Ten reasons why a Trump-Putin relationship will be beneficial

anatta

100% recycled karma
Russia presents a most interesting case in which a Trump presidency could make a big difference in U.S. foreign policy.

Vladimir Putin is no democratic, freedom-loving president, but he is a wildly popular leader in Russia who is very smart and strategic. Russia remains a nuclear superpower, occupies the biggest land mass of any country, has vast natural resources and can influence many countries in the world.

Putin is driven by his ego and by a desire to restore dignity and respect for his country to further bolster his popularity in Russia. He knows exactly how far he can go and plays his hand wisely. Invading Crimea was a well-planned and calculated move because he knew the West was not determined enough to stop it.

Donald Trump understands that there is a big opportunity to achieve American foreign policy goals much more easily by partnering with Russia and brushing aside ideological concerns.


This partnership would bring about many foreign policy challenges in the Middle East, Asia, and Europe.
Here are the benefits of such a partnership:

1. There would be real peace between the two nuclear superpowers instead of provocative games that could lead to a catastrophic accident.

2. By partnering with Russia, the U.S. concerns over freedom of press and human rights violations would be seen with less animosity, and the U.S. would get more insights into the situation inside Russia.

3. Russia would no longer be inclined to confront the United States militarily on a daily basis to show its strength (daily flyovers over our ships, encounters close to our coasts, etc.).

4. The United States and Russia could join forces to fight radical Islam and destroy ISIS together as well as share intelligence on terror plots (i.e. Boston bombing might have been prevented).

5. Cooperation would lead to solving Syrian civil war.

6. If working together and trusting each other, both countries would need fewer military resources while putting much more pressure on rogue regimes like Pakistan, Turkey, Iran and North Korea.

7. Europe would be a much safer place without further need to militarize Eastern European NATO states and a real truce in the Ukraine.

8. Russia could help effectively stop nuclear proliferation to radical terrorist organizations.

9. Easier access for U.S. companies to Russian natural resources, and Russia as well as Europe would benefit from lifting the economic sanctions in place — a win-win economically.

10. The United States could stop Russia from partnering with China, Turkey and Iran against the United States. This could help the U.S. taking a hard stand against China in its economic negotiations and in the South China Sea standoff.

The U.S. and the world has a lot to gain in better relations with Putin. It just takes an attitude of understanding and accommodating their national pride while establishing and holding red lines.

Donald Trump will be better at this than Hillary Clinton and President Obama, who have shown that they don’t get the concept of red lines, nor national pride.

Bernhard Klee is a recently naturalized American citizen who immigrated from Austria and will vote in his first U.S. presidential election this fall. He works as a marketing executive near Seattle and recently published the book, "The United States of Trump — An Independent Guide to the Trump Phenomenon and the General Election.”
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...easons-why-a-trump-putin-relationship-will-be
 
:hand: outstanding. The author is thinking beyond the war horse's typical zero sum game.


Some of this is more doable then others, and not everything can be worked out by cooperation.
But is SUCH a refreshing read to see someone thinking about "spheres" and advocating realpolitik that benefits everyone involved.
 
The Clintons created Putin, Trump will make him an asset

When Republican Donald Trump refused to insult Russian President Vladimir Putin during NBC’s “Commander in Chief Forum” on Wednesday, Democrat Hillary Clinton and displaced neoconservatives pounced.

“It suggests he will let Putin do whatever Putin wants to do and then make excuses for him,” Hillary explained. To the woman who once claimed to “reset” relations with Moscow, the only acceptable U.S. diplomacy towards Russia was to call its president a thug.


The latest faux firestorm erupted when Trump refused to take Matt Lauer’s bait to reject Putin’s compliment that Trump would be a “brilliant” leader. What Lauer forgot to mention is that Putin had denied using the word.
“If he says great things about me, I'm going to say great things about him,” Trump said. While Trump voiced opposition to the Russian system of government, he noted that, on the global stage, Putin has “been a leader, far more than our president has been a leader.”

Hillary, though, was not the only person to attack Trump for showing a willingness to work with Russia. Paul Ryan, the Republican Speaker of the House, sided with Hillary in saying “Vladimir Putin is an aggressor who does not share our interests.”

But is that true? Are Washington and Moscow so far apart that there are no shared global interests?

Trump had the answer.

“Russia wants to defeat ISIS as badly as we do,” Trump told Lauer. “If we had a relationship with Russia, wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could work on it together and knock the hell out of ISIS? Wouldn’t that be a wonderful thing?”

This comment, which is largely ignored in the criticism of Trump, exposes one of the greatest foreign policy blunders of modern history. It points out that somewhere along the line U.S. foreign policy created an enemy of a Russian state that would have been a grand ally on the global stage.

Where did we go wrong? Who lost Russia? Look no further than Bill & Hillary Clinton.

President Bill Clinton lost Russia when he pushed NATO to her doorstep. It was a signal that the United States was going to exploit Russian weakness, not lift the nation up, as it transitioned from communism.

“NATO must also take in new members, including those from among its former adversaries. It must reach out to all the new democracies in Central Europe, the Baltics and the New Independent States of the former Soviet Union,” President Clinton said in 1996.

Though the Berlin Wall had been down just two decades, President Clinton made it clear that Russian complaints of NATO expansion would not deter the new era of American hegemony.
Recognizing that the Russian bear was neutered, dazed, and thanks to Boris Yeltsin, drunk, President Clinton was starting up where Patton left off.

By expanding NATO to its doorstep, Clinton and friends were playing into Russian insecurities and squandering any attempts at a real alliance with the down, but not out, nation. This, of course, would eventually give rise to Vladimir Putin – the man who uses photo ops to remind the world of the bear Russia was and is striving to be.

What would have happened if President Clinton opposed NATO expansion and treated the new Moscow has a potential friend in lieu of a defeated enemy?

Along with a shared interest in defeating ISIS, Washington & Moscow would have also had a shared interest in containing Beijing.
Moscow and Beijing always viewed each other with a skeptical eye. Russia could have played a pivotal part in keeping China in check, but now the two nations are conducting joint naval drills.

And if America & Russia remained close, imagine how different the Iran nuclear talks would have been.
Maybe President Obama would not have had to pay ransom money to the now belligerent Tehran.

The retort is that Putin is a bad man and America must condemn him. But who cares?
Stalin was far worse than Putin and FDR & Churchill partnered with him to defeat Hitler.
Why is it wrong for Trump to partner with Putin to defeat ISIS? Contain China?

Foreign policy is not about an altar boy litmus tests; it is about advancing U.S. interests. Sometimes that means we have to partner with the bad and the ugly to achieve the good.

The fact is that Putin is a leader who has outmaneuvered President Obama and, by extension, the United States on the global stage.
He is here to stay because President Clinton created the conditions for Putin to thrive. It is up to a President Trump to clean up Clinton’s mess and make an asset out of Putin.

Hillary is best left to playing with reset buttons. :)
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...clintons-created-putin-trump-will-make-him-an
 
Sounds plausible enough. We're friends with the Saudis and they have their own share of domestic abuses plus they're the leading exporter of radical Islamic ideology. Go figure.

Yet the Saudis are an ally. Not sure what's different about Russia. Maybe one of Hillary's supporters can explain it.
 
So, instead of standing in front of the Brandenburg Gate and saying "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall..." Reagan could have simply called Mikhail on the red phone and said "together, we can rule the world?!!?"
 
Sounds plausible enough. We're friends with the Saudis and they have their own share of domestic abuses plus they're the leading exporter of radical Islamic ideology. Go figure.

Yet the Saudis are an ally. Not sure what's different about Russia. Maybe one of Hillary's supporters can explain it.

Liberals I know are not in favor of Saudi Arabia being an ally. It's conservatives who push for it.
 
So, instead of standing in front of the Brandenburg Gate and saying "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall..." Reagan could have simply called Mikhail on the red phone and said "together, we can rule the world?!!?"
Bill Clinton didn't need NATO expansion to the point the Ukraine and Georgia are being considered.

what should Putin do but build a land bridge to Sevastopol, and federalize the east of the Ukraine
while Victoria Nuland traipses around Independence Square?

nato_0327.jpg
 
If Obama buddied up to him I think many in the GOP would freak-call him all kinda commie, socialist etc etc etc.:blah:

What will they say if trumpf does it??
 
Sounds plausible enough. We're friends with the Saudis and they have their own share of domestic abuses plus they're the leading exporter of radical Islamic ideology. Go figure.

Yet the Saudis are an ally. Not sure what's different about Russia. Maybe one of Hillary's supporters can explain it.
SA is not a geo-political foe. Russia is. SA is an historic allie in the ME.

It goes back to the OP's. Find common ground where we can with Putin -it leads to a type of détente .
It leads to multi-polarism , and an ability to get past this zero sum evaluation

We don't have to acquiesce to Russian expansionism, but we can recognize Russian nationalism as legit.
 
We should ally/work with Russia to get rid of the plague of Radical Islam. But Obama seems to have no interest in really fighting the WOT. Does the least he can get away with.

But keep them at bay in eastern Europe.
 
If Obama buddied up to him I think many in the GOP would freak-call him all kinda commie, socialist etc etc etc.:blah:

What will they say if trumpf does it??

probably the same. Russia-phobia as expressed in the intelligence community crosses party lines.
 
Sounds plausible enough. We're friends with the Saudis and they have their own share of domestic abuses plus they're the leading exporter of radical Islamic ideology. Go figure.

Yet the Saudis are an ally. Not sure what's different about Russia. Maybe one of Hillary's supporters can explain it.

It's simple. Hillary despises strong willed men.
 
If Obama buddied up to him I think many in the GOP would freak-call him all kinda commie, socialist etc etc etc.:blah:

What will they say if trumpf does it??

It's actually kind of odd of Obama to not buddy up to Putin lol. He's buddy-buddy with the Castros and sends Iran money.
 
It's actually kind of odd of Obama to not buddy up to Putin lol. He's buddy-buddy with the Castros and sends Iran money.

Cuba is subservient to the USA sphere. any opening of relations helps Cuba. Putin won' t play that. He's a military superpower with his own sphere.
The key is to cool the rhetoric, and cooperate where possible - but still keep NATO as close as possible.

In that sense both Trump and Clinton have the wrong postures
 
Back
Top