[CinnamonTea]

@Albert

I'll try and stay un-argumentative about this, as I understand feelings get high when issues about sovereignty and nationalism get raised. Nevertheless I do have to make the statement that it is better to be educated rather than opinionated, and leave the propaganda behind when there is the opportunity for meaningful discussion.

Also, I think a point has been missed. While Ukraine is somewhat relevant, it is warmongering and sources of instability which are more concerning. If we recognize that it is in everyone's best interests that lives are saved, families get enough to eat, and political systems are transparent and responsive so they can take care of the people that they represent, then we can see how Russian interference in Eastern Europe and other parts of the world--solely for national self-interest--is problematic. The United States is certainly not a paragon of human rights by any means, nor am I making that argument. But Russian intentions of restoring regional dominance is directly in conflict with what most Americans assumed the role of NATO and the United States was after the end of the Cold War--to make sure that those democratic revolutions turned into stable, democratic countries. No one in the American politics is willing to let Eastern Europe turn back into a wall of puppet states under Moscow again.

But on the point of a Russian-US alliance. Again, alliance is the troubling term here. As mentioned by other users, cooperation in counter-terrorism, science, technology, might be a much more possible step in improving the currently frigid relationship. But alliance? Unless China decides it's going to blow up the world, there is nothing that could provide the foundations for extensive military cooperation. Not unless the United States sacrifices its obligations with dozens of other nations.

[Rugoz]

Imagine if USA went through a chaotic shock and states like Texas and California seperated.

If Trump installs a one-man dictatorship in the US and the California Republic secedes, then by all means California should get all the outside economic and military support it desires.

[Albert]

^Surviving US might disagree with you on that though. So who is right in that situation?

@CinnamonTea
There is a lot of unresolved post Cold War issues in eastern Europe. To understand them properly one has understand the region and its history.

Russia I believe is willing to work with US and Nato. It had let go of Baltic states and Poland and such countries. Serbia is one exception and reasons for that are historic. Ukraine and Belarus is another. I know it is hard to understand because one is not familiar with Russian ethos and its legacy because they are foreign to you, but those things are real.

In the end Russia does not threaten Nato's allies, all that talk is fearmongering that had been riled up to motivate people into supporting Ukrainian intervention.

The best way I can describe to you is imagine USA would have lost the Cold War and fell apart into different states. There still will be desire for lets say the surviving most power union of states to preserve what had been lost. For a foreign country to come in and question the legitimacy of that would seem bizarre to you, would it not? Considering the history of America.

This is situation Russia finds itself in today.

US's perception of the issue is that Russia should act as a defeated state and move on from all its claims. Russia on the other hand does not see itself as defeated, to them when they decided to give up Communism in the 80s they saw it as a peace treaty and reconciliation with the west not surrender.

It is up to the US now to either pursue total subjugation of Russia or work with it and draw out spheres of influences among each other. Former is only achievable through military means as Russia will most likely not surrender otherwise. The latter can be achieved through diplomatic means. And I see in longterm can lead to an alliance.

Russians are not averse to the idea of joining the EU or Nato, even under US leadership. But post Cold War issues need to be worked out first. Or at least Russia should be given space to work them out, yes that means countries like Ukraine and Belarus, perhaps even Kazakhstan might be reunited back with Russia. Probably by annexation in the future.

[OllytheBrit]

More meaningful is US-Russia cooperation in other fields, such as science, space etc. Cordial geopolitical relations favour masters and puppets. At best Russia and the US can maintain a positive neutrality.

Fuck 'space' let's sort out the crap that's going on here on this beautiful planet and we won't need to go anywhere else? Good comment on 'positive neutrality' though, in the sense that 'Jaw-jaw is better than war-war? We're certainly going to need Russia on-board for the upcoming fight against global jihad.

[foxdemon]

Fuck 'space' let's sort out the crap that's going on here on this beautiful planet and we won't need to go anywhere else? Good comment on 'positive neutrality' though, in the sense that 'Jaw-jaw is better than war-war? We're certainly going to need Russia on-board for the upcoming fight against global jihad.

Are you kidding? The space industry is worth over $300 billion. There are big plans for further expansion of orbital infrastructure to extend the space industry beyond common communications and remote sensing. We do need to work together on such tasks as cleaning up the junk in orbit. Then there is exploration.

It is disturbing that supposed advanced and civilised Westerners focus on minor issues like terrorism yet ignore or simply fail to understand big issues like expansion into space. Are Westerners a bunch of geriatric 'has beens'?

Anyway, I voted YES to an alliance with Russia because I think it would be fun to get together with them and invade Europe again. Just like old times

[OllytheBrit]

It's the biggest con ever to be perpetrated on the human race. What's the point of going to a planet that can't sustain life? And who's it worth $300 billion to?

As to your 'I voted YES to an alliance with Russia because I think it would be fun to get together with them and invade Europe again. Just like old times.'

[Rousse]

No.

As petroleum scarcity heats up, tensions over the world economy's most precious resource will increase. The close Russian relationship with Iran will present an impediment there, finding a way to control the Strait of Hormuz is in America's national interest to undermine an enemy of our Israeli and Saudi sometimes-allies and (much more importantly) ensure China plays ball by grabbing them by the balls.

Also Russian identity is to a considerable degree formed around an anti-Western siege mentality, an entirely understandable mentality forged during the Cold War. This has led to things like Aleksandr Dugin's worldview being advocated by the grand strategy department of the General Staff Academy. Due to this ingrained anti-Western cultural antipathy and the emerging Eurasianist ideology, any alliance would consist of naive American policymakers letting a self-interested Russia get one over on American interests. It'd be like the Iran deal, nothing more than a holding measure to deal with a mutual threat. As the main mutual threat (ISIS) is currently being routed, it's completely needless.

I'll introduce one caveat to this, though: I do believe, like Henry Kissinger and other members of the American foreign policy old guard, that the US has a short-term vested interest in the Putin regime's stability. The power vacuum after he dies, considering it takes place in a nuclear power with emerging far-rightists and ever-present Chechen terrorists, is frightening. While presenting an image of strength is necessary to keep Russian expansion in line, all-out overthrow is more trouble than it's worth.

[Thompson_NCL]

Fuck 'space' let's sort out the crap that's going on here on this beautiful planet and we won't need to go anywhere else? Good comment on 'positive neutrality' though, in the sense that 'Jaw-jaw is better than war-war? We're certainly going to need Russia on-board for the upcoming fight against global jihad.

Depressing that people think like this.

Our species must spread beyond this "beautiful planet" if we intend to survive in the longterm.

[fuser]

No.

As petroleum scarcity heats up, tensions over the world economy's most precious resource will increase. The close Russian relationship with Iran will present an impediment there, control of the Strait of Hormuz is in America's national interest to undermine an enemy of our Israeli and Saudi allies and ensure China plays ball by grabbing them by the balls.

This just doesn't follow. How a Russian-US alliance (not that I think there can be any such alliance) will be a detriment to all of these things?

Then, this "Petroleum Scarcity" and leading tension resulting in another war etc is more of Tom Clancy territory than reality. There is ample fuel to meet any demand of this planet for near future, projections are tough for long term but then there are also various alternatives coming along.

Its not about controlling an absolutely vital resource that is scarce but its about controlling a resource that is profitable not necessarily for the people as various US led conflicts in middle east shows. These conflicts are not profitable for American people as the amount of tax money that is poured into these conflict zones shows but its still very profitable for all the corporates not only just US ones involved there.

Also Russian identity is to a considerable degree formed around an anti-Western siege mentality, an entirely understandable mentality forged during the Cold War. This has led to things like Aleksandr Dugin's worldview being advocated by the grand strategy department of the General Staff Academy. Due to this ingrained anti-Western cultural antipathy and the emerging Eurasianist ideology, any alliance would consist of naive American policymakers letting a self-interested Russia get one over on American interests. It'd be like the Iran deal, nothing more than a holding measure to deal with a mutual threat. As the main mutual threat (ISIS) is currently being routed, it's completely needless.

It always gives me a chuckle when westerners psychoanalyze entire Russian psyche while missing the irony, from my perspective westerners are more of a victim of this anti-Russian mentality than the other way round. West wouldn't even trust Russia during Yeltsin era ffs.

I'll introduce one caveat to this, though: I do believe, like Henry Kissinger and other members of the American foreign policy old guard, that the US has a short-term vested interest in the Putin regime's stability. The power vacuum after he dies, considering it takes place in a nuclear power with emerging far-rightists and ever-present Chechen terrorists, is frightening. While presenting an image of strength is necessary to keep Russian expansion in line, all-out overthrow is more trouble than it's worth.

This thought that Russia will fall to chaos without Putin or only Putin is holding Russia together is just an exaggeration just like the exaggeration of Petroleum Scarcity.

[OllytheBrit]

:| Depressing that people think like this.

Our species must spread beyond this "beautiful planet" if we intend to survive in the longterm.

We sure as hell won't survive for long on Mars? And that's if we could even get there - which we never will.

Oops I've drifted off topic. Sorry.

[Thompson_NCL]

We sure as hell won't survive for long on Mars? And that's if we could even get there - which we never will.

Oops I've drifted off topic. Sorry.

So you're speaking from a position of monumental ignorance? Gotcha.

[OllytheBrit]

No, purely from logic, being one of the few who aren't gullible enough to believe the 'astrophysicists'. You should try it some time??

[Rousse]

This just doesn't follow. How a Russian-US alliance (not that I think there can be any such alliance) will be a detriment to all of these things?

I'm arguing it's not possible in the long term, tensions over Iran will see to that. In the meantime, allowing any more expansions of Russian influence than necessary makes it more difficult in the future to maintain American control over that resource.

There is ample fuel to meet any demand of this planet for near future, projections are tough for long term but then there are also various alternatives coming along.

This is a non-sequitur. "We're running out of oil" is not the point, "we're running out of cheap oil" is. Our fuel projections are based on having to dig deeper and in more contentious areas for that petroleum, which means prices will rise and American foreign policy becomes increasingly dominated by ensuring control over the supply.

With regard to alternatives, we're on the same page. I would love an Apollo Project-type effort to get America off oil, both for national security and climate change reasons.

Its not about controlling an absolutely vital resource that is scarce but its about controlling a resource that is profitable not necessarily for the people as various US led conflicts in middle east shows. These conflicts are not profitable for American people as the amount of tax money that is poured into these conflict zones shows but its still very profitable for all the corporates not only just US ones involved there.

I don't support the Bush Jr. foreign policy. I see it as a dangerous, quixotic, Wilsonian effort to introduce liberal democracy rapidly in a region with no history of it. Of course that'll just increase global instability. And yes, various corporate interests also stood to gain, mostly reconstruction companies and defense contractors. American control over Iraq's oil fields did not occur, Canadian and Chinese companies got the contracts. And if the Iraq War were replaced with one of the many generals Saddam's regime basically pissed on seizing power in an American-backed coup internal to the Ba'ath Party not unlike Saddam's own, I wouldn't be opposed.

A chokehold on Iran would involve sanctions and sponsorship of the green movement, hopefully a coup by pro-American interests within Iran. I see all of that as positive, especially if they don't make the same mistakes the Shah did, like rapid Westernization with no concern for local cultural norms and desires.

It always gives me a chuckle when westerners psychoanalyze entire Russian psyche while missing the irony, from my perspective westerners are more of a victim of this anti-Russian mentality than the other way round.

"Siege mentality" is a common phrase that Russians themselves use to describe their culture. Also, considering Russia has in the last year conduced military exercises off the coasts of Alaska and San Francisco, I think mistrust is justified.

This thought that Russia will fall to chaos without Putin or only Putin is holding Russia together is just an exaggeration just like the exaggeration of Petroleum Scarcity.

Highly centralized regimes produce power vacuums when they fall, introducing instability. Putin's regime is highly centralized. He can either anoint a well-respected successor to continue as his heir, and he doesn't appear to be grooming anyone publicly for that role yet, or you will get a power struggle that will see a chance for dangerous forces in Russian society to achieve their goals. This, naturally, emboldens them.

[Thompson_NCL]

No, purely from logic, being one of the few who aren't gullible enough to believe the 'astrophysicists'. You should try it some time??

Anyway, back on topic, a US-Russian alliance is viable provided Russia is willing to give up on its Eastern European sphere. Is it likely to do that though? No. So the topic is moot.

[LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX]

And why should we want to? Containing Russia is very important for the time being. I don't buy that Crimea was an isolated incident, and I think Obama was very weak in his response to it. Trump reminds me of Chamberlain with his talk of appeasing Russia.

[fuser]

I'm arguing it's not possible in the long term, tensions over Iran will see to that. In the meantime, allowing any more expansions of Russian influence than necessary makes it more difficult in the future to maintain American control over that resource.

Again, If US-Russian alliance is realized (which I don't think is possible), one of the things that could happen is Russian support to Iran curtailed if US allows a part of the pie. This is not even unprecedented, see Iran-Iraq war. Russia depending on US is far more beneficial for US than Russia depending on Iran in the region, in one US needs an offensive presence, in another it doesn't.

This is a non-sequitur. "We're running out of oil" is not the point, "we're running out of cheap oil" is. Our fuel projections are based on having to dig deeper and in more contentious areas for that petroleum, which means prices will rise and American foreign policy becomes increasingly dominated by ensuring control over the supply.

This is not a definite case neither its so severe that control over it will determine the international relations in the coming years, peak oil paranoia is just gross exaggeration.

I don't support the Bush Jr. foreign policy. I see it as a dangerous, quixotic, Wilsonian effort to introduce liberal democracy rapidly in a region with no history of it. Of course that'll just increase global instability.

So you truly think that it was an Wilsonian effort to introduce liberal democracy in Iraq with good intentions in heart? It was more like patches after patches as they went along, after so much chest thumping about freedom and democracy, it was obvious they couldn't just give the highest seat in the country to any yes man dictator. It failed because post war Iraqi government wasn't even a priority. I never bought the, "it had no history of democracy" line, there are many examples like Japan, Korea, India who successfully transitioned to liberal democracy without any history of it.

"Siege mentality" is a common phrase that Russians themselves use to describe their culture. Also, considering Russia has in the last year conduced military exercises off the coasts of Alaska and San Francisco, I think mistrust is justified.

All those exercises are drop in water compared to hostile western actions against Russia. But my point isn't that whether this mutual mistrust is justified or not, I just find it ironical that westerners always psychoanalyze Russians as having anti-western mentality wherein they themselves are deeply anti-Russian as anyone who has consumed even a part of western pop media can testify.

Highly centralized regimes produce power vacuums when they fall, introducing instability. Putin's regime is highly centralized. He can either anoint a well-respected successor to continue as his heir, and he doesn't appear to be grooming anyone publicly for that role yet, or you will get a power struggle that will see a chance for dangerous forces in Russian society to achieve their goals. This, naturally, emboldens them.

I just think that you exaggerate too much, you take any given theory and take it to its extremes. Its not a given that highly centralized regimes must always fall to chaos after its leader passes away (recent example Cuba), it depends on nation to nation and their particular position. What is it about Russia that makes you think, it will be all chaos? What vested interests will suddenly start fighting each other without Putin? Or maybe more realistically, Russia is developed enough that it can do a power transition without falling to anarchy.

[Rousse]

Again, If US-Russian alliance is realized (which I don't think is possible), one of the things that could happen is Russian support to Iran curtailed if US allows a part of the pie. This is not even unprecedented, see Iran-Iraq war.

Russia isn't going to curtail support for their most powerful ally in the Middle East. It's like America and Saudi Arabia; even if we wanted to break things off, and frankly most of us do considering the fact that they failed to inform us of their intel on the 9/11 attackers, we can't based on current geopolitical realities.

Russia depending on US is far more beneficial for US than Russia depending on Iran in the region, in one US needs an offensive presence, in another it doesn't.

Russia can't depend on the US. This is my point. Russia has abundant resources of its own and a mentality going back to the Cold War where the West is public enemy #1, currently evolving into the imperial geopolitical doctrine of Eurasianism.

An alliance with them is in their interest, not in ours. On their part it would be born out of getting us off their backs so they can continue to undermine our interests, on our part it would be born of either naivete or a more pressing problem. The Obama administration engaged in a partial detente when there was a more pressing problem on our tails. That problem is currently being routed.

This is not a definite case neither its so severe that control over it will determine the international relations in the coming years, peak oil paranoia is just gross exaggeration.

Control over it already is determining international relations, because China lacks native oil resources. They make decisions in pursuit of attaining it, the US makes decisions in pursuit of controlling it to control them.

So you truly think that it was an Wilsonian effort to introduce liberal democracy in Iraq with good intentions in heart?

I think that was the motivation of many policymakers, yes. It was for Paul Wolfowitz, likely George W. Bush himself, based on every expressed desire of both men throughout their career. Wolfowitz is an old Scoop Jackson (Wilson/LBJ) Democrat whose earliest political involvement was mostly justified criticism of the Nixon administration's support for Suharto. George W. Bush is a genuine convert to Evangelical Methodism, I see no reason to doubt his neo-Crusader posturing was heartfelt.

I believe the motivations of Cheney and Rumsfeld were more in the interest of controlling the world oil supply for geopolitical reasons, as they expressed in PNAC in the '90s. I believe they demonstrably did it badly.

It was more like patches after patches as they went along, after so much chest thumping about freedom and democracy, it was obvious they couldn't just give the highest seat in the country to any yes man dictator. It failed because post war Iraqi government wasn't even a priority.

It was priority #1. There was enough resentment against Saddam Hussein by the Iraqi military top brass to find a replacement, as was done before. The Eisenhower foreign policy still functions and was recommended by the CIA and American military leadership, the Bush administration refused to listen.

Instead, the Ba'ath National Guard was disbanded amidst talk that Iraqis would welcome the "sea of freedom" that was unleashed, leading to a sea of unemployed men with military training. When the reaction was instead breakdown into a myriad of religious and national insurgencies, Rumsfeld's response was literally "stuff happens." And the war effort was still managed by Harvard kids in the safe zone, focused on how to properly structure Iraqi democracy rather than thinking like a stabilizing force pursuant to COIN objectives ensuring security and provision of essential public services. Then our policymakers were surprised when paramilitary-linked terrorists were voted for by their respective regions, instead of Iraqis coming together to "end the chaos."

It was a comedy of failure, and those failures were mostly born out of the Wilsonian streak that sits somewhere in the American national psyche as a fanatical form of John Winthrop's "city on a hill" and Thomas Jefferson's "empire of liberty." The realpolitik goals could have been achieved by exchanging an un-useful and abhorrent dictator for a friendlier one, taking most of the chaos out of the equation.

I never bought the, "it had no history of democracy" line, there are many examples like Japan, Korea, India who successfully transitioned to liberal democracy without any history of it.

India was under imperial rule for well over a century and their ruling-class imbibed British cultural norms, you had extensive internal strife early on and rising again today by groups which hadn't. Japan and South Korea have more power vested in their unelected bureaucracies than in their legislature, especially South Korea, which makes sense as it had nothing approximating Meiji's slow, measured modernization either. As their unelected bureaucracies are helmed by a few families at the top of political and corporate ("zaibatsu") life, this is effectively copy/pasting much of the feudal social model into a modern capitalist economy.

All those exercises are drop in water compared to hostile western actions against Russia.

Whatev. My family lives in San Francisco, I don't want Russian exercises outside my home. Sorry.

I also can't think of any American military exercises right outside of Russian land. I can think of Polish exercises which are comparable, but do not exceed Russia's actions.

But my point isn't that whether this mutual mistrust is justified or not, I just find it ironical that westerners always psychoanalyze Russians as having anti-western mentality

"Siege mentality" or "bunker state mentality" is, again, described by Russians themselves. It happens to be directed against the West in Russia's case given the history of the Cold War, it doesn't come from nowhere. It also is not inherently an anti-Western phenomenon. It was directed against Yugoslavia in Albania's case, and there was legitimate grievance there. It was directed against basically the whole world in South Africa's case, and the international community was bringing extensive pressures down on their state.

I just think that you exaggerate too much, you take any given theory and take it to its extremes.

What you describe as "extremes" are standard realist IR theory.

Its not a given that highly centralized regimes must always fall to chaos after its leader passes away (recent example Cuba),

Fidel did exactly what I said. He groomed and anointed a successor, his brother. If he just died and there was no respected successor in line, yes, I suspect Cuba would have fallen to chaos. Empty centralized power is a vacuum, nature abhors a vacuum.

What is it about Russia that makes you think, it will be all chaos?

As I said, it is a highly centralized regime.

What vested interests will suddenly start fighting each other without Putin?

The ruling party, probably a split between the neoliberal wing and the Putinist wing of it at that. The former will likely see it as a chance to regain power, and will be wrong in that. Considering re-inflamed nationalistic sentiments in the Russian public, the latter will probably lurch in a more radical direction than Putin himself, likely aping elements of Eurasianist ideology.

Chechen Islamists will see the vacuum as an opportunity for reinvigorated efforts at secession, especially if the new leader has less respect and less of an image of strength than Putin himself.

And then you have the KPRF which I'm sure won't sit there twiddling their thumbs. But, their infrastructure is mostly electoral and they're not built for bureaucratic (e.g. UR) or military (e.g. Chechen Islamists) struggle, so I don't expect them to get anywhere.

Or maybe more realistically, Russia is developed enough that it can do a power transition without falling to anarchy.

A power transition requires a groomed heir. If Putin has one, and he's well-respected by the Russian people, then the power transition will go smoothly. Being "developed enough" is besides the point because it's a question of where power falls in a society, not economic development.

[Albert]

:eek:

Anyway, back on topic, a US-Russian alliance is viable provided Russia is willing to give up on its Eastern European sphere. Is it likely to do that though? No. So the topic is moot.

What countries in eastern Europe are you talking about here?

[fuser]

Russia isn't going to curtail support for their most powerful ally in the Middle East. It's like America and Saudi Arabia; even if we wanted to break things off, and frankly most of us do considering the fact that they failed to inform us of their intel on the 9/11 attackers, we can't based on current geopolitical realities.

Only that US will be a much more powerful ally than Iran or any other country.

Russia can't depend on the US. This is my point. Russia has abundant resources of its own and a mentality going back to the Cold War where the West is public enemy #1, currently evolving into the imperial geopolitical doctrine of Eurasianism.

You are contradicting yourself, on one hand you say resource scarcity is coming which will increase tensions and then you say that Russia has plenty of it and nothing to gain in middle east, what is it exactly? Then west is far far more victim of cold war mentality than Russia as continued existence and expansion of NATO shows. Russia was practically begging to be taken into Western fold in 90s even during Putin's early era, it was west's cold shoulders that derived from her cold war mentality drove Russians away and in their current jingoism and antagonistic mode.

An alliance with them is in their interest, not in ours. On their part it would be born out of getting us off their backs so they can continue to undermine our interests, on our part it would be born of either naivete or a more pressing problem. The Obama administration engaged in a partial detente when there was a more pressing problem on our tails. That problem is currently being routed.

If anything you are a great example of showing prevailing anti Russian mentality where evil Russians will stab west in back but not the upright west even when real recent history shows that it was complete opposite, see 90s, West continued undermining Russia without any provocation and even with a desire to be accepted as a part of west.

Control over it already is determining international relations, because China lacks native oil resources. They make decisions in pursuit of attaining it, the US makes decisions in pursuit of controlling it to control them.

It always has been so and not only with petroleum. I am contesting the futuristic doom and gloom predictions.

I think that was the motivation of many policymakers, yes. It was for Paul Wolfowitz, likely George W. Bush himself, based on every expressed desire of both men throughout their career. Wolfowitz is an old Scoop Jackson (Wilson/LBJ) Democrat whose earliest political involvement was mostly justified criticism of the Nixon administration's support for Suharto. George W. Bush is a genuine convert to Evangelical Methodism, I see no reason to doubt his neo-Crusader posturing was heartfelt.

I believe the motivations of Cheney and Rumsfeld were more in the interest of controlling the world oil supply for geopolitical reasons, as they expressed in PNAC in the '90s. I believe they demonstrably did it badly.

Why Iraq then? As I said it makes absolutely no sense that west went in Iraq or Afghanistan out of moral duty to spread liberalism and democracy as the real events that unfolded shows. If there existed two faction its clear which one called the shots.

It was priority #1. There was enough resentment against Saddam Hussein by the Iraqi military top brass to find a replacement, as was done before. The Eisenhower foreign policy still functions and was recommended by the CIA and American military leadership, the Bush administration refused to listen.

I was talking about post Iraqi liberal democratic government as being priority, it was absolutely not. Priority was controlling the oil reserves there as the very first act of the triumphant west was to impose selling of Iraqi oil back in dollars only. Post war government was absolutely not. US couldn't had just chosen any dictator because of political reasons as I had already said, after much chest thumping about freedom and democracy to rally support for this war, they just couldn't had chosen any yes man dictator.

India was under imperial rule for well over a century and their ruling-class imbibed British cultural norms, you had extensive internal strife early on and rising again today by groups which hadn't. Japan and South Korea have more power vested in their unelected bureaucracies than in their legislature, especially South Korea, which makes sense as it had nothing approximating Meiji's slow, measured modernization either. As their unelected bureaucracies are helmed by a few families at the top of political and corporate ("zaibatsu") life, this is effectively copy/pasting much of the feudal social model into a modern capitalist economy.

Exactly, each nation is needed to be looked at differently, there can't be an universal rule like "it never had any history of liberal democracy" as this blanket statement can be applied to these countries as well. In the same region Iran also had democracy without it going in utter chaos and anarchy like Iraq before US supported coup.

Whatev. My family lives in San Francisco, I don't want Russian exercises outside my home. Sorry. I also can't think of any American military exercises right outside of Russian land. I can think of Polish exercises which are comparable, but do not exceed Russia's actions.

So this is personal now? May be most of Russians don't want Nato bases near their homes either. As per military exercises, NATO constantly does so near Russian borders all the time, in November this year only, Operation Iron Sword took place in Lithuania wich included 4,000 US troops. You are actually a fine example of westerners who are besieged by anti-Russian mentality and then non-ironically accuse Russians of anti-Western mentality. From my perspective though, you both are.

"Siege mentality" or "bunker state mentality" is, again, described by Russians themselves. It happens to be directed against the West in Russia's case given the history of the Cold War, it doesn't come from nowhere. It also is not inherently an anti-Western phenomenon. It was directed against Yugoslavia in Albania's case, and there was legitimate grievance there. It was directed against basically the whole world in South Africa's case, and the international community was bringing extensive pressures down on their state.

I am not saying that it doesn't exist, Russians are indeed very anti-western but what I am saying constantly is that westerners are affected by anti-Russian mentality too and from where I stand its far more worse than Russian ant-West mentality as the entire decade of 90s shows.

What you describe as "extremes" are standard realist IR theory.

No, it isn't, its not automatically realist if its about "upcoming doom and gloom", "war is coming" "let's bring our big guns", these things can be very much just silly and video game esque fantasies (see my Tom Clancy reference), there is a fine line between being edgy and realist.

Fidel did exactly what I said. He groomed and anointed a successor, his brother. If he just died and there was no respected successor in line, yes, I suspect Cuba would have fallen to chaos. Empty centralized power is a vacuum, nature abhors a vacuum.

Just being centralized doesn't mean it will go with a bang, China is transitioning power smoothly for decades now, as it is developed economically and politically enough to do so, Russia is too. Cases need to be studied individually, rather than applying a grand theory everywhere.

As I said, it is a highly centralized regime.

Once again you make grandiose statements/theory and expect everything to fall in its place according to that theory, world is not that simple.

The ruling party, probably a split between the neoliberal wing and the Putinist wing of it at that. The former will likely see it as a chance to regain power, and will be wrong in that. Considering re-inflamed nationalistic sentiments in the Russian public, the latter will probably lurch in a more radical direction than Putin himself, likely aping elements of Eurasianist ideology.

Sigh, this is just too much of a speculation to go into. You think there is a major discord between neoliberal wing and Puinists?

A power transition requires a groomed heir. If Putin has one, and he's well-respected by the Russian people, then the power transition will go smoothly. Being "developed enough" is besides the point because it's a question of where power falls in a society, not economic development.

I didn't meant "developed" only in economical sense, a power transition requires a stable society, a stable economy and a developed political system, Russia largely marks all the boxes, comparing it to Latin American countries of 20th century is just silly. West may not like it but Russia is democracy, it may be not the "right" kind of democracy but it still is. This is the problem in middle east too, its not about democracy but "right" kind of democracy or else there wouldn't had been any coup in Iran even when it was not failing because of this democracy without having any history of it.

[Rousse]

Only that US will be a much more powerful ally than Iran or any other country.

Except it won't, because it and Russia are in competition over power in the same regions and control over the same essential resources. Combine that with a longstanding cultural clash and the prospects for a lasting alliance are non-existent.

You are contradicting yourself, on one hand you say resource scarcity is coming which will increase tensions and then you say that Russia has plenty of it and nothing to gain in middle east, what is it exactly?

It's both. Russia has plenty of oil and other essential resources. Like America, it is a resource-rich country. Not all countries are, other rising powers like China have little in the way of native natural resources. If you believe countries do not compete over resource control when they are personally resource-sufficient, you are blind and as a Marxist should probably read your Lenin a bit more closely.

Then west is far far more victim of cold war mentality than Russia as continued existence and expansion of NATO shows.

NATO expansion was probably a mistake, as Kissinger pointed out at the time, and this was due to it further inflaming Russian siege mentality. Sans that, what is the issue with forming a defense pact with the Baltic states? Is there any justification for Russia invading them?

If anything you are a great example of showing prevailing anti Russian mentality where evil Russians will stab west in back but not the upright west

An alliance with Russia does not benefit America, it does benefit Russia. They gain us off their backs as they increase their influence, we gain nothing but a state with strong incentive and desire to rival us increasing their station. If we were dumb enough to extend our hands for an alliance, that can be fairly described as stabbing the West in the back, and we would deserve it for behaving so stupidly.

see 90s, West continued undermining Russia without any provocation and even with a desire to be accepted as a part of west.

The Yeltsin regime did want to be accepted as part of the West. It was rightly hated by the Russian people for this treason, and if it got very far you would have seen nationalist backlash added onto the already extensive and also justified economic backlash.

It always has been so and not only with petroleum. I am contesting the futuristic doom and gloom predictions.

You said very explicitly that foreign policy decisions will not be made based on oil resources. They already are.

Why Iraq then? As I said it makes absolutely no sense that west went in Iraq or Afghanistan out of moral duty to spread liberalism and democracy as the real events that unfolded shows. If there existed two faction its clear which one called the shots.

Afghanistan was sheltering Osama Bin Laden. That's a legitimate military operation by any definition. The second Iraq War is more complicated. A combination of longstanding sentiment that the US "didn't finish the job" with the Gulf War by keeping Saddam in power (a view Dubya held for a decade), and PNAC-derived desire to control Iraq's oil resources to get a chokehold on China.

Also it's more like there were three factions. Wilsonian idealists like Wolfowitz, stupid realists like Cheney, sane realists like Gates. The latter group were pulled in to replace the second group in 2006, after years of urging regarding Rumsfeld's incompetence by Poppy Bush.

I was talking about post Iraqi liberal democratic government as being priority, it was absolutely not.

It was the top priority for the people who ran the transition in Baghdad which the war effort was built around protecting. The Coalition Provisional Authority of Harvard-educated wonks.

Priority was controlling the oil reserves there as the very first act of the triumphant west was to impose selling of Iraqi oil back in dollars only.

This also occurred, yes. People have a multitude of motivations and the world exists in shades of grey.

US couldn't had just chosen any dictator because of political reasons as I had already said, after much chest thumping about freedom and democracy to rally support for this war, they just couldn't had chosen any yes man dictator.

Why go to war in the first place without a Wilsonian desire to spread "democracy"?

A coup is not an American commitment of boots on the ground. It's covertly using political tumult, which already bubbled under the surface because Saddam had a long-standing habit of treating his generals like dirt, to replace Saddam Hussein's regime. Think most foreign policy actions undertaken by the Eisenhower administration and what many people suspect occurred in Egypt a few years ago.

Exactly, each nation is needed to be looked at differently, there can't be an universal rule like "it never had any history of liberal democracy" as this blanket statement can be applied to these countries as well.

Except due to their respective traditions, Japanese and South Korean democracies look very illiberal by Western standards and retain heavy elements of social organization carried over from their feudal history. India's is fractuous and Indian elites have largely copied the traditions of a country that very much has a tradition of liberal democracy, Great Britain.

In the same region Iran also had democracy without it going in utter chaos and anarchy like Iraq before US supported coup.

Iran does have a tradition of democracy, though a very centralized form of it and sans a history of liberalism. Considering the religiosity of the rural population, while I'd love it if he succeeded and oppose Churchill's BP coup against an extant secularist democracy, I'm not sure how far Mosaddegh would have gotten with liberalization if he had remained in power. It's an interesting hypothetical, certainly the Shah's rapid Westernization project inflamed Islamist backlash.

However, there is a genuine large urban movement for democracy in Iran that did not exist in Iraq, the Green Movement. My opposition to military intervention in Iran is based largely on the current post-Iraq weak morale and Iran's large/high-tech military making non-warfare-based solutions ideal, not lack of democratic tradition per se. The rural-urban cultural divide in Iran is something for the Iranian people to deal with, a successful regime would cut a balance between these traditions and only slowly liberalize.

So this is personal now?

All politics is personal. If you expect me to support policies that threaten my home, you're mistaken.

As per military exercises, NATO constantly does so near Russian borders all the time, in November this year only, Operation Iron Sword took place in Lithuania wich included 4,000 US troops.

Lithuania is a sovereign country and a NATO member state. If we intruded into Russian waters/airspace as Russia's planes did ours, then you'd have a case.

No, it isn't, its not automatically realist if its about "upcoming doom and gloom",

Realist foreign policy is defined by the idea that nation-states are in competition over power and resources. This is what I have argued for and what you have defined as "upcoming doom and gloom," as if this is a state that didn't always exist for as long as agriculture bred city-states.

"war is coming" "let's bring our big guns",

I have never said these, you are putting words into my mouth. I've actually explicitly argued against "bring[ing] our big guns."

Just being centralized doesn't mean it will go with a bang, China is transitioning power smoothly for decades now,

This is another poor counter-example, the Chinese leadership anoints and grooms heirs quite early. Their selection is based on factional consensus within that bureaucracy, they have a strong degree of internal unity because of it.

as it is developed economically and politically enough to do so, Russia is too. Cases need to be studied individually, rather than applying a grand theory everywhere.

In what scenario would a leader who power is centralized around dying, sans any well-respected heir groomed for the post, not lead to a power vacuum and struggle?

You keep claiming this is about "individual cases," but a power vacuum is just that. It is a fact of life, and the only examples you have given are vacuum-less non-answers. With a centralized state, people do not just passively agree on a new leader if none is lined up and prepared beforehand. Factions compete for the slot and panic swiftly sets in.

Sigh, this is just too much of a speculation to go into. You think there is a major discord between neoliberal wing and Puinists?

I'm not sure why you're condescendingly using the laughing emoji here. Yes, there is a major discord between the neoliberal wing of Russian politics and the Putinists, one section of which are essentially "market uber alles" Europhiles and the other of which wants to gain a predominant footing for Russian national oil interests in the global marketplace. The competition between these two interest groups is very high-profile. In Leninist terms, it is international bourgeoisie versus national bourgeoisie.

West may not like it but Russia is democracy, it may be not the "right" kind of democracy but it still is.

It is the capitalist version of an autocratic, bureaucratic state of a type Russia has been for centuries. As such, power is centralized around one reigning figure and the clique of bureaucrats/oilgarchs who are benefited by his regime.