The future of U.S.-Russian relations

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

steveschneider wrote:Richard Engel Tweet a few minutes ago -

analysts expect Trump team to begin new era, giving russia "a sphere of influence," in exchange for business deals and political support

steveschneider wrote: 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?

steveschneider wrote: 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?

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.

Turtleneck wrote:We made it 35 posts....

I.B. Fine wrote:

steveschneider wrote: 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?

I haven't been paying much attention, what did Obama say? after all he is still President isn't he, and it was HIS red line, not Trump's, or is there some kind of early transition I'm unaware of?

steveschneider wrote:

I.B. Fine wrote:
I haven't been paying much attention, what did Obama say? after all he is still President isn't he, and it was HIS red line, not Trump's, or is there some kind of early transition I'm unaware of?

Nada, zip. I think it's clear that knowing what's ahead with Russia Allepo is a lost cause at this point. He could condemn it but what good would it do when a transition to the Trump administration is just weeks away.

The_Dude wrote:

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

Trump Derangement Syndrome:

"A mental dysfunction causing those detractors with hateful thoughts and feelings about Donald Trump to go unhinged."

Rocinante wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

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.

The United States has a couple of choices. It could demand that Russia to stop its campaign, but that would only play into the hands of those who spread rumors that the United States is not really interested in defeating ISIS. It could allow Russia to go it alone, but if the Russians do succeed in stabilizing Syria and Iraq without the United States, as they seem determined to do, it will be a major blow for the U.S. government. Further, the Russian intervention against every rebel group risks opening the door to another tidal wave of jihadism, which would hurt all parties involved. The United States could follow the lead of Turkey and the Gulf States, which want to ramp up support for the rebels. But if it does that, it will find itself with a group of radicals who are impossible to control at the end of the fight. And yet, if the United States joins Putin’s version of an anti-terror coalition, it is effectively endorsing a man (Assad) it has accused of dictatorship and wiping out civilians.

There is another option: the United States and Europe should reject all calls to pour more fuel on the fire. Instead, they should work with Russia, Iran, and Turkey to cut the flow of weapons into Syria.

steveschneider wrote:

I.B. Fine wrote:
I haven't been paying much attention, what did Obama say? after all he is still President isn't he, and it was HIS red line, not Trump's, or is there some kind of early transition I'm unaware of?

Nada, zip. I think it's clear that knowing what's ahead with Russia Allepo is a lost cause at this point. He could condemn it but what good would it do when a transition to the Trump administration is just weeks away.

Rocinante wrote:

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.

This part.  Obama being internationally weak is debatable and I suspect once I was able to dig through your myriad layers of stupidity, we might agree on some base level.  

Trump does what he says?  YOU ARE A FUCKING IDIOT.

Turtleneck wrote:

Rocinante wrote:

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.

If we are not strong enough to cooperate, how are we strong enough to engage in proxy wars all over the globe? Maybe I am misunderstanding your point, but I feel as if there is a bit of a contradiction running through your posts.

We have talked about Russia's attempt to push back liberal democratic norms, and they are not alone in their attempt.. However, nobody that works in foreign policy is going to tell you to altogether avoid cooperation. As I wrote on the first page, we must win the battle of ideas and resist the encroachment of authoritarian norms, but be willing to cautiously cooperate with Russia when feasible. Example areas include  arms control or maybe Syria in regards to ISIS. The latter is tricky as explained below.

The United States has a couple of choices. It could demand that Russia to stop its campaign, but that would only play into the hands of those who spread rumors that the United States is not really interested in defeating ISIS. It could allow Russia to go it alone, but if the Russians do succeed in stabilizing Syria and Iraq without the United States, as they seem determined to do, it will be a major blow for the U.S. government. Further, the Russian intervention against every rebel group risks opening the door to another tidal wave of jihadism, which would hurt all parties involved. The United States could follow the lead of Turkey and the Gulf States, which want to ramp up support for the rebels. But if it does that, it will find itself with a group of radicals who are impossible to control at the end of the fight. And yet, if the United States joins Putin’s version of an anti-terror coalition, it is effectively endorsing a man (Assad) it has accused of dictatorship and wiping out civilians.

There is another option: the United States and Europe should reject all calls to pour more fuel on the fire. Instead, they should work with Russia, Iran, and Turkey to cut the flow of weapons into Syria.

Rocinante wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

If we are not strong enough to cooperate, how are we strong enough to engage in proxy wars all over the globe? Maybe I am misunderstanding your point, but I feel as if there is a bit of a contradiction running through your posts.

We have talked about Russia's attempt to push back liberal democratic norms, and they are not alone in their attempt.. However, nobody that works in foreign policy is going to tell you to altogether avoid cooperation. As I wrote on the first page, we must win the battle of ideas and resist the encroachment of authoritarian norms, but be willing to cautiously cooperate with Russia when feasible. Example areas include  arms control or maybe Syria in regards to ISIS. The latter is tricky as explained below.

Geopolitical strength and literal strength are different. Russia has succeeded in disrupting America's efforts abroad (because of our unwillingness to commit fully to them after a disaster in Iraq and overplaying our hand in Afghanistan). They have succeeded in influencing our own election. Geopolitically, America and her allies are weak. However, in terms of real strength: economic, military, America is still in a position to regain that Geopolitical advantage. We do that two ways. 1. We disrupt Russia's interests globally. This would include continuing sanctions to limit their ability to sell their raw materials, supporting aggressively anti Russian groups in Eastern Europe, and using their internet propaganda tactics against them in their own country. 2. We isolate them on the international stage. Through the U.N., we paint them as what they are: aspiring global fascist superpower that props up brutal dictators and abhors human rights and self determination. We reaffirm and invest in NATO and strengthen the relationships with NATO countries and their allies through economic investment to demonstrate the advantages of global liberal democracy over nationalism. What we do not do ever is work with them, at least not directly. Deals can be reached through proxies, just like wars can be fought through them. Syria's fucked. We got nothing there and it's now a waste of our resources. Let the international aid agencies have at it. There's no outcome at this point that helps the U.S. Your links fail to understand that we are Russia enemy. It's time to make them ours again and nip their resurgence in the bud.

Rocinante wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

If we are not strong enough to cooperate, how are we strong enough to engage in proxy wars all over the globe? Maybe I am misunderstanding your point, but I feel as if there is a bit of a contradiction running through your posts.

We have talked about Russia's attempt to push back liberal democratic norms, and they are not alone in their attempt.. However, nobody that works in foreign policy is going to tell you to altogether avoid cooperation. As I wrote on the first page, we must win the battle of ideas and resist the encroachment of authoritarian norms, but be willing to cautiously cooperate with Russia when feasible. Example areas include  arms control or maybe Syria in regards to ISIS. The latter is tricky as explained below.

Geopolitical strength and literal strength are different. Russia has succeeded in disrupting America's efforts abroad (because of our unwillingness to commit fully to them after a disaster in Iraq and overplaying our hand in Afghanistan). They have succeeded in influencing our own election. Geopolitically, America and her allies are weak. However, in terms of real strength: economic, military, America is still in a position to regain that Geopolitical advantage. We do that two ways. 1. We disrupt Russia's interests globally. This would include continuing sanctions to limit their ability to sell their raw materials, supporting aggressively anti Russian groups in Eastern Europe, and using their internet propaganda tactics against them in their own country. 2. We isolate them on the international stage. Through the U.N., we paint them as what they are: aspiring global fascist superpower that props up brutal dictators and abhors human rights and self determination. We reaffirm and invest in NATO and strengthen the relationships with NATO countries and their allies through economic investment to demonstrate the advantages of global liberal democracy over nationalism. What we do not do ever is work with them, at least not directly. Deals can be reached through proxies, just like wars can be fought through them. Syria's fucked. We got nothing there and it's now a waste of our resources. Let the international aid agencies have at it. There's no outcome at this point that helps the U.S. Your links fail to understand that we are Russia enemy. It's time to make them ours again and nip their resurgence in the bud.

steveschneider wrote:
I see it just about your way, problem is that's not what Trump is going to do.

What you're describing was the Hillary approach except who knows if they intended to do any cyber attacks. That approach is gone though. You and I are going to have to accept that Trump is open for business with Russia.  

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

So the exact opposite of what it sounds like Trump is doing?

Rocinante wrote:

steveschneider wrote:
I see it just about your way, problem is that's not what Trump is going to do.

What you're describing was the Hillary approach except who knows if they intended to do any cyber attacks. That approach is gone though. You and I are going to have to accept that Trump is open for business with Russia.  

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

So the exact opposite of what it sounds like Trump is doing?

Exactly.  Which is why we need to resist him at every turn.  It may not be fun, but it's what has to happen.  If we want our country to remain what we believe it is, Trump and his allies cannot succeed.

LooseGoose wrote:The complete reversals of the parties continues. In the 80s the D's criticized the Rs for hating the Russians too much. Now apparently they love them too much.

Rocinante wrote: strength and literal strength are different. Russia has succeeded in disrupting America's efforts abroad (because of our unwillingness to commit fully to them after a disaster in Iraq and overplaying our hand in Afghanistan). They have succeeded in influencing our own election. Geopolitically, America and her allies are weak. However, in terms of real strength: economic, military, America is still in a position to regain that Geopolitical advantage. We do that two ways. 1. We disrupt Russia's interests globally. This would include continuing sanctions to limit their ability to sell their raw materials, supporting aggressively anti Russian groups in Eastern Europe, and using their internet propaganda tactics against them in their own country. 2. We isolate them on the international stage. Through the U.N., we paint them as what they are: aspiring global fascist superpower that props up brutal dictators and abhors human rights and self determination. We reaffirm and invest in NATO and strengthen the relationships with NATO countries and their allies through economic investment to demonstrate the advantages of global liberal democracy over nationalism. What we do not do ever is work with them, at least not directly. Deals can be reached through proxies, just like wars can be fought through them. Syria's fucked. We got nothing there and it's now a waste of our resources. Let the international aid agencies have at it. There's no outcome at this point that helps the U.S. Your links fail to understand that we are Russia enemy. It's time to make them ours again and nip their resurgence in the bud.

Rocinante wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:The complete reversals of the parties continues. In the 80s the D's criticized the Rs for hating the Russians too much. Now apparently they love them too much.

I'm not a fucking democrat you asshole.

LooseGoose wrote:The complete reversals of the parties continues. In the 80s the D's criticized the Rs for hating the Russians too much. Now apparently they love them too much.

Rocinante wrote:You seem to be oversimplifying my thought process. Give me a minute to start a fire and I'll answer you point by point.

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:The complete reversals of the parties continues. In the 80s the D's criticized the Rs for hating the Russians too much. Now apparently they love them too much.

Good story Bob.

LooseGoose wrote:

Rocinante wrote:

I'm not a fucking democrat you asshole.

lol, tsk tsk. Point out where I said you were? I try to avoid those direct statements after months of people jumping to conclusions about me.

BTW - no fan of Trump:

Jeb Bush ‏@JebBush 10m10 minutes ago
Rex Tillerson is a good man and accomplished leader who will serve our country well as Secretary of State.

Turtleneck wrote:
I think you are working with a conception of cooperation that is far too broad. You seem to be equating cooperation with friendship. From time-to-time rivals cooperate with one another in international politics. Actually it happens more regularly than people think.

No I'm not. I'm saying I the current situation, the U.S.is at a competitive disadvantage and any cooperation with Russia looks like capitulation.

As I mentioned on the first page, the U.S. and USSR cooperated during the Cold War. Beyond arms control measures, there was cooperation on a number of issues relating to regional security. The U.S. and China were certainly not friends during the Cold War, but in the 1970s normalized relations and cooperated based on a common interest in containing the USSR. Today the U.S. and Iran are not friends, but the Iran deal is another moment of cooperation between rivals.

When the U.S.was operating from a position of strength.

The U.S. and Russia do not have to be friends but there are areas where they will need to cooperate from time-to-time. This is especially true in the area of arms control, which should be a point of emphasis in U.S.-Russian relations. Statistically speaking, Russia is still the greatest threat to U.S. security. Some people understand international politics through the lens of game theory, which tells us that because of repeated interactions cooperation is occasionally a good strategy.

Exactly. And those same people will tell you either 1. Corporate from a position of strength or 2. Make your opponent believe your are operating from a position of strength. Russia will never cooperate with the U.S.in any way that might elevate the U.S.standing in the world which is majorly on the ropes right now. We cannot be viewed as capitulating to Russian interests, not only by our allies, but by anyone else or our standing erodes further.

Will all of the focus you are putting on Russia, do you run the risk of not addressing China's strategic ambitions? I realize this is a thread about U.S.-Russia relations, but the strong commitment being made to contain Russia should not detract from U.S.-Chinese relations. China certainly has it eyes on becoming the premier continental power in Asia. At what point does the U.S. realize - especially in light of a range of domestic issues that need to be addressed - we are overextended? The historian Paul Kennedy discussed what he called "imperial overstretch," when great powers reach a point that their international interests and commitments are so costly they cannot all be defended or honored at the same time. At some point, if we are going to reinvest in our overseas commitments, the idea of overextension will have to be addressed.

Two things: 1. Although they are a rival, China and the U.S.' fates are intertwined. Economically we are locked to them and they are to us, so although there is often tension between our countries, neither is bent on the wholesale destruction of the other. Not so with Russia. 2. China is already hacking various interests in the U.S. Most often for commercial exploitation. When it comes to espionage, they are nowhere near the sophistication level of the Soviets, excuse me, Russians.

When it comes to reinvesting in NATO, I have two major concerns. First is the "democratic backsliding" taking place in NATO member states like Turkey, Poland, Hungary, and other former Warsaw Pact states. This is a real concern largely because it draws them away from the Western influence. How will this be addressed? I am also concerned about the "capabilities gap" that came with NATO expansion in 1999, 2004, and 2009. Reinvesting in NATO must include more equitable burden sharing. Again, how will that be addressed?

Part of the reason NATO is eroding is precisely BECAUSE of the U.S.' disengagement and following courses of action not in line with our allies' interests. Following some semblance of the steps I outlined leads to a position of strength which reinvigorates alliances and gives us a bargaining chip to demand more of allies.  Countries are ready to sign on with us again, we just need to get our shit together here at home. Russia has been fighting the Cold War again since Putin took over in like... What, 2000? We can't pretend they are not our declared enemies anymore.

Rocinante wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

lol, tsk tsk. Point out where I said you were? I try to avoid those direct statements after months of people jumping to conclusions about me.

BTW - no fan of Trump:

Jeb Bush ‏@JebBush 10m10 minutes ago
Rex Tillerson is a good man and accomplished leader who will serve our country well as Secretary of State.

Dude, it doesn't matter if he was complicit in it or not. It happened and we have to do something about it.

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

The_Dude wrote:

Trump Derangement Syndrome:

"A mental dysfunction causing those detractors with hateful thoughts and feelings about Donald Trump to go unhinged."

Flagged for repetitive posting.

LooseGoose wrote:

Rocinante wrote:

Dude, it doesn't matter if he was complicit in it or not. It happened and we have to do something about it.

Skipped right over the "pointing out" part, eh?

Complicit how? Are you saying he helped the Russkies? If not then how is he responsible in any way shape or form?