman, but has been elevated as a divinely inspired text in many intelligence circles in Russia and reflects, I think, clearly the strategy as it is now playing out in Russian international cyber-espionage and social engineering. Russia's goal is no less than the destruction of western democracy. You think we should cooperate? Hell no. We should dominate. Bring back the Cold War bitches. They've been fighting it behind the scenes since it ostensibly ended. It never ended for them, and when Putin took power, it became their primary strategy again, and they are executing it very efficiently. Russian resources still pale in comparison to the US, yet through the great equalizer of the internet they have found the means to topple the giant. Now is not the time to cooperate, now is the time to catch up to them, and then use our superior resources to beat them back into their right wing racist xenophobic hellhole of a country and let them rot there. I have lots of resources I can share that back up my point, but the names and labels I have used in this post will get you to some good resources with an easy google search. The conclusions are my own, however.

I'm with you. Call me old fashioned, but I like my child hood version of the USA that stood up to dictators and regimes.

I do not think you have an accurate read on the history of American foreign policy. It is a history full of cooperation with dictators.

Interestingly enough, the Cold War saw cooperation between the U.S. and the USSR in the area of arms control: Strategic Arms Limitation Talks, Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties, etc.

by **Rocinante** 2016-12-13, 12:33

Turtleneck wrote:
steveschneider wrote:

I'm with you. Call me old fashioned, but I like my child hood version of the USA that stood up to dictators and regimes.

I do not think you have an accurate read on the history of American foreign policy. It is a history full of cooperation with dictators.

Interestingly enough, the Cold War saw cooperation between the U.S. and the USSR in the area of arms control: Strategic Arms Limitation Talks, Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties, etc.

We are not in a position of power which should dictate our willingness to cooperate. Cooperating with Russia would need to spring from a place of at the very least, mutual benefit. Right now we are at a strong disadvantage, and we have to double down our efforts to disrupt their activities all over the planet. If that means more proxy wars, so be it. I hated that aspect of the Cold War, but at this point, our society can handle it much better then theirs can. Starve the beast and catch up on the cyber front.

by **steveschneider** 2016-12-13, 12:34

Turtleneck wrote:
steveschneider wrote:

I'm with you. Call me old fashioned, but I like my child hood version of the USA that stood up to dictators and regimes.

I do not think you have an accurate read on the history of American foreign policy. It is a history full of cooperation with dictators.

Interestingly enough, the Cold War saw cooperation between the U.S. and the USSR in the area of arms control: Strategic Arms Limitation Talks, Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties, etc.

I was being sarcastic...

I knew someone was going to point that out, I'm surprised they didn't mention Pinochet or country on this list I've seen bounced around on fb the last couple of days:

China 1949 to early 1960s
Albania 1949-53
East Germany 1950s
Iran 1953 *
Guatemala 1954 *
Costa Rica mid-1950s
Syria 1956-7
Egypt 1957
Indonesia 1957-8
British Guiana 1953-64 *
Iraq 1963 *
North Vietnam 1945-73
Cambodia 1955-70 *
Laos 1958 *, 1959 *, 1960 *
Ecuador 1960-63 *
Congo 1960 *
France 1965
Brazil 1962-64 *
Dominican Republic 1963 *
Cuba 1959 to present
Bolivia 1964 *
Indonesia 1965 *
Ghana 1966 *
Chile 1964-73 *
Greece 1967 *
Costa Rica 1970-71
Bolivia 1971 *
Australia 1973-75 *
Angola 1975, 1980s
Zaire 1975
Portugal 1974-76 *
Jamaica 1976-80 *
Seychelles 1979-81
Chad 1981-82 *
Grenada 1983 *
South Yemen 1982-84
Suriname 1982-84
Fiji 1987 *
Libya 1980s
Nicaragua 1981-90 *
Panama 1989 *
Bulgaria 1990 *
Albania 1991 *
Iraq 1991
Afghanistan 1980s *
Somalia 1993
Yugoslavia 1999-2000 *
Ecuador 2000 *
Afghanistan 2001 *
Venezuela 2002 *
Iraq 2003 *
Haiti 2004 *
Somalia 2007 to present
Honduras 2009
Libya 2011 *
Syria 2012
Ukraine 2014 *

by **Rocinante** 2016-12-13, 12:38

It's also time for the left to stop blaming western democracy for everything. It plays right into their hands. Yes, American interests dictated some really questionable calls during the Cold War. But international affairs are messy, and sitting back and saying "we deserve this after the sins of the past" gets us nowhere.

by **I.B. Fine** 2016-12-13, 13:01

steveschneider wrote:Regarding the red line comment, how can anyone that supports or is open to Trumps approach to Russia diplomacy be critical of Obama's handling of the red line?

Obama was in opposition of Assad, Trump now wants to work with Assad. Seems like if we like Trump's approach then we should be on board with the idea that Obama didn't use military force on our new friends?

The red line was Obama in a nutshell, all talk and no action, that's the point, not whether he was pro or against Assad. Everyone else in the world saw that and realized that Obama had no credibility, thus the push back we've seen on virtually every front. Anyone trying to score points against he US has been pushing the envelope to see what they can get away with and it's been a lot, take Putin for instance....

by **The_Dude** 2016-12-13, 13:14

I.B. Fine wrote:
steveschneider wrote:Regarding the red line comment, how can anyone that supports or is open to Trumps approach to Russia diplomacy be critical of Obama's handling of the red line?

Obama was in opposition of Assad, Trump now wants to work with Assad. Seems like if we like Trump's approach then we should be on board with the idea that Obama didn't use military force on our new friends?

The red line was Obama in a nutshell, all talk and no action, that's the point, not whether he was pro or against Assad. Everyone else in the world saw that and realized that Obama had no credibility, thus the push back we've seen on virtually every front. Anyone trying to score points against he US has been pushing the envelope to see what they can get away with and it's been a lot, take Putin for instance....

Exactly.

We were so pathetically weak under Obama.

Now we have an America first POTUS who does what he says. Trump is appointing achievers in his cabinet, not lifelong political hacks looking to use politics to enrich themselves.

Wanting better relations with a country like Russia seems like a no brainer.

by **Rocinante** 2016-12-13, 13:18

The_Dude wrote:
I.B. Fine wrote:
The red line was Obama in a nutshell, all talk and no action, that's the point, not whether he was pro or against Assad. Everyone else in the world saw that and realized that Obama had no credibility, thus the push back we've seen on virtually every front. Anyone trying to score points against he US has been pushing the envelope to see what they can get away with and it's been a lot, take Putin for instance....

Exactly.

We were so pathetically weak under Obama.

Now we have an America first POTUS who does what he says. Trump is appointing achievers in his cabinet, not lifelong political hacks looking to use politics to enrich themselves.

Wanting better relations with a country like Russia seems like a no brainer.

You are such a fucking idiot.

by **xsanguine** 2016-12-13, 13:20

by **The_Dude** 2016-12-13, 13:23

Rocinante wrote:
The_Dude wrote:

Exactly.

We were so pathetically weak under Obama.

Now we have an America first POTUS who does what he says. Trump is appointing achievers in his cabinet, not lifelong political hacks looking to use politics to enrich themselves.

Wanting better relations with a country like Russia seems like a no brainer.

You are such a fucking idiot.

Instead of acting like a butthurt lib, which part is wrong?

We were pathetically weak in foregin affairs under OBama? Yep, not debatable.

Trump is appointing achievers, doers, people that arent political hacks to his cabinet...thats also not debatable.

So, exactly, what part was wrong?

I get that you have Trump Deragnement Syndome, but you got to bring something to the table.

by **The_Dude** 2016-12-13, 13:25

I.B. Fine wrote:
steveschneider wrote:Regarding the red line comment, how can anyone that supports or is open to Trumps approach to Russia diplomacy be critical of Obama's handling of the red line?

Obama was in opposition of Assad, Trump now wants to work with Assad. Seems like if we like Trump's approach then we should be on board with the idea that Obama didn't use military force on our new friends?

The red line was Obama in a nutshell, all talk and no action, that's the point, not whether he was pro or against Assad. Everyone else in the world saw that and realized that Obama had no credibility, thus the push back we've seen on virtually every front. Anyone trying to score points against he US has been pushing the envelope to see what they can get away with and it's been a lot, take Putin for instance....

It really really scares liberals that people of action are taking up cabinet spots instead of lifelong political hacks that want to use those spots to enrich themselves or use it to become a lobbyist, etc.

Guys that have been extremely successful and want to serve to better our country, or political hacks who have 'waited in line' and are appointed based on gender and race.

Libs would rather have the latter...lol

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2016-12-13, 13:26

remember when the patriotic Republicans were upset that the negro Obama didn't wear an American flag lapel pin?

Rolling Eyes

by **steveschneider** 2016-12-13, 13:26

I.B. Fine wrote:
steveschneider wrote:Regarding the red line comment, how can anyone that supports or is open to Trumps approach to Russia diplomacy be critical of Obama's handling of the red line?

Obama was in opposition of Assad, Trump now wants to work with Assad. Seems like if we like Trump's approach then we should be on board with the idea that Obama didn't use military force on our new friends?

The red line was Obama in a nutshell, all talk and no action, that's the point, not whether he was pro or against Assad. Everyone else in the world saw that and realized that Obama had no credibility, thus the push back we've seen on virtually every front. Anyone trying to score points against he US has been pushing the envelope to see what they can get away with and it's been a lot, take Putin for instance....

Yeah, but they achieved the goal - they got rid of the chemical weapons. Mission accomplished but terrible style points along the way and yes, looked like a weenie.

Hillary wanted to bomb them to her the red line was real and she wanted to go after them.

Trump wants to business partner with Russia. I haven't seen any word out of Trump or his team about last nights massacre. The red line has turned into an invisible line?

by Sponsored content