Is it treason to want to get along with Russia?

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Discuss

[Zioneer]

Yes.

More seriously, the question of getting along with Russia is less Russia itself, and more Russia's government under Putin. Putin is really not someone we should get along with, especially at the extent the Trump administration has.

Have a Russia under a less security state-ish leader, and I would have no problems with being best buds with Russia.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Yes.

More seriously, the question of getting along with Russia is less Russia itself, and more Russia's government under Putin. Putin is really not someone we should get along with, especially at the extent the Trump administration has.

Have a Russia under a less security state-ish leader, and I would have no problems with being best buds with Russia.

-Naw, Putin's great. What's your problem with him? And Trump has done almost nothing in terms of US-RU cooperation so far.

[Crumpets]

Obviously not, but one can commit treason by having inappropriate relations even with a close ally. Do you think someone would get off scot free if they wantonly passed top secret information to British or Canadian officials?

[Antonio the Sixth]

It is treason to want to get along on a personal level with the current political leadership of Russia, yes.

[dead0man]

with the way Russia acts?  I don't know if it reaches treasonous levels, but it's certainly not cool.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Treason is a made up crime. One cannot owe allegiance to a made-up entity.

[Zioneer]

Yes.

More seriously, the question of getting along with Russia is less Russia itself, and more Russia's government under Putin. Putin is really not someone we should get along with, especially at the extent the Trump administration has.

Have a Russia under a less security state-ish leader, and I would have no problems with being best buds with Russia.

-Naw, Putin's great. What's your problem with him? And Trump has done almost nothing in terms of US-RU cooperation so far.

Putin has had journalists and opposition leaders murdered, perpetuated illegal wars against the Ukraine and Georgia (and possibly had his military commit war crimes there and in Chechnya), has used the Russian Orthodox Church as a nationalistic battering ram, has perpetuated rabidly anti-LGBT laws in Russia, and last but not least, possibly personally stole a Super Bowl ring.

And Trump's lavish words of praise for Putin and his administrations hinting at lifting sanctions on Russia is proof enough of cooperation.

[RINO Tom]

No ... but yes if it actively undermines the best interests of the United States.

[Santander]

Putin has had journalists and opposition leaders murdered, perpetuated illegal wars against the Ukraine and Georgia (and possibly had his military commit war crimes there and in Chechnya), has used the Russian Orthodox Church as a nationalistic battering ram, has perpetuated rabidly anti-LGBT laws in Russia, and last but not least, possibly personally stole a Super Bowl ring.

Since its founding, the Russian Orthodox Church has been the bulwark of Christendom, standing as the first line of defense on Europe's Eastern flank. After its repression during the Soviet Era, Putin has restored it to its rightful place in Russia and the world.

Putin, Trump, Bannon, and people like me share one thing in common - a desire to abandon the current internationalist world order and return to one more akin to the Great Powers geopolitics of the 19th century, where national interests are vigorously defended, territory can be gained through conquest, and our leaders acknowledge that some nations and cultures indeed have better values than others. This is why Trump is so fond of other Anglosphere countries (of course, most Americans are, but Trump especially so) while being critical at times of many Continental European nations.

[Beet]

Putin has had journalists and opposition leaders murdered, perpetuated illegal wars against the Ukraine and Georgia (and possibly had his military commit war crimes there and in Chechnya), has used the Russian Orthodox Church as a nationalistic battering ram, has perpetuated rabidly anti-LGBT laws in Russia, and last but not least, possibly personally stole a Super Bowl ring.

Since its founding, the Russian Orthodox Church has been the bulwark of Christendom, standing as the first line of defense on Europe's Eastern flank. After its repression during the Soviet Era, Putin has restored it to its rightful place in Russia and the world.

Putin, Trump, Bannon, and people like me share one thing in common - a desire to abandon the current internationalist world order and return to one more akin to the Great Powers geopolitics of the 19th century, where national interests are vigorously defended, territory can be gained through conquest, and our leaders acknowledge that some nations and cultures indeed have better values than others. This is why Trump is so fond of other Anglosphere countries (of course, most Americans are, but Trump especially so) while being critical at times of many Continental European nations.

The Great Powers geopolitics of the 19th century ended with World War I and World War II. The people who lived through that understandably did not want to repeat it, which is how the current internationalist system was set up to begin with. Besides, since the U.S. dominates the internationalist system, even from the perspective you describe, it is in the interest of the U.S. to maintain it. The internationalist system gives the U.S. the best of both worlds: it is a peace which is dominated by the U.S. Further, it has served the world well for nearly 72 years, presiding over the greatest era of material progress in the history of mankind.

[Santander]

The Great Powers geopolitics of the 19th century ended with World War I and World War II.

The post-war international order sat idly as China destroyed over 300 million lives, mostly unborn girls, under its one-child policy, and some on the left have even started praising it as an environmental "achievement". That's more than all the deaths in all the wars of the 20th century. Plus, the Great War was an explosion that ended the Great Powers system, and it was the mistakes afterwards that led to the Second World War.

[Beet]

The Great Powers geopolitics of the 19th century ended with World War I and World War II.

The post-war international order sat idly as China destroyed over 300 million lives, mostly unborn girls, under its one-child policy, and some on the left have even started praising it as an environmental "achievement". That's more than all the deaths in all the wars of the 20th century. Plus, the Great War was an explosion that ended the Great Powers system, and it was the mistakes afterwards that led to the Second World War.

China has created 800 million lives since the start of the international post-war order, far more than it did during the 19th century Great Powers era, and far more than any other country save India. As for the dearth of girls, that is a statistical mirage, a lie perpetuated to justify warmongering by people like you. In your war, millions of Chinese girls really will be killed, just to satisfy you.

The Great War was the natural conclusion of the Great Powers system, which created an unstable network of global alliances that had no adherence to norms like respect for national borders. Similar to how Russia violates Ukraine's borders even now.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Putin, Trump, Bannon, and people like me share one thing in common - a desire to abandon the current internationalist world order and return to one more akin to the Great Powers geopolitics of the 19th century, where national interests are vigorously defended, territory can be gained through conquest, and our leaders acknowledge that some nations and cultures indeed have better values than others. This is why Trump is so fond of other Anglosphere countries (of course, most Americans are, but Trump especially so) while being critical at times of many Continental European nations.

Are you f**king kidding me?

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Yes.

More seriously, the question of getting along with Russia is less Russia itself, and more Russia's government under Putin. Putin is really not someone we should get along with, especially at the extent the Trump administration has.

Have a Russia under a less security state-ish leader, and I would have no problems with being best buds with Russia.

-Naw, Putin's great. What's your problem with him? And Trump has done almost nothing in terms of US-RU cooperation so far.

Putin has had journalists and opposition leaders murdered, perpetuated illegal wars against the Ukraine and Georgia (and possibly had his military commit war crimes there and in Chechnya), has used the Russian Orthodox Church as a nationalistic battering ram, has perpetuated rabidly anti-LGBT laws in Russia, and last but not least, possibly personally stole a Super Bowl ring.

And Trump's lavish words of praise for Putin and his administrations hinting at lifting sanctions on Russia is proof enough of cooperation.

How's that any different from Bill Clinton? DADT, Kosovo, Clinton Body Count, thievery from the White House, constant invoking of God.

[Zioneer]

Putin has had journalists and opposition leaders murdered, perpetuated illegal wars against the Ukraine and Georgia (and possibly had his military commit war crimes there and in Chechnya), has used the Russian Orthodox Church as a nationalistic battering ram, has perpetuated rabidly anti-LGBT laws in Russia, and last but not least, possibly personally stole a Super Bowl ring.

Since its founding, the Russian Orthodox Church has been the bulwark of Christendom, standing as the first line of defense on Europe's Eastern flank. After its repression during the Soviet Era, Putin has restored it to its rightful place in Russia and the world.

Putin, Trump, Bannon, and people like me share one thing in common - a desire to abandon the current internationalist world order and return to one more akin to the Great Powers geopolitics of the 19th century, where national interests are vigorously defended, territory can be gained through conquest, and our leaders acknowledge that some nations and cultures indeed have better values than others. This is why Trump is so fond of other Anglosphere countries (of course, most Americans are, but Trump especially so) while being critical at times of many Continental European nations.

That's.... a pretty terrifying viewpoint, to be honest. So if you felt the US should, you would be fine with it taking over parts of the Caribbean or Central America?

[Santander]

That's.... a pretty terrifying viewpoint, to be honest. So if you felt the US should, you would be fine with it taking over parts of the Caribbean or Central America?

America already has an invisible empire. Japan and South Korea are essentially American client states. NATO is just a polite way of describing the American sphere of influence in Europe. South America is the CIA's playground.

I would like to see America drop the pretense of wanting to be friends with everyone. Cooperation only works when you have shared interests and/or values, and we share neither values nor interests with most of the world.

[Anti-Bothsidesism]

Yes.

More seriously, the question of getting along with Russia is less Russia itself, and more Russia's government under Putin. Putin is really not someone we should get along with, especially at the extent the Trump administration has.

Have a Russia under a less security state-ish leader, and I would have no problems with being best buds with Russia.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Lol, so it's inappropriate to get along with an "authoritarian" like Putin, but it's ok to pal around with Yeltsin, who plunged Russia into almost third world status?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Is it treason to get along with Equatorial Guinea?

[Maxwell]

No.

[Green Line]

Yes, of course.

[Deblano]

Yes.

More seriously, the question of getting along with Russia is less Russia itself, and more Russia's government under Putin. Putin is really not someone we should get along with, especially at the extent the Trump administration has.

Have a Russia under a less security state-ish leader, and I would have no problems with being best buds with Russia.

-Naw, Putin's great. What's your problem with him? And Trump has done almost nothing in terms of US-RU cooperation so far.

[ApatheticAustrian]

I would like to see America drop the pretense of wanting to be friends with everyone. Cooperation only works when you have shared interests and/or values, and we share neither values nor interests with most of the world.

i could argue, the modern values of japan and western europe were planted by the US, so those areas would be natural allies, if the US isn't changing its values itself.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

That's.... a pretty terrifying viewpoint, to be honest. So if you felt the US should, you would be fine with it taking over parts of the Caribbean or Central America?

America already has an invisible empire. Japan and South Korea are essentially American client states. NATO is just a polite way of describing the American sphere of influence in Europe. South America is the CIA's playground.

I would like to see America drop the pretense of wanting to be friends with everyone. Cooperation only works when you have shared interests and/or values, and we share neither values nor interests with most of the world.

It almost seems like this argument would lay the groundwork towards a worldview that would call for more action against Russia, not less. If this as you say it is, then surely the Denizens of the Developed World^TM (and liberalism) ought to band together against the rise of Asia (including Russia) and the Global South. You sure you didn't vote for Rubio or something?