1

The incumbent US president is very keen to establish a good and close relations with Russia and Putin.

During his recent visit to Helsinki, he took things even further.

Why is it important for the USA to establish good relationship with Russia/Putin even though Russia is maintaining its defiance in its foreign policy?

Note. hope my most recent edit makes this question a pro-USA one and hence the users stop close/down votes.

  • 3
    We cannot know what the man is thinking. This is not a valid question. – RedSonja Jul 19 '18 at 06:28
  • 5
    Why would nuclear powers want to have a good working relationship when they could always live on the brink of total destruction? – janh Jul 19 '18 at 07:08
  • 2
    Regarding "hope my most recent edit makes this question a pro-USA one and hence the users stop close/down votes.": If you want to stop people from closing and downvoting your question for being too opinionated, then it should be neither readable as pro-Something nor as anti-Something. The Politics.SE community has very diverse political views. If you try to appease one political faction, you alienate the others. Try to phrase your question from a neutral point of view. – Philipp Jul 19 '18 at 08:35
  • 1
    @jahn Having a "good relationship" is always "good" (the use of the word "good" kind of gives it away). The actual issue is what this "good" relationship means in practical terms; i.e. how much each side puts up with in order to have a "good" relationship (e.g. would you say that a victim of conjugal abuse should just do whatever is told to do and avoid calling the cops just to have a "good relationship" with the abuser?). – SJuan76 Jul 19 '18 at 11:24
  • 1
    There is absolutely no reason to close this question, as it objectively can be tied to US interests, not the opinion of the president. –  Jul 19 '18 at 13:06
  • 4
    I disagree that is is opinion based. There are objective reasons why Russia is important and needs to be talked to: 1. big military that is serious threat to nato allies. 2. foothold in middle east, any discussion on future of the region must include them. 3. Iran - sanctions will only work with Russian support. 4. North Korea - Russia is a neighbor so any talks on the future of peninsula need to include Russia. 5. China - if america will ever go to war with China, US needs at least access to Russian airspace. 6. Resources - world needs energy and minerals. 7. silk road - they have veto power – Tlen Jul 19 '18 at 14:17
  • If nothing else they are in the same theater of war in Syria. Under Trump, the US killed approximately 300 Russians in a massive attack. That type of thing can get out of hand quickly. –  Jul 19 '18 at 14:46

1 Answers1

-9

  1. At a risk of "well, duh", one of the more important reasons is the fact that Russia is an aggressive regional (and arguably, world) power with tens of thousands of nuclear weapons.

    In the geopolitical threat landscape, "taxes on a car rising by 10%" is not the biggest threat. "A nuclear war between two nuclear superpowers" is.

  2. Because there is very little that US gains by having bad relations with Russia.

    During the height of the Cold War, USA did not have a choice as to whether they would have good or bad relations with USSR, because (1) USSR had an ideological regime whose goal was the destruction of democracy/capitalism and therefore their countries and (2) which posed a credible military threat to the established geopolitical balance of power due to the risk of USSR militarily taking over European Planes countries, combining Russia's resource base with Europe's economy into a resulting superpower which would rival or eclipse USA.

    Neither of those are a factor anymore. Russia under Putin doesn't have an ideological goal aside from Putin's regime keeping and enhancing their power; and they no longer have either the means or the desire to militarily take over Western Europe.

user4012
  • 92,336
  • 19
  • 225
  • 386
  • 2
    @Points 1 and 2, ok, they're self evident. The rest of the answer maybe reflects the point of view of the Pentagon hawks about the USSR during the cold war, but as such, is very opinionated and politically motivated - even during the cold war there were politicians who thought that, indeed, they did have a choice to have good relations with the USSR. – Rekesoft Jul 19 '18 at 10:28
  • 8
    Well, it is a relief to know that nowadays Russia no longer poses a credible military threat to the established geopolitical balance of power and is just minding its own business inside its borders... – SJuan76 Jul 19 '18 at 11:30
  • 6
    And BTW, why should NATO countries increase their defense spending if there is no credible military threat? – SJuan76 Jul 19 '18 at 11:38
  • sigh. Getting criticized for sounding like a Pentagon hawk for espousing the opposite opinion. You just can't please some people. – user4012 Jul 19 '18 at 11:52
  • 4
    @SJuan76 - as annoying as it might be to Georgians and Ukranians (or to people talking about high minded ideals and such), Russia making a moves on them indeed does NOT present a credible military threat to the established geopolitical balance of power. Whether Russia controls Donbass and Abkhazia and Crymea is basically irrelevant to the big picture (the big picture being, whether Russia controls France and Germany and Iran, which was the threat during Cold War) – user4012 Jul 19 '18 at 11:54
  • 1
    @SJuan76 - As US taxpayer, because they aren't paying their fair share, meaning I pay unfair share for them. I don't think NATO spending should be as high overall, so I have no idea how you get off laying that strawman topic at my feet. I do agree USA should not bear the burden of that spending - regardless of how high - on behalf of European countries. – user4012 Jul 19 '18 at 11:57
  • https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/4839/why-is-redrawing-the-artificial-borders-not-a-viable-solution-to-conflicted-stat/4841#4841 – SJuan76 Jul 19 '18 at 12:01
  • 4
    "Russia under Putin doesn't have an ideological goal aside from Putin's regime keeping and enhancing their power; and they no longer have either the means or the desire to militarily take over Western Europe." as a US taxpayer I'm afraid you are too far removed from Europe to realize that this does not sound even close to reality for many of us. – Federico Jul 19 '18 at 12:55