We made major strides in our relationship with them and now it seems like those have been erased in the name of local politics. Doesn't seem like a wise decision.
Unfortunately, they decided to commit murders on foreign soil, invade other countries and other nasty things that made this relationship a lot less attractive than it could have been.
Had Russia become a democracy, it'd be different, but an autocrat with profound disregard for foreign democratic institutions would never be a good friend.
The cold war was an entirely different thing. It wasn't a local skirmish, it was doomsday hanging over the world every day for 40 years.
Is this not exactly what the US (and its allies, including my country) are doing in the middle east?
That describes US policy over the last 20 years. The lack of self-awareness is astounding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
As an individual American who is not involved in intelligence or military work, I can condemn such actions by any nation while maintaining moral consistency.
So then why do you feel the need to justify yourself by saying that you don't work in defense? :) You basically stepped into the same trap you warmed me against :) Maintaining moral high ground seems to be a vital need, something on the level of instinct it seems. 'Tu quoque' or no 'tu quoque' we like to feel morally justified.
A = [commit murders on foreign soil, invade other countries and other nasty things] B = [made this relationship a lot less attractive] C = [it is wise to improve our relationship]
The original claim is A -> B, A(Russia) -> True.
The response is that A -> B, A(US) -> True. Therefore, if C(US), C(Russia) is also not ruled out. Logically sound.
This isn't claiming that rbanffy's argument is wrong because A(rbanffy). I suspect rbanffy is probably not even committing murders on foregin soil, le alone the other stuff, so it isn't a tu quoque fallacy. It is just pointing out that A isn't an international norm for cutting off productive relationships.
For example, whenever someone brings up Ukraine, when is the last time they also provided the historical context just prior to the Russian escalation?
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/americas-ukra...
Just a bit of what you might missed.
"...It was a grotesque distortion to portray the events in Ukraine as a purely indigenous, popular uprising. The Nuland-Pyatt telephone conversation and other actions confirm that the United States was considerably more than a passive observer to the turbulence. Instead, U.S. officials were blatantly meddling in Ukraine. Such conduct was utterly improper. The United States had no right to try to orchestrate political outcomes in another country—especially one on the border of another great power. It is no wonder that Russia reacted badly to the unconstitutional ouster of an elected, pro-Russian government—an ouster that occurred not only with Washington’s blessing, but apparently with its assistance..."
And whatever US did doesn't justify using political instability to annex a part of Ukraine. Russia did it because it could and there was an opportunity.
The point is that there is only one prevailing viewpoint without the context of contributors to the conflict. Why would this not be included? Maybe everyone would still reach the same conclusion; however, if historical context is being withheld, how can anyone know if their assessment is logical.
This is the author of the content.
https://www.cato.org/people/ted-galen-carpenter
There are other articles and sources events described