President Obama’s policy towards Russia, and almost all of America’s other adversaries, has been deeply flawed and ineffective, based on any objective criteria.
Dr Alf’s question really has no other answer, which for most sensible people should be troubling.
Fortunately, Obama’s future successor will be selected out of perhaps four people, in a slate of candidates at the Interlapen hotel in Austria on 10th June, when the Bilderbergers meet in total secrecy with the BBC and the Economist in attendance but not reporting the proceedings.
Before then, we have the question of America’s double and triple game in the Middle East, and the game being played by the UK in the same region. Currently, America and the UK want to replace the Syrian regime, using rebel groups like Al Nusra at arms length. Then it still looks like we appear to want to “take down” Iran, as a precursor to de-stabilizing Russia’s Muslim underbelly, and then carving up Russia and its mineral wealth.
Meanwhile, Turkey, supposedly affiliated with NATO, wants, under the rule of President Erdogan, to recreate the Ottoman empire using questionable relationships, and the objectives of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Jordan are far from clear in a geo-strategic sense.
RUSSIA’s POSITION/CLOSER CO-OPERATION WITH AMERICA?
Russia fears being encircled, which is why it supports President Assad and is putting Iskander missiles into Kaliningrad and areas facing Alaska and why it is building its army of cloaked fighter bombers, robot tanks, massive super-drones and already has an enhanced orbital fractional bombardment weapon in space.
As a message to us in the UK, it sends flotillas of battleships into the English Channel, and tests what air defenses we have left with ageing “Bear” bomber missions fitted with their new radar jamming devices that even the Americans cannot counter at this stage.
Currently, Russia finds President Assad to be a troublesome and difficult ally and sees that it might be better to replace him; secondly, they see what is coming next and do not want an Iran “taken down”.
One can see a deal between Kerry and Lavrov, whereby Assad goes into exile with a lot of money, into a Black Sea resort; Syria is stabilized and reconstructed with American and European money; and a new leader acceptable to both Russia and America.
Russia’s help would then be sought to deal with the threat of global terrorism.
Iran would in turn be pressured to drop nuclear centrifuge production, thus eliminating any immediate possibility of Benjamin Netanyahu trying to “take out ” Natanz and Fordo.
With the Ukraine, which America does not want in NATO and does not really want to defend, there is the possibility of a second deal, probably brokered by Germany by Angela Merkel.
Time will tell, of course.