3 ms·

2000-2010? Good move. Would have helped with integration of Russia into Europe. Post 2010 (really post 2007-2008, but it might have taken a few years to react):

2000-2010? Good move. Would have helped with integration of Russia into Europe. Post 2010 (really post 2007-2008, but it might have taken a few years to react): bad move. This is roughly when the relationship between the US-led NATO and Russia really soured. It should have been obvious what kind of long game the US was playing, given the switch from a Republican President (Bush) to a Democrat one (Obama). Yet the hardline against Russia remained, clearly the work of the entrenched bureaucrats (aka the "Deep State") beholden to neither party's politics for their power. At that point Germany should have hedged its bets by finding alternative industrial power (keep your nuclear plants!) and heating (other natgas exporters).

koonsolo 5y ago
But to be honest I don't see how US could have such a big influence on EU-Russia relationship. The conflict is all due to having a dictator in one part of that equation. And then for EU to have good relationships with US, the toughest power in NATO, seems like a good idea. Sorry but Russia could have played this way better. It's clear that they can't play nice with anyone. Would have been very good for EU and Russia if they were playing nice. Now it's a bit of divide an conquer for US. Let's face it, Putin screwed both EU and Russia. What an idiot. It's very strange to blame CIA or Republicans. Especially since he's so anti-US, but he's not damaging US in any way.
- CapricornNoble 5y ago
  >>>The conflict is all due to having a dictator in one part of that equation. Don't pin the turn of events on one man. He is merely the strongest in a coalition of kleptocrats, all of which hold some variation of similar principles. Who do you think will run the country if Putin steps down / retires / dies / goes to jail for warcrimes /etc? Do you imagine suddenly a free democratic election will instantly usher in EU-style rainbows and happiness? The country has ~6,000 nuclear weapons. Do you want a repeat of the collapse of the Soviet Union, where there was a very real concern of nukes ending up in the wrong hands? If not, there MUST be buy-in from the national security apparatus for a smooth transition of power. But you can't transition to a Western-friendly democratic President when the senior leadership of the military (who I'm sure have been carefully vetted/culled) are essentially "Neo-Russian Empire" loyalists. Another forum I frequent has a pretty level headed Russian hawk who is anti-Putin. He's said that Dmitri Medvedev is actually far scarier than Putin. He has most of his strengths but few of his character flaws. According to this guy, Medvedev wanted to do a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2014. >>>Now it's a bit of divide an conquer for US. Let's face it, Putin screwed both EU and Russia. I'd argue the US is screwing both the EU and Russia. I think the US keeps NATO alive in order to have America holding the position of primacy in European affairs and security. It keeps a European superpower from coalescing. A 500 million+ population Europe, with advanced tech and industry, a strong global currency, and that actually takes its defense and foreign policy seriously? That would undermine America's unipolar world order. It would be another competitor like China. Can't have that. >>>It's very strange to blame CIA or Republicans. I mentioned both Republicans AND Democrats, to demonstrate that these policies are party-independent. Not strange at all to blame the CIA. Look at their history. https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/17/1730002_colored-revolutions-a-new-form-of-regime-change-made-in-usa-.html https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/17/1730002_colored-revolu... https://thewashingtonstandard.com/documents-reveal-us-spent-22-million-promoting-anti-russia-narrative-in-ukraine-abroad/ https://thewashingtonstandard.com/documents-reveal-us-spent-... from 2004: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa

koonsolo 5y ago

But to be honest I don't see how US could have such a big influence on EU-Russia relationship. The conflict is all due to having a dictator in one part of that equation. And then for EU to have good relationships with US, the toughest power in NATO, seems like a good idea. Sorry but Russia could have played this way better. It's clear that they can't play nice with anyone. Would have been very good for EU and Russia if they were playing nice. Now it's a bit of divide an conquer for US. Let's face it, Putin screwed both EU and Russia. What an idiot. It's very strange to blame CIA or Republicans. Especially since he's so anti-US, but he's not damaging US in any way.

CapricornNoble 5y ago
>>>The conflict is all due to having a dictator in one part of that equation. Don't pin the turn of events on one man. He is merely the strongest in a coalition of kleptocrats, all of which hold some variation of similar principles. Who do you think will run the country if Putin steps down / retires / dies / goes to jail for warcrimes /etc? Do you imagine suddenly a free democratic election will instantly usher in EU-style rainbows and happiness? The country has ~6,000 nuclear weapons. Do you want a repeat of the collapse of the Soviet Union, where there was a very real concern of nukes ending up in the wrong hands? If not, there MUST be buy-in from the national security apparatus for a smooth transition of power. But you can't transition to a Western-friendly democratic President when the senior leadership of the military (who I'm sure have been carefully vetted/culled) are essentially "Neo-Russian Empire" loyalists. Another forum I frequent has a pretty level headed Russian hawk who is anti-Putin. He's said that Dmitri Medvedev is actually far scarier than Putin. He has most of his strengths but few of his character flaws. According to this guy, Medvedev wanted to do a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2014. >>>Now it's a bit of divide an conquer for US. Let's face it, Putin screwed both EU and Russia. I'd argue the US is screwing both the EU and Russia. I think the US keeps NATO alive in order to have America holding the position of primacy in European affairs and security. It keeps a European superpower from coalescing. A 500 million+ population Europe, with advanced tech and industry, a strong global currency, and that actually takes its defense and foreign policy seriously? That would undermine America's unipolar world order. It would be another competitor like China. Can't have that. >>>It's very strange to blame CIA or Republicans. I mentioned both Republicans AND Democrats, to demonstrate that these policies are party-independent. Not strange at all to blame the CIA. Look at their history. https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/17/1730002_colored-revolutions-a-new-form-of-regime-change-made-in-usa-.html https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/17/1730002_colored-revolu... https://thewashingtonstandard.com/documents-reveal-us-spent-22-million-promoting-anti-russia-narrative-in-ukraine-abroad/ https://thewashingtonstandard.com/documents-reveal-us-spent-... from 2004: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa