U.S.-Russia relations

[Okeefenokee]

Any thoughts on the claim that Assange was somehow working with the Russians? I find it pretty far-fetched. Same with the synonymous claims about Snowden. Smear campaigns and distraction-oriented claims in my opinion.

Fake news with no evidence.

[Smitty-48]

That may be but I'm sure people said the same thing about the Chinese governance during the Nixon administration. Not to dismiss the likely nefariousness of the Kremlin, but who knows, maybe that nature can be changed. Seems an impossibly pie-in-the-sky pursuit but I'm sure Trump, in his rhetoric about moving closer to Russia, isn't devoid of some of that same nefariousness. I hesitate to make the comparison but as I write this I can't help but imagine an international version of Game of Thrones... ugh.

Frankly, I don't think letting the Chinese off the hook has actually worked out so well for America, they stole your jobs, they carried on being nefarious, they're far more of a threat to you now than they ever were in 1972, and far more agressive therein, you basically gave them time and space to build themselves up as your nemesis, and funded it all with your own money.

But America's not blameless in this. I mean, they didn't blindly take advantage of America. Companies willingly moved overseas, China didn't steal our jobs. So you're right, America funded it and it's certainly something to be leery of moving forward. But we can't underestimate America's agency in its relations with Russia. I guess I'm making it sound like you're saying America shouldn't be mending ties with Russia, but don't fully intend to. (Am I reading what you're saying correctly?) I'm just saying I think there's potential here for something good to happen.

Well, the Chinese suckered you though, they never held up their end of the bargain, they didn't really liberalize, they didn't really allow market forces to take over, they didn't really open themselves up to you, it was all a one way street, and I don't think they did that blindly, no, in fact, I believe it was a deliberately planned strategic military operation from the get go, by a wholly militarized Communist totalitarian dictatorship which views you as an adversary to ultimately be defeated, rather than a partner in good faith.

And I'm not saying America should or shouldn't do anything, I'm just saying, the Kremlin has absolutely no interest in "mending ties" with you, other than in buying themselves time and space to position themselves to better leverage you, next time you get into a confrontation with them, which is inevitable, because they will make it so, because without America as the enemy at the gates, the Kremlin loses its mandate to maintian a quasi-totalitarian national security state uber alles, which is their whole raison d'etre, not to mention the source of all their power and prerogatives.

[nickle7]

Frankly, I don't think letting the Chinese off the hook has actually worked out so well for America, they stole your jobs, they carried on being nefarious, they're far more of a threat to you now than they ever were in 1972, and far more agressive therein, you basically gave them time and space to build themselves up as your nemesis, and funded it all with your own money.

But America's not blameless in this. I mean, they didn't blindly take advantage of America. Companies willingly moved overseas, China didn't steal our jobs. So you're right, America funded it and it's certainly something to be leery of moving forward. But we can't underestimate America's agency in its relations with Russia. I guess I'm making it sound like you're saying America shouldn't be mending ties with Russia, but don't fully intend to. (Am I reading what you're saying correctly?) I'm just saying I think there's potential here for something good to happen.

Well, the Chinese suckered you though, they never held up their end of the bargain, they didn't really liberalize, they didn't really allow market forces to take over, they didn't really open themselves up to you, it was all a one way street, and I don't think they did that blindly, no, in fact, I believe it was a deliberately planned strategic military operation from the get go, by a wholly militarized Communist totalitarian dictatorship which views you as an adversary to ultimately be defeated, rather than a partner in good faith.

Ok but China has liberalized significantly since the 70's. Probably not to hold up any sort of bargain or to please us, but because it was a smart move economically.

[nickle7]

And I'm not saying America should or shouldn't do anything, I'm just saying, the Kremlin has absolutely no interest in "mending ties" with you, other than in buying themselves time and space to position themselves to better leverage you, next time you get into a confrontation with them, which is inevitable, because they will make it so, because without America as the enemy at the gates, the Kremlin loses its mandate to maintian a quasi-totalitarian national security state uber alles, which is their whole raison d'etre, not to mention the source of all their power and prerogatives.

I guess I concede this at face value. Sure Putin sees things as a zero-sum game. And maybe that's all he'll ever see. But how many people other than him truly see things that way. Very few things are truly a zero-sum game. Inevitably, there are going to be benefits for both countries just as there are going to be drawbacks for both countries. Putin may not acknowledge the mutual benefits received from improved relations with the U.S. but objectively, it's a two way street.

[Smitty-48]

Ok but China has liberalized significantly since the 70's. Probably not to hold up any sort of bargain or to please us, but because it was a smart move economically.

It was all a facade, classic Communist Potemkin village, they haven't liberalized shit, and Xi Jinping is a Communist hardliner straight out of the seventies, Xi Jinping is a Maoist if there ever was one.

[Smitty-48]

And I'm not saying America should or shouldn't do anything, I'm just saying, the Kremlin has absolutely no interest in "mending ties" with you, other than in buying themselves time and space to position themselves to better leverage you, next time you get into a confrontation with them, which is inevitable, because they will make it so, because without America as the enemy at the gates, the Kremlin loses its mandate to maintian a quasi-totalitarian national security state uber alles, which is their whole raison d'etre, not to mention the source of all their power and prerogatives.

I guess I concede this at face value. Sure Putin sees things as a zero-sum game. And maybe that's all he'll ever see. But how many people other than him truly see things that way. Very few things are truly a zero-sum game. Inevitably, there are going to be benefits for both countries just as there are going to be drawbacks for both countries. Putin may not acknowledge the mutual benefits received from improved relations with the U.S. but objectively, it's a two way street.

What are the benefits to America, in bending over to appease the Kremlin? I'm not seeing it.

[nickle7]

And I'm not saying America should or shouldn't do anything, I'm just saying, the Kremlin has absolutely no interest in "mending ties" with you, other than in buying themselves time and space to position themselves to better leverage you, next time you get into a confrontation with them, which is inevitable, because they will make it so, because without America as the enemy at the gates, the Kremlin loses its mandate to maintian a quasi-totalitarian national security state uber alles, which is their whole raison d'etre, not to mention the source of all their power and prerogatives.

I guess I concede this at face value. Sure Putin sees things as a zero-sum game. And maybe that's all he'll ever see. But how many people other than him truly see things that way. Very few things are truly a zero-sum game. Inevitably, there are going to be benefits for both countries just as there are going to be drawbacks for both countries. Putin may not acknowledge the mutual benefits received from improved relations with the U.S. but objectively, it's a two way street.

What are the benefits to America, in bending over to appease the Kremlin? I'm not seeing it.

Assuming that relations did improve, we would have more latitude in dealing with the Syrian conflict, a stronger and more coordinated coalition against ISIS could be developed, and I'd be interested in the shifting dynamics of the U.S.-China relationship.

Now, it could be said that this is all presupposed on idea that Putin is a rational actor, which admittedly from the U.S. perspective that doesn't seem to be the case. But also, I'm not convinced that Russia is as powerful as it's made out to be. Economically, they're struggling. Their current trajectory isn't sustainable. So with that in mind, I don't see the U.S. needing to "bend over to appease the Kremlin." True that's what Putin wants, but assuming he's rational in the sense of wanting to avoid the economic collapse of his own country, he'll need to settle for less.

[Smitty-48]

Assuming that relations did improve, we would have more latitude in dealing with the Syrian conflict, a stronger and more coordinated coalition against ISIS could be developed, and I'd be interested in the shifting dynamics of the U.S.-China relationship.

I would say that you're going down a rabbit hole there, which will lead you to nothing but a handful of ashes and a mouthful of rocks, but that's just me.

Now, it could be said that this is all presupposed on idea that Putin is a rational actor, which admittedly from the U.S. perspective that doesn't seem to be the case. But also, I'm not convinced that Russia is as powerful as it's made out to be. Economically, they're struggling. Their current trajectory isn't sustainable. So with that in mind, I don't see the U.S. needing to "bend over to appease the Kremlin." True that's what Putin wants, but assuming he's rational in the sense of wanting to avoid the economic collapse of his own country, he'll need to settle for less.

If Putin is a rational actor, then he realizes that there is nowhere for him to back off to, nowhere for him to escape to, if United Russia goes down, he's going down too, and probably not to jail, but dead, so, quite frankly, if push comes to shove, Putin's got nothing to lose, might as well go for broke, that's the only rational play for him in the end, and rationally, that would not involve a true Detente with America, quite the opposite in fact, because without inciting America to be the enemy at the gates, Putin has no raison d'etre, beating swords into plowshares, would in fact spell Putin's doom.

[nickle7]

If Putin is a rational actor, then he realizes that there is nowhere for him to back off to, nowhere for him to escape to, if United Russia goes down, he's going down too, and probably not to jail, but dead, so, quite frankly, if push comes to shove, Putin's got nothing to lose, might as well go for broke, that's the only rational play for him in the end, and rationally, that would not involve a true Detente with America, quite the opposite in fact, because without inciting America to be the enemy at the gates, Putin has no raison d'etre, beating swords into plowshares, would in fact spell Putin's doom.

I'm making the assumption that Putin has, above all else, the well-being and survival of Russia in mind. He's gonna do everything he can to salvage it.

It's funny because my argument could be just as easily used to prove your point. In one sense, it's two sides of the same coin. We're agreeing I think, on his mindset and rationale, but highlighting opposite outcomes.

[Smitty-48]

If Putin is a rational actor, then he realizes that there is nowhere for him to back off to, nowhere for him to escape to, if United Russia goes down, he's going down too, and probably not to jail, but dead, so, quite frankly, if push comes to shove, Putin's got nothing to lose, might as well go for broke, that's the only rational play for him in the end, and rationally, that would not involve a true Detente with America, quite the opposite in fact, because without inciting America to be the enemy at the gates, Putin has no raison d'etre, beating swords into plowshares, would in fact spell Putin's doom.

I'm making the assumption that Putin has, above all else, the well-being and survival of Russia in mind. He's gonna do everything he can to salvage it.

I'm making the assumption that Putin has, above all else, the well being and survival of Putin in mind, but only as the KGB Commisar-in-Chief, and stalwart defender of the Russian Imperial hegenomy in the former Soviet territories, and that that all involves keeping America as his nemesis, as a raison d'etre for his own existence therein, and ultimately, if Putin is going down at some point, taking everybody down with him is not against his interests, as at the very least, he'd be having his vengeance on his enemies as he went out with a bang.