This is too sinple. Russia is actively pushing an agenda as well - the invasion of Ukraine and annexation of Crimea were not a response to US/NATO aggression. A new cold war has also been pushed domestically for the political benefit of Putin et al.
If Trump had done basic things like released his tax returns (to show no massive conflict of interest with Russian loans etc) or stopped praising Putin on a regular basis then it would be a lot easier to dismiss concerns about his relationship with Putin and whether they stand to benefit by Trump's election.
Russia/Putin has a history of crushing domestic political dissent (including assassinations) and exploiting xenophobia for political gain. There is NOTHING for the US or any NATO member to admire about Putin or the Russian political system.
Edit. I forgot to mention the proxy war in Syria! Russia has everything to gain by tipping the scales in favour of a politician that upsets that status quo in the US.
It's a weird game of cat and mouse you describe but lets be clear, the annexation of Crimea, was, in Russias eyes a direct counter to the US backed revolution in Ukraine.
The US has wanted Ukraine in NATO for as long as I've been alive if not longer, having forces on the front door of Russia along the European border is something they deeply desire.. US Government's Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs even admitted to pouring billions into the effort.[0]
So lets not pretend that the US government is in a morally unquestionable position either.
>A new cold war has also been pushed domestically for the political benefit of Putin et al.
I don't think so, but I really lack the historical knowledge of the previous Cold War. However, Trump's remarks on starting an arms race are really troubling in light of all of this.
Currently this appears to be a tit-for-tat propaganda campaign. Maybe even some blatantly vengeful actions by a departing administration. We already know governments hack each other regularly, so what distinguishes that from some kind of Cold War mobilization of government hackers? A recruitment surge, less activity devoted to China or European nations, mysterious sudden problems in Russia cropping up?
When someone writes a story about a very good malware suite suddenly wrecking Russian infrastructure or collapsing businesses crucial to the Russian economy, then it'll obviously have started.
There were some stories about a Russian bank being hacked and money stolen, as well as a (related?) story saying that Russia had stopped a hack. I don't know how true any of that was and they vanished off the radar soon afterwards.
The invasion of Crimea was a direct response to US/NATO aggression.
1) The US helped plot to overthrow the Ukranian government in 2014.
2) Russia was not keen on NATO pushing for Ukraine to become a member, which would literally put the Russians major warm naval port under NATO hands.
3) Crimea has been a part of Russia for centuries, the only reason Crimea became a part of Ukraine after the breakup of the Soviet Union is because the SSR transferred Crimea from the Russian state to the Ukraine state in 1954 to celebrate the 300th Anniversary of the Ukraine as part of Russia.
4) The vast majority of the population of Crimea has been for hundreds of years of Russian ethnicity and language.
5) Crimea voted to rejoin Russia
The State of Politics are much deeper than you seem to admit.
Edit: Russia's support for Syria has more to do with the strategic location of Syria and the transportation of Russia's Natural Resources through that territory.
The Crimean invasion had many reasons. First, it is an attempt to keep Ukraine as a Russian vassal state. Ukraine is essential for Russia to rebuild its empire and restore its power. Ukraine served as a big agricultural and industrial resource for Russia for long time. Also many prominent Ukrainians made significant input into building the tzar Russian empire and later, the USSR.
In order to keep Ukraine in its orbit, Russia systematically undermined Ukrainian government and security using corruption (which was extremely effective). However, when a significant number of Ukrainians became more and more convinced with democracy (and here the strong political and cultural Western influence is apparent, nothing secret about it) they finally protested against corrupted politics provided by then-president Yanukovich supported (and controlled) by V.Putin.
With the occupation of Crimea and Donbass (Eastern Ukraine), Russia tries to keep influencing Ukraine in a military way, since the old way through corruption is no longer possible. It also played well internally and ensured electoral support for Putin as Russia economy started declining following the fall of oil prices. The occupation also intentionally demonstrated that the existing international law has no power it claims to have which implies that the global security system should be redesigned.
Is there any credible evidence that the US/NATO was behind a coup in Ukraine? Google doesn't reveal anything substantial.
Ukraine is/was a sovereign nation. Why should Russia stop them from joining NATO if that is what they want? The invasion of their country seems to suggest that a desire for NATO protection was warranted?
Annexing another sovereign nation based upon historical claims and access to a military port is blatant aggression and a return to the cold war mentality (sending unmarked military units over the border? Supplying arms and equipment?).
"[Nuland's] strong statement of preference for how Ukraine's government should be formed – and apparent confidence that the US has major influence over that – is a reminder of the disconnect between US government assurances that it doesn't meddle in nations' internal politics and its actual behavior (White House spokesman Jay Carney repeats this canard in his comment on the tape.) This was not a conversation analyzing unfolding events and how to respond to what comes next. This was about molding a situation according to US interests."
> Mr. Putin made this decision around Crimea and Ukraine - not because of some grand strategy, but essentially because he was caught off-balance by the protests in the Maidan and Yanukovych then fleeing after we had brokered a deal to transition power in Ukraine
The second link is specifically about a US general going behind Obama's back in an attempt to escalate the conflict and the third even talks about how Russia is probably having similar conversations.
I don't disagree that the US/EU/NATO hasn't played games in the conflict. I do however think that there is a difference between political games and sending tanks across a border.
Many of your points are valid. However pointing to an "election" with no real choice while occupied by a foreign power undermines your position significantly.
3)>"Gifted" because Khrushchev's transfer was ostensibly to mark the 300th anniversary of Ukraine's merger with the Russian empire. And he probably didn't think the Soviet Union would be gone less than 40 years later.
If Trump had done basic things like released his tax returns (to show no massive conflict of interest with Russian loans etc) or stopped praising Putin on a regular basis then it would be a lot easier to dismiss concerns about his relationship with Putin and whether they stand to benefit by Trump's election.
Russia/Putin has a history of crushing domestic political dissent (including assassinations) and exploiting xenophobia for political gain. There is NOTHING for the US or any NATO member to admire about Putin or the Russian political system.
Edit. I forgot to mention the proxy war in Syria! Russia has everything to gain by tipping the scales in favour of a politician that upsets that status quo in the US.