Viewing the orthodox Russian collusion narrative in a different light

There is nothing unprecedented about Trump’s desire for détente with Russia, which until at least 2012 was the official position of the Democratic Party.

But let us view the orthodox narrative in a more critical perspective 

The media chatter and the ex cathedra  pronouncements surrounding the Russian collusion narrative  would never have acquired such urgency were it not for the accompanying assumption: Russia is a uniquely dangerous adversary, with which we should avoid all contact. 

Without that belief, Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s meetings with Russians in September 2016 would become routine discussions between a senator and foreign officials. 

Flynn’s post-election conversations with the Russian ambassador would appear unremarkable. 

Trump’s cronies’ attempts to do business in Russia would become merely sleazy. 

Donald Trump Jr’s meeting at Trump Tower with the Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya would be transformed from a melodrama of shady intrigue to a comedy of errors – with the candidate’s son expecting to receive information to use against Clinton but discovering Veselnitskaya only wanted to talk about repealing sanctions and restarting the flow of Russian orphans to the United States. 

And Putin himself would become just another autocrat, with whom democracies could engage without endorsing.