[CapricornNoble]

>There was no "narrow window" in 1999-2007. The window for keeping Russia on a path toward becoming a normal European state closed around 1995.

Expecting Russia to ever become a "normal European state" is the main mistake. My entire point is to accept that Russia is authoritarian. Consider the examples of Turkey, Egypt, and Pakistan, especially Egypt: nobody preaches liberal democracy as the solution to getting Egypt to do what we want. Instead we came to an understanding with the military elite, who we've essentially bribed (via foreign aid and other ways) to keep a lid on their population and avoid direct conflict with Israel. Figure out what the KGB-military elite want, and give it to them in exchange for a shift in their security posture. The Soviet dinosaurs want to suck the Baltic states dry? Go for it....but we want them to step up their mobilization exercises in Siberia for the next decade. And we want them to start doing joint US-Russian nuclear submarine patrols in the East China Sea. Otherwise we can't be friends....and the last time we weren't friends, it didn't end well for Russia. More carrot, less stick...but still some stick.

If it gets us one step closer to Russia's nuclear arsenal (the largest in the world with the most capable ICBMs) possibly pointing at Chinese cities instead of the West, it's worth it. The price might include "fluffing the Russian national ego". Instead US think-tankers and statesmen have done their best to trample on it....with predictable results.

One of the best opportunities for improving US-Russian relations was 9/11 and especially the 2004 Beslan school attack: there was recognition of a mutual problem of "Islamic terrorism", and coordinating to fight it was a part of thawing the adversarial relationship between the security apparatuses of the two powers. Read the joint statement from Bush and Putin from 2002:

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/joint-declaration-...

then read this piece by F William Engdahl from 2006, skip to the section on US nuclear primacy:

https://apjjf.org/f-william-engdahl/2256/article

then finally read Putin's speech from the 2007 Munich Security Conference (which is when the window for improving relations closed):

http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/24034

> For them, challenging the US and expanding Russia through coercion and war to the full territorial extent of the former Eastern Bloc is the endgame.

The former Eastern Bloc should have been Finlandized: economic intermediaries between Russia and Western Europe, with just enough domestic military capability to discourage Russian hard power, but no actual US military alliance integration to keep the Russians from getting jittery either.

> They don't give two shits about China.

Which is why after the Sino-Soviet split Russia and the Soviet Union before it always kept high-readiness divisions on the Chinese border. The Russians know that China isn't really their friend. Russia is a European country, they shouldn't be bosom buddies with the Far East.

> They want a return to the privileged heyday of the KGB-military elites in the 1970s

They were on that path, printing money selling natgas and oil to Europe.

> Antagonism toward the US lies at their very core, and no amount of buttering will change that. The possibility of cooperation is merely an illusion they sell you to blind you to the next move they make against you.

The Russians didn't unilaterally pull out of the ABM Treaty in 2002, the US did. Then we went and followed that up by announcing we wanted ABM sites on Russia's doorstep to protect Europe from "errant Iranian nuclear missiles" which was obvious bullshit.

https://www.realinstitutoelcano.org/en/analyses/americas-abm...

Look, I understand that everyone in Eastern Europe has a well-earned eternal hatred of the Russians since you are barely a generation removed from their oppression, but do you guys not notice all the ridiculous antagonistic shit we Americans do that is entirely optional?

[mopsi]

  > Expecting Russia to ever become a "normal European state" is the main mistake. My entire point is to accept that Russia is authoritarian.

This is exactly the mistake that the US and the EU made: treating Russia not as an ordinary European country from which respect for human rights, free elections and other political, social, and economic rights should be expected, but as a special country entitled to do more than others. The KGB-military circles have ruthlessly exploited this naivety to destroy Russian democracy. They are happy to play uncivilized savages if that means that the US and EU give them freer rein to plunder and subjugate their neighbors and beyond.

  > Figure out what the KGB-military elite want, and give it to them in exchange for a shift in their security posture.

In their wildest dreams, they want total world domination, to assume the role of the Third Rome and the shining beacon of the entire humanity. In practical terms, this means Central and Eastern Europe directly incorporated into Russia and the entire Western Europe turned into anti-American pawns, like East Germany was and Belarus currently is. The Middle East would be divided with Iran, and Asia with China, leaving countries like the Philippines and Australia for China to take over, while others like Japan are turned anti-American through subversion. In the US, they want to fuel instability and separatism through ethnic, social and racial conflicts to keep Americans busy with holding their country together while Russia rules the world.

Dugin's "Foundations of Geopolitics" from 1997 sums the Russian attitude very well and much of that has already been put into action: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics

In short, they want you dead. They want an endless "Los Angeles '92" across the entire US while the Russian kleptocrats plunder the world. The bare minimum they are openly demanding now with ultimatums like the one presented in 2021 is a return to Europe as it was in 1989, half of Europe victimized, the other half terrified that they will be next.

  > The former Eastern Bloc should have been Finlandized: economic intermediaries between Russia and Western Europe, with just enough domestic military capability to discourage Russian hard power, but no actual US military alliance integration to keep the Russians from getting jittery either.

... because neutrality worked so well in the 1930s, and for Belarus and Ukraine in the present day as well? Neutrality allowed Germany and the USSR to pick off their neighbors one by one without fear of a broader response. It has enabled Russia to do the same in the present era, minimizing the risks it faces when attacking a country. Essentially, it all boils down to the fact that your mental image of Russia is wrong. You believe they are scared of their European neighbors and focus on appeasing Russia by castrating their neighbors, whereas Russia is playing up its security concerns solely to shape the battlefield in its favor for its expansionist ambitions.

  > Then we went and followed that up by announcing we wanted ABM sites on Russia's doorstep to protect Europe from "errant Iranian nuclear missiles" which was obvious bullshit.

The problem that Russians had with the US ABM site in Romania was due to deepening US-Romanian defense cooperation which reduces Russia's opportunities to turn Romania into another puppet state like Belarus at the very least, not because the site posed any danger to Russia. The Romanian ABM site lies on the direct flight path between Iran and large US military bases in Germany and makes perfect sense that the US would want to have an ABM site there. The missiles at the Romanian site are unable to reach Russian missile launching sites, nor are they on their flight path.

Examples like this clearly show that you have been consuming Russian propaganda without pulling out a globe and a measuring tape to check whether there is any actual credibility to the prepackaged narratives.

[CapricornNoble]

> In the US, they want to fuel instability and separatism through ethnic, social and racial conflicts to keep Americans busy with holding their country together while Russia rules the world.

If they want it they can have it. Not that Russia makes enough babies to have the manpower necessary to achieve their megalomaniac dreams. Most Americans are quite isolationist; I rate Woodrow Wilson as the worst US President ever because he violated the Monroe Doctrine and dragged us into Europe's problems...which still costs us blood and treasure a century later. We have the advantage of geography: two gigantic oceans protect us East/West, a frozen forest wasteland to the North, and a stretch of desert to the South. Our homeland is unassailable by conventional means (especially if we keep our Navy well-funded) and we can also sit behind our nuclear arsenal.

>Asia would be divided with China, with countries like the Philippines and Australia left for China to invade and take over

This is a good indication someone isn't a serious thinker and is likely stuck in a WW2-ish mental framework when populations were much smaller and it was easier to "paint the map". Nobody in their right mind would genuinely attempt to invade the Philippines in the 21st century, with its population over 100 million and a history of violent insurgencies. The juice isn't worth the squeeze.

I'm familiar with the basics of Dugin's ideology but I haven't read his work yet. As I understand it, all the English translations are unofficial but I suppose they are better than waiting for a formal one.

>Arguments like this clearly show that you have been consuming Russian propaganda without pulling out a globe and a ruler to check whether there is any actual credibility to the prepackaged narratives.

I would challenge you to do the same. Not once in this discussion have you made any critical analysis of the US's actions, statements, or motivations. NOT. ONCE.

>The Romanian ABM sites lies on the direct flight path between Iran and large US military bases in Germany and makes perfect sence that the US would want to have ABM site there. The missiles at the Romanian site are unable to reach Russian missile launching sites, nor are they on their flight path.

So ABMs in Romania make perfect sense to you based on a forecast future threat of Iranian nukes (which they don't have) on Iranian missiles with ranges of 3,000km+ (which they didn't have at the time). This was a proactive, preventative measure for the US.

ABM sites in Romania could also, forecasting into the future, be home to hypersonic missiles which could engage Russian launch sites with little or no warning and completely destabilize their MAD capability. Very similar to when we stuck missiles on their doorstep in Turkey in the 1960s....ya know, that stupidly provocative decision that led to the Cuban Missile Crisis? That is a far bigger security concern for Russia than the destruction of bases in Germany is for the US. So applying your logic for justifying the US action, why shouldn't the Russians ALSO take proactive, preventative measures against that?

Here's a simple sanity check:

Does the US have legitimate national security concerns? Does Germany have legitimate national security concerns? Does Romania have legitimate national security concerns? Does Russia have legitimate national security concerns?

If your answer to the first three is "Yes" and your answer to the fourth is "No", you probably think everyone who disagrees with you is a Russian propagandist.

[mopsi]

  > Our homeland is unassailable by conventional means (especially if we keep our Navy well-funded) and we can also sit behind our nuclear arsenal.

Unless you intend to nuke the White House, the nuclear arsenal remains entirely useless against the political subversion that Russia has very successfully used to destabilize and isolate the US. The official US envoy was recently caught advising Russians on how to manipulate the US president. Who needs tanks and missiles when you have reach like this? Without a single bullet being fired at the US, the sitting president is rolling out red carpets for Putin and praising him as genius while verbally attacking the Canadian prime minister and openly undermining Canada's sovereignty.

  > I would challenge you to do the same. Not once in this discussion have you made any critical analysis of the US's actions, statements, or motivations. NOT. ONCE.

My entire initial reply was a criticism of the US and EU naivety in thinking that buttering the KGB-military circles could lead to long-term positive outcomes, an idea you seemed to share. Overall, when it comes to Russia's relations with its European neighbors, the US is simply not an important factor. It is a question of sovereignty, enlightenment and other European values versus Russian imperialism, which is focused on finding ways to suppress them both at home and abroad. The people of Europe want to mind their own business, but Russia will not leave them alone. For 80 years, the US was a partner in this. Nowadays not so much, but the long-standing confrontation continues nevertheless.

  > ABM sites in Romania could also, forecasting into the future, be home to hypersonic missiles which could engage Russian launch sites with little or no warning and completely destabilize their MAD capability.

Russian ICBMs are primarily in the Urals, Siberia and the Far East, many thousands of kilometers from Romania. Not even hypersonic missiles would pose a threat. The danger from such sites is political in nature: closer US-Romanian defense cooperation directly threatens Russian ambitions in Romania, because the US would then be more likely to assist Romania if it comes under Russian political, economic or military attack.

  > Does the US have legitimate national security concerns? Does Germany have legitimate national security concerns? Does Romania have legitimate national security concerns? Does Russia have legitimate national security concerns?

Yes, yes, yes, yes. But focusing on Russia's overplayed "security concerns," when Russia has been the main aggressor in the region for centuries, is out of balance and unjustified. It is like writing about fire safety by centering the narrative on the inconvenience suffered by the arsonist.