Why the U.S. and Russia can't be friends

Dilbert author Scott Adams posted a question on his blog recently. He asked why Russia is our adversary when we have no competing land claims, share ISIS as an enemy, and both want peace and prosperity. [Source] Rather than post my answer on the site, I did something most people just don't do nowadays: I wrote him a letter. Here's what I said:

Dear Mr. Adams,

Your reasoning for a U.S.-Russia partnership is that there are no "tangible" reasons for any conflict – there are no territorial disputes, both countries want to defeat ISIS, and both countries want peace and prosperity. You're right on the first two, but the third is up for debate. From both countries' perspectives, each would argue that – yes – each one wants peace and prosperity. But the Russian approach to this is far different. You can see this in the way that Russia has pursued two goals: 1.) Seizing Crimea, and 2.) Fomenting insurgency in Ukraine. For the U.S., this is hardly the way to achieve “peace and prosperity.”

But for Russia, control of its periphery has long been a strategic interest. Their perspective is: we want peace and prosperity, and to do this we need to control our border areas. It was this compelling desire that drove Russia's eastward expansion centuries ago, and it causes "peace and prosperity" to be a zero-sum game for Russia – peace and prosperity for me, subjugation for you. It's kind of hard to build friendship with a country like that.

Plus, from Vladimir Putin's perspective, peaceful coexistence with the United States is not a viable option. Quoting from the December 10th issue of The Economist (page 53), "Putin's primary goal is not to present an alternative political model but to undermine Western democracies whose models represent an existential threat to his rule at home. Having lived through the Soviet collapse, he is well aware that the attraction of the prosperous, value –based West helped defeat communism." Putin can't afford to be friends with the U.S. because – like Fidel Castro and Cuba -- then he won't have a strategic foil to vilify to his public.

So friendly relations between the U.S. and Russia face an impasse from the Russian side. But what about the American side?

Americans who see the United States as a liberal democracy view Russia with no small degree of wariness. Numerous challengers to Vladimir Putin's power have died in mysterious circumstances, and Putin's whole claim to fame is that he is a nationalist strongman who is willing to stand up to the West's encroachments. Liberal democracies value things like human rights, a free press, and free markets. To Putin, these things are secondary to stability. This line of thinking makes total sense to the majority of Russians who lived through the chaotic days following the fall of Communism, but those of us who live in countries where stability is taken for granted cannot help but mistrust him.

But this situation is only for "Americans who view the United States as a liberal democracy…" What if that’s not the case – what if you view the United States as a plutocracy? What if you view American history through the lens of the privileged, wealthy few who are primarily interested in perpetuating their status? After all, the plutocratic side of American history has just as rich a tradition as any other – we may be a political democracy, but operate in a capitalist economy. Those with the capital – the elites of society -- get to call the shots, and Donald Trump (having inherited his initial wealth) exemplifies this perfectly.

If you view the U.S. as a plutocracy, a number of things in U.S. history start to make sense. You can see how stability has been the primary objective throughout various periods in U.S. history. It was that way in the ante-bellum South, again during Gilded Age (before Teddy Roosevelt), during the Red Scares, and we may be headed that way again. In fact, stability may be what Donald Trump's appeal to "Make American Great Again" is really about – a return to the stability white people used to feel at the apex of a tiered American society.

The appointment of an oil tycoon as secretary of state would seem to confirm that we are headed in that direction. As a plutocracy, you can expect to hear ideas in-line with trickle-down economics, fewer government regulations (when it means less environmental constraints, not barriers to entry), and privatization of public benefits (social security and health care). Trump may have softened his line on immigration and the wall, but I’d be surprised if he didn’t push for any of these.

If you consider the U.S. to be a plutocracy, all those pesky “liberal democracy” issues with Russia disappear. Your premise that the U.S. and Russia should be natural partners becomes more valid when you consider that Russia has more billionaires per capita than any other country. As a fellow plutocracy, Russia would indeed be a perfect match for a country that is run by a bunch of wealthy businesspeople. The only problem, of course, is that you have to drop your illusion that the United States is a land of opportunity – that would lead to cognitive dissonance.

What's really interesting is that Russia – having influenced the election to favor Mr. Trump – may have made a strategic mistake. Perhaps Putin, like the rest of us (expect you), expected Hillary Clinton to win, and chose his target (the D.N.C) as the best way to subvert our democratic process. Now, with a friendly Donald Trump in the White House, Putin seems to have triumphed. Yet in the long term, this victory may deprive him of his foil.

Vladimir Putin seems to need two things to stay in power: high oil prices (to finance his government), and a Western enemy (to provide legitimacy). He can survive with one. I'm not sure if his regime can survive with neither. Ironically, a plutocratic U.S. may be open to friendship with Russia, but as a matter of survival, Putin will not be able to reciprocate.