Trump Was Right About Russia

T. Belman. I agree. In 2016 I wrote, Contemplating, a US-Russia Alliance. Please read it now.

By Matthew G. Andersson, AM THINKER

President Trump’s instincts, insight and intuition were especially accurate on eight major policy issues:

1.    U.S. domestic energy production
2.   Trade agreements
3.   Border security
4.   Manufacturing repatriation
5.   Defense, national security, and space
6.   Education
7.   The Middle East (Israel and Iran)
8.   Russia

Each of the eight policy areas could take up a lengthy essay, and each was grounded in an essential American patriotism and pragmatism; all are connected by holding a priority in U.S. national interests. They share an overlapping relationship and are mutually reinforcing. They should also not be associated only with Trump, but with anyone who shares a similar policy outlook, because above all else they rest on a “Realpolitik” (meaning, a realistic, clear-headed approach to getting things done in a productive, sensible way, versus ideology and theory). I’d like to single out and discuss just one of these critical policy areas: Russia.

Early in Trump’s first campaign for president, he made an arresting public statement: the U.S. and Russia could have a normal, even productive relationship. He framed this position as a question, and asked, “why not?”  Indeed, his overall posture toward foreign relations, is that a fundamental human relationship exists between countries, and this human element should be exploited (this comes from being a businessman, rather than a politician or lawyer, and much of his cabinet was also from the private, commercial sector).  Even toward an otherwise belligerent North Korea, Trump took an extroverted, direct, businesslike and personal approach to its leadership.  This of course didn’t sit well with the Washington establishment that makes a living off of “protocols” and formalities, rather than direct, open personal contact (Nixon and Kissinger were perhaps an exception in their Realpolitik approach to China).

This Washington, D.C. establishment is dedicated to maintaining the posture of Cold War relationships and interpretations. Why?  Because even though the “Establishment” is often deemed conservative, in reality it is not — its members are inward looking, progressive in their self-interests, and casually opportunistic.  They will do anything if it perpetuates their careers, and provides security to them professionally and personally. That means that enemies must be constantly created and maintained because fear and uncertainty are their currency.  Above all, the progressive Left that defines the core of this Establishment, is itself defined by what it hates and what it seeks to eradicate, rather than what it admires and works to build. Trump (especially his personality type) threatened the Establishment’s thin veneer of credibility.
CONTINUE