When Barack Obama entered the White House, one of his top priorities was to "reset" the relationship between the US and Russia. The idea was that our relations with Russia had been too strained under George W. Bush, what with tensions over NATO expansion, missile defense, and human rights (stop me if any of this sounds familiar).

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Of course not. I seek to reset relations with Russia because I believe that Americans and Russians have many common interests, interests that our governments recently have not pursued as actively as we could have. For instance, I believe that Americans and Russians both would benefit from fewer nuclear weapons in the world, greater control over nuclear materials around the world, a defeat of extremist elements in Afghanistan and Pakistan, an Iran that produces nuclear energy but not nuclear weapons, and a North Korea that refrains from launching missiles and exploding nuclear weapons and instead returns to the negotiating table. I also believe that Americans and Russians have a common interest in the development of rule of rule, the strengthening of democracy, and the protection of human rights.

As I said in my inaugural address: "To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist." I then emphasized in my Cairo speech that "I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things:  the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose.  These are not just American ideas; they are human rights." These are ideas embraced by your president and your people. I agree with President Medvedev when he said that "Freedom is better than the absence of freedom." So, I see no reason why we cannot aspire together to strengthen democracy, human rights, and the rule of law as part of our "reset."

If you read this, you'd be excused for laughing out loud at what now sounds like the most pathetic, childlike naivete on the part of Obama.

Though it gained us nothing in the way of any of those goals, it let Obama feel better about himself and gave us one of the most epic photo ops in diplomatic history: an out-of-her-league Hillary Clinton presenting the ferally oleaginous Sergey Lavrov with a misspelled "reset" button.

This resulted in the annexation of Crimea in a farcical election and the overt invasion of Ukraine by Russian "volunteers" assisting local "insurgents," after a Moscow stooge elected in a fraudulent election was booted from office by a popular uprising.

This was not new by any means. In 2001, US-Russian relations were in the crapper, and President George W. Bush attempted a reset of his own. At their first meeting in Slovenia in June 2001, Bush made the vaguely homoerotic statement,  "I looked the man in the eye. I found him very straightforward and trustworthy – I was able to get a sense of his soul." That was followed up by another meeting in November:

Joint Statement by President George W. Bush and President Vladimir V. Putin on a New Relationship Between the United States and Russia

Our countries are embarked on a new relationship for the 21st century, founded on a commitment to the values of democracy, the free market, and the rule of law. The United States and Russia have overcome the legacy of the Cold War. Neither country regards the other as an enemy or threat. Aware of our responsibility to contribute to international security, we are determined to work together, and with other nations and international organizations, including the United Nations, to promote security, economic well-being, and a peaceful, prosperous, free world.

...

We support the building of a European-Atlantic community whole, free, and at peace, excluding no one, and respecting the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of all nations. To this end, the United States and Russia will work, together with NATO and other NATO members, to improve, strengthen, and enhance the relationship between NATO and Russia, with a view to developing new, effective mechanisms for consultation, cooperation, joint decision, and coordinated/joint action. We believe that these mechanisms should reflect the fact that the members of NATO and Russia are increasingly allied against terrorism, regional instability and other contemporary threats, and that the NATO-Russia relationship should therefore evolve accordingly. We will also work to strengthen our cooperation in OSCE as a broadly representative, inclusive organization for conducting consultations, taking decisions, and working together in the region.

Feel free to laugh at any time.

And then came the unfortunate business in Georgia in 2008.

Before him, in 1991, his father, President George H. W. Bush, attempted an appeasement campaign to try to make Russia feel better about itself after losing the Cold War. That resulted in two genocidal campaigns by a hapless Red Army against Chechen separatists, which went 1-and-1, then doing what they do best, which is slaughtering defenseless civilians to ethnically clean Georgians from Abkhazia.

Bill Clinton also tried to be soft, cuddly, and non-threatening throughout the 1990s, even allowing Russian troops to "participate" in military operations in the Balkans alongside NATO forces as a way of recognizing Russia's interests there. His high point was the signing of the NATO-Russia Founding Act in 1997. This agreement said NATO and Russia were not enemies, and despite what some say, that NATO would expand. (And no, the agreement with Gorbachev in 1990 did not cover NATO expansion; it only covered stationing non-German NATO forces in the former eastern zone of Germany.)

NATO and Russia do not consider each other as adversaries. They share the goal of overcoming the vestiges of earlier confrontation and competition and of strengthening mutual trust and cooperation. The present Act reaffirms the determination of NATO and Russia to give concrete substance to their shared commitment to build a stable, peaceful and undivided Europe, whole and free, to the benefit of all its peoples. Making this commitment at the highest political level marks the beginning of a fundamentally new relationship between NATO and Russia. They intend to develop, on the basis of common interest, reciprocity and transparency a strong, stable and enduring partnership.

...

NATO has undertaken a historic transformation -- a process that will continue. In 1991 the Alliance revised its strategic doctrine to take account of the new security environment in Europe. Accordingly, NATO has radically reduced and continues the adaptation of its conventional and nuclear forces. While preserving the capability to meet the commitments undertaken in the Washington Treaty, NATO has expanded and will continue to expand its political functions, and taken on new missions of peacekeeping and crisis management in support of the United Nations (UN) and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), such as in Bosnia and Herzegovina, to address new security challenges in close association with other countries and international organisations. NATO is in the process of developing the European Security and Defence Identity (ESDI) within the Alliance. It will continue to develop a broad and dynamic pattern of cooperation with OSCE participating States in particular through the Partnership for Peace and is working with Partner countries on the initiative to establish a Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council. NATO member States have decided to examine NATO's Strategic Concept to ensure that it is fully consistent with Europe's new security situation and challenges.

Russia is continuing the building of a democratic society and the realisation of its political and economic transformation. It is developing the concept of its national security and revising its military doctrine to ensure that they are fully consistent with new security realities. Russia has carried out deep reductions in its armed forces, has withdrawn its forces on an unprecedented scale from the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and the Baltic countries and withdrawn all its nuclear weapons back to its own national territory. Russia is committed to further reducing its conventional and nuclear forces. It is actively participating in peacekeeping operations in support of the UN and the OSCE, as well as in crisis management in different areas of the world. Russia is contributing to the multinational forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

You can laugh now.

This is how the score stands.

• 1991 Bush reset
• 1992 Russia’s ethnic cleansing of Georgians 
• 1994 Russia invades Chechnya 
• 1997 Clinton reset
• 1999 Russia invades Chechnya again 
• 2001 Bush reset
• 2008 Russia invades Georgia 
• 2009 Obama reset
• 2014 Russia invades Ukraine 

And to keep on Russia's good side, he let Putin get away with unimaginable atrocities.

Now we have the ignoble spectacle of Trump using Ukrainian territory and lives as bargaining chips to improve relations with Russia. Why do I say that? Russia has not yet agreed to meet with the Ukrainians to negotiate peace, and it has made it very clear that it will not deal with Zelensky's government. Because the administration is already planning sanctions relief for Russia. Because Russia hasn't been asked to do a single thing to move the process forward, but Trump has stopped arms supplies to Ukraine. Perhaps the clearest evidence was when Trump's nominee for deputy defense secretary refused to answer a simple question: Did Russia invade Ukraine? Since then, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has refused to say Russia invaded Ukraine, and Trump's top negotiator for the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, said that Russia was provoked, presumably because Ukraine exerted sovereignty. That was only equaled by the U.S. joining Russia, North Korea, Iran, Sudan, Belarus, and similar nations to vote against a UN General Assembly resolution condemning Russia for invading Ukraine. Forcing others to go along with a blatant lie to curry favor is not a negotiating tactic; it is a sign of desperation. If Russia is too fragile to hear the truth, it is too fragile to negotiate.

If there are nearly 30 years of evidence that resetting relations with Russia increases tensions, encourages Russian adventurism, and is rightfully perceived as a sign of weakness, why is Trump pursuing this course of action?

I think the answer lies to the East. Trump has hired people into policy positions who believe Europe is irrelevant and that Russia can be an ally against China. His first choice for National Security Advisor was a denizen of an Obama-affiliated think tank, the Center for New American Security. The same guy, Elbridge Colby, is being opposed by Senator Tom Cotton for undersecretary of defense for policy because he believes Europe doesn't matter, we can live with a nuclear Iran, and China is the only threat.

To wrest Russia from Beijing's orbit and bring about a rapprochement would, according to this worldview, be the geopolitical coup that prevents any danger of World War III. You can also bet that we will make another run at a nuclear treaty with Iran so that we won't be "distracted." And we know how that will turn out. If you are too afraid of "World War III" to confront a rotted-out husk of a failed Third World state, you will definitely find urgent business under your bed when it comes time to confront China.