Russian-Chinese cooperation is overstated given long-term friction points:
Beijing and Moscow share one very big objective: resist U.S. dominance. Washington expanded NATO up to Russia’s borders; America’s navy patrols the Asia-Pacific and treats those waters as an American lake.
Sure. That basic point about the lack of depth in Chinese-Russian cooperation is right. But I can't let that "American lake" comment stand.
America in fact treats those Pacific international waters as international waters and not American territorial waters as Peking claims. America does not claim those waters. America is not to blame for tensions in the Asia-Pacific region.
But I digress from Russia and NATO.
I also can't let stand this major reason put forth for Russian hostility to America: "Washington expanded NATO up to Russia’s borders[.]"
One, NATO bordered the USSR via Norway and Turkey before the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and the USSR itself. So NATO bordering "Russia" isn't new. And this is not even counting the sea border between Russia's Far East and Alaska.
And two, the USSR's best army and air force units bordered NATO at the Elbe River in Russian-controlled East Germany. In what practical matter was that different than today's Russia "bordering NATO." Is it really different because Russian-controlled vassal states hosted Russian forces that bordered NATO? The difference between then and now is that Russia is weaker and further east than the USSR. I'm happy about that. It did not cause recent Russian hostility to NATO.
Also, "Europe alone is able to constrain Moscow" is vaguely accurate. But the vagueness is that "constrain" part. That does not mean preventing Russia from conquering some of Europe in the east.
Yes, if Russia's military pushed west, Europe alone could eventually stop Russia. Maybe at the Vistula River, maybe at the Oder River, or maybe at the Elbe River. Or maybe Russia will just conquer former European parts of the USSR. Is it really acceptable that Russia can conquer free people in a continent of vital importance to American security and prosperity, and we don't care?
The basic idea by the author that Russia should be a friend of NATO in order to focus on China is correct. I've said that for a long time, arguing European Russia could be a secure rear area so Russia can focus on holding their Far East.
But the author's idea that America should throw Ukraine under the bus to get Russian cooperation makes no sense. As the author says, worse come to worst, Europe alone can "constrain" Russia in Europe and limit the damage Russia can inflict in Europe if America goes to war with China, even if all of our power has to be focused on China.
Just what European help could we expect against China if we throw Ukraine under the bus? I'd say approximately zero, with rounding.
Really, Russia (and European NATO states, of course) and not America has something to gain from peace between Russia and NATO. The question should be what Russia can give to NATO to get peace so Russia can deter China from invading and liberating portions of the Far East that Russia took from China in the 19th century.
