You certainly lack a nuanced understanding.
During WW II the United States and the Soviet Union were formal allies whose cooperation was “essential to securing the defeat of Nazi Germany.” Roosevelt admitted he’d “hold hands with the devil” if necessary to beat Hitler. In the Cold War’s aftermath, Washington and Moscow still managed landmark agreements: successive presidents negotiated nuclear arms-control treaties (SALT, START, New START, etc.), and the New START treaty signed in 2010 was extended by both sides in 2021. These legally binding accords and dialogues show that, even amid rivalry, pragmatic U.S.–Russia engagement continues. Ignoring such history – and the fact that national interests often dictate cooperation over enmity – makes the claim that Russia is America’s unambiguous enemy intellectually dishonest and historically inaccurate.
Today’s strategic debate likewise rejects black‐and‐white thinking. Leading security figures urge that the U.S. must deal with “Russia as it is, not as we wish it to be,” blending firm deterrence with open channels of diplomacy. This pragmatic posture accords with international law and treaty commitments: NATO’s founding treaty (Article 5) obliges members to defend any ally that is attacked, reflecting a purely defensive pact rather than a vow of permanent aggression. Civilian and scientific ties also endure – Russia has committed to stay on the International Space Station through 2028 – which hardly fits the narrative of an implacable enemy. And in America’s own system, vigorous public debate is a democratic right, not a crime; civil liberties advocates remind us that “dissent is a form of patriotism.” Branding careful analysts as “naïve” or “traitorous” for questioning policy ignores these legal, historical, and strategic nuances. In a democracy, scrutiny of foreign-policy labels is not treason – it’s a cornerstone of informed citizenship.
