1.

The think tank itself is not anti-globalist or pro-globalist, it's pro-Russian. If globalists agenda was pro-Russian, they would have it, if anti-globalists agenda was pro-Russian, they would have it. Sadly, neither is pro-Russian :)

It is widely believed, however, that Trump being the actor for american national interests can be the subject of meaningful negotiations because American national interests vs Russian national interests is type of negotiations where consensus can be achieved.

It is also widely believed that Clinton being the actor for globalists interests can not be the subject of meaningful negotiations because there is no point of negotiations. If negotiations were held, that would be Russian national interests vs the global goal of erasing the national sovereignity worldwide. There's no possible point of consensus.

Hence short- and mid-term, anti-globalists are better than globalists.

2.
At the same time, in the intellectual circles it is widely believed that if globalists stay in power with fundation of their world obviously crumbling, that would lead to series of dead wrong decisions most likely leading to war and subsequent destruction of United States as the "home base" of globalists movement and industrial country as well. One less competitor on a global scale longterm.

While America turning back to its national sovereignity under Trump while it's still fairly strong will lead to series of negotiations with strong power of bargain, most likely avoiding the full-scale conflict, with America retaining its position of one of the global leaders. One more competitor on a global scale longterm.

Hence long-term, globalists are better than anti-globalists, even if there is a great risk of war and shit. This is however questionable, because I think that longterm, order is better than chaos and reasonable negotiable competitor is still better than the whole continent of chaos and civil war.

3. On ISIS, bullet-point.

Wide belief is that globalists clique in U.S. has created ISIS.

Hence if it's people who have created it talk about warring it - we don't give a fuck. 2 past years have proven just that in the eyes of Russia. U.S. fights ISIS, but it increases its territory. What kind of fight is that?

Russia doesn't give a fuck about "getting on a good side of U.S.". Wide belief of anglo-saxon politics is that anglo-saxons don't care shit for morals, trust and agreements. You betray the moment it suits you, so having good reputation with you does not matter shit. The only way to have you like us is being weak and do what you say. We'd better have you not like us - that would mean we're following our goals, not yours.

Just like UK Prime Minister Disraeli said: "UK has no constant allies, only constant interests".

Dismantling ISIS is in the interests of Russia. So if U.S. anti-globalist government for whatever reason decides to destroy it as well, I'm sure we'll cooperate in no time. If it gives Trump or whomever means of upping his popularity and whatever - we don't care. Common goal - go bombers.

4.

We won't lean away from Iran. It's our neighbour, we have great cooperation and development projects, it's Caspian sea trade and oil, it's trans-caspian railroad, it's Iran Caspian-Persian sea channel project. We're full of cooperation with Iran, and we won't abandon it. U.S. thinks Iran is on axis of evil? We don't give a fuck. Also note that even 300 years ago, Russia had expansionist plans to conquer the whole of Persia (which is now Iran). Geography hasn't changed, the longterm synergy effect for that alliance/union would be fucking enormous.

5. On UN.

Russia does and will work with UN. In our eyes it's US that doesn't give a shit about it :) Like invading countries w/o UN SC resolution (see Yugoslavia, Iraq) and so forth. Note that Russian diplomats and UN representatives are all career diplomats, representative of Russia in UN SC is position second to only the Minister of Foreign Affairs. On the other hand U.S. representative to UN SC position is given to chicks like Sam Power who doesn't know shit about international affairs. So actually it's we who hope that US will return to work with UN on a greater level.


As you may see, the POVs are vastly different, and that's why are very interesting to grasp.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/26/2017 02:05AM by Kstatida.