[Albert]

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.

What other options do you leave Russians then? So far US with Democrats had been pursuing, what seems to be, goal of subjugation of Russia. Basically turning it into another defeated and pacified foe like Germany and Japan.

I doubt most countries will go willingly down that path.

[Rousse]

What other options do you leave Russians then? So far US with Democrats had been pursuing, what seems to be, goal of subjugation of Russia. Basically turning it into another defeated and pacified foe like Germany and Japan.

I doubt most countries will go willingly down that path.

They won't willingly go down that path, though obviously I'd prefer it if they were pacified. As an American who believes resource conflict dictates our relationship with Russia will remain competitive long-term, my concern is for American security and power, not Russian. My only interest in the Russian people is that which I have for everyone: that they have security, electricity, food, other basic essentials of life. Putin has taken care of that by liquidating Yeltsin's loyalists, and for that he'll go down positively in the history books.

For right now, what I believe benefits America the most is displaying strength and backbone, continuing containment policies where they presently are, by doing so hopefully forcing Russia to the negotiating table over Ukraine. I don't advocate for military invasion there unless absolutely unnecessary in the unlikely event that Putin will irrationally continue pushing forward. I certainly don't want boots on the ground in Syria, because the Kurdish left-nationalists aside Assad's opponents are all dangerously destabilizing. The most I would do with regard to Syria is use the post-ISIS clean-up negotiations to push vociferously for an independent Kurdistan, securing a new relatively secular leftist state in the Arab world while weakening Russia, Iran, and finally allowing us to throw that double-dealing rat Erdogan under the bus.

After Putin's death, I believe we need to be prepared in case a Eurasianist state steps into the centralized power vacuum on a wave of national humiliation sentiment, like Hitler's movement did for Germany after the last remnants of Bismarck's Germany/Prussia were gone. In that event, yes, war seems the only likely option. If instead we get a weaker Putin (Medvedev or something) and the domestic backlash to his weakness is not enough to throw him from power, that's perfect and we'd instead continue as we have been.

[Albert]

I personally believe Russia will not go down without a fight. Therefore to have Russia that abides by US dominance like rest of Europe does, will not be accomplished without military means.

The other option is diplomatic, where US accepts that Russia as not its minion but a country it has to share the playground with.

[Rancid]

I voted other.

Basically, you can never have more than one big dog on the block. It's just not possible that either country would want to give up a dominant position. This is as ridiculous as thinking the US and China can be come true allies.

[Rousse]

I personally believe Russia will not go down without a fight. Therefore to have Russia that abides by US dominance like rest of Europe does, will not be accomplished without military means.

Assertive means go beyond simple invasion. Containment, resource-choking via sanctions or strategically swiping allied countries, these are much safer than sparking WWIII as of right now. At least from my vantage point, my goal is to weaken them as a potential competitor in the interest of making the planet and particularly America more stable and safe.

Invasion is a "last resort" option because it introduces problems, in obvious terms of human life and in terms of making the domestic situation in Russia far worse. Due to their prevailing siege mentality, war with the West would breed nationalistic fervor such that it'd essentially force Putin to shift from national-conservative autocrat to Eurasianist fascist overlord, by popular demand rather than personal desire. Conservative states behave predictably, I don't know that Russia would be predictable if they felt that far backed into a corner.

The other option is diplomatic, where US accepts that Russia as not its minion but a country it has to share the playground with.

I've laid out my reasons for why I don't think this will last very long, if done. If it were enacted with long-term intentions, it'd mean the US has tacitly decided to cede hegemon status in the hopes that someone else will pick up the slack.

[Thompson_NCL]

What countries in eastern Europe are you talking about here?

All countries. Russia should turn it's attention to central Asia where it can be a dominate player instead of trying to vie with the West.

[fuser]

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.

So it has nothing to do with Iran then? My main point of contention?

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 when they are personally resource-sufficient, you are blind and as a Marxist should probably read your Lenin a bit more closely.

lol, I didn't said anything of that sort, you just seem very confused about your own ideas, you can't say resource sufficient, resource scarcity in same breath to support same arguments, this is called contradiction.

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?

Not much realist, we are now are we? We must take everything at face value whatever west says, right? And sans that? wtf? You can't say sans that two goals we totally won that game of football, its ridiculous.

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.

So you agree that US is at Russia's back and then wonder sans Nato expansion why they have such a siege mentality? Again it doesn't seem you have thought it thoroughly, there are just too many contradictions here. As per me I don't think any such alliance is possible for political reasons in near future neither any side can gain much from it with all the mistrust in the air.

The Yeltsin regime did want to be accepted as part of the West. It was rightly hated by the Russian people for this treason.

Yeltsin regime was not hated for this treason but for the severe economical crisis, once again for once get out of your jingoist anti-Russian mode.

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

No, My stand is that, there is no major shift going to happen. There is no doom and gloom coming out of "upcoming resource crunch" with major increase in worldwide tension, that's still something in Tom Clancy territory.

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.

Basically Iraq was not invaded out of some moralistic vision of spreading liberalism and democracy, yes.

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

I already told you, it was "profitable" for many vested interests as they are still reaping the benefits, I also told you about the first things they did after getting in Iraq. Wilsonian ideals as being a reason is just too silly.

Except due to their respective traditions, Japanese and South Korean democracies look very illiberal by Western standards. 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.

I still fail to see how that invalidates my point that each nation needs to be looked at differently rather than apply some grand theory to everyone, world is not that simple. So Japan and SK are not "liberal" enough, is there any Wilsonian ideal prevailing in US to teach them the right ways? Anyhow joking aside, liberalism is a vast spectrum, regardless of here and there "illiberal" policies they are still part of the vast spectrum of liberal democracy, ousting them from it will be a case of clutching at the straws.

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 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.

There was no tradition of democracy until democracy came and just like Iraq it also contains many tribes and sects but they are not at each others throat.

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

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.

So only you are allowed to have your politics personal not Russians, yup you are a classic case of an anti-Russian westerner who keeps harping about irrational anti-westernism of Russians. But that's quite a cop-out from you saying that US doesn't conduct any such exercise near Russia and when it suits you, you drop realism at a drop of hat and then have the gall to call yourself a realist.

What you expected me to give an example where US conducted an exercise inside Russian borders? Get a grip on reality. Plus my example of exercise is real where thousands of men and material were amassed near Russian border where your example of this so called excercise near San Francisco and Alaska is basically couple of bombers intercepted by Americans, yup you truly are clutching to the straws.

Anyway, nope, no siege mentality here at all, red dawn movies are real.

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.

Again, you are obsessed with making a blanket large statement/theory and hope that everything will fall in its place according to it, and once again world is not simple. And please don't misrepresent me, I am quite explicitly challenging your original claim that in future resource crunch is coming which will heighten tensions worldwide, its still Tom Clancy territory.

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

I never said you said those things, my point was people often say things like these and expect everyone to think that its realism. And oh please, you have been calling for a more offensive presence in Middle east, having countries by their balls and what not.

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.

This is a great example, just because centralized =/= chaos after leader goes.

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?

Everywhere leaders are groomed in one way or another, its neither here neither there, you are just predicting Russian instability without any grounding in realities, its just wild speculations, nothing more.

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.

Sorry for giving successful examples of transition in a much much more centralized countries than Russia. Because Centralized governments always fail to transition.

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 in the global marketplace. The competition between these two interest groups is very high-profile.

There is no such clear divide between neoliberals and so called Putinists, in fact they are very much great allies in many places. Neoliberalism is not equivalent to decentralized state and everything holy and good. It can exists side by side with a very authoritarian government.



Anyway I don't think much good is going to come out of this discussion now, this will be my last post regarding this discussion. Anyhow you seem new and despite disagreements and even some strong language involved, welcome aboard, you are a fine addition to this forum with interesting viewpoints.

[Albert]

I've laid out my reasons for why I don't think this will last very long, if done. If it were enacted with long-term intentions, it'd mean the US has tacitly decided to cede hegemon status in the hopes that someone else will pick up the slack.

We yes, US will essentially put down its world dominance ambitions and work with other world powers how it was done prior-WW2. That is what I believe Russians were expecting after the fall of Berlin Wall.

Longterm consequences of that is that US will have to share the world with other power that potentially could rival it in the future in other spheres of the world if relations are not friendly. Yes true, but Russia is in the same position as well anyways.

Basically you have this diplomatic option to share the world with Russkies or go to war to dominate them. This it is how it seems to play out atm.

@Thompson_NCL

All countries. Russia should turn it's attention to central Asia where it can be a dominate player instead of trying to vie with the West.

Ukraine..... Belarus? At least?

[Rousse]

So it has nothing to do with Iran then? My main point of contention?

That someone doesn't explicitly mention Iran in every reply to you does not mean they aren't referring to Iran, but nice try. Control of the Strait of Hormuz, from which 20% of the world's oil supply flows, is an important goal for both American and Russian policymakers in the interest of expanding their international power. These interests diverge.

lol, I didn't said anything of that sort, you just seem very confused about your own ideas,

Your failure to understand that countries will compete over resources that don't need to fuel their own economies, but need in the interest of gaining leverage over other countries, is not confusion on my part.

Not much realist, we are now are we?

Henry Kissinger argued his position on realist grounds. I agree with him, and have no idea what you're rambling about in broken English.

And sans that? wtf? You can't say sans that two goals we totally won that game of football, its ridiculous.

Sans Russia's siege mentality. Sans it, why would NATO expansion into the Baltic countries be a bad thing? Are they somehow justified in being able to invade the Baltic nations?

NATO expansion was only likely negative because it brought Russian siege mentality to the forefront in a time of national humiliation, when measures could have been taken to quell it.

So you agree that US is at Russia's back

Yes, I believe major powers are in a state of competition and will be so long as resources are scarce.

Yeltsin regime was not hated for this treason but for the severe economical crisis, once again for once get out of your jingoist anti-Russian mode.

The Yeltsin regime was hated for both reasons. You're looking for simplistic black-or-white answers. When if you ask any Russian, they will tell you that Yeltsin is hated for both:

1) Economic mismanagement by privatizing essential state industries.
2) Pandering to Western interests and Europhile cronies.

They would, not incorrectly, see these two issues as interrelated.

There is no doom and gloom coming out of "upcoming resource crunch" with major increase in worldwide tension, that's still something in Tom Clancy territory.

This is something that is already happening and has happened many times throughout history. You keep using the phrase "doom and gloom." Resource scarcity breeds international conflict. If a resource gets scarcer and retains its value, conflict gets worse.

I support making that resource lose its value by getting off oil, but this is a hypothetical. My analysis is based on present trends.

Basically Iraq was not invaded out of some moralistic vision of spreading liberalism and democracy, yes.

Iraq was invaded for a myriad of reasons, one of which was quixotic democratization fantasies, one of which was geopolitical clout. You are looking for one singular reason. The world does not work like that.

I already told you, it was "profitable" for many vested interests as they are still reaping the benefits, I also told you about the first things they did after getting in Iraq.

That's a non-response to my question. You can get control over oil resources with a coup by a slighted general within the Ba'ath Party as the CIA and American military leaders sought, you don't need invasion for them. You would only need an invasion if you sought to change Iraq's political system, an obviously insane mistake.

Defense contractors did make a killing, but Blackwater had no role in the planning stages of the war. There was no representative of them in the administration. Reconstruction interests did have one, but Cheney had sought control over Iraq's oil resources to contain China since the late '80s, a decade before he went to work for Halliburton.

Wilsonian ideals as being a reason is just too silly.

"It's silly" is not an argument. I can assure you that Wilsonian ideals have a strong grounding in the American national psyche and many sectors of the American foreign policy establishment. They were the motivation for Bush himself and for Wolfowitz. They were not for more cynical people surrounding him such as Rumsfeld and Cheney.

I still fail to see how that invalidates my point that each nation needs to be looked at differently rather than apply some grand theory to everyone,

Because my "grand theory" is that a tradition of liberalism is needed for a functional liberal democracy. India has one in its ruling class who manages that liberal democracy, and given the strong divide with their general public I'm not convinced that won't collapse. Japan and South Korea have more power vested in their feudal-derived, traditional "zaibatsu" bureaucracies than in elected government.

So Japan and SK are not "liberal" enough, is there any Wilsonian ideal prevailing in US to teach them the right ways?

There actually was. Park Chung-hee was disliked in American foreign policy circles, to the point of the CIA likely having a role in his assassination, in large part because he was an autocrat. The other reason was the more understandable fact that he was developing a nuclear weapon, and a nuclearized South Korea presented an obvious risk of the Cold War turning hot.

There was no tradition of democracy until democracy came

Yes, guided by educated Westernizing elites in their urban areas who did not have a strong handle on rural Iran. Given what later occurred with the Shah, the goal of rapid Westernization likely would have set rural Iran off.

and just like Iraq it also contains many tribes and sects but they are not at each others throat.

This is another point in favor of the essential role of historical tradition. "Iraq" is a construct created by the British Empire, not a nation-state. The closest they could find to a history to forge national identity around was Babylon, which ceased to exist millenia earlier. Iran is one of the oldest countries alive, with a millet system that had regulated the interests of various different tribes going back to ancient times.

So only you are allowed to have your politics personal not Russians,

I am not a Kantian. They're allowed to have personal political views, and I'm sure theirs will be at loggerheads with mine. I hope my side wins.

yup you are a classic case of an anti-Russian westerner who keeps harping about irrational anti-westernism of Russians.

So recognition that my national interests differs from theirs is somehow a bad thing. Gotcha.

But that's quite a cop-out from you saying that US doesn't conduct any such exercise near Russia

It has not conducted any in Russian airspace or waters. Russia has in ours. One is a violation of national borders, the other is not. One is much more clearly a threatening move than the other.

and when it suits you, you drop realism at a drop of hat and then have the gall to call yourself a realist.

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Realist foreign policy theory involves the recognition of differing national interests and competition over power. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_( ... _relations)

"That all states desire power so that they can ensure their own self-preservation."

What you expected me to give an example where US conducted an exercise inside Russian borders?

Yes, because that would be a comparable example to what Russia was engaging in.

your example of this so called excercise near San Francisco and Alaska is basically couple of bombers intercepted by Americans, yup you truly are clutching to the straws.

Anyway, nope, no siege mentality here at all, red dawn movies are real.

Russian bombers were caught conducting exercises in American airspace off the coasts of San Francisco and Alaska. This is verifiable fact, your "Red Dawn" mockery just makes you look obnoxious. If you do not believe a rival power conducting military exercises in your borders is a serious threat, then I hope you don't represent the Indian people as a whole, or you're ripe for conquest.

I am quite explicitly challenging your original claim that in future resource crunch is coming which will heighten tensions worldwide, its still Tom Clancy territory.

Your response is high on slurs like "Tom Clancy," "Red Dawn," "silly," etc. and low on actual counterpoints.

I never said you said those things, my point was people often say things like these

And I didn't. This is therefore what would be described as a strawman.

And oh please, you have been calling for a more offensive presence in Middle east, having countries by their balls and what not.

This is "more offensive"? This is American Middle East policy since we gained a footing there under Franklin Delano Roosevelt. If you think we're somehow not trying to gain leverage over other countries, I'm curious as to what you think we are doing.

You levied a "bring in the big guns" accusation against me, when in fact I have argued against numerous military interventions as having been bad ideas.

This is a great example, just because centralized =/= chaos after leader goes.

You are misrepresenting my statement, then. I have said repeatedly that a centralized state with no groomed and respected successor (Putin currently is publicly preparing no one) will have a power struggle. China is not a counter-example, considering successors in China start being groomed ten years in advance and are decided based on bureaucratic agreement.

you are just predicting Russian instability without any grounding in realities,

I am predicting Russian instability based on factional fault lines in the Russian body politic, strongly inflamed nationalistic sentiment, and the strong power vacuum that would be created if Putin falls considering he is grooming no heir publicly.

If he starts grooming someone who can step into that vacuum and has the public's respect, then that threat is mostly quelled, though the Chechen Islamists would still likely play chicken with the new leader with a bombing here and there like they did when Putin first came to power.

Sorry for giving successful examples of transition in a much much more centralized countries than Russia. Because Centralized governments always fail to transition.

That is not my argument. You have either misinterpreted what I said or are deliberately misrepresenting my argument. My argument is given above.

There is no such clear divide between neoliberals and so called Putinists, in fact they are very much great allies in many places.

The Putinist wing of the Russian oligarchy has stood against the Europhile, neoliberal wing and jailed most of its leading members. Their only commonality is that both want a market economy and some form of international trade, the former group want it with the stipulation that Russia predominate.

Neoliberalism is not equivalent to decentralized state and everything holy and good.

Not only have I not said that, I'm a staunch opponent of neoliberalism. I'm an FDR-style, social democratic American nationalist. I support alter-globalization and various democratic socialist movements around the world such as the Bolivarians, in the interest of bettering the lot of those people at no real risk to American security.

Putin is to be preferred to Yeltsin on basic humanitarian grounds. I want American interests to predominate over Russia's, in those instances where they conflict. I do not want the Russian people to lack police or electricity.

Anyway I don't think much good is going to come out of this discussion now, this will be my last post regarding this discussion.

Mmmkay.

despite disagreements and even some strong language involved, welcome aboard, you are a fine addition to this forum with interesting viewpoints.

Thank you for the warm welcome.

We yes, US will essentially put down its world dominance ambitions and work with other world powers how it was done prior-WW2.

Except that's not how it was done. Pre-WWII, Britain was still the big kid on the block, but the US had numerous rivalries with other nations. It competed with British interests extensively in Latin America and during the Civil War, and of course made a conscious effort to mop up the Spanish Empire's last remnants.

That is what I believe Russians were expecting after the fall of Berlin Wall.

If that's what they were expecting, they were led by extremely naive people who expect resource-based tensions to just up and end magically. I don't believe they were, considering the Russian leadership even under Gorbachev had no qualms about engaging in realpolitik. Gorbachev and Yeltsin just happened to be awful at it.

Yes true, but Russia is in the same position as well anyways.

This is true, but it doesn't change the fact that our interests will diverge and thus that friendship will break down. And this, based on our respective national interests related to increasingly harder to attain petroleum, is likely to occur in a span of years (if that) rather than decades or centuries.

Basically you have this diplomatic option to share the world with Russkies or go to war to dominate them. This it is how it seems to play out atm.

I prefer the third option of "contain them, cow them into backing down, and see how this plays out once the Putin regime goes away, for better or for worse." I see war as only necessary if Putin is replaced by someone even more aggressive, such as an ideological Eurasianist. I believe Putin is fundamentally calculating and conservative, and can be pressured into backing down if the risk is world war.

[Albert]

Except that's not how it was done. Pre-WWII, Britain was still the big kid on the block, but the US had numerous rivalries with other nations. It competed with British interests extensively in Latin America and during the Civil War, and of course made a conscious effort to mop up the Spanish Empire's last remnants.

Prior to WW2 and Cold War, "Great Powers" would come together usually in large diplomatic conferences where they will negotiate deals and mitigate contests. At these meetings they would also divide territory into sphere and dominions among each other.

Treaty of Versailles is one famous example of such conference. Europe had many of them prior in history.

Even Britain back then being the baddest bad boy in the room did not dictate its vision at world affairs but worked with other powers.

Something similar has to be done as well between USA and Russia. They need to have their own Versailles or better Treaties of Tilsit.

If that's what they were expecting, they were led by extremely naive people who expect resource-based tensions to just up and end magically. I don't believe they were, considering the Russian leadership even under Gorbachev had no qualms about engaging in realpolitik. Gorbachev and Yeltsin just happened to be awful at it.

Well Gorbi let the wall fall, let the Poles and satellites in eastern Europe go, decentralized power in the Soviet Union that led to its disintegration. Realpolitik is far from describing Gorbachev in my opinion. Naive is putting it softly.

This is true, but it doesn't change the fact that our interests will diverge and thus that friendship will break down. And this, based on our respective national interests related to increasingly harder to attain petroleum, is likely to occur in a span of years (if that) rather than decades or centuries.

So you are saying you should be hostile to Russia based on speculations of shortage of resources in near future. And you are assuming that Russia will not work with you in this matter. If you are concerned about natural resources why not just be hostile to Saudis or so many other nations whom are easier to defeat.

I prefer the third option of "contain them, cow them into backing down, and see how this plays out once the Putin regime goes away, for better or for worse." I see war as only necessary if Putin is replaced by someone even more aggressive, such as an ideological Eurasianist. I believe Putin is fundamentally calculating and conservative, and can be pressured into backing down if the risk is world war.

Well that is what you have right now. The thing is such measures lead to hostility and create a second Cold War scenario. Will that be good for US longterm interests?

[Mischief_Managed_05]

Seeing the current political scenario it is advisable for the United States and Russia to join hands. Both nations play a significant role in world politics and therefore must engage in strategic and positive talks to resolve their issues, mainly dispute over Syria and Ukraine. For again stabilising world peace and combating terrorism and other inhuman activities USA and Russia must set aside their personal differences to address the over concerning terrorism issue and should try to involve other nations like Japan,China,India,European Union,Canada etc.

[a777pilot]

We should be but that opportunity was lost by Bush(41). The greatest lost opportunity in America's history.

[Rousse]

Prior to WW2 and Cold War, "Great Powers" would come together usually in large diplomatic conferences where they will negotiate deals and mitigate contests.

This wasn't some era of collaborative peace, these were treaties where they would draw terms deciding borders and alliance structures after a war. We still see things like these, they're just currently over problems like climate change which affect the planet as a whole. We have the UN Security Council for hashing out political terms, mostly ineffectively, which is a problem with the structure of that organization which is in serious need of reform.

At these meetings they would also divide territory into sphere and dominions among each other.

Which lasted until one country decided it wasn't in their national interest. That's why there are so many of them.

Something similar has to be done as well between USA and Russia. They need to have their own Versailles or better Treaties of Tilsit.

I wouldn't disagree with this. I'm not opposed to diplomacy, I think it's necessary to reduce the risk of nuclear annihilation and tackle climate change. I do think it's foolish to see this as the foundation of a lasting alliance, instead of a mutual desire to avoid war (so long as it remains in both parties' interest) and tackle threats to our planet as a whole.

Well Gorbi let the wall fall, let the Poles and satellites in eastern Europe go, decentralized power in the Soviet Union that led to its disintegration. Realpolitik is far from describing Gorbachev in my opinion. Naive is putting it softly.

He was very bad at it, "naive" is totally fair. But while his internal policy was, his foreign policy wasn't conducted based on a utopian vision. His Latin America policy differed little from his predecessors, it sought stability and expansion of Soviet influence.

So you are saying you should be hostile to Russia based on speculations of shortage of resources in near future.

Yes. I am saying that petroleum is growing more expensive and harder to find, "speculations" implies a lack of basis in concrete evidence when this is actually what the supply data shows. Our foreign policy and Russia's both include tackling this problem. We butt heads often on it, and it's a difference that would be very difficult to reconcile.

And you are assuming that Russia will not work with you in this matter.

I do, because Russia has a vested interest in their fellow anti-US bulwark (China) expanding its oil access. We do not, our goal is to control China through this.

If you are concerned about natural resources why not just be hostile to Saudis or so many other nations whom are easier to defeat.

We mostly control the Saudis. I'd love to be hostile to them, their behavior related to 9/11 was appalling and they are sponsors of Islamist radicals, we're not mostly because we want their oil reserves in our camp. And we want the Gulf monarchies' intelligence services to keep their ruthless efficiency in cracking down on domestic destabilizers (e.g. the same Islamists they fund abroad) in place, which at least maintains security in the bulk of the Arabian peninsula that's under their rule.

I do support making foreign aid and mutual security training for them entirely contingent on them removing funding for Wahhabi schools and Islamist groups like Hamas. We need to tighten the leash, they've been biting the hand that feeds for too long.

Well that is what you have right now. The thing is such measures lead to hostility and create a second Cold War scenario. Will that be good for US longterm interests?

If Russia won't back down, it will lead to a second Cold War. I think that is better than allowing Russian revanchist expansionism to threaten American power, stability in Eastern Europe, and Eastern European nationalist movements that seek ethnic preservation rather than integration into the assimilationist "Russian" identity.

[Albert]

I do, because Russia has a vested interest in their fellow anti-US bulwark (China) expanding its oil access. We do not, our goal is to control China through this.

US strictly refuses to recognize other countries spheres as legitimate. Russia does not form anti-US coalition but its own sphere. China and Russian relations are not structured on views of dominance but mutual equal relations.

US after WW2 seems to be on a mission to rule the world. It justies this through rhetoric of superiority. By virtue of its superior democratic system, liberal values and mights it sees itself as legitimate ruler of the world. Modern Russia and China does not have such notions. They do play imperial games as well, but not with the same design.

Hence when any other country decides to do something without consulting US, America tries to subjugate them.

There is nothing wrong with that, but in the end there is nothing wrong with Russian opposition to that as well.

If Russia won't back down, it will lead to a second Cold War. I think that is better than allowing Russian revanchist expansionism to threaten American power, stability in Eastern Europe, and Eastern European nationalist movements that seek ethnic preservation rather than integration into the assimilationist "Russian" identity.

By eastern European you probably mean countries like Ukraine for example. Ukraine and Belarus historically are part of the Russian nation. In a sense occupation of Ukraine if it would to have happened it would be more of reunification of Russian people then imperial occupation.

As for containing Russia. If US is going to do that, then I support Russians going full ape shit and invading Europe altogether even if it means sparking nuclear war. What is the point then, why suffer under imposed sanctions and isolation, be demonized anyway and die off slowly. Go out with a bang and perhaps with a winning chance in the end.

[One Degree]

I don't think anyone is interested in the US "saving the world for democracy and human rights" anymore. It was a nice try at world domination, but it's time is now gone. I have always felt Russians and Americans had a lot in common. You could call it 'pioneer spirit' or 'redneck behavior', or whatever.

[Rousse]

US strictly refuses to recognize other countries spheres as legitimate. Russia does not form anti-US coalition but its own sphere. China and Russian relations are not structured on views of dominance but mutual equal relations.

All countries with enough clout to attain it are structured on views of dominance. This rosy picture does not comport with reality, where China and Russia behave as self-interested states like any other which accept another nation's equal status only out of tactical necessity. Their interests bring them into conflict with the US, another self-interested state with competing interests.

US after WW2 seems to be on a mission to rule the world. It justies this through rhetoric of superiority. By virtue of its superior democratic system, liberal values and mights it sees itself as legitimate ruler of the world.

Yes.

Modern Russia and China does not have such notions.

No. They have different national narratives and different views of what makes them "exceptional" as a nation, in terms of expansion of national clout they have always behaved similarly.

There is nothing wrong with that, but in the end there is nothing wrong with Russian opposition to that as well.

"Wrong" is a moral judgment. Do I think Russians are wrong to oppose American expansion of power? No, I don't. I'd expect it. Do I think I'm wrong for wanting America to maintain its strength? Also no.

By eastern European you probably mean countries like Ukraine for example. Ukraine and Belarus historically are part of the Russian nation.

This is false. They are historically a part of the Kievan Rus, which has three cultural heirs. Russia is one branch-off of this, specifically the branch that became a vast integrationist continental empire modeled on Byzantium. Russian nationalists, pursuant to this integrationist drive, have a long history of declaring any nation that happened to be ruled by Russia at some point to be "part of Russia." One could equally argue Russia is a decadent break-off from Belarus or Ukraine.

Belarusian and Ukrainian nationalism are predicated on different ideas of what descent from the Rus means, they're politically weaker but culturally/genetically more unified descendants focused on preservation of their ethnic heritage and local traditions. I sympathize with these weaker powers, due to having a thing for the underdog. As a supporter of white phenotypic preservation, I also see their preservationist bent as more encouraging than Russia's Byzantium-esque integrationist history.

In a sense occupation of Ukraine if it would to have happened it would be more of reunification of Russian people then imperial occupation.

The Ukrainian people would strongly disagree, and would see this as subjugation of their nation.

As for containing Russia. If US is going to do that, then I support Russians going full ape shit and invading Europe altogether

Considering the US is currently doing that and will likely continue to do that, you support Russian invasion of Europe. This difference is irreconcilable and is down to deeply-felt difference of national sympathies. Rest assured, a foreign invasion would galvanize Europe against Russia, though humanity may not survive the aftermath.

even if it means sparking nuclear war.

See above.

What is the point then, why suffer under imposed sanctions and isolation, be demonized anyway and die off slowly. Go out with a bang and perhaps with a winning chance in the end.

I'd hope they'd choose survival as living, breathing humans over survival as stronk dominant expansionist Russians, personally. Don't expand and containment isn't a concern.

[Albert]

All countries with enough clout to attain it are structured on views of dominance. This rosy picture does not comport with reality, where China and Russia behave as self-interested states like any other which accept another nation's equal status only out of tactical necessity. Their interests bring them into conflict with the US, another self-interested state with competing interests.

States are naturally in competition with one another. Hence Russia and China will naturally be in such competition. This is different then with US, who is in the mode of not competition towards Russia but hostile dominance and seeks its subjugation. To finish off what it did not do in the Cold War.

Would Russia perhaps try to accomplish the same if the roles were reversed, probably. Would US resist like Russia in such reversed roles, probably.

This is false. They are historically a part of the Kievan Rus, which has three cultural heirs. Russia is one branch-off of this, specifically the branch that became a vast integrationist continental empire modeled on Byzantium. Russian nationalists, pursuant to this integrationist drive, have a long history of declaring any nation that happened to be ruled by Russia at some point to be "part of Russia." One could equally argue Russia is a decadent break-off from Belarus or Ukraine.

Belarusian and Ukrainian nationalism are predicated on different ideas of what descent from the Rus means, they're politically weaker but culturally/genetically more unified descendants focused on preservation of their ethnic heritage and local traditions. I sympathize with these weaker powers, due to having a thing for the underdog. As a supporter of white racial preservation, I also see their preservationist bent as more encouraging than Russia's Byzantium-esque integrationist history.

They are the same people who were divided politically into different kingdoms like much of European nations were in the past. They a were split severely because of Mongolian invasion, where most of eastern Rus' came to be under the yoke of Mongols while western part came to be occupied by Lithuania which then merged with Poland into Lithuanian-Polish "Commonwealth".

After Moscowite Duchy freed itself from the Mongolian yoke and united eastern Russian principalities and states. It then sought to reconquer what it saw as "lost Russian Orthodox people" from Lithuanian-Polish rule. Hence the Russian nation state was born from Moscow at that time.

There were no three heirs originally. They were all the same people. Prior to Mongolian invasion Kiev was the centre that probably if that invasion did not happen woukd have unified Russian people eventually. But how history turned out it ended up to be Moscow instead.

Collapse of Soviet Union has not erased this legacy. Thus when US with EU intervened in Ukraine it brought that legacy and nationalism into forefront. That is why Russia responded aggressively in that crisis. To them this might as well be an invasion of its own soil.

Ukrainian "nationalism" outside of western Ukraine has really little legitimacy. Ukrainian opposition is more driven by issues with corruption and discontent with its ruling elite then national opposition to Russia. Ukrainian nationalism is mostly manifactured after collapse of USSR it is a joke of a narrative.

The Ukrainian people would strongly disagree, and would see this as subjugation of their nation.

Depends which Ukrainian you talk to. Eastern/southern Ukraineans might be more then willing for that to happen.

Considering the US is currently doing that and will likely continue to do that, you support Russian invasion of Europe. This difference is irreconcilable and is down to deeply-felt difference of national sympathies. Rest assured, a foreign invasion would galvanize Europe against Russia, though humanity may not survive the aftermath.

Well it becomes a catch 22 then does it not. You piss off the Russians because you want to subjugate them, then when they react aggressively you blame them for it as well. Yes I support war if US and its allies seek to subjugate Russia by use of their dominant economic and diplomatic power throught their Nato bloc. If you are part of the Nato bloc that happens to be in Europe, Asia or Africa or whatever. Then tough luck.

[Rousse]

States are naturally in competition with one another. Hence Russia and China will naturally be in such competition. This is different then with US, who is in the mode of not competition towards Russia but hostile dominance and seeks its subjugation. To finish off what it did not do in the Cold War.

What you see as "seeking subjugation," I see as the logical consequence of competition between nation-states. Once one attains dominance, it will endeavor to keep it. This is the position the US is in, like Britain before it.

They a were split severely because of Mongolian invasion, where most of eastern Rus' came to be under the yoke of Mongols while western part came to be occupied by Lithuania which then merged with Poland into Lithuanian-Polish "Commonwealth".

Yes. Ukrainians would say they're the legitimate heirs of the original Rus. Belarusians would say they are. Russians would say they are. This does not mean they are "all Russians," contra the claims of Russian nationalists. This means they are three divergent heirs of the Kievan Rus.

After Moscowite Duchy freed itself from the Mongolian yoke and united eastern Russian principalities and states. It then sought to reconquer what it saw as "lost Russian Orthodox people" from Lithuanian-Polish rule.

For a good chunk of that history in the Gediminid period, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was under ethnic Belarusian rule. Its nobility, before the Poles stepped in, were predominantly Belarusians. This is why Belarusians claim its heritage.

Collapse of Soviet Union has not erased this legacy. Thus when US with EU intervened in Ukraine it brought that legacy and nationalism into forefront.

On all sides. Not just Russian nationalism, but Ukrainian nationalism as well. Even Belarusian nationalism has seen some pushback against Lukashenko, who is viewed not incorrectly as Putin's puppet.

That is why Russia responded aggressively in that crisis. To them this might as well be in invasion of its own soil.

Ukraine feels the same way with regard to Russian dominance. It views itself as a sovereign nation with its own traditions, that should not be absorbed or trampled on by Russia. Its more hardline elements view Russia as an aberration from the heritage of the Rus, which they take pride in being based in Kiev.

Ukrainian opposition is more driven by issues with corruption and discontent of its ruling elite then national opposition to Russia.

It's driven by both of these, based on every conversation I've had with ethnic Ukrainians. Their grassroots are driven by a sense of national preservation, where the pro-Russian grassroots are driven by a sense of historical commonality. The elites in both segments are driven by their corrupt business ties, with the EU and Russia respectively.

Ukrainian nationalism is mostly manifactured after collapse of USSR it is a joke of a narrative.

It certainly wasn't "mostly manufactured after the collapse of the USSR," considering the Ukrainian nation has existed for centuries. You might view its narrative as a joke, they would say the same about Russia's claim to the Rus' heritage. To me as an outsider, the respective national mythos of each nation doesn't matter. What I do care about is that one is at present pro-American and the other isn't, and one is preservationist in outlook where the other has a strong strain of integrationism.

Depends which Ukrainian you talk to. Eastern/southern Ukraineans might be more then willing for that to happen.

Russian-speaking Eastern Ukrainians would, sure. Their identity is intimately bound with that of Russia. Ukrainian nationalists would refer to these as "Russified Ukrainians," though in practice they're often ethnically mixed and as much Ukrainified Russians.

Well it becomes a catch 22 then does it not. You piss off the Russians because you want to subjugate them, then when they react aggressively you blame them for it as well.

Simple: don't invade Europe. Don't engage in expansionism. This seems like an easy set of rules, I'm not sure why you'd react aggressively to being told not to steal other kids' toys.

Yes I support war if US and its allies seek to subjugate Russia by use of their dominance economic and diplomatic power throught their Nato bloc. If you are part of the Nato bloc that happens to be in Europe, Asia or Africa or whatever. Then tough luck.

Right. As we've established, you support war with Europe in response to presently existing containment policies which keep Russia from invading the Baltic countries and pushing further into Ukraine.

Looked at from the perspective of national sovereignty, this is the behavior of a petulant child. Looked at from a realpolitik perspective, it makes more sense as Russia is a land power and this is part of the reason why America's containment of it has been conducted the way it has. As an American, I support restricting the power of a rising competitor in this way. As the international community would see national sovereignty as the litmus test here per the precedent of half a century's UN rulings, Russia wouldn't have many backers if they responded in the way you desire. And fortunately, Putin is not a madman and has been more indirect in his response.

[MistyTiger]

I voted no.

Can we trust Russia to abide by the terms of our alliance? I am not sure. They can be tricky.

Russia does not seem to care about what we think. Nor will they tolerate being pressured to fall in line unless doing so is in their best interests. The US likes to think it is top dog but Russia may disagree on that.

[OllytheBrit]

: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.

Is it? Well if you say so! Actually I've forgotten what the topic is.