Ever since the end of the Cold War, it has been the mission of the U.S. national-security establishment to re-institute the relationship of hate, hostility, and fear that existed between the Soviet Union, especially Russia, and the United States during the Cold War.
That's what the U.S. post-Cold War invigoration of NATO was all about, especially its absorption of former Warsaw Pact countries. It's also what NATO's attempt to absorb Ukraine, oust the Soviets from their long-established base in Crimea, and install U.S. missiles on Russia's borders were all about.
It's also what all the anti-Russia brouhaha has been all about. The aim has always been to reconvert Russia into an official enemy, adversary, opponent, and rival of the United States. What better way to keep the American people agitated and fearful? What better way to guarantee ever-increasing budgets for the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA, the three principal components of America's deep state?
Oh sure, the "war on terrorism" has succeeded mightily in making Americans afraid of "the terrorists" and, to a certain extent, the "Muslims." But many Americans are figuring out that anti-American terrorism is rooted in U.S. interventionism, which the Pentagon and the CIA introduced into the Middle East soon after the Soviet Union called an end to the Cold War racket. As soon as U.S. military and paramilitary forces are withdrawn from the Middle East and Afghanistan, the national-security establishment knows that its "war on terrorism" racket will disintegrate.
On the other side of the equation are those who say that U.S. officials need to make friends with Russia or, more specifically, with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Many of those on this side of the equation say the same thing with respect to dictators around the world, such as North Korean communist dictator Kim Jong-un, Egyptian military Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, or Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad.
Actually, both sides are wrong. There is no reason why the U.S. government must have official enemies or official friends among foreign regimes. All that is necessary to help restore a peaceful and harmonious society to America is to (1) reign in the federal government by restraining it from intervening in the affairs of other countries, and (2) to liberate the private sector of the United States, thereby the American people to interact freely with the people of the world.
With respect to point (1), that means bringing all U.S. troops home from everywhere and discharging them into the private sector. They are not needed and are, in fact, a drain on American taxpayers. It means abandoning all foreign military bases to the host countries. It means a termination of U.S. foreign aid to every foreign regime. No more invasions, coups, assassinations, bombings, shootings, regime-change operations, kidnappings, torture, indefinite detention, and spying.
With respect to point (2), that means a lifting of all restrictions on the freedom of the American people to interact with the people of the world. That means a lifting of all sanctions, embargoes, trade restrictions, tariffs, and trade wars. It means an end to America's socialist system of immigration controls and the police state that has come with it. It means unilateral free trade and open immigration, i.e., the free movements of goods, services, and produces across borders.
None of that requires that U.S. officials become official friends or official enemies (or rivals, adversaries, or opponents) of foreign leaders or foreign regimes. All that it requires is reining in the federal government and liberating the American people.
The American people, including tourists, business people, trade groups, and cultural groups, are our nation's best diplomats. Pentagon, CIA, and State Department people are our nation's worst diplomats. The people of the world love the American people. They just severely dislike U.S. government officials, and justifiably so.