As the various rationales behind Russia’s economic foreign policy continue to be debated on a constant media argumentation, the answer lies much more in Moscow’s economic well-being, rather than the preference of Russia’s global political relationships.
Whether observing Russia’s preference in the recent presidential elections, or its continuing involvement in America’s political direction, the tangible answer lies in Russia’s economic survival, based primarily on oil and natural gas global distribution.
With a 150 million population bereft of a strong middle class, privately owned independent businesses and shorn of the power of its once military superpower status, fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas), lie at the heart of Moscow’s expansion of its almost unlimited oil and gas pipelines. These once formed Russia’s massive financial power, as the Soviet Union’s republics, and its Eastern European satellites, on which that nation’s own domestic product depend, were dominant.
In its heyday, Russia went so far as to recruit Germany’s Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder (1998-2005) as a mainstay of its natural gas giant Gazprom, and he is now chairman of Rosneft, the Russian major state oil company. The once popular Schroeder has been further recruited to influence Germany and other European countries to veer away from “renewables (solar, wind, geodesic power, ethanol, etc.) in favor of the more “reliable” fossil fuels.
In this context, Russia has found far more compatibility with President Donald J. Trump, a champion of fossil fuels, as opposed to his erstwhile competitor Hillary Clinton, who made no secret of her desire to close all coal mines, and vastly increase renewables. Her answer to the obvious results of subsequent employment loss was to expand “medicaid” as a means of nominally supporting the ongoing unemployment increase.
Although the Russians are now accused of once making a potential “Clinton” regime more dependent on Russian uranium, supported by committed support to the Clinton Foundation, this obvious indiscretion is still being investigated. This Foundation had also provided “Clintonism’s” support to “the Paris climatological treaty, approval of the Iranian “sellout,” and the Trans-Pacific Economic Treaty, which was heavily beneficial to the domestic economies of Southeast Asia; the latter of which only failed as the time ran out for the two-term Obama Administration.
At this point in time, the Democrats and the anti-Trump Republicans are hoping to “win the mid-terms” in November; which are badly needed to give Trump’s major initiatives a chance to pass.