No more cold war

[Fenring]

http://www.reuters.com/article/usa-election-russia-putin-idUSR4N1D800D?c?

Nov 9 Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Wednesday Russia was ready to fully restore relations with the United States following the election of businessman Donald Trump as the new U.S. president.

Receiving credentials from new foreign ambassadors to Russia, Putin said he had heard Trump's campaign statements about improving ties with Moscow. He said Russia was ready do its part to achieve this but recognised it would not be easy.

None of us knows what Trump is really going to do once in office. Many people alleged he was in bed with Putin in some fashion, and even that Putin was somehow allied with him in trying to undermine the DNC. Whatever the truth is, I do know one thing: I do not want to see the U.S. re-initialize the cold war with Russia, and I do not want Putin to be constantly cast in the media as the villain to be stopped, as he has been for the last few years. Whether or not Putin even deserves that title is besides the point. Whatever other differences there were between Trump and Hillary's campaigns, the one thing I was satisfied with in Trump's positions was that he claimed he would want to improve relations with Russia and de-escalate in the Mid-East. I am quite sure this would not have happened with Hillary in power.

Whether Trump follows through with this remains to be seen, but even saying things like this can help relations with Russia, regardless of what follows. Sabre-rattling creates tensions, and offers of reconciliation can lead to real changes. I have viewed the possible escalations against Russia as a major issue in this election, dwarfing the importance of some other hot topic campaign issues. I wasn't joking when I have on occasion referred to the "WWIII party", and if Trump isn't part of this group then I will be very pleased, at least on that particular front. I sincerely hope Trump does follow through, and takes steps to accept Putin's offer of peace. Putin has been saying similar things for years, challenging Washington to meet him halfway and build bridges. I'm sure some of it was political rhetoric, but even so accepting even a rhetoric offer can lead to something.

[D.W.]

I have never worried about Russia being a threat this election cycle.  I agree that relations could be better with Trump than Clinton, but it was never going beyond saber rattling.  It is 100% posturing and shame tactics on our side to restrain Russia.  Without that "soft check" on them will they be more aggressive?  Possibly.

The point is we were never going to do *censored* to oppose them anyway, so not pretending like we were going to is probably for the best...

[Fenring]

D.W., do you really think Hillary was being merely rhetorical when she said her plan was to establish a no-fly zone over Syria? If you think she was serious, do you think she intended to actually enforce it, which would mean shooting down Russian planes if they flouted the zone?

As I see it, either she was lying about her plan, or was serious but wouldn't have the backbone to enforce it, or if she was honest and would enforce it, then she is squarely in with the WWIII party. I don't see how committing an act of war against Russia could be considered to be merely sabre-rattling.

[Wayward Son]

I am all for peace and de-escalation.

But I worry that Trump might decide to do nothing if Putin decides to roll Russian tanks openly into Ukraine, or Bellarus, or Poland...

[D.W.]

She may or may not have been serious.  I honestly can't tell with her what is calculated political persona and what is her.  Either way, either she would have (believes it) been talked out of it, or (is insincere) would have an excuse as to why they are not pursuing it.

Even if they did play chicken with Russia on a no-fly zone, it would have been another "red line" moment we had to talk our way back from when our bluff was called.

That said.  Even if we DID blow a Russian jet out of the sky, we wouldn't get WWIII.   Syria would go from a cluster F to, "OMG super powers get out!"  And the cold-war would be back in full effect, but outside of that tiny theater, there wouldn't be any more open conflict.  I just don't buy it no matter how scary a bogeyman they try to make Putin out to be.

[Gary238]

I hope Trump has the sense to surround himself with some real experts, and that he listens to them. Putin is playing a long game, and Trump is way out of his depth on the world stage.

[AI Wessex]

Like Sheriff Clarke who has said that the anti-Trump protests should be "quelled"?

[Gary238]

If he surrounds himself with a bunch of loudmouthed "tough guys" who operate by throwing their weight around things are going to get ugly really quickly.
At least we have the courts for the domestic problems... internationally things could go sideways in messy, unpredictable ways, and we don't have much recourse to stop him.
I _really_ hope that isn't where we are headed.

[Fenring]

One area in which the President actually has the powers that most candidates claim they would use is the power of diplomacy and cementing relations with other nations. Assuming for the moment Trump was being honest when he said he wanted America closer to Russia, this is something he could easily achieve without having to go through the Congress or anyone else. Some steps might involve others, such as if there was a new treaty made or something like that, but to whit Trump's biggest obstacle in achieving better relations would be with the forces like the military industrial complex and the CIA. I truly don't know what sort of resistance they would offer up, but I believe they would not let him do it without contest.

If Trump wasn't being honest then, yeah, it's a crapshoot.

[Wayward Son]

Only Nixon could go to China.  Perhaps only Trump could go to Russia?

Which would be extremely ironic, since Trump has promised to undo some of what Nixon accomplished in China. 

[D.W.]

I think you are right Fenring, though the other side of the coin is being confrontational with China who I believe is an ACTUAL threat to our country.  Because they are a super power where it matters.  A trade war.

Though I suppose both them and Russia are threats on the cyber front...

You no longer need bombers or nukes to damage your enemies.  Those aren't the threats to us typing away in the United States.  Those are problems for proxy war locations where the bigger powers flex their muscles and common people die.  The "super powers" have a gentleman's agreement to keep the dirty business of conventional war out of each other's yards.  I see no reason that will change any time soon.

[Pete at Home]

Agreed that Hillary (and her hubby, actually) were responsible for unnecessary escalation with Putin.

But slice it like you like, but Polonium tea parties are the stuff of James Bond villains.  Putin isn't Hitler, Stalin or Map, but he's no Tito either.  Closer to a Saddam than a Tito.  Partner? Well we partnered w Stalin to get Hitler so partnering with Putin to get ISIS is a no brainer.

Where you scare me, Fenrng, is your refusal in past discussions to give straight answers on the Baltics. What I hear you saying, correct me if I am wrong, is that's not going to happen and it's offensive to even think about it.  That's not a position I can respect, as much as I respect you as a fellow discursant.

[Pete at Home]

**** by categorizing Putin as a type of Saddam, I do NOT mean we should deal with him as we dealt with Saddam.  Quite the opposite.

What I mean is that while dangerous unreliable and not altogether sane, Saddam was on the whole a keystone of stability who protected the few vestiges of human rights and civilization that survived in the area.  Don't trust him, and don't pick a fight with him, and especially don't take him out.

[Fenring]

Where you scare me, Fenrng, is your refusal in past discussions to give straight answers on the Baltics. What I hear you saying, correct me if I am wrong, is that's not going to happen and it's offensive to even think about it.  That's not a position I can respect, as much as I respect you as a fellow discursant.

Not sure what this means. Do you mean to say you believe I've asserted that Russia won't invade the Baltics? That is correct, I do not believe they will or have any intention of doing so. Again, not sure what "it's offensive to even think about it" means. Think about whatever you like. What I object to is sabre ratting just to get people into an aggressive hawkish mindset. My view is that this narrative is pushed not to serve national interests, but rather private interests who have no concern for the well-being of the nation.

[Pete at Home]

I cannot distinguish what you just said about "saber rattling" from "offensive to talk about it.". Since my family lived in Poland, I think of the Baltic's as a real place with real human beings who are really scared of Russia for good reason and who look to the US for hope. When you speak of a Baltics protection discussion as nothing but "Saber rattling" my eyes rattle in my head.  For me that position is absurd and colors other things you say about Putin.  As much as I would love to believe you.


"My view is that this narrative is pushed not to serve national interests, but rather private interests who have no concern for the well-being of the nation"

I agree generally with the Putin-Hitler meme.  But not as to the Baltics