Putin's idealistic requirement is a huge part of the problem. The USA will never surrender it's sovereign military capacity to no one....Putin knows this so why does he continue thinking that he can achieve that end?
I'm not sure he thinks he can achieve this. It is important to counter the US ideal of a unipolar world with a counter-concept of a multipolar world. And in such a world all those problems which could be used to justify a world government, like climate change or nuclear weapons, could be attributed to the UN instead of the US. If this is realistic or not is not the question. It can be justified, from a moral position, much better than the US-ruled world. Which is what matters in informational warfare.
He is quite pragmatic, so that this imho unrealistic ideal creates no problems. In particular, it does not prevent to do all what is necessary to create a real multipolar world. Say, alternative not-US-controlled Eurasian economic structures.
I disagree that ultimately the USA due to some enormous collapse will be forced to surrender to UN control as the USA only has to temper it's overly strong dominance of the UN with a greater restraint and wisdom and become more a twin brother than a big bother and the problem of over dominance in world affairs can be mitigated quite successfully. There is no need for a collapse to achieve a satisfactory result for all including the people of Russia.
Obama had made significant strides in this direction as part of his policy of minimal interventions and respectful behavior and Trump has just headed with Putin's encouragement in the exact opposite direction.
First, this was not my claim, I do not even dream about a US surrender to UN, with or without an economic collapse. This would be necessary for your UN-ruled world, so, it would be your problem. IMHO a UN-ruled unipolar world would be as dangerous for mankind, and as easily becoming totalitarian, as the US-ruled unipolar world.
I'm in favour of a multipolar world, with a lot of independent sovereign countries, much more than states today. The UN will remain there as a forum to discuss problems important for the whole world, but without any decisive power over the countries.
Putin is craving a Trump inspired USA collapse just as you are and Trump is his witting or unwitting vehicle.
No. Neither Putin nor myself are zero-sum gamers. A big economic crisis as part of the collapse of the unipolar world would harm everybody, and, as far as possible, should be prevented. But, just to avoid misunderstandings, the possibility to submit to the US rule is not among what is meant with "as far as possible". This is simply unacceptable to the Russians as well as many other people.
But there are peaceful, slow, constructive ways for such a transformation, ways which would (at least could) avoid any collapse. Russia as well as China are acting in this direction, developing Eurasia independent of the dollar and of what the US thinks about it. Canceling TPP, which was aimed to disturb Eurasian integration by excluding China, is useful in this direction too. It has no immediate consequences, does not destroy anything which is already working, it is only a redirection, it allows China to develop Eurasian economic integration. So, as far nothing dangerous has happened.
Without doubt, Clinton would have been very dangerous. Clinton means fight for the US empire, with all means which are available. With the main remaining power (if one does not want war which can become nuclear with Russia or China) being the distribution of terrorism in Eurasia. That's zero sum game, what harms Eurasia is good for US rule. With the Ukraine as the example - it harms the cooperation between Russia and Europe, thus, helps the US. Supporting islamic jihadists, moderate or not, has the same aim - turmoil in Eurasia is good for US. Nothing else. The result is predictable, Eurasian powers have to defend themselves, and will succeed, but during the fight the fate of world trade is not the first priority. If it breaks down during the fight, not nice, but less evil than surrender, so what. You think it was an accident that Putin's counter-sanctions have been in the agrarian sector? You are wrong, Putin cares about the case than the whole world trade goes down. In this case, it matters if Russia produces enough food to survive without hunger.
Trump is simply less evil. That's all. It does not mean at all that Trump will avoid a really harmful collapse. I would say Ron Paul could have prevented it. But you have not elected him, your fault. You have to live with it. Comparable (except for the point that the Russian/Chinese people had no choice) with the difference between Deng Xiaoping and Gorbatshov. One was able to organize a peaceful transformation toward a market economy without economic collapse, the other not. IMHO Ron Paul would have been able to manage a peaceful transition toward a multipolar world without economic collapse, if Trump is able or not we will see, I doubt. But above managed to organize a more or less peaceful transition, which is what really matters.
