By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Kremlin views the recent shift in U.S. foreign policy as largely consistent with its own objectives. This alignment, according to Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, offers potential for improved U.S.-Russia relations, despite significant past damage. However, the success of this rapprochement hinges on the sustained political will of Presidents Putin and Trump. This positive assessment comes amidst increasingly tense U.S.-Ukraine relations, highlighted by a recent high-profile Oval Office confrontation.
Read the original article here
The Kremlin’s recent pronouncements suggesting a convergence between its own foreign policy objectives and the current trajectory of US foreign policy are, frankly, unsettling. This perceived alignment isn’t a matter of coincidental parallel paths; rather, it points to a concerning weakening of the United States on the global stage, leaving a void that Russia is strategically filling.
The claim of this alignment isn’t merely a provocative statement; the evidence seems to support it. Consider the perceived decline in US global influence. The narrative suggests that America’s standing has diminished significantly, a level not seen since the 1930s. Europe, in this view, has effectively assumed the mantle of leadership in the free world, a shift that has significant geopolitical implications.
This weakening, it is argued, isn’t accidental. The suggestion is that it’s been actively cultivated, a deliberate dismantling of US internal strength and international alliances. A key figure in this narrative is Donald Trump, whose actions during his presidency are portrayed as directly contributing to this decline. This interpretation isn’t simply a matter of criticizing a former president; it frames his actions as purposeful steps toward a specific outcome—one that aligns with Russia’s goals.
The narrative further expands on this alignment by pointing to specific potential actions and their implications. For example, the prospect of a US withdrawal from NATO, potentially facilitated by figures like Elon Musk, is presented as a significant win for Russia. Such a move would fundamentally shift the balance of power in Europe and create opportunities for Russia to further its strategic ambitions. The potential consequences include the resumption of US-Russia arms trading, the imposition of sanctions by the EU and Canada, and a generally improved position for Russia in international affairs.
This isn’t just about political maneuvering; economic strategies are also highlighted as contributing factors to this alarming convergence. The narrative points to actions designed to undermine the US economy—devaluing the currency, manipulating interest rates, disrupting supply chains, and imposing tariffs—as steps taken to induce hyperinflation and economic instability. These actions are presented as deliberate efforts to weaken the US from within, much like a concerted attack, not a string of unrelated occurrences.
The argument extends beyond economic sabotage. The alleged deliberate disruption of the federal government, the undermining of international alliances, the humiliation of allies on the world stage, all contribute to the overarching narrative of a concerted effort to weaken the US and its influence. It’s presented not as incompetence but as a calculated strategy playing out according to a well-defined plan. The intentional destruction of the US government’s ability to function effectively, even through seemingly minor actions like the firing of air traffic controllers, paints a picture of systematic dismantling.
The convergence isn’t merely speculated on; it’s framed as undeniable. The argument is that the sum of all these actions has created a situation where the US is actively aligning itself with Russia’s vision of a multipolar world. This alignment isn’t presented as a theory requiring extensive proof but as a stark reality, the consequences of which are deeply concerning.
The consequences of this perceived alignment are discussed in the input as potentially catastrophic. It raises concerns about the future of NATO, predicting its demise and emphasizing the need for a robust response from the European Union. This is framed as an urgent necessity, requiring swift and decisive action to counteract the damage already done and prevent further deterioration. The potential for Russia to draft Americans into its army to fight against the EU is highlighted as a particularly chilling possibility.
Ultimately, the narrative presented strongly suggests that current US foreign policy is not merely diverging from traditional alliances, but actively working toward a future where Russia holds significant sway. The claim isn’t that the US is being overtly controlled by Russia, but that its actions are indistinguishable from what a Russian-controlled government might undertake, leading to a result deeply favorable to the Kremlin. The situation is framed as critically urgent, demanding immediate attention and decisive action to avert a potential global crisis.