Russia is not our Adversary

[grantcart]

Russia is not our Adversary.

Words matter and once you establish certain frames of reference then the terms define the acceptable outcomes and thereby significantly limit policy options. Limited options often are accompanied by heightened emotions and flash points. This was exactly how World War I was started, once a certain framing was accepted then it was inevitable that war would follow.

The word adversary is not the word for diplomacy or for normal relations between states. It is a term that presages conflict not resolution, military confrontation not diplomatic cooperation.

To begin with we have no inherent conflict with the people of Russia. Both countries have long term interests and there is some inherent competition of those interests but there is nothing that cannot be surmounted with reason, good will and mutual respect.

The current Russian leadership is the result of the greatest theft of state assets creating the world’s greatest kleptocracy. Putin is anti-democratic and has used blackmail, fear and murder to consolidate power. However we have allies, like President Duterte of the Philippines who has killed more and the House of Saud that are less democratic.

It was somewhat astonishing then that the House Committee today glibly asked the Director of the FBI and the NSA if Russia was our adversary and their glib reply was a single affirmative “yes”.

Historical Objectives of Russia

From Czarist Russia to Revolutionary Russia to the USSR and the current Russian Federation there has been a remarkably consistent Raison d'être for its political class. Consistent with Toynbee’s understanding that climate and geography are strong determinates of national character and interest Russia’s unique position and climate have forced a remarkably consistent nexus of interests for its leadership over 5 centuries. Those priorities have been:

1) Obtain a Warm Water Port. No land locked country has succeeded in developing a strong basis for its society. Here are two articles that explain the existential need for a warm water port and their movements in the Ukraine and Syria:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/warm-water-port.htm

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/10/navy-base-syria-crimea-putin/408694/

2) Security through Hegemony. Russia’s immense and long border make border security impossible. To achieve border security Russia has for centuries opted for the only practical option that would provide security in neighborhoods that can be aggressive, hegemony. By concentrating power onto smaller neighbors they are practiced at installing friendly governments in its neighbors that would provide a buffer from aggressive large countries. It usually is a positive cost/benefit formula. Usually not requiring force but when it does, like Czechoslovakia in 1968, it is a temporary high profile exercise followed by controlling an autonomous friendly client state. The initial movement of Soviet forces into Afghanistan was not an invasion against a government that was hostile to the Soviet Union but, strikingly similar to the Czech invasion, was made to support the Communist government that had taken control of the Peoples Democratic Republic of Afghanistan.

It is easy for Americans to be critical of Russian reflex to always try to establish intimidation of hostile neighbors but we have been almost universally surrounded by friendly neighbors our entire existence. If you want to see how we would react to hostile neighbors simply look at the disproportionate response that the US had by the relatively small challenge that Cuba presented.

3) Authoritarian Rule. With so much territory and so much divergence in culture between the European West and the Asian East Russia has always supported strong despotic leaders as they value order over chaotic discourse. Putin is not contrary to Russian rule but fills the same shoes that Catherine the Great (and others) wore, although he is more much more civilized than his ancient predecessors.

4) Acceptance as a European Equal. Russia doesn’t want to dominate Europe nor does it necessarily need to challenge the US. It does mean that a united European Community with a strong bond to the US challenges Russia’s essential identity and that they are determined to disrupt the coalition. At the heart of Russian leadership is the desire to be accepted as an equal member of standing in the European community and they don't care how many heads they have to smash to get that respect.

Trump is going to destabilize US/European relationships to the same degree that Bush destabilized middle Eastern relationships. The best response is for the US to remain united with Europe and patiently continue to present a united front for universal democratic values. If the outcome of Trump’s paranoia and transgressions is that we come to automatically label Russia as an “Adversary” then we will have increasingly limited options to trying to establish normal relations between countries based on mutual respect.

In pursuing the crimes of Trump and his associates and exposing how those crimes intersect with the criminal side of Russia we should not allow our bilateral relationship to escalate in a way that makes military confrontation, either directly or indirectly through surrogate conflicts, more likely. It is the kind of nuance that Trump could never fathom.

To give an example how we might be able to solve big problems with Russia and maintain our principles look at the Russian annexation of Crimea. Russia couldn't care less what we think in the short term. They will take decades of discomfort in exchange of obtaining a lock on centuries of a warm water port.

In the international law that covers the Suez and Panama Canal there is, I believe, the foundation of a settlement that would meet the important interests of all sides. The principle for the Suez and the Panama canal is that once you create a universal passage then you cannot use that passage to exploit a parochial advantage. If Egypt or Panama try to close the waterway then the international community has the right to restore its universal application, but they don't lose sovereignty. In the Crimea we could use the same principle of establishing an "international port and land bridge" to Russia. Like Suez and Panama the administration would be subcontracted to a private company and the fees for usage revert to the sovereign power, in this case Ukraine. If Ukraine did move to restrict access of goods to Russia then they would have the military right to enforce its reopening (like France/England did in Suez, or the US has in Panama). Ukraine would continue to hold the rights of sovereignty (for example any crimes committed in the port would still be tried in Ukraine) but an Intergovernmental Committee with the stakeholders could govern the running of the port and the corridor to Russia.

Trump is like a crazed bull in the glass emporium. It would be a tragedy if his Presidency gave Putin his ultimate victory by destabilizing not only the Atlantic alliance but created a chaos that allowed Putin to profit from his crimes.

[regnaD kciN]

1. If "Russia is not our adversary"...

...then it seems we have little to complain about Trump getting their backing. It would be no different than any of a dozen non-adversarial countries trying to help spin our election in a direction that favors them. After all, Netanyahu pretty much gave a public endorsement to Romney in 2012. (And, to be evenhanded on the ME issue, Saudi Arabia was at least as supportive to the Bush family.) Israel, needless to say, is not our adversary; if Russia isn't, either, what's all the fuss about?

Or, at least, so it will be spun.

[Cha]

2. Comey just confirmed both political parties were hacked in 2016 by Russiansbut that only Democratic

Link to tweet

[Gothmog]

78. Russia attacked the US and that is not the actions of a friend

[elfin]

3. And so the Isaac Deutscher thesis still holds.....

Published in 1950 and a key chapter in my International Political Science class WAY long ago in the early 60's.

I reflexively think of it whenever I see any moves by Russia all these years later. And just about any event that makes the news today involving Russia makes more sense when that thesis is considered.

I love it -- it was one of the key questions I knew in the blue book essay final (remember those?) and I breathed a sigh of relief when I saw it, because I had literally slept through much of the course. Nailed it.

[grantcart]

4. I never saw the blue book essay on the west coast.

At graduate school I was stunned when I saw people pick up 5 or 6 to finish. When I saw that they were wider lines than normal I relaxed.

What is the ID thesis?

[elfin]

10. The chapter in our text concentrated on the warm water port urgency Russia felt

Here is some more info on him -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Deutscher

I have perused some of his writings online, but so far can't find the essay (or perhaps it was a long excerpt) that I remember so vividly that saved my transcript.

Originally a Pole before settling in Britain who was a Trotskyite for a time and became a political analyst whose ideas became important to both Marxist and non-Marxist historians.

It appears me that the warm water port quest points were quickly disseminated and popularized.as the west was trying to find a framework to help them understand Russia aside from Das Kapital and WWII.

Don't know if he in turn was using someone else's ideas and then elaborating enough to merit inclusion in that darn text that weighed about #30 pounds as I recall.

[grantcart]

13. I see

Well I think that the 4 points listed above have been the standard universal analysis of Russian Elite thinking for decades. The warm water port was the most unifying cry for centuries, unifying Czarists, revolutionaries and democrats.

They have a point. not having a warm water point is an existential threat to a country.

[fleabiscuit]

5. Attack our democracy equals Adversary, with my easy math. nt

[grantcart]

12. Your easy math equals your easy read which stopped at the title.

You equate the misdeeds of the kleptocracy of Putin with the interests of 150 million Russians?

When people state that Russia is our adversary you are establishing a confrontation with all of Russia and that road leads to direct wars and surrogate wars, neither of which are in our interests.

[fleabiscuit]

60. Actually that's how you read my post. nt

[Gothmog]

79. The misdeeds of Putin and his cronyies cannot be separate from the Russian state

Putin is the russian state and it is meaningless to try to separate Putin from the Russian people. Russia attacked the US democratic institutions and these are not the actions of a friend. Putin has Russia under total control and therefore is the Russian state. Pretending otherwise is not living in the real world

[fleabiscuit]

86. "Winter is Coming" nt

[RelativelyJones]

6. When you say, "Russia doesnt want to dominate Europe," do you include Eastern Europe?

Lot of evidence to the contrary.

[grantcart]

8. No what I said was that they have wanted to control Eastern Europe sine 1600

You must have missed the 2nd point

2) Security through Hegemony. Russia’s immense and long border make border security impossible. To achieve border security Russia has for centuries opted for the only practical option that would provide security in neighborhoods that can be aggressive, hegemony. By concentrating power onto smaller neighbors they are practiced at installing friendly governments in its neighbors that would provide a buffer from aggressive large countries

That also includes the countries to its southern border. They not only want to dominate the "Duchy of Poland" but Afghanistan as a defensive measure.

When it comes to England, Germany, France and Italy they want to be seen as cultural and intellectual equals and be admired as the home land of Pushkin, Chekov, Bunin, Dostoevsky and Tolstoy

[RelativelyJones]

22. All that aside, how does this not make Russia adversarial?

You have a rather unorthodox understanding of the term.

[grantcart]

24. advesary is a binary term

one defeats or is defeated an advisory.


We need to confront Putin on some terms and work with him on others, like an agreement with Iran, which wouldn't have happened without both China and Russia assisting in sanctions.

Adversarial is the kind of term you would use in the Department of Defense. It is not the kind of term you would use at the Department of State.

In any case, even if you are only interested in finding a black and white situation with Putin, who I described as the head of the worlds' kleptocracy, a blackmailer and a murderer, Putin doesn't equate with Russia.

The Russian people are not our adversaries or our enemies.

Using these inflammatory terms reduces options, makes us more superficial and is the kind of language that leads to military conflict, which in this case is more likely to be a surrogate war.

My point is that we shouldn't let Trump's misdeeds define our values, our policy choices and our diplomatic options.

[uponit7771]

35. "The Russian people are not our adversaries or our enemies. " In that case Germany wasn't our ...

... adversary in WW2, the majority of Germans didn't want to go to war with Russia or even France seeing MOST Russians were NOT propagandized about France like they were about Poland and Austria.

Germany During the late 30s had their Band Of Bigots running the government VERY similar to what we have know; a ....RELATIVELY .... small group of assholes.

We can say the German people tolerated those Band Of Bigots but in that case so does the Russian people tolerate Vlad by not voting them out by 5 to 1 margins or accepting voting results that are clearly skewed.



Russia is our adversary because of its leadership, we'd be in the same boat if Benedict Donald wanted to get busy with NATO or some other country

[BainsBane]

44. Exactly, it would mean there is no such thing as an adversary

and the OP doesn't make an argument about the people vs. the state. It talks about the Russian state's national security interests.

[uponit7771]

45. +1, we'd be in the same boat if we were in the same boat with Bush and Iraq ... the American people

... were fair game and if Iraq had the military ability to attack the US with force what would be say?

We're not with stupid?

Nah, the Russian people knows what Vlad brings ... they need to get his ass out of office yesterday

[Xolodno]

7. I agree. Russia is not our adversary.

But the damn problem is they see us as their adversary...due to, and sadly, some with significant merit reasons. Due to Repub leadership, "stay behinds", etc. they have created and enabled Putin.

It doesn't justify what Putin has done, but it does bring an understanding and the work that has to be done.

[grantcart]

9. They see us as an obstacle. They don't want to destroy us but simply create

chaos so that we no longer are Europe's Best Friend forever.

In terms of balance of world powers, they still would like us to be powerful enough to balance Chinese and if necessary jihadists in the south.

[Xolodno]

14. True as they don't want to destroy the US.

They see the US as a crucial power needed in the "new world". Putin has gone on record that he rejects 20th and 21st century philosophies of "world power" and wants things return to 19th century views. That being multi-polar powers with influence within its sphere.

As for Europe's BFF, they feel insulted. Russian troops marched in Paris after the defeat of Napoleon, in World War I, they kept the Central Powers occupied and off France until the revolution and broke the back of Nazi Germany before the USA entered the war.

However, 45 has put them in a real bad pickle. Its well noted that in September, Russia walked away from the election, they accomplished what they wanted...Clinton once she won would have plenty of domestic issues. Trump winning meant they were going to become victims of their own success. They know 45 will fail and his failure will not further their goals.

[stevenleser]

11. I believe the Putin regime is an adversary. Russia not so much

The problem is the Putin regime is the government of Russia.

[SunSeeker]

18. Exactly. nt

[uponit7771]

36. +1

[TomCADem]

15. LA Times - "Moscow welcomes the (would-be) sovereign nations of California and Texas"

I don't know. I have a problem with a Russian regime that actively tries to create chaos and dissent in our country and helped pave the way to Trump's presidency.

http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-russia-separatists-snap-story.html

The speaker was calling for California’s independence from the United States.

Alexei Gavrilko nodded approvingly. A burly, bearded, camouflage-wearing separatist from eastern Ukraine, he said he had come to the posh Moscow hotel just outside the Kremlin to “communicate with colleagues” representing separatist and secessionist groups from the United States, Europe, the Middle East and the former Soviet Union.

# # #
The arrival of Californian, Texan, Puerto Rican, Northern Irish, Catalan, Italian and Lebanese secessionists to mingle with activists from several unrecognized separatist territories in former Soviet republics is becoming a tradition as Moscow turns to belligerent, anti-Western nationalism coupled with a readiness to take up arms against its former Soviet vassals.

Moscow uses these gatherings to promote its political agenda, gain more political leverage in the West and push for the lifting of Western sanctions imposed on Moscow after its 2014 annexation of Crimea and support of the separatists in eastern Ukraine, a former lawmaker with the ruling United Russia party said.

[SunSeeker]

16. That murderous kleptocrat Putin is most certainly our adversary.

That doesn't mean we should go to war with Russia, but we should not sugarcoat what their intentions are with us. They want to degrade us as a country. That makes them our adversary.

As with any murderous kleptocrat, Putin is horribly threatened by free elections, a free press, and other countries setting an example that his people might follow. That is why he wants to install authoritarian rulers all over the world.

Putin used the 1999 Moscow apartment bombings ("Russia's 9/11&quot to justify his brutal invasion of Chechnya, making himself a national hero, while postponing elections that he was on the road to losing had they been held before the apartment bombings. Putin's FSB (former KGB) planted the apartment bombs, not the Chechens.  And the people who tried to expose the Moscow apartment bombings ended up dead, including Sergei Yushenkov, and Alexander Litvinenko, who was famously poisoned. It is all laid out in this excellent documentary:

He knows that if his people come to believe he killed Russians as they slept in their apartments in a false flag operation meant to keep him in office, he would be done for. That is why he killed all those journalists investigating that bombing. He is not leading a country, he is leading the world's largest criminal enterprise, the Kremlin, who all pay fealty to him. He is the richest man in the world, worth well over $200B that we know of, made off stealing his own county's assets (Rosneft), and he wants to be richer. He has already stolen all there is to steal in Russia. We are in his sights.

Certainly we can try to negotiate with him, and float that "Suez canal in the Ukraine" idea, but we need to always understand that he is a criminal and our adversary.

.

[grantcart]

25. So the entire Russian People are our advesaries

These are careless formulations and labelling Putin a murderer doesn't elevate Russia to enemy status.

It also doesn't mean that there won't be areas, like preventing war in Iran, where we can't work together.

If murder is the metric that you hold above all else then there are about a dozen other countries where the President has more blood than Putin, which doesn't absolve Putin.

Given that Duerte is responsible for a couple of thousand murders is it your position that we terminate our relationship with the Philippines and close our bases there?

[SunSeeker]

30. No, the Russian people are Putin's victims.

Putin is our adversary because he wants to degrade our country and further his kleptocracy at our expense. Duerte has not indicated he has those goals.

[grantcart]

33. The OP isn't Putin is not our adversary, it is Russia is not our adversary

Any attempt to find a distinction between the murderous Putin and the murderous Duerte is a thin meal of sophistry.

Duerte is averaging 40 murders a week.

As for not degrading our country, Duerte has been railing against the US and openly talks about replacing the US with China or Russia,

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/10/philippines-rodrigo-duterte-pivot-china-161012062518615.html

Duerte doesn't want to degrade America?

First he threatened to expel American Special Forces aiding Filipino counterterror operations in the southern island of Mindanao.

Then he suggested ending joint maritime patrols and military exercises with America in the South China Sea and, more recently, even discussed the possibility of abrogating defence agreements with the US.

Meanwhile, Duterte went so far as considering an alliance with Russia and China. Currently, the Duterte administration is negotiating a 25-year military agreement with Beijing, paving the way for purchase of Chinese weaponry by the largely US-equipped and trained armed forces of the Philippines.

We provided Philippines $ 250 million a year in general aid and $ 150 in direct military aid a year. I am not suggesting that we turn Duerte into an all or nothing issue either. We need to work with our allies to confront Putin but that should not preclude us from finding areas of agreement in areas that are in our interest like preventing a war with Iran.

Demonizing the entire country of Russia may be emotionally satisfying but it solves nothing.

[uponit7771]

38. Putin is NOT French

[grantcart]

39. and Russia is not Putin

[uponit7771]

40. Again, in that case Germany was never Hitler after Poland

[SunSeeker]

64. I don't know why you're doing this, grantcart.

What is the point of your word games? The people of Russia are not in charge. Putin is. And unlike Duerte, he means to do us harm. Of course Duerte is a murderous scumbag. But he never attacked us. Putin has, and continues to. That is not a "thin line."

[Sculpin Beauregard]

101. Exactly, agree

[Historic NY]

17. Question to Comey & Rodgers...

Is Russia our adversary? Yes. If not then why interfere in our elections? Frenemy?

Good thing Canada doesn't act the way Russia has? Eh!!

[JI7]

19. i think when we say Russia we mainly mean Putin

[grantcart]

26. Sorry but that is not what they said.

Once the currency becomes common you cannot correct it.

Saying that Putin is our adversary and saying that Russia is our adversary is two completely different things and they result in two different sets of policy options.

[JI7]

47. when talking about politics it is about the Russian Govt which is Putin and this is especially

true when it comes to countries which lack freedom such as Russia.

russia is one of the countries i want to visit the most. i love the music, literature. the history is so fascinating. there is a lot to love.

[bettyellen]

70. St Petersburg was glorious! I also went to an old medieval city and Moscow but

St Petersburg was just beautiful. Apparently Putin had a soft spot for it and had them invest a lot on restoration there.

[tirebiter]

20. Warm water port?

That explains Russia's anti green policies. They'll have plenty when the ice melts. And they'll have Exxon to drill for the known oil reserves.

I lived in West Germany. Sure looked like Russia was quite interested in Europe. You mention the Czars but not the Warsaw Pact.

[moondust]

21. adversarial:

involving or characterized by conflict or opposition - OED

I think you could probably say that about the U.S. and Russia today under Putin, particularly after Crimea, but not Russia under Yeltsin.

Question: Since Putin would never give up Sevastopol and didn't trust Kiev with it after his boy Yanukovich fled, why didn't he negotiate with Kiev to buy Crimea, maybe with some debt forgiveness, rather than taking it with an illegal land grab? Was the threat of superior military force simply the cheaper and therefore preferred route for the "richest person in the world"? Didn't Kiev invest in and maintain Crimea's infrastructure, public services, etc., as its own for like 60 years?

Similarly, Putin wouldn't want to give up Tartus and was probably ready to step in to back Assad from day one but wasn't needed until Assad was getting his ass beat. Obama probably knew Putin was always there waiting in the wings if needed and thus wasn't willing to commit to direct action as in Libya and risk WWIII.

Question: If residents of Crimea and Donbass would rather live in Russia why didn't/don't they just move there? There's plenty of room in Russia for them. Maybe the Tatars would like to have Crimea back.

[grantcart]

29. It is a complex issue

Crimea belongs to Ukraine and borders should not be changed by force. Ukraine would never agree to "negotiate" their territory.

Russia needs a warm water port.

I believe that there are the elements in International law to blend both. Maintain Ukrainian Sovereignty but give Russia an absolute right to the port and a land bridge.

The problem arises that once you demonize Putin you make it impossible to solve problems that need to be solved.

Five hundred years of Russian has one bottom line: Russia will not be a friendly neighbor if they don't have a warm port or a permanent and legal access to one. As much as I dislike Putin, the Russians have a legitimate concern and it needs to be addressed, but it shouldn't be at the cost of Ukrainian Sovereignty. The reality is that as long as the issue festers the more difficult it is to corral Russia into proper behaviour.

[ucrdem]

23. Agree with you in the main.

I've never found the case against Putin compelling and apart from the cordiality of his congratulations there really isn't much evidence that he's anything more than a beard for the RNC and their friends including the testimony of chief J. Edgar Every-word-is-a-lie-including-but-and-the Hoover.

[littlemissmartypants]

27. Interesting post. Thanks grantcart. ♡ eom

[Separation]

28. Point #1

Is why they are supporting Asaad's regime. Without it, they pretty much lose the Gulf, and why NATO lost its shit when Spain told Russia that they would refuel Russian warships in their port. Obviously, somebody slapped Spain with a dose of common sense and told Russia that they wouldn't allow their ships in their ports.

[grantcart]

31. From the article

The base in Tartus may be less valuable than its counterpart in Sevastopol, but the location of the former matters. As the sole Russian naval base beyond the Bosporus—which is controlled by Turkey, a NATO member—Tartus helps establish Russia’s presence in the Mediterranean. “A big part of their continued interest in Syria and in [Syrian President Bashar] Assad has to do with” the Tartus base, Mankoff said. “I think Russia does have a bigger geopolitical view of the world, regards the eastern Mediterranean as an area of importance, and wants to be sure that it can secure its interests there.” According to General Philip Breedlove, NATO’s top commander, Tartus may also be part of a Russian effort to establish an anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) bubble over Syria, designed to prevent NATO forces from taking offensive action against Russia and its allies in the region. As Vice Admiral Viktor Chirkov, the commander in chief of the Russian Navy, succinctly put it, “This base is essential to us.”

From the Russian point of view Tartus has the kind of strategic importance that Hawaii has for us especially with the embargo restrictions that you mentioned.

With Tillerson going to Moscow the embargo is on death watch.

Russia doesn't have large or impressive naval force but the port in Tartus gives it an additional dimension.

[Nevermypresident]

32. I suggest any American that believes Russia/Putin is not an adversary read the following:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/putins-rasputin-endorses-trump/article/2001344

especially this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics

(Not to mention the what was revealed yesterday at the House Intelligence Hearing)

[grantcart]

37. I believe that any person who equates

"Russia is not our adversary" with "Putin is not our adversary" has a serious reading comprehension problem.

That is reinforced by #2 and #4 point which lays out exactly the same points that Dugins and dozens of others have written about.

"The book states that "the maximum task [of the future] is the 'Finlandization' of all of Europe"

Developing a hegemony over Eastern Europe (point 2) and establishing Bilateral Relations with the major countries of Western Europe is what is meant by the "Finlandization" of Europe.

[BainsBane]

43. Your post isn't about the Russian people vs. the Putin regime

It talks about Russia's global interests. Those aren't the interests of musicians in Moscow or wheat farmers in the Volga. They are the concerns of the Russian state, which is Putin. When we talk about allies vs. adversaries in international relations, it is always about the government.

[Nevermypresident]

48. Does the following not "read" adversarial toward our liberal democracy of the U.S.?

Allegedly, Russia makes this book required reading for their military academies.

per Dugin:

"Russia should use its special services within the borders of the United States to fuel instability and separatism, for instance, provoke "Afro-American racists". Russia should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics.

The Eurasian Empire will be constructed "on the fundamental principle of the common enemy: the rejection of Atlanticism, strategic control of the USA, and the refusal to allow liberal values to dominate us."

In Europe:
Germany should be offered the de facto political dominance over most Protestant and Catholic states located within Central and Eastern Europe. Kaliningrad oblast could be given back to Germany. The book uses the term "Moscow-Berlin axis".[1]

France should be encouraged to form a "Franco-German bloc" with Germany. Both countries have a "firm anti-Atlanticist tradition".[1]

The United Kingdom should be cut off from Europe.[1]

Finland should be absorbed into Russia. Southern Finland will be combined with the Republic of Karelia and northern Finland will be "donated to Murmansk Oblast".[1]

Estonia should be given to Germany's sphere of influence.[1]

Latvia and Lithuania should be given a "special status" in the Eurasian-Russian sphere.[1]

Poland should be granted a "special status" in the Eurasian sphere.[1]

Romania, Macedonia, "Serbian Bosnia" and Greece – "orthodox collectivist East" – will unite with "Moscow the Third Rome" and reject the "rational-individualistic West".[1]

Ukraine should be annexed by Russia because "“Ukraine as a state has no geopolitical meaning, no particular cultural import or universal significance, no geographic uniqueness, no ethnic exclusiveness, its certain territorial ambitions represents an enormous danger for all of Eurasia and, without resolving the Ukrainian problem, it is in general senseless to speak about continental politics". Ukraine should not be allowed to remain independent, unless it is cordon sanitaire, which would be inadmissible.[1]


In the Middle East and Central Asia:

The book stresses the "continental Russian-Islamic alliance" which lies "at the foundation of anti-Atlanticist strategy". The alliance is based on the "traditional character of Russian and Islamic civilization".

Iran is a key ally. The book uses the term "Moscow-Tehran axis".[1]

Armenia has a special role: It will serve as a "strategic base," and it is necessary to create "the [subsidiary] axis Moscow-Erevan-Teheran". Armenians "are an Aryan people … [like] the Iranians and the Kurds".[1]

Azerbaijan could be "split up" or given to Iran.[1]

Georgia should be dismembered. Abkhazia and "United Ossetia" (which includes Georgia's South Ossetia) will be incorporated into Russia. Georgia's independent policies are unacceptable.[1]

Russia needs to create "geopolitical shocks" within Turkey. These can be achieved by employing Kurds, Armenians and other minorities.[1]

The book regards the Caucasus as a Russian territory, including "the eastern and northern shores of the Caspian (the territories of Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan)" and Central Asia (mentioning Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan).[1]

In Asia:

China, which represents a danger to Russia, "must, to the maximum degree possible, be dismantled". Dugin suggests that Russia start by taking Tibet-Xinjiang-Mongolia-Manchuria as a security belt.[2] Russia should offer China help "in a southern direction – Indochina (except Vietnam), the Philippines, Indonesia, Australia" as geopolitical compensation.[1]

Russia should manipulate Japanese politics by offering the Kuril Islands to Japan and provoking anti-Americanism.[1]

Mongolia should be absorbed into Eurasia-Russia.[1]

The book emphasizes that Russia must spread Anti-Americanism everywhere: "the main 'scapegoat' will be precisely the U.S."




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics

[gordianot]

34. With the advent of solid rocket ICBM's Russia became America's enemy for all time.

Not to worry we have the same status with Russia. The populations of both countries do not have an inherent antipathy but they do have a loaded weapon pointed at each other. Due to some short sighted interference the United States now has an unstable psychopath holding the gun. He cannot be reasoned with and has no friends other than a truce with a similar delusional autocrat. If one decides to pull the trigger they have about 3 to 5 minutes to formulate a response (solid fuel ICBM). To date I have never heard Donald Trump formulate speak a coherent response to anyone or any subject. Trump lives in a delusion of his own construction, (he) Donald Trump will make America great. The day this psychopath was elected we went to war.

[BainsBane]

41. They interferred with our election to place a fascist in power

and are busy trying to replicate that success all over Europe. They sure as hell are our adversary. Putin's cyber attack and propaganda campaign on America, coupled with his Manchurian president, is at least as adversarial as Pearl Harbor. They absolutely constitute a real and present danger to America. I'm not advocating for a military response, but pretending they were just misunderstood is bullshit.

[still_one]

49. absolutely

[Gothmog]

80. The OP is ignoring these facts

[Kaleva]

42. Russia already had access to warm water ports in the Black Sea

Rostov, located in Russia proper, is a major sea port. Crimea is not connected by land to Russia.

[Lurks Often]

67. Rostove on the Don is a river port, 20 miles upstream from the Sea of Azov

While it is a warm water port, it's position 20 miles upstream up the river makes impractical as a military port.

Additionally it probably doesn't have the large dry docks and other infrastructure to support large military naval vessels and the river does not appear to be deep enough in spots to allow passage by large military naval vessels.

http://www.theodora.com/encyclopedia/d/don_river_russia.html

[Kaleva]

69. The seaport is located on the shores of the Sea of Azov

To get goods to or from Crimea, the Russians would have to transport it by sea or air as the only land route is through
Ukraine.

[Lurks Often]

76. The map at wikipedia says otherwise

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rostov-on-Don

Even if Wikipedia is wrong, it doesn't change that the port facilities at Rostov - On - Don almost certainly lacks the large dry docks and other infrastructure to handle military warships.

[Kaleva]

83. The port of Novorussk is one of the largest in Russia

It`s amajor naval base along with being a large commercial seaport. The fact is, Russia does not need Crimea to have access to a warm water port. It already has several.

[Lurks Often]

84. It's a moot point, Russia is not going to give up the Crimea and

they will continue to support Syria, who gives them a warm water port with access that can not be blocked during a war.

[pnwmom]

46. Putin (and the rest of his authoritarian Russian govt.) IS our adversary.

It's unrealistic to claim they are not.

[uriel1972]

50. We are at war with Eastasia...

We have always been at war with Eastasia... Eurasia is our ally... Eurasia has always been our ally and so on.

Russia the state (which does include the populace) is an adversary of The USA. You can't wish that away by moving the goalposts and redefining Russia to be its "People" whatever that truly means.

Sure, most people in the world don't want to be adversaries of anyone in particular, but states on the other hand... well some are more aggressive than others.

The point is when most people say "Russia" or "United States of America" they mean the state and not some possibly mythical "People".
When I say mythical, the people aren't mythical, they are very real. "The People" however, probably is.

[nikibatts]

51. The same comments almost exactly applied to Saddam's Iraq. Think about it.

[texasfiddler]

52. The republican party is our adversary

[ananda]

53. Why sure!

Russia is now our best bud.

We have lots of warm water ports too.

Win win. Let's celebrate our vassalage
and serfdom like the good dead souls
we are.

[still_one]

54. Right or wrong, when George W Bush was president, world opinion of the U.S

was quite low. When President Obama took over, world opinion of the U.S was quite favorable. With trump in charge world opinion has already turned against the U.S.

A country is judged by others based on its leaders.

Russia is judged based on Putin, and we will be judged based on trump

It would be nice to Imagine the John Lennon song, but that isn't going to happen

That is the way it is

[Exilednight]

55. I find the hypothesis to be a distinction without a difference.

There are people within Russia who support Putin, and it's much larger than some would like to admit.

They've invaded sovereign countries and flirt with attacking NATO countries.

You can slice an apple pie however you like, but it's still an apple pie.

[joshcryer]

56. Russia's ultranationalism is disturbing and frankly a threat to the world.

Your post is completely on point. We should write a book together.

[Juliusseizure]

57. If you're not a mole, you sound like one

Russia is actively attempting to destroy democracies and spread authoritarian rule cooperative with Russia.

I guess you missed the testimony earlier today, have never taken a history or political science course, amd don't know who Putin is.

.

[msanthrope]

58. Russia is our adversary. And I mean the Russian populace. Try visiting there. I have. nt

[bigtree]

59. I see the Russian regime as our adversary

...I think that's what most people are referring to when they call Russia an adversary.

Moreover, there are few, if any, representatives of that regime who aren't compromised by, and subservient to, the adversarial interests and activities of Putin.

[ms liberty]

61. I think some on this thread missed your point, but I think

you've made some excellent points, and I agree. And it is very good to see you, grantcart!

[kentuck]

62. Russia is governed by a criminal organization.

Led by Vladimir Putin.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

63. What term would you use to describe our relationship ?

Even in our online community I know who my friends and foes are.

[Tatiana]

65. I respectfully disagree. Putin is the de-facto leader of Russia.

As such, his foreign policy initiatives are those of Russia. Much like, though we in America are decent human beings who want to exist peacefully in this world, our de-facto leader is Donald Trump. As such, other nations would be well within their rights to conclude the United States is now their enemy (based upon Donald Trump's stated foreign policy or that of his close advisers).

Russia should be considered and treated as an enemy and hostile foreign threat until Putin is out of power.

[JTFrog]

66. Whatever helps you sleep at night. nt

[cemaphonic]

68. #2 - Characterizing the Warsaw Pact states as "autonomous" and "friendly" is an offensive lie.

Every single one was installed through wartime invasion/occupation, maintained through brutal totalitarian police state tactics, and when that wasn't enough, literal invasions. The moment the Soviet Union released its grip, (due to its own instability) they overturned their puppet governments and ran as fast as they could into the economic and security arrangements of Western Europe and the US.

As for #1, obviously they want a Black Sea port. Doesn't justify them reneging on their treaty with Ukraine, or belligerently violating post-WWII norms of respecting other nations territorial integrity to get one. Austria has had a longstanding desire for a seaport too. Do you think the world would be cool with them annexing Slovenia to get Trieste? And your "solution" for the Crimea sounds a whole lot more like the Nazi "solution" to the Danzig exclave situation, or the Soviet justification that they needed to occupy the Baltic States to protect Kaliningrad, than anything like the Suez or Panama Canals.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

71. It would be nice for the OP to say how he would characterize our relationship with Russia.

He said what our relationship isn't. Putin interfered in our elections to saddle us with an authoritarian demagogue. That is certainly not the actions of a friend.


BTW, I didn't see where the OP claimed the Warsaw Pact was a voluntary association. That would be absurd.

[cemaphonic]

74. Quoting from the OP

Under #2 - Security through Hegemony.

By concentrating power onto smaller neighbors they are practiced at installing friendly governments in its neighbors that would provide a buffer from aggressive large countries. It usually is a positive cost/benefit formula. Usually not requiring force but when it does, like Czechoslovakia in 1968, it is a temporary high profile exercise followed by controlling an autonomous friendly client state.

OP isn't exactly calling the Warsaw Pact voluntary, but is couching it in terms that make it sound a whole lot less hostile and totalitarian than the actual situation was. The puppet governments themselves may have been friendly to Moscow, but they were anything but autonomous, nor did they an any way reflect the wishes of the populations they ruled over.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

75. The Warsaw Pact was a hell of a cordon sanitaire.

I would like to know how the OP characterizes our relationship. I don't believe adversary is unnecessarily harsh or provocative.

[GliderGuider]

72. How does Duginist geopolitics fit that benign framework?

Foundations of Geopolitics

The book declares that "the battle for the world rule of [ethnic] Russians" has not ended and Russia remains "the staging area of a new anti-bourgeois, anti-American revolution." The Eurasian Empire will be constructed "on the fundamental principle of the common enemy: the rejection of Atlanticism, strategic control of the USA, and the refusal to allow liberal values to dominate us."[1]

Military operations play relatively little role. The textbook believes in a sophisticated program of subversion, destabilization, and disinformation spearheaded by the Russian special services. The operations should be assisted by a tough, hard-headed utilization of Russia's gas, oil, and natural resources to bully and pressure other countries.[1]

The book states that "the maximum task [of the future] is the 'Finlandization' of all of Europe".[1]

In Europe:

• Germany should be offered the de facto political dominance over most Protestant and Catholic states located within Central and Eastern Europe. Kaliningrad oblast could be given back to Germany. The book uses the term "Moscow-Berlin axis".[1]
  France should be encouraged to form a "Franco-German bloc" with Germany. Both countries have a "firm anti-Atlanticist tradition".[1]
  
• The United Kingdom should be cut off from Europe.[1]
  
• Finland should be absorbed into Russia. Southern Finland will be combined with the Republic of Karelia and northern Finland will be "donated to Murmansk Oblast".[1]
  
• Estonia should be given to Germany's sphere of influence.[1]
  
• Latvia and Lithuania should be given a "special status" in the Eurasian-Russian sphere.[1]
  
• Poland should be granted a "special status" in the Eurasian sphere.[1]
  
• Romania, Macedonia, "Serbian Bosnia" and Greece – "orthodox collectivist East" – will unite with "Moscow the Third Rome" and reject the "rational-individualistic West".[1]
  
• Ukraine should be annexed by Russia because "“Ukraine as a state has no geopolitical meaning, no particular cultural import or universal significance, no geographic uniqueness, no ethnic exclusiveness, its certain territorial ambitions represents an enormous danger for all of Eurasia and, without resolving the Ukrainian problem, it is in general senseless to speak about continental politics". Ukraine should not be allowed to remain independent, unless it is cordon sanitaire, which would be inadmissible.[1]

In the Middle East and Central Asia:

• The book stresses the "continental Russian-Islamic alliance" which lies "at the foundation of anti-Atlanticist strategy". The alliance is based on the "traditional character of Russian and Islamic civilization".
  
• Iran is a key ally. The book uses the term "Moscow-Tehran axis".[1]
  Armenia has a special role: It will serve as a "strategic base," and it is necessary to create "the [subsidiary] axis Moscow-Erevan-
• Teheran". Armenians "are an Aryan people … [like] the Iranians and the Kurds".[1]
  
• Azerbaijan could be "split up" or given to Iran.[1]
  
• Georgia should be dismembered. Abkhazia and "United Ossetia" (which includes Georgia's South Ossetia) will be incorporated into Russia. Georgia's independent policies are unacceptable.[1]
  
• Russia needs to create "geopolitical shocks" within Turkey. These can be achieved by employing Kurds, Armenians and other minorities.[1]
  
• The book regards the Caucasus as a Russian territory, including "the eastern and northern shores of the Caspian (the territories of Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan)" and Central Asia (mentioning Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan).[1]

In Asia:

• China, which represents a danger to Russia, "must, to the maximum degree possible, be dismantled". Dugin suggests that Russia start by taking Tibet-Xinjiang-Mongolia-Manchuria as a security belt.[2] Russia should offer China help "in a southern direction – Indochina (except Vietnam), the Philippines, Indonesia, Australia" as geopolitical compensation.[1]
  
• Russia should manipulate Japanese politics by offering the Kuril Islands to Japan and provoking anti-Americanism.[1]
  
• Mongolia should be absorbed into Eurasia-Russia.[1]
  
• The book emphasizes that Russia must spread Anti-Americanism everywhere: "the main 'scapegoat' will be precisely the U.S."

In the United States:

Russia should use its special services within the borders of the United States to fuel instability and separatism, for instance, provoke "Afro-American racists". Russia should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics."[1]

The Eurasian Project could be expanded to South and Central America.[1]

That all sounds kind of adversarial to me!

[KittyWampus]

73. Putin is not just after Eastern Europe. He considers Finland and Sweden as Russian satellites.

Last edited Tue Mar 21, 2017, 08:39 PM - Edit history (1)

And one wonders if you can explain if there is any significant side of Russia that is not corrupt at this point.

Then there's the fact Putin and Russia helped Assad commit genocide and sent huge numbers of Muslim refugees across Europe.

Then there's the theft of intelligence by Russia over the years.

Your post just doesn't come across as well informed and I know how well informed you really are. Maybe I'm just not comprehending your thesis.

Russia under Putin and the oligarchs are absolutely our adversary. They attacked us during the last election. It was an act of Cyber Warfare.

[Gothmog]

77. Russia is not our friend and I strongly disagree with the premise of the OP

Russia attacked our democratic process and help elect Trump as POTUS in an effort to destabilize the West and NATO. How are these actions not the actions of an adversary?

[NCTraveler]

81. Russia is our adversary. There is no question about it and the game of semantics doesn't work.

By your standard, the US isn't anyone's adversary. I strongly disagree.

Words do matter.

[Hoyt]

82. "U.S.A has done it, too, by one expert's count, more than 80 times worldwide between 1946 and 2000."

http://www.npr.org/2016/12/22/506625913/database-tracks-history-of-u-s-meddling-in-foreign-elections


If it were just Russia interfering with our election primarily by hacking DNC, I can't get worked up enough to hate/bomb Russians.

Now if Trump and/or close aides colluded with Russia, throw all of them in jail for life.

But let's not act like we haven't interfered with elections, because we have.

[Cary]

85. What's your point?

Because we have interfered in the elections of others (assuming you are correct) we should tolerate Putin interfering in ours?

Fuck that.

[Hoyt]

87. Then call up your Congresspeople and tell them you support war with Russia.

I don't for something we have done as well.

[Cary]

90. I see.

I wasn't aware that I supported a war with Russia. It's a good thing I have you to tell me.

[MicaelS]

88. It never ceases to amaze me how foolish some...

On the Left are when it comes to our adversaries. No matter what our adversaries do, people like you find a way to explain it away, and oft times turn it around and try to blame the US.

Russia is one of our adversaries. So are China and North Korea.

Russia has a long history of paranoia and an inferiority complex, as long as they exhibit these behaviors they and their culture will never be respected.

[Demsrule86]

97. They don't understand that Russia is not socialist or communist but full on Fascist now.

[tavernier]

89. Putin is not Russia

as Trump is not America.

Both are doing irreparable damage to the countries they pretend to represent.

[Demsrule86]

96. We can vote Trump out next time...But Putin will kill any of his opponents...thus Putin is Russia.

And I say we will not allow him to destroy NATO and march through Eastern Europe...He is a KGB thuggish murderer.

[tavernier]

98. I am Latvian American.

Your words are the exact same I heard from my relatives in Latvia last time I visited several years ago. They have been plagued by this devil daily for many years.

[Demsrule86]

99. He is a terrible person...and you go against him...you risk your life.

I am embarrassed and horrified that our president admires this monster...that alone is reason to impeach Trump. Be careful and I wish the best for your family.

[Adrahil]

91. Uhhh... they are now!

The Russian state launched an extremely successful operation to influence our elections and destabilize the country.

Those are most definitely the actions of an adversary.

[roamer65]

92. They most definitely are our adversary.

That is one tenet of neoconservatism I fully embrace.

I miss Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson! He would be telling folks like it is right now.

[McCamy Taylor]

93. Putin and his mobs bosses are the enemy and they rule Russia. Like saying Hitler was the enemy in

WW II and not Germany.

[geek tragedy]

94. They attacked our electoral democracy itself. They are not adversaries, they are enemies

That, and the state sponsorship of Assad and Iran and threats to destabilize Europe via little green men as well as funding extreme rightwing fascist parties such as Jobbik in Hungary.

Putin is the Russian state.

[Demsrule86]

95. Russia is our enemy and has been for many years.

The declared cyber-war on us and hacked our elections...they need to sanctioned up the ass...Trump is a puppet president...and Tillerson is on his way to Russia while ignoring NATO...screw Putin. He will never get what he wants now...and why would you be willing to sentence the people of Crimea to be forced to be under the thumb of murdering monster Putin? He kills his political opponents and journalist. We can not work with Putin period.

[NurseJackie]

100. Prominent "leaders" in our party remain silent on this important fact...

... they refuse to acknowledge it, they dodge and weave and evade, they change the subject and pretend it doesn't matter. I hope that changes soon. The stakes are too high. The risk is too great. We need better leadership. We need leaders who are realistic. I'm looking forward to the day when our party's rising young DEMOCRATIC stars will start to make their mark and guide our great DEMOCRATIC party back to glory.

[Demsrule86]

102. Amen sister...