While I don’t watch the news or read the newspaper, I am keenly aware
that Putin Derangement Syndrome has gone next level lately, particularly among
the Democrats in Washington. While I
believe that an opposition is an important feature of our system, I think the
distinction needs to be made between offering an alternative versus simply
trying to re-write history and re-litigate the election. Needless to say, I don’t think the angle
currently being pursued is going to dethrone Mr. Trump in 2020. And, as always, the folks at Geopolitical
Futures offer a healthy and reasoned perspective on what the story really is
with respect to Russia:
“The media and Trump’s opposition present this openness toward dialogue
and Trump’s own personal admiration for Russian President Vladimir Putin as
evidence of his collusion with Russia. But the only difference between Trump’s approach to
Russia and that of his predecessors has been style, not substance. A year after
Russia undermined confidence in U.S. security guarantees in the 2008 Georgian
war, U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration tried to “reset” Russian
relations. It failed miserably. President George W. Bush said in 2001 that he
had met Putin, looked him in the eye, gotten “a sense of his soul,” and found
him to be straightforward and trustworthy. Bush got it wrong too.
U.S. presidents always try to improve the relationship
with Russia, and they always fail. In this sense, Trump is typical. Part of the
reason successive U.S. presidents keep making this mistake is that presidents,
like the electorate, tend to personalize everything. Trump wants to get along
with Russia; Obama wanted a fresh start; Bush felt he knew Putin’s soul. They
view Russia as something that can be handled by sheer force of personality. But
the individuals and their personal preferences don’t matter, which is something
Russia understands better than the United States does. Relationships between
countries aren’t like relationships between people. Countries can’t be trusted
to act any way except in their own self-interest.
U.S.
presidents have been unable to improve U.S.-Russia relations because the two
countries have opposing interests… [Russia] is a highly vulnerable country. To
protect its core – around Moscow – from potential enemies, it must expand
outward into Central Asia, the Caucasus and Eastern Europe to develop buffer
zones. (The U.S. is fortunate to have the Atlantic and Pacific oceans
protecting it.) Russia will always push to have control over these areas, no
matter who is serving as its president. If a liberal democratic revolution
were to usher an opposition figure like Alexei Navalny into power tomorrow, or
if Trump were impeached next week, the U.S. and Russia would still be at odds
in the exact same parts of the world…
Despite the allegations of collusion against members
of the Trump administration, the U.S. has not softened its policy toward Russia
in Eastern Europe. Much has been made of Trump’s tough line on NATO, but the
U.S. continues to solidify bilateral relations with countries like Poland,
Romania and the Baltic states, all of which are crucial to establishing
reliable defenses against potential Russian aggression. A U.S. armored brigade
deployed to Poland as scheduled right before Trump’s inauguration and has not
been withdrawn. Trump met with Romania’s president on June 9, and he plans to
visit Poland in early July. Secretary of Defense James Mattis was in Lithuania
last month. And Ukrainian media have reported that President Petro Poroshenko
will visit Washington on June 19-20. Contrary to the media narrative, Russia’s
position in Eastern Europe is weakening.”
