Russia

[Ronson]

This may be bad timing with all the Floyd and Covid news, but I wanted to post this since the subject came up recently. I may have to bump it later.
Just my thoughts on the subject. I'm often accused of being a Russian bot by people who favor knee-jerk reactions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There has been a perception for several years now that Russia/Putin is the arch enemy of the United States, like some sort of throwback to the Cold War. In fact, I heartily suspect the notion is mostly favored by Cold War Warriors who pine for the past. But for those who believe Russia is out to kill us all, please consider the following.

Once the Cold War ended, Boris Yeltsin and Bill Clinton forged a relationship in the 1990s on the premise (or promise) that NATO would not expand its borders into the former East Bloc. NATO did. Or that it would not go even further into former Soviet republics. NATO did. It was after these broken promises that power changed hands from Yeltsin to Putin. Former KGB agent Putin is obviously no sweetie. Absolutely no one thinks he's a "nice guy", but he is primarily concerned with Russia's future and doesn't much care about the US (except he believes NATO betrayed Russia's trust). And since Russia has always been a bit paranoid about being invaded, ala Napoleon and Hitler, it sees NATO as a threat on its border. NATO nation Latvia is less than 500 miles from Moscow.

So put the US in Russia's shoes. Say Russia promised to not expand the Warsaw Pact into the Americas, but did it anyway. Or go even further into nations bordering the US, and did it anyway. Remember how Kennedy reacted to Castro and the Soviets nestling up to each other? Too close for comfort. It led to the Bay Of Pigs and a naval blockade.

Crimea

This naval base was the only warm-water port the Soviet Union and Russia had. Most of the Crimean population is Russian. Most of its jobs are Russian (either serving the navy or as a resort). Administration of Crimea was handed over to Ukraine by Moscow in 1954 as a meaningless "gift" since Moscow wielded power over everything, everywhere in all of its republics. When the Soviet Union dissolved, Crimea went with Ukraine, event though it housed the entire Russian Navy. Russia was forced to lease the ports for its navy from Ukraine, which was not a problem for several years.

Up until 2014, Obama was attempting to build a theoretical bridge with Russia, hence the famous 2012 quote to Medvedev "I'll have more flexibility after the election". It was also during this time that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton criticized the elections in Moscow as being rigged, which threw Vladimir Putin into a rage. He considered that "meddling" (sound familiar?). By 2014, John Kerry and Joe Biden were making multiple visits to Kiev in an attempt to pull Ukraine further into the influence of the west. President Viktor Yanukovych (who had agreed to extend the Russian lease in Crimea) suddenly faced protests in Kiev and was accused of corruption, which unravelled his administration. He was quickly replaced by a pro-west government, which was as corrupt as previous Ukraine governments.

Hunter Biden (son of US Vice President Joe Biden) lands a board position with Burisma in 2014 and collects up to $50,000 per month. The son of Secretary of State John Kerry (Chris Heinz) severs his business relationship with Hunter because of this, and Heinz notifies the US State Department in 2014 that he has no connection with Burisma and no longer has a business relationship with Hunter Biden. I've always found it interesting that Chris Heinz knew there was something amiss and notified the State Department about it, but Biden defenders will say "There's nothing is wrong with it."

Russia annexes Crimea, under the guise of a referendum, real or not. Russia took it over. Obama coordinates western sanctions against Russia. Civil war breaks out in eastern Ukraine - which also happens to be the area Russia would need to have for a land bridge to Crimea.

Hillary and Trump run for US President in 2016. Russia/Russians "meddle" via Internet against Hillary (tit for tat?). Not a big surprise considering the Obama/Hillary/Biden/Kerry track record.

The above doesn't even touch on Russia's poor military technology and minor economy - especially when compared to a REAL threat like China. That's another subject altogether, but worthy of mention to those that think Russia wants to crush the US.

Churchill famously said: "“I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest.” That is exactly correct, IMO. Russia acts in its own interest, and that interest doesn't really involve the US.

[Cow Poke]

[Whateverman]

There's too much to respond to here, sorry.

It's a fact that Russia seeks (and actively works towards) undermining US hegemony and interests. Whether this makes Russia "the arch enemy" of the US is debatable, but it surely places the country on a list of our strategic enemies. And a president who sides with our strategic enemies over this nation's intelligence agencies is only going to exacerbate that enemy's threat to us.

From that other forum, I know you're a bit of an isolationist, and that you approve of Trump's efforts to withdraw US forces from international conflicts. I have no problems with either of those two opinions, but I definitely have a problem with your dismissal of Russia as something the US should be worried about.

[Ronson]

There's too much to respond to here, sorry.

That's fine. I didn't expect many/any replies right now. I just wanted this up to refer to as we get closer to November.

As far as "too much", I also figured only specific details would be argued.

It's a fact that Russia seeks (and actively works towards) undermining US hegemony and interests. Whether this makes Russia "the arch enemy" of the US is debatable, but it surely places the country on a list of our strategic enemies. And a president who sides with our strategic enemies over this nation's intelligence agencies is only going to exacerbate that enemy's threat to us.

First, Trump isn't "siding" with Russia that I can see. But it does appear our intelligence agencies were working to undermine Trump (reference Rosenstein comments).

As a summary of my long-winded commentary, Russia seeks after its own interests and those aren't always in alignment with US interests. I'm not sure that makes them an arch enemy. "Adversary" is closer.

From that other forum, I know you're a bit of an isolationist, and that you approve of Trump's efforts to withdraw US forces from international conflicts. I have no problems with either of those two opinions, but I definitely have a problem with your dismissal of Russia as something the US should be worried about.

I'm trying to figure out your handle on the other forum. You mind my asking? It will help me understand your position(s).

[Whateverman]

First, Trump isn't "siding" with Russia that I can see.

Then your sight is far less than 20/20. I'm not going to bother posting video clips of him saying he trusts Putin over US intelligence agencies, because if you're going to ignore them, reposting them here would be a waste of my time.

But it does appear our intelligence agencies were working to undermine Trump (reference Rosenstein comments).

Heavens! A president with ties to Moscow and Russian oligarchs becomes the focus of national security investigations. Clearly, our intelligence agencies are out of control!!!

As a summary of my long-winded commentary, Russia seeks after its own interests and those aren't always in alignment with US interests. I'm not sure that makes them an arch enemy. "Adversary" is closer.

That description is so vague as to apply to both our enemies and our allies. The same can be said of the UK: it seeks after its own interests, and those aren't always in line with ours. Maybe we should reclassify them as an adversary as well, yes?

I'm trying to figure out your handle on the other forum. You mind my asking? It will help me understand your position(s).

I respectfully decline. I shouldn't have mentioned your positions on the other forum; my intent was just to explain I understand your POV somewhat, rather than to brag that I know more about you than you me. I apologize for doing that.

[Ronson]

Then your sight is far less than 20/20. I'm not going to bother posting video clips of him saying he trusts Putin over US intelligence agencies, because if you're going to ignore them, reposting them here would be a waste of my time.

Some things are said in public for public consumption, not as a reflection of reality. I'm still waiting for Iran to blast Israel off the map.

Heavens! A president with ties to Moscow and Russian oligarchs becomes the focus of national security investigations. Clearly, our intelligence agencies are out of control!!!

They didn't investigate Obama for whispering in Medvedev's ear about flexibility.

That description is so vague as to apply to both our enemies and our allies. The same can be said of the UK: it seeks after its own interests, and those aren't always in line with ours. Maybe we should reclassify them as an adversary as well, yes?

Countries don't have defense pacts with adversaries.

[Whateverman]

Some things are said in public for public consumption, not as a reflection of reality.

That doesn't apply here. Trump literally sided with Putin (standing next to him) over US intelligence agencies, in public and in front of the cameras, and in response to a valid question. Lipstick on a pig...

Countries don't have defense pacts with adversaries.

Either that or your milquetoast-description of Russian policy was obviously self-serving. It was so vague as to apply to an ally like the UK - so maybe consider a more accurate characterization:

The UK seeks after its own interests and those aren't always in alignment with US interests. I'm not sure that makes them an arch enemy. "Adversary" is closer.

[Ronson]

That doesn't apply here. Trump literally sided with Putin (standing next to him) over US intelligence agencies, in public and in front of the cameras, and in response to a valid question. Lipstick on a pig...

What was Trump supposed to do? He was having a joint news conference with Putin after a summit, and some journalist (who wanted to become the story) asked Trump if he thought Putin was a liar. What do you think Obama would have done? Or Bush? It was an inappropriate question for that format. I would have said "I'm not answering that" or told the guy to take a hike.

Either that or your milquetoast-description of Russian policy was obviously self-serving. It was so vague as to apply to an ally like the UK - so maybe consider a more accurate characterization:

The UK seeks after its own interests and those aren't always in alignment with US interests. I'm not sure that makes them an arch enemy. "Adversary" is closer.

The UK doesn't meddle in other countries like the US and Russia do. When their interests don't align (like with Huawei) it doesn't amount to very much. Not to mention a very long and close relationship that the US and UK have.