During the 2016 election, establishment Republicans would say, “I’m not pro-Trump. I’m anti-anti-Trump.” On the one hand, President Donald Trump was not their guy. They made that abundantly clear. On the other hand, they recognized that the Democratic Party’s pathological hatred for the Bad Orange Man was and is an existential threat to the American Republic. The cure is worse than the disease.

In the same way, I am not pro-Vladimir Putin. But I am anti-anti-Putin.

Recommended Stories

• National Guard breaks up fistfight in DC
• America Last isolationists take their final gasps at NatCon
• 'Mass incarceration' is not a problem, but career criminals are

The Russian president is not my guy. He’s an autocrat, an oligarch, a demagogue. He censors his critics. Those he can’t silence, he kills. At the same time, he poses no organic threat to our national security or our national interests. And the State Department’s constant antagonism of Putin’s Russia is not only foolish: it’s suicidal.

This can be difficult for Americans to hear. Our political, cultural, and media elite suffer from a severe case of Putin Derangement Syndrome. To them, the Russian president is worse than Adolf Hitler —perhaps even Trump himself. I’m afraid it may be “Long PDS,” too, as they have been struggling with this illness for a quarter of a century now. And this (frankly deranged) perspective on Russia trickles down into our national discourse.

Now, look: If the State Department consistently refused to pal around with tyrants, that would be one thing. The trouble is that we ostracized Russia while embracing China, Saudi Arabia, and other countries that arguably have far worse records on human rights. For instance, V-Dem’s freedom index ranks Russia alongside countries such as Egypt and Cambodia, while China and Saudi Arabia are in the same category as Syria and North Korea. Compared to Xi Jinping or Mohammed bin Salman al-Saud, Vladimir Putin is practically Nelson Mandela.

Again, I’m all right with the U.S. government taking a “pragmatic” approach to foreign despots. The trouble is that our policy toward Putin is far from pragmatic. On the contrary, it runs directly counter to our national interests and makes Americans less safe. 

For instance, it’s easy to forget that, when he assumed power in 2000, Vladimir Putin was a reformist. His mentors were Anatoly Sobchak and Boris Yeltsin: the two leading Westernizers of the post-Soviet era. We make a big deal about his ties to the KGB, and yet the young Putin opposed the failed Soviet coup of 1991, in which Stalinist hardliners sought to reverse perestroika. 

So, what happened? Why did Vladimir Vladimirovich sour on the West?

When Putin learned of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack in New York City, the first words he uttered were: “What can we do to help them?” He was the first world leader to call the White House. When he spoke to President George W. Bush, Putin made him a promise: “In this struggle, we will stand together.”

Putin was further galvanized when he learned that al Qaeda was behind the attack. Russian intelligence had long suspected Osama bin Laden of supplying Islamist rebels in the North Caucasus with money and weapons. These rebels had also carried out nearly a dozen terrorist attacks in Western Russia, killing over a thousand civilians. 

“Russia knows firsthand what terrorism is,” Putin told reporters. “So, we understand as well as anyone the feelings of the American people. Addressing the people of the United States on behalf of Russia, I would like to say that we are with you. We entirely and fully share and experience your pain.”

Condoleezza Rice, then Secretary of State, also spoke with Putin on the phone in the days following 9/11. Hearing the Russian leader pledge his unwavering support for the U.S., she later recalled thinking: “The Cold War really is over.”

It was around this time that Putin spoke to George Robertson, then-Secretary General of NATO, about joining the alliance. “They wanted to be part of that secure, stable, prosperous West that Russia was out of at the time,” Robertson later recounted.

In the months following 9/11, Putin and Bush held a series of unilateral talks. Putin expected a rapprochement. Instead, Bush took him to task for Russia’s brutal tactics in the North Caucasus. He felt that the Russian Army showed a careless disregard for innocent lives. (As an aside, approximately 30,000 civilians died in the Second Chechen War, compared to over 200,000 in Iraq.)

This came as a surprise to Putin. It shouldn’t have. Bush frequently condemned Russia’s conduct in the Caucasus during the 2000 presidential campaign. He had won office, in no small part, by portraying Democrats (including Clinton and Gore) as “soft on Russia.” Of course, Bush was tapping into lingering Cold War anxieties.

It was a cheap trick, but it worked. And it’s been working ever since. Our elites continue to score political points with voters by launching these pointless rhetorical, economic, and now military attacks against Russia and its president. They prop up this strawman of the “Evil Empire” to scare American voters. And we fall for it every time.

As I said, our Russophobic foreign policy runs directly counter to America’s national interests. Russia could have been a vital partner in balancing out China’s growing hegemony. We have thrown away any hope for a productive, long-term partnership with Moscow in that regard.

Instead, we have driven Putin into Xi’s arms. (During their recent summit in Beijing, Putin said that Russian-Chinese relations are “unprecedentedly high.”) On their own, neither China nor Russia could rival America’s geopolitical influence. Together, they are forging a new anti-American “pole.” This new pole is gaining support in South America, Asia, and Africa. It includes major regional powers like India and Brazil, which used to be more friendly toward the U.S. Eventually, the Sino-Russian “pole” will tempt even staunch U.S. allies, such as Australia and Germany.

All the while, we have spent nearly $200 billion on the war in Ukraine, which most Americans agree is completely irrelevant to our country’s interests.

It’s true that Russia and the U.S. are in a de facto arms race. Many commentators warn that we’re on the verge of a second Cold War. Yet this is only because NATO broke its promise not to encroach upon Russia’s borders by admitting (Latvia and Estonia) or courting (Ukraine and Finland) its neighbors to join the alliance. We just couldn’t resist poking the bear. In retrospect, Putin’s desire to join NATO looks hopelessly naive. Somehow, he didn’t realize that NATO is, by its nature, an anti-Russian alliance. It always has been and always will be.

Imagine if Bush had accepted Putin’s offer of friendship. We would not be in a proxy war with Russia in Ukraine. Russia would be our largest ally in the world, both in terms of size and military power. The flow of natural resources (especially gas and wheat) to Western Europe would strengthen the global economy. Ukraine itself would have been spared the horrors of a grinding invasion.

Meanwhile, China wouldn’t dream of invading Taiwan — not if it was surrounded by the allied nations of Russia, South Korea, and Japan. Washington could have leveraged Moscow’s relationships with Syria and Iran to prevent most of the violence that has plagued the Middle East since 2011. ISIS may never have come into existence. We could certainly use the Kremlin’s help in dealing with North Korea.

Can we be 100% certain that all of these things would have come to pass if only we had been nicer to Putin? Of course not. (And, for the record, being “nice” to Putin isn’t the point.) But if our leaders hadn’t scorned Putin outright, the world would undoubtedly be a richer, safer, and freer place for everyone.

The good news is that there’s still hope for a rapprochement between Washington and Moscow. Some members of Putin’s inner circle are worried that his talks with China are going a little too well. They fear that Russia will soon become a vassal of Beijing. 

They’re right to be concerned. Russia’s interests would be better served by having a close but distant ally in Washington and a friendly rival next door in China. And so would ours.

TRUMP’S TIKTOK DEAL ‘HOSTAGE’ TO CHINA TRADE TALKS AS DEADLINE LOOMS

Putin isn’t the raving madman our media makes him out to be. He is a nationalist and will do whatever he feels is best for his country. We only need to show him that America’s interests align with Russia’s.

Putin knew this, once upon a time. Then Washington did everything in its power to turn him against us. We are long overdue for a “great reset” between the U.S. and Russia. Let’s hope that both our nations’ leaders realize this before it’s too late.

Michael Warren Davis is general editor for the U.S. Bureau of the Union of Orthodox Journalists and the author of The Reactionary Mind: Why Conservative isn’t Enough.