Payback From Putin?

A weakened US means a relatively stronger Russia. And he don't care who suffers to get that.
If it was the case, he would be opposing China as well. Because relative strength of China is increasing, while USA is in relative decline since 1950-s.
Instead, current confrontation with the West pushed us to seek alliance with China and other Asian powers.

Wow, that's true. What's the reason people immigrate to Russia?

/edit: Ah I see, the rest of the Ostblock moves away from their failing countries and into Russia. :D
Short answer - it's easy to immigrate for the people in ex-USSR and living conditions in large Russian cities (e.g. Moscow or St. Petersburg) aren't much different from Europe or North America.
 
As for the "conspiracy theory" displayed in the opening post, suggesting revenge was and is in the cards, rest assured, it is not.

That doesn't make me feel assured, but how is it a conspiracy theory? Seems obvious Putin didn't like Obama and Hillary for interfering in Russia's affairs, I'd say some sort of payback was in order.
 
That doesn't make me feel assured, but how is it a conspiracy theory? Seems obvious Putin didn't like Obama and Hillary for interfering in Russia's affairs, I'd say some sort of payback was in order.

I think Putin wants to trade with US, have decent diplomatic relationships, scientific collaboration and other nice things, not perpetual conflict. He can be seen a frontman of a ruling class of oligarchs within Russia. Oligarchs prefer leaders who make them money so they can be richer than foregn oligarchs. Sure, certain russian news outlets took a pro-Trump stance during the election, echoing the collective mood within Russia, which called for a break of vicious circle of escalation. Trump, unlike Hillary, made it clear from the get go - he will invest far less time fighting russian demons and will concentrate on something He considers real threats and priorities -- China, NK, the wall.. I guess such prospect appealed to russian leadership which definitely was in a state of mental exhaustion following the events in Ukraine and the sanctions that followed.

Instead of seeing it as revenge, I see it as certain circles within Russia making a valuable investment into peaceful US-Russia relations by publicly articulating merits of one of the candidates by means of channels they had available. Of course, it didn't pay off as expected, given constant state of shock and desperation surrounding the new US president, but at least there is some breathing room now as far as kremlin is concerned and prospects for neutral co-existence. With US setting example by constantly interfering in other countries - sparking wars, revolutions, Vladimir Putin responds in his own way by vocalizing his preference and support for a new american president, which consequently.. wins the election. Was it "payback"? Perhaps it may look like it, in the eyes of americans. In russian eyes it's more along the lines of being pro-active so that a school bully doesn't become head of the class.
 
Russian foreign politics in the age of Putin by now I'd put down to seriously overthinking — trying to be clever, which by now tends to backfire, because the feed-back loops to the political leadership, Putin not least, don't seem to be working anymore. (I.e. this intel assets that should be "speaking truth to power" have worked out what the power would like to hear, and has to little incentive to deviate from that.) The effect seems an increasing tendency to think rivals fools, and mistaking what would be liked to be true, for what actually is. Add to that short-sightedness, looking for short to mid terms advantages. As a result Russia has become just a "spoiling agent". It might be true the Russian political leadership only thinks of this as "defense", even if a "pro-active" kind. It's still looking increasingly like this will do Russia more harm than good in the mid- to long-run. In the process it's of course supposed to screw up others. Which it might.

The biggest problem now the Russian tendency to pick up on internal inconsistencies and conflict that needs to be managed and solved in other societies, amplify and re-broadcast these with nocive effects. (It's impossible to regard these Russian actions as anything but hostile and damaging, consciously so.) The increase of the levels of distrust of democracy, public opinion making, information aren't of Russian making, but Russia could end up helping to break them in a serious way, if we're all unlucky. Paradoxically, that is unlikely to be Russia's intention. It just wants to make trouble, create divisions, the kind that might allow Russia an bit (more) of divide and conquer — probably seems no harm in it, just business as usual (and besides there's a ready go-to answer for anything: "The US did it first!") It's also nothing really bad since there are no actual consistent value or ideas as part of any kind of ideology at the centre of Russian political power. Ideologically Putin is whatever is felt to be expedient at a time or place. He changes this as regularly as weather. (Interesting arguments have been made over the Russian publics general acceptance of these sometimes almost daily shifts — none of it really matters, it's as if the range itself is sort of an advantage, Putin being everything if not at once, at least in succession, and the massive shifts between positions aren't considered inconsistent, since it works to look at them individually, not connecting them, which won't work anyway. It's all very "postmodern".)

Probably Russia also overestimates the US, and other countries it might be trying to screw with like this. It's somehow just assumed nothing REALLY bad might come from these Russian activities...

Of course, the onus is put on the US et al. to prove precisely this. Then there's a question of how it all is supposed to define relations with Russia?
 
Ideologically Putin is whatever is felt to be expedient at a time or place. He changes this as regularly as weather. (Interesting arguments have been made over the Russian publics general acceptance of these sometimes almost daily shifts — none of it really matters, it's as if the range itself is sort of an advantage, Putin being everything if not at once, at least in succession, and the massive shifts between positions aren't considered inconsistent, since it works to look at them individually, not connecting them, which won't work anyway.
Got any examples of these "almost daily" "massive ideological shifts"?
 
The easiest way to solve Russia's involvement in our elections is just to nominate two decent candidates. :D
 
The easiest way to solve Russia's involvement in our elections is just to nominate two decent candidates. :D
One decent candidate would be a good start.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rah
Some thoughts.

Russian leaders, and undemocratic leaders in general, don't often retire. They die in office or they're ousted. The latter is usually an unpleasant experience. In this thread, we've already seen references to Saddam Hussein ending up getting caught hidden underground somewhere. If the oligarchs/security apparatus decide to get rid of you, it doesn't end much better. So most of Putin's political life has been an extremely high stakes game, him taking risks now isn't too surprising. On the other hand, it does tell us something about how much confidence he has in his domestic position.

This was certainly not the first time elections have been interfered with by foreign parties, and also not the first time the Russians have done so (the Dutch 2016 referendum comes to mind). Openness of the the American public and the candidates probably motivated them to step up their efforts. If it's working, you're going to do more. It is unclear how much was made up on the spot and how much was long-term strategy.

Putin is often described as a master tactician. However, looking at his efforts in Syria, Georgia and Ukraine, he has mainly been occupied with reducing Russia's losses. All three were stable Russian allies not so long ago, and are now only partially under friendly control. Neighbouring countries have seen that Russia is willing to use force to assert control, but they've also seen the limitations of that force. In that respect, the long-term consequences of the 2016 election on Russia will be interesting to see.
 
Back
Top Bottom