This is such a serious problem to consider and prevent. The article is worth reading whole.
Let’s imagine a hypothetical scenario in which an imaginary country—we’ll call it Country X—that the U.S. is ostensibly at peace with after decades of tension also happens to have the nuclear capability to destroy the world as we know it. Engaging in respectful dialogue and making compromises on both sides could result in a global coalition with the power to defeat ISIS. Yet rather than choosing this option, the U.S. considers imposing harsh sanctions on Country X to weaken its already struggling economy, and then proposes stationing troops on Country X’s borders. All this despite the fact that if Country X’s economy or government collapses, the world security order would be thrown into even greater chaos. Now substitute “Russia” for “Country X.”
“In the U.S., there is almost no real, serious public debate about this gravest of international crises,” said Katrina vandal Heuvel, editor and publisher of The Nation
- Many Russians see the U.S. and NATO as the aggressor, rather than the other way around.
- The asymmetrical system born at the end of the Cold War prevented Russia from joining the “Greater West” as an equal member.
- Many Russian political elites are pushing for even more of a hard-line policy toward the West.
- The coarseness of the political dialogue in the U.S./Russia relationship exceeds that of the Cold War.
- Russia wants to keep Assad in power because they believe the Syrian army is essential to defeating ISIS.
Is Everything We Thought We Knew About Russia Wrong?