[One Degree]

The subject pretty well covers it. I am just curious about the forums views since it has been a topic of discussion.

Edit: I probably should have included a 'don't know' option since it is such a involved topic. There has been a lot of outrage about closer ties and I was curious if the outrage is real.

[CinnamonTea]

No.

"Allies" is definitely the most troubling term here. The most important organization the United States is a part of is NATO, formed to combat the Soviet Union and still finding its way in a post-Cold War world. But NATO is still clear on its need to protect former Soviet-controlled nations from losing their sovereignty and falling back into Moscow's influence. The United States first and foremost has a responsibility to uphold that obligation, regardless of the realist benefits of an "alliance" with Russia.

Russia is also an autocratic, ambitious, and highly militaristic state led by a leader who has a clear intention of restoring Russia's regional/global superpower status. A Russia-US alliance would certainly open up avenues for clearing up tensions between the West and Russia, but my feeling is those underlying tensions would remain. Put simply, no matter the warm, fuzzy feelings between Washington and Moscow, Russia will still want land, influence, and power, putting it in direct conflict with American interests. The US starting an alliance with Russia inevitably means sacrificing other American obligations, like the strength of NATO, the democratization of Eastern European countries, and stability in the region.

[Thunderhawk]

Not anymore.
They should have become allies in the 90s. The USA should have been an ally of Russia in the 90s and stop their own business people (and their allies) from exploiting Russia's chaos. The Fall of the USSR and Russia's reemergence was not the same situation as that of post war UK or Japan, but there are some lessons from those two could have been taken - such as being helpful and not exploiting them.

The age where Russia being a beneficial ally of the USA is past. The best they can now be, is not in each other's way.

[XogGyux]

Quick answer yes.
Longer answer: Its complicated.
Russia definitely has good reasons to not like us (US + western europe). We literally let germany (that was weak after WWI and had restrictions imposed on its military) to get big enough so that germany would destroy russia and we did not have to do anything. Well we know how that turned out. Cold war was bilateral escalation but in multiple occasions russia signaled its willingness to deescalate and we ignored. Gorvachev came to the negotiation table looking for a bilateral nuclear disarmament and his majesty Great Reagan did not want to negotiate because he wanted his special starwar satellites (which even today do not really work.
So there is a lot of grudge and we carry a big deal of it. Depending on how real are the claims that russia intervened in our elections a real alliance is probably not advisable. If those reports turn out to be fake or largely exaggerated (I don't trust CIA/NSA after claiming weapons of mass destruction in iraq) then a slow alliance should be encouraged with probably a redefinition of the purpose of NATO (as russia would probably/should join) making its original purpose obsolete.

[warsmith17]

I'm quite in favor of it, long term China is a greater threat to both, it has damaged US influence in Asia and Russian in Central Asia. It would be the reverse of the Nixon gambit, US with Russia against China.

What the US need to be willing to do is accept a Russian sphere of influence and offer aid if Russia is willing to direct that sphere into Central Asia in order to compete with China. In terms of great power politics this is the best solution for both powers. The first step is neutralizing Europe in a mutually agreeable way, this will probably involve the US giving more than it wants to and the Russians less.

The Russian far-east is quite vulnerable to China and they could become integral to a broader US effort to contain the rise of China.

[LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX]

No. For these reasons:

Put simply, no matter the warm, fuzzy feelings between Washington and Moscow, Russia will still want land, influence, and power, putting it in direct conflict with American interests. The US starting an alliance with Russia inevitably means sacrificing other American obligations, like the strength of NATO, the democratization of Eastern European countries, and stability in the region.

[Rugoz]

Beyond bombing Islamic terrorists US and Russian interests are not aligned.

The Russian far-east is quite vulnerable to China and they could become integral to a broader US effort to contain the rise of China.

Containing China

The EU, US, Japan and Korea are China's biggest trade partners by far.

Is the West is trying to contain China it's utterly failing.

[OllytheBrit]

It was one of the main reasons - in fact the main reason why I've been rooting for Don. I've been shocked by the neurotic undiluted hatred spread by the Western press, politicians, and talking heads who are nowhere near as smart as they believe themselves to be; it can only be that they're miffed by Russia taking over while they themselves prevaricated and (in the case of David Cameron) considered supporting the 'rebels' (ie he wanted to support the bloody jihadists - ) then decided to do nothing. So Putin took up the reins: if it had been down to the West, Syria would now be Islamic State's shiny new Caliphate. To sum up - if 'we' had supported Assad against the multifarious jihadist groups 5 effing years ago, A) the radical Islamists would have been given short shrift and sent back to their precious 7th century, and B) (get this) the mass immigration into Europe wouldn't have happened (and in the context, all those lives wouldn't have been lost in the Med??). What an absolute humiliating farce it has been; I said when it all kicked off that the West wouldn't have the stomach for the fight, and it gives me no pleasure to say I was right. An abject failure of Western foreign policy by useless political classes propitiating the loony liberal lobbies. In conclusion - well done, presidents Assad and Putin, we [i]owe you big-time. .

[Igor Antunov]

Allies against whom? Alliances exist for a reason, they aren't just random.

Russia has nothing to gain from a military alliance with the US. It doesn't need the US to expand its sphere of influence in the middle east, eastern Europe, arctic and central Asia. Russia has conceded the far east sphere to China, and in return it expects China to act as a buffer against incursions into Siberia by the US or Japan. In return China doesn't have to worry about wasting resources securing its giant border with Russia. It can focus on pushing influence south, south west and east.

Russia and the US can have normal relations. They can even cooperate to a limited extent where it may be beneficial for both. But as for alliances...they are on the opposite sides of the planet, their core interests don't align.

[quetzalcoatl]

Allies against whom? Alliances exist for a reason, they aren't just random.

Russia has nothing to gain from a military alliance with the US. It doesn't need the US to expand its sphere of influence in the middle east, eastern Europe, arctic and central Asia. Russia has conceded the far east sphere to China, and in return it expects China to act as a buffer against incursions into Siberia by the US or Japan. In return China doesn't have to worry about wasting resources securing its giant border with Russia. It can focus on pushing influence south, south west and east.

Russia and the US can have normal relations. They can even cooperate to a limited extent where it may be beneficial for both. But as for alliances...they are on the opposite sides of the planet, their core interests don't align.

The US and China are destined to become regional superpowers - and Russia to a lesser extent. The US, for now, is still the only naval superpower, and will continue to maintain shipping lanes.

[Suntzu]

We have mutual interests and mutual enemies. We need to work together with Russia to exterminate Muslims.

[quetzalcoatl]

We have mutual interests and mutual enemies. We need to work together with Russia to exterminate Muslims.

The principle of least action applies. It is not necessary to exterminate Muslims - they are quite expert in doing that themselves. It is only necessary to establish a cordon sanitaire around them, and to avoid excessive in-migration.

[Suntzu]

Si. Better for the west just to quarantine the Middle East.

[warsmith17]

What has brought the Chinese and Russians together cannot last long-term. They are united by similar systems of governance, pressure from the US and its allies, the multi-polar world narrative, and reassertion of power. An accommodation with the US could go a long way breaking this. If the mutual threat disappears, then China and Russia will resume their centuries long pattern of hostility. It should also be noted that many of these factors were present prior to the Sino-Soviet split, but did nothing to prevent that. Trump is more likely than any other president to reach an agreement with Russia.

Just as many Chinese would like to see Mongolia brought back into the fold, there are many who want Outer Manchuria back. Russia still holds territory as a result of the unequal treaties, I don't believe that China will ever quite forget or forgive this. Though the demographic threat to Russia in the Far-East is often overstated it is nonetheless a danger. Russia has shown how an ethnic minority can be used as weapon against its neighbors. Imagine if the Chinese were to use Russia's own "little green men" strategies against them in the far-east?

Putin has acknowledged a Chinese threat in the past. More recently Russia has been reaching out to Japan, this likely to counterbalance China. There is a fear of China having too much influence in Russia's far-east due to population, and investments. Japanese investments are a way to counter this, further they could open the door to the reopening of Japan-Russia security talks.

[LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX]

Allies against whom? Alliances exist for a reason, they aren't just random.

Russia has nothing to gain from a military alliance with the US. It doesn't need the US to expand its sphere of influence in the middle east, eastern Europe, arctic and central Asia. Russia has conceded the far east sphere to China, and in return it expects China to act as a buffer against incursions into Siberia by the US or Japan. In return China doesn't have to worry about wasting resources securing its giant border with Russia. It can focus on pushing influence south, south west and east.

Russia and the US can have normal relations. They can even cooperate to a limited extent where it may be beneficial for both. But as for alliances...they are on the opposite sides of the planet, their core interests don't align.

Never thought I'd see the day where I would agree with Igor. I must be going mad.

You're absolutely right, although I see it from the other perspective. There's really nothing to be gained from Russia on our end either. They don't have anything that we want, which has been a hallmark of US foreign policy decisions, nor does allying with them militarily gain us anything except acrimony from China. I just don't see relationships being normalized between us for anything except a temporary amount of time. Even Trump will realize that normal relations with Putin will mean exploitation for anybody that tries to negotiate with him: Putin's too smart for his own good in that regard, because he will never enter into an agreement that doesn't benefit him.

[Political Interest]

Yes

A lot could be gained through US-Russian cooperation. Both countries face the mutual problem of terrorism.

It would be necessary to divide spheres of influence between the two great powers. If the US is given hegemony over the entire American continent Russia could be allowed a free hand in Eurasia. It would also be necessary for the US end its role in the Middle East and allow Iran to fill such a void.

[LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX]

See, the problem is that some people are seeing it from their own perspective, what they would like to happen because of their personal interests. If you see it from the United States's perspective, there's no way we allow Russia to hold regional hegemony in Eurasia, because we would be turning our backs on our allies. And if you see it from Russia's perspective, there's no reason to give up regional influence in the Middle East because that's one of the last places that they can actually exert influence that isn't in their own backyard. As for the US's control of our hemisphere, that's just what we do. That's not a bargaining chip for Russia, because what are they going to do to stop us?

[CinnamonTea]

Another point

Yes

A lot could be gained through US-Russian cooperation. Both countries face the mutual problem of terrorism.

This is true, but terrorism from non-state actors is also something which all nations face. So it's not necessarily a uniting factor. Although intelligence cooperation/sharing for combating terrorism does not sound unreasonable, it's not enough to overcome the greater issues dividing the two nations.

And no one wants to go back to the biporal stability (or instability, depending on how you look at it) of the Cold War, even if Russia would like its regional hegemony back. I may be wrong on this but I feel like American conceptions of "spheres of influence" in the post-Cold War era is very different from Russian conceptions of "spheres of influence". If we recognize NATO, and more broadly the UN, as foundations for a new type of international politics away from the Great Power politics of the past, why should we sacrifice that future just to ease some tensions with Russia? D

[Igor Antunov]

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.

[Albert]

@CinnamonTea
Why would Russia turn its back on its historical territory that are vital to its existence. Like Ukraine and Belarus for example? These countries came to existence out of messy collapse of USSR, but it does not mean those boundaries are actually set.

Imagine if USA went through a chaotic shock and states like Texas and California seperated. Then you had a superpower tell you that they are outside out of your influence now and you can forget it. On top of that that super power overthrew a democratically elected government there and installed an anti-US one. How would US react to that?

Yet Ukraine for Russian people has even a longer and more deeper historical meaning then Texas or California. In Ukraine Russian nation began.

All your bullshit about protecting US allies is that, just bullshit. Russia does not threaten US allies. It is US who stuck its nose in an area where Russia will not compromise unless it is through armed conflict.

It is similar how Chinese are reacting to Taiwan fiasco with Trump now.

US is the one who had instigated the current situation with Russia. Russia only predictably did what it has always done for centuries in regards to Ukraine. History also had shown they will fight for it as well. There is only military solution in this matter, or diplomatic one where the US fucks off from places like Ukraine.