A brief comment on Putin, and the greater question of globalization

This is a comment that I submitted on a more reasonable political outlet. I wanted to keep it in order to possibly combine it with other thoughts, should the world live long enough to do so...

 Trade and be friendly with all nations that have not given reason to distrust. Do not lose your culture in the process.
Alliances are all well and good, but bear in mind that in times of (relative) peace, clamoring toward an amalgous union is seen as a preparation for conquest. In times of turmoil and unease, alliances are seen more as a defensive tactic. It is for this reason that one should look suspiciously at Putin in these times. With any talk from him of forming unions, the other ear of the audience should pay attention to the strife occurring all around the world, in any area that he and his oligarchs have so much as a business partner. Chaos suits his agenda, as it allows him the pretense needed to come sit at the table, and attempt to impose terms.
As for the general dislike of globalism, that I think is not so much a negative trend as is being suggested in this article. There are two groups which benefit from globalism- first and most obviously, are those disadvantaged by isolation, whose opportunities have been directly limited by the governments and ruling class of the territories they inhabit. I always cheer for the underdog myself, but these benefits to them are often shortlived, and not as substantial as we are led to believe. Sure, a few new jobs surface, maybe some new goods and services, access to better medical care... temporarily. Inevitably, quality of life suffers for any region that is sacrificing their resources to boost another, whether they be sacrificing jobs, trading power, land, or physical materials. When you once had a surplus of coal, and your trade minister brings you into an agreement that takes a great deal of your coal and exports it somewhere else, the consumers in your nation suffer, while the trade ministers of both nations as well as those that own the mines become wealthier. The people up top make more money, while the population that supports the point of origin has to pay more for what is left to them. The damage is often greater than the benefit, unless all parties involved make great efforts to ensure that a comprehensive system is in place to account for each loss. Though the idea of a global economy sounds wonderful because it means that people with less can have more, in reality we usually end up with extremely lopsided trade deals which drain one side for a time, and oligarchs take advantage of all points of the exchange while prepairing for the inevitable turmoil caused by such bad policies. They always come back to the common people when the damage is done, and they have bled the most they could from them, posing as saviors. Cynical, sure... but a historically forgivable view. Globalism does help one group of people on a long term basis, and in an increasing fashion... those who are already global, and have points of control globally. If you own two small sheds directly across from each other, with a river between, then you certainly have a motive to push for a bridge between them. Declare that it is for the good of all society, while you charge a toll each way.