My father served in the military in Europe during the cold war. From the stories I would hear, there has always been a lot of back room collusion between the US and Russia.

I have been entertaining a theory that the US backed the Syrian rebels, during the "Arab Spring" uprisings because they thought Assad would lose. When that didn't come about so easily, they tried to get public support for direct intervention, (remember that "red line" business with chemical weapons), which failed. Then Russia was brought in, (or "given permission"), to help settle the conflict on the side of Assad again. I don't think your theory is "deluded". In an alternate timeline, if the US had avoided Syria, you would probably get the same outcome with far less casualties, but the US would have lost a lot of diplomatic ground for abandoning a tentative ally to Russia.

Chomsky says it is practically written in the US "playbook". Always back whoever looks like they are winning, so they are your ally afterwards.

I don't think the fact the currently selected Secretary of State has ties to Russia means less than his connection to Exxon, which will be just business as usual, as far as the US and Russia is concerned. The biggest problem with the incoming administration is the fact that the US president-elect hasn't figured out when to keep his mouth shut. I'm sure the president of "Taiwan", (actually the Republic of China), has always called whoever is elected president in the US, and all of them accepted the call and kept quiet about that fact. China knows we have a good relationship with Taiwan and its government, we sell them billions in planes. But to talk about it publicly caused them to "lose face". The "One China" policy is a really, really, sensitive subject for them. They won't go to war over it, or do much of anything else, but they gain the diplomatic high ground from this gaffe.

The whole Syria situation is plainly catastrophic. But recall when it started, it was the so-called 'Arab Spring', and many Republicans were criticizing Obama for not supporting the rightous cause of trying to overthrow Asad. The UN has said, in the last several days, that the Asad forces (including Iranian militia and Russian aircraft) have been responsible for more than 95% of the deaths and casualties. Of course, Russia will say this is 'Western propoganda and lies' but I will believe the UN before I believe Russia.

The big advantage Putin has, is that he doesn't have a pesky congress or independent politicians questioning his judgements. He is able to authorise all kinds of covert and highly destructive actions at arms length with plausible deniability - and any journalists brave enough to start asking questions better beware.

So, overall, I think Trump's election is an unmitigated disaster, and the relationship with Putin just gives it an even more 'evil empire' dimension. It is not 'globalisation' that is under attack, it is democracy.

There's a Frontline documentary that explains the part the Obama administration played in the Syrian disaster. Repeated statements of encouragement to Syrian rebels didn't proceed from a well thought out plan. The president and sec. state just sort of bumbled their way into it. I feel like we're experiencing the downside to the term limits of the US president. I think Obama is better seasoned now, having made these mistakes.

I'm not sure what you mean by democracy being under attack. If it is, the main threat to it is subversion that causes people to lose faith in it. To some extent, I think that loss of faith is why Trump was elected. His opponent was assumed to be corrupt.

It is not 'globalisation' that is under attack, it is democracy. — Wayfarer

Democracy - that corrupt form of government that sentenced even Socrates to death? :D
As far as I'm concerned, I don't care about democracy at all. It has its advantages as a political system, but also severe limitations. As for which political system is best, that depends on circumstances, so I'm not attached to any. If democracy falls, what's the big deal? Have you staked your entire life on democracy?

Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

His opponent was assumed to be corrupt. — Mongrel

No, she wasn't assumed - she actually was corrupt. Have you not been watching the news?

Chomsky says it is practically written in the US "playbook". Always back whoever looks like they are winning, so they are your ally afterwards. — swstephe

In real politics, what guarantees that the winner will be your ally if you back them? Once they have power in their hands, they could just as well turn on you if that's more profitable for them.

In real politics, what guarantees that the winner will be your ally if you back them? Once they have power in their hands, they could just as well turn on you if that's more profitable for them. — Agustino

I didn't say it was a good plan, (and Chomsky would probably agree). I guess it is like voting for the candidate you think has the best chance of winning instead of who you agree with ethically.

I didn't say it was a good plan, (and Chomsky would probably agree). I guess it is like voting for the candidate you think has the best chance of winning instead of who you agree with ethically. — swstephe

Okay certainly, but that seems to be short-sighted and naive. One would expect politicians to have slightly bigger brains.

No, she wasn't assumed - she actually was corrupt. Have you not been watching the news? — Agustino

She's been in the news since 1992. I saw a fair amount of it.

I think establishment politicians here and in the EU would like us to continue our anti-Russian sanctions stance with the Russia. But much of the history about Russian/American/Nato actions can be read from a number of different viewpoints. The US conservative ideology has pictured Russia as part of the 'axis of evil' for a long, very long time.

Yet, it's the US that is most feared around the world. (Gallop 2014), I don't think our ideology toward Russia has changed much since Kennedy. Tump is a deal maker, and on a pragmatic basis I suspect he and Putin will get along well....the morality of their proposed actions will require careful attention. Public Opinion still rules politics, even though it seems harder and harder to figure out what the public at large thinks.

The FBI has now agreed that the US Election was hacked by the Russians, and Obama says Putin played a role. Whatever that means. But it does not matter because while HRC won the popular vote & she lost the election. The GOP were better strategists, they got the votes where they counted.

The devastation Assad has leveled against his own people in Syria is criminal. Russia's aid keeps him in power, he would not be in power without their presence. Of course Russia get a permanent Naval Base on the Mediterranean for its efforts. I think Trump was right in his estimation that we have been strategically beaten in this conflict. The tragic loss of innocent life and the number of people displaced by this war is shameful.

To some extent, I think that loss of faith is why Trump was elected. His opponent was assumed to be corrupt.... — Mongrel

...having been dragged in front of hostile congressional committees for months on end, who were able to find no evidence of corruption or wrongdoing whatever, in spite of man-years of effort, while her opponent was proven by Politifact to have lied through his teeth on every day of the campaign.

Oh, that's right, they're not 'lies' any more, it's just 'post-truth'.