Lol nope! Nobody respects this man.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3682197&forum_id=2#33833390)

Their prime concern is not whether Trump is President or not, but only that their ongoing war on Russia can continue to be developed. Trump should openly shame Congress for this in full view of the people. Then he should bypass them. The US Senate is rotten to the core.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3682197&forum_id=2#33839581)

The US is a far more criminal entity than even Russia.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3682197&forum_id=2#33839634)

WE just up and left arms control 2001- inducing new round of nuclear weapons development

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3682197&forum_id=2#33839891)

https://m.imgur.com/2lSLFM1

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3682197&forum_id=2#33839698)

obviously it would be better for the US to build strategic alliances with a country like russia rather than treating it like a wayward child to be spanked and scolded, but high-level strategy becomes difficult in an empire in decline, because those are long-term plans, and during the decay process, the political "time horizon" contracts down to months or weeks.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3682197&forum_id=2#33839907)

And do you think we should care about things like Magnitsky's lawyer oops falling out of a window? And the fact that it is a kakistocracy run by the worst elements of the security services? With "leaders" that the country's treasury to install themselves in power permanently? Why do u think the US should trust a corrupt mafia state like that? Do u want us to encourage the.Baltics to act like the subhumans to the east? You're a glib stupid faggot who deserves to be exiled to Russia

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3682197&forum_id=2#33840151)

"And do you think we should care about things like Magnitsky's lawyer oops falling out of a window? "

nope. that reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of great power relations. that, once again, is the "naughty schoolchild" model of foreign relations, which is only useful in the context of a larger power chastening its vassal. russia is not a US vassal, though. so the model is fundamentally inapplicable and painfully dumb.

the rest of your comment is a decreasingly-hinged rant which goes back to my original point about decaying empires pulling things like foreign relations into the domestic orbit as part of the general process of implosion. you only pretend to care about "russia" at all because you believe that doing so will "stick it" to your domestic political enemies. when that becomes the prevailing model of governance, it's a sign of profound trouble.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3682197&forum_id=2#33840213)

russia-bashing is largely an extension of that. the relevant question is, what type of relations with russia would be most beneficial for US security? "sanctions and hostility" is objectively the wrong answer, because both of those things are pointless and counterproductive with regard to american security goals.

i suspect you know this intuitively, but cannot admit it due to the current structure of the ideology into which you are embedded.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3682197&forum_id=2#33840398)

the burden is upon those who want to have POOR relations with russia; not the other way around. because the american benefits of good relations are obvious. you have to make the case that bad relations would benefit america more than we would lose from the absence of good relations. that's a basic national interest calculation - and i have not seen any credible case made that poor relations are in america's best interests.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3682197&forum_id=2#33840430)

there is nothing in the improvement of american relations with russia that "great britain" or any other ally could legitimately be angry about, because such a thing is fundamentally not their concern. the disposition of the baltics is not our concern, either, any more than russia ought to have a say in whatever we do in northern mexico (for example).

but of course, people who support sanctions on russia don't even care about that, because if they actually cared about "the baltics," they would want the US to have closer relations with russia, and therefore more leverage to make specific requests within the context of those relations. when you've already frozen yourself out, you eliminate your own space to maneuver.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3682197&forum_id=2#33840507)

you seem to begin with your conclusion ("fuck russia") and look for means of supporting that conclusion. i'm starting with an open-ended question ("what will advance america's national interests?") and proceeding from there. i start with large-scale factors like the balance of power between the largest nations, since those factors are the most momentous, and work my way down.

you are clearly motivated by some kind of personal animus against putin and russia, but that's not how a serious nation should conduct its foreign policy.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3682197&forum_id=2#33840781)

This thread has shown he's incapable of any of those things.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3682197&forum_id=2#33843322)