Considering Trump lost the popular vote, some Facebook ads supposedly paid by Russia don't seem to have done much. We still fund insurrections in other countries. We also have people with scripts shift narratives in democratic countries. It's awful, but let's not pretend this isn't more common than it is: it comes off as hypocrisy.
strategic enemy like Putin
We don't have to be enemies with Russia. There's no need to push Russia closer to China. It doesn't serve our interests to unseat Assad or demonize Putin. We could work with Russia in order to have a better relationship with Iran and keep them both from serving Chinese interests which are more against America's interests.
Whether the US government could be friendly with Putin; or should avoid pushing Putin into Jinping's arms; is besides the point of this question in my opinion. Those are normative claims about what ought to be done. What is the case at the moment is a geopolitical struggle over limited area of landmass, for a limited amount of resources and control over a limited number of people. A zero-sum contest in other words. We are very much in contest with Putin, and as such the likelihood of him choosing to not use every channel available to him to achieve the greatest results possible, seems reasonably low in my opinion. For instance Russia's main export, natural gas and oil, are surely at odds with inconvenient scientific consensus regarding climate change. There is no appeasing that situation in a way that benefits all parties in the short term, there will be a loser, and I hope for the sake of many generations to come that Putin will lose that particular duel.
What is the case at the moment is a geopolitical struggle over limited area of landmass, for a limited amount of resources and control over a limited number of people.
The Cold War is over, hon. Russia has to contend not only with the United States, but Germany/the EU, China, and Saudi Arabia. Competing for limited resources, people, and land is what many other countries do.
We are very much in contest with Putin
We are with the EU too. They aren't as friendly with the US as they used to be. It's not even all Trump. After Obama spying on Merkel's phone calls, I can see how they'd want to be free of American dominance. Also, in the EU France and Germany tend to vie for leadership. Both countries have "personal" reasons to lead the EU so they compete.
For instance Russia's main export, natural gas and oil, are surely at odds with inconvenient scientific consensus regarding climate change.
The preceding sentence talks about Putin being a vicious competitor. How is this an example? Saudi Arabia, an American ally is also a main exporter of oil. Saudi Arabia also has more influence on our foreign policy decisions than Russia. Also, exporting fossil fuels happens because there is demand. The EU and China are very much in demand of these resources.
There is no appeasing that situation in a way that benefits all parties in the short term
Is the long-term irrelevant? You did say Putin is a strategic enemy. I imagine weighing the odds of a long-term relationship with China or the US is rather critical to Russia's future.
>The Cold War is over, hon.
Who said so? If the fighting of poxy wars in the middle-east and eastern-Ukraine are anything to go by, the cold war is very much alive and kicking.
> Is the long-term irrelevant?
Presumably in the long term, Putin will still be in power having extended the presidential term to infinity plus one years.
> I imagine weighing the odds of a long-term relationship with China or the US is rather critical to Russia's future.
I imagine China's rampant authoritarianism and complete ownership of press is more than slightly preferable to a poorly veiled dictator like Putin.
>Russia's main export, natural gas and oil, are surely at odds with inconvenient scientific consensus regarding climate change
lol
No this so called "scientific consensus" is just an excuse, it has nothing to do with the matter at hand; control of energy related supply routes, pipelines and all that, and which currency is used as payment for "the fuel". You want to control energy supply, you want to control the debt, of the nations, of the world (not "you" personally). Nobody cares about the environment, the ecology, as such. It's a front, a convenient excuse, just like the outrages over lack of democracy and human rights abuses.
Even if I grant you all of that, the US has geopolitical ambitions to be less dependent on potential adversaries' energy exports. Renewable energy at the very least enables a degree of energy independence. How would that suit a country that exports non renewable energy? Poorly, to put it mildly.
That said, climate change quickly stops being solely an 'environmental' issue at some point. It is more or less guaranteed to result in serious security risks and will prove to be a hugely destabilising force.
(post is archived)