Different for sure, but I can see the logic in each side.

A couple things I wanted to clarify/add.

Re: 1.
Spot on. I agree that no meaningful discussions between nations can occur while the goals of globalism hold sway over US politics, because a major goal of globalism itself is to remove the lines of national boundaries and national interests. So the only discussions to be had (under globalism) are for the interests of globalism, and the goals of the nation are only secondary to make it look like they care. This is a large reason I was so strongly against Hillary.

Re: 2.
My take on globalism vs anti-globalism long-term, is that ultimately, long-term, globalism is inevitable, should the world survive. There is simply no way that more and more increases in technology that in turn increase our levels of communication and increase our ease of travel will not lead to more globalism. However, we needed/need to break down globalism in its current form in order to build it back up to something that actually benefits humanity in general, rather than the 1% of 1% that benefit from it today. My opinion is that the powers that be have artificially created the current form of globalism before the world is truly ready for it, for all intents and purposes, ramming it down our throats and doing a lot of damage to the individual in the process. Again, this is why I see the current populist, or "populist-light" movement in the U.S. under Trump as a good thing, for the time being. I think 100 years from now, we'll look back and see this time as a big turning point, and see that we really dodged a bullet-- at least from the U.S. perspective.

Re 3.
Interesting take from Russia's side of things, especially how they view the U.S. as part of some "Anglo-Saxon" bucket. I'm not saying we aren't, but it seems weird that we would be grouped into what is essentially a Western Europe/U.K. bucket, when it seems from our side that we're a lot different politically than they are. Maybe we really aren't though who knows.

My point being, however, wasn't that Russia was really trying to get on U.S.'s good side for the sake of getting on our good side, but rather, with an unspoken deal of, "we help you bomb the shit out of ISIS, because it benefits us both anyways, and then you leave us the hell alone about Syria" sort of thing. I'm not sure if it really goes much deeper than that. It will certainly take a lot more than working together on something like this temporarily to restore any long-lasting trust between the two Nations. I am indeed more interested to see if this will be sort of a trend or just a one time thing, and it seems that the Russian-US relationship will continue to be tenuous regardless.

Re 4.
I'll have to do more research myself, but I've had it explained by someone on pretty good authority that in the aftermath of the Syria conflict and now into negotiations, Russia is nowf saying to Iran, "thanks for playing, now get lost and let us handle the situation here, you can go home now". Which seems somewhat provocative from our perspective, but maybe it's just more business as usual.

Re 5.
Lol. You're exactly right. the U.S. has a tradition (more recently than in times past) of giving unqualified people positions of power in the U.N. and elsewhere, mostly for political reasons. (People like Kamala Harris come to mind, etc).