[flagged]
Do you believe that Russia benefits equally from the election of either candidate this time around?
Also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Russian_assassinations
The distinction between Biden and Trump is that Trump is opposed to the machine that's been responsible for decades of disastrous foreign policy, while Biden is the face of that very same machine.
Putin is far from the only foreign leader who would prefer Trump. It's silly to attempt this framing.
But what if the decision is between a stability candidate and a pro-chaos candidate? I think then that Russia would take a side. And I doubt many would debate that one candidate is clearly more pro-chaos than the other.
It went far beyond a couple of artificial protests.
Russia did support Trump in 2016 (and beyond), Trump was quite happy about it.
If you were Russia in 2016, would you have preferred that the next US President be someone competent with significant foreign policy experience, or a Putin-idolizing fool with zero foreign policy experience?
If the Cold War was truly over when the wall fell, we'd have welcomed Russia into NATO. That would have been a huge mistake, as Russia has proven to be antithetical to democracy and an aggressor against the interests of the West, despite dressing up in its skirt.
Instead we've engaged in proxy war after proxy war with very little changing in the best part of 40 years or so. That's no accident.
Suggesting otherwise IMO is to take talking points from the mouth of the Kremlin. I get tired of the "Russia is being bullied by the mean ol' United States" narrative, they're malignant and hostile. I think you're right to raise this point.
This was offered by NATO: Partnership for Peace, NATO-Russia Founding Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93NATO_relations It's Russia that wasn't interested.
And they have repeatedly been caught meddling directly in Western countries (see i.e. multiple assassinations in the West).
Henry Kissinger (Former U.S. Secretary of State) - Expressed concerns about NATO expansion increasing tensions with Russia over several years, particularly noted in discussions and forums during the late 1990s and early 2000s.
William Perry (Former U.S. Secretary of Defense) - Voiced apprehensions about the strategy and pace of NATO expansion, particularly in the late 1990s during his tenure and in reflections thereafter.
Sam Nunn (Former U.S. Senator, Co-Chairman of the Nuclear Threat Initiative) - Warned of strategic miscalculations and heightened conflict risks due to expansion, prominently during the late 1990s and early 2000s.
Jack Matlock (Former U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union) - Criticized NATO expansion for potentially setting the stage for conflict with Russia, in articles and public lectures, particularly during the 1990s.
Yes, that's how propaganda works. But in the face of new information, that propaganda has to be tweaked or abandoned. To keep hammering the same message produces quickly diminishing returns.
If all source material that you can find is hyperbolic nonsense, then you have made up your mind before looking.