FRIENDS AGAIN !

So we are going to be friends with the Soviet Union/Russia again.  Of course, Obama and Hillary Clinton had there reset with Putin  for which Hillary was roundly criticized by the Republicans.  Now they seem to be all right with it.  I guess it matters who does it.  But it confuses me.

Prior to WW-II a lot of people in the U.S. turned to Soviet-style Communism in a hangover from the Great Depression (or were we still in it?).  Then in WW-II they were our friends that seemed a bit strange, but I understand that the enemy of our enemy is our friend so it was OK.  Also they took the brunt of WW-II as the main front though it was difficult enough what we and our allies did.

But shortly after armistice of WW-II  the Soviets/Russians became our enemies again.  Remember the "Cold War?"  then in the early 1970s, President Nixon started a "Détente" and the Soviets/Russians were our friends again.   I was confused by this but "what the 'hey " I was offered a science prize and went over to give a couple of lectures during a "hard" freeze on foreign travel by the U.S. government.  I had to get myself to London and they did the rest (see "You couldn't Have Been On That Plane - Parts I- III:" http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2013/04/you-couldnt-have-been-on-that-plane.html).  Everything was very nice and I had to spend all the prize money in the Soviet Union/Russia so I went first class on everything that, was none too good  in some cases.

Then came along President Reagan and the Soviet Union/Russia became the "Evil Empire," in 1983 -  remember?  This felt better to me.

Reagan was followed by President George H.W. Bush who negotiated the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of Communism in the Soviet Union/Russia.  Under these conditions, it was not surprising that we became friendly with the Soviet Union/Russia again as they tried to convert to Capitalism.  Give them a chance, so to speak.

This friendly relationship extended into President Clinton's* years, although he took several Eastern European counties into NATO that created a stir, but
Clinton also supported the besieged leadership of Russian president Boris Yeltsin as well as the funneling of billions of dollars in loans to Russia from the International Monetary Fund.In 1999, Clinton's support for financial aid to Russia came under attack in the face of mounting evidence that much of the borrowed money may have been stolen by an organized criminal syndicate which included members of Yeltsin's own family. However, supporters of Clinton's pro-Yeltsin policies credit his administration with an important achievement not easily measured in dollars or in the short run: the security of the Russian nuclear arsenal. Working through the provisions of the Nunn-Lugar Act, the administration provided extensive technical assistance and funding to the former Soviet states in the safeguarding of nuclear power plants and dismantling of nuclear weapons—an astounding achievement in view of the animosity that once existed between the United States and the Soviet Union. By the end of the Clinton presidency, the likelihood of a nuclear exchange between the superpowers was almost nonexistent.

However, the failed "reset" in the Obama/Hillary Clinton period sort of drifted back to hostility to the Soviet Union/Russia which is where we are now with about a month to go in the Obama Administration tour.  There seems little reason for a change in attitude.  The Soviet Union/Russia is still occupying parts of the Ukraine and has taken over the Crimea.  The Soviet Union/Russia still supports the leader of Syria and won't agree to a cease fire in Aleppo.  What's changed ?

Nonetheless, President-Elect Trump will try his own reset.  He has been very friendly to Putin and gives every indication of continuing that friendship into his administration.  After all why not ?  Putin has said nice things about him, and helped Trump win the election by leaking things about his opponent through WikiLeaks.  His National Security Adviser, Gen. Flynn, is also is cozy with Putin.**  He is considering a candidate for Secretary of State who is also friendly with Putin and has done business with him (Rex Tillerson, CEO of Exxon Mobil).  Even the leader of the Senate Mitch McConnell has gotten onboard.

[Note added December 13: It appears thaMcConnel has had a change of heart and now supports an investigation into the the Soviet Union/Russian hacking and says that the Soviet Union/Russia is not a firend of ours.***].

So it looks like "Here We Go Again" regarding friendship with the Soviet Union/Russia.  Perhaps Trump at least can build a hotel in Moscow (and maybe one in St. Petersburg as a bonus) and Tillerson can get his deep drilling contract for oil in Siberia out of it.

* http://millercenter.org/president/biography/clinton-foreign-affairs
** https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/08/15/trump-adviser-michael-t-flynn-on-his-dinner-with-putin-and-why-russia-today-is-just-like-cnn/?utm_term=.4f2c30d0cedd
*** https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/12/12/schumer-on-congressional-probe-of-russia-i-dont-want-this-to-turn-into-a-benghazi-investigation/?utm_term=.53cc9b92e806

SLOW GROWTH + IMMIGRATION = BREAKUP!

So countries breaking up into smaller entities* continues with Great Britain voting to leave the European Union.  It leaves me limp.  No one knows how this will end.  Scotland may have another vote to leave the U,K and it may well succeed because they voted overwhelmingly to stay in the EU.  Northern Ireland may break off to join Ireland.  In the end, Britain may end up with a looser European economy.

It seems like lots of Brits voted for breakup as a protest vote and now are shocked at what they have done so there is a movement to have yet another vote that is being resisted.

Incidentally, it isn't Middle Eastern immigration that was the problem but free movement of people within the EU.  Foreign born people in the UK doubled since 1990.  But this is no problem in the U.S.  California and Texas welcome immigrants from other states and, in fact, brag about it.   Of course they speak the same language pretty well.  California is considered the "Golden State" for sure.  It was populated largely by the radical distillate from the Mid-West, both the far right and far left.  There is some movement to Texas because of taxes by people who don't care so much about their environment (Texas has no mountains to speak of and lots of desert and most of the population is inland from the ocean.).  One can expect this talk to resume if Hillary is elected President.

Will this have any effect on the U.S. where people are also saying they want their country back.*  Will Texas want to secede?  There are those in Texas that talk about this a lot.  And there are those in California that want the state broken up into six states.  Everything is kind of nervous right now.

* Consider the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia among others.  Perhaps the big exception is the reuniting of East and West Germany.
** http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2016/06/taking-my-country-back-again.html