• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What are the reasons for poor relations with Russia?

Fishking

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 3, 2016
Messages
43,134
Reaction score
16,115
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I'm interested in hearing actual solid reasons why we shouldn't have better relations with Russia. If your answer amounts to "because Russia"
Commies" "Lions and tigers and Russian Bears, Oh my!" I'm going to laugh in your face.

- Has their foreign policy, in the recent past been unreasonable?

- Have they have done less to interfere in, and destabilize nations around the world than the U.S. has?

- How does Russia compare to the actions and behaviors of some of our other allies, like Erdogan's Turkey or the Saudi Arabian government?

You know, actual specific reasons with full consideration of the context that those reasons fall in to.

I'll start with basically the only reason I can think of:

The U.S. doesn't manufacture and export much of anything anymore, on a powerhouse level. One of the few things that still remains is military assets. We have to have Russia be the boogie man so that we can export weapons and weapon platforms.
 
I was all in support of better relations with Russia - in fact, I felt we were heading in that exact direction.

Until they invaded Ukraine and started doing back-door deals with China to name just two things.

So we're not friends with them - because they don't want to be on better terms.
 

I get what you are saying... that Ukraine issue isn't one sided though.
Complicating it further is the matter that the Crimea region is actually Russian, but Nikita Khruschev declared it part of Ukraine in 1954. He was from the area and it had been through a lot under Stalin. its by far majority Russian ethnically.
As to their back door deals with China. the USA was doing the same thing in the 90s.
 

A territory or nation "having once been" doesn't make it right. If the people of Ukraine unitedly wanted to rejoin, there would have been no need to invade and wage war.

Every country on this earth "has once been" with another country at some point, so that doesn't make it just or right. Citizens shouldn't be bullied around by their fore nation.
 

I was just pointing out its not a cut and dry issue. When Khruschev made it part of Ukraine, Ukraine was part of the USSR. so it was just a token thing at the time because it didn't really matter. except that he was from that area and it helped his popularity. with the homies so to speak ;P
Yes when the USSR broke up at the end of 1991 it should have been brought up then. it wasn't though.
 
The USA Military Industrial CORPORATE Complex needs enemies, real or media manufactured, to create a demand for armies and weapons and the businesses they support. It is the only growth industry in the USA. The USA/CIA/NED and their banking toadies created the coup d'etat in Kiev, Ukraine, but didn't give enough thought to the fact that Russia had 25,000 troops stationed in Crimea under prior agreement. Since the Ukraine coup d'etat was foreign inspired, the Russians had an election in Crimea to see if the Crimeans wanted to accept the new rulers, but the answer was "nyet" and chose Russia as a more pleasant alternative. At this point, the coup d'etat initiators, the USA, created economic sanctions against Russia and attempting to bankrupt Russia and force them to accept USA banking hegemony. Once again "nyet" and the Russians chose the trading alternative to deal with China and Eastern Nations. The USA economic sanctions are technically an "act of war" and we are fortunate that Putin is a sane and reasonable diplomat. Since the USA "fiat" currency is supported by faith and if we didn't have a strong military, perhaps the currency would collapse, ergo keep the wars going because it's good for the currency. Likewise, the demonization of China in the South China Sea that lies at least 7,000 miles from continental USA. Gotta have more and bigger arms, bigger ships, more subs, more missiles, etc. All the goodies the MIC needs to stay in business. Peace is not good business for a war country. The USA, "where war is good business, and business is good." And I know you didn't vote for that. Rentier government bought and sold by the MIC and their cohorta.
 

Could also be that US interests and Russian interests are not in alignment with each other, which brings on conflicts?
 
eohrnberger said:
Could also be that US interests and Russian interests are not in alignment with each other, which brings on conflicts?
Click to expand...

In what ways are they not aligned aside from "I don't like you and you don't like me."? The only thing that comes to my mind are interests over oil, gas, and the pipelines that governs who is going to feed the EU.
 
Fishking said:
In what ways are they not aligned aside from "I don't like you and you don't like me."? The only thing that comes to my mind are interests over oil, gas, and the pipelines that governs who is going to feed the EU.
Click to expand...

I admit that I was just throwing that out as an idea.

However, as of right now, from my view, Putin is taking advantage of a weak presidency to further his goals. As a creature from the golden age of the KGB, when 1/2 the world fell under the Russian's sphere of influence, it's exactly where he wants to return Russia to. His annexing of the Crimea for example. Reassembling the former Soviet Union.
 

Using the word "invaded" seems a little heavy-handed to use for what happened. Let's look at the situation in Ukraine. You had a democratically elected President who didn't sign a extremely binding trade agreement with the EU. This, somehow, became a legitimate reason to overthrow the government. It wasn't a matter of the following elections happening and the President losing and refusing to step down. It wasn't a matter of the President violating the laws of the land and then being brought up on charges and being found guilty and him refusing to step down. You know, all the real reasons why you would overthrow the government. In other words, the Kiev government that we are backing is illegitimate.

Add onto that that we had the Assistant Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland, over there handing out cookies to the anti-government protesters and the director of the CIA, John Brennan over there meeting with the illegitimate Kiev government in the very beginning. Further, Russia proposed to have trilateral talks over a way to peacefully resolve the matter and the U.S. rejected it. So what we have is western government interference in an illegitimate government overthrow of a country that borders Russia. This isn't even taking in Crimea, that has one of the most important naval bases for Russia. All this together means that Russia most definitely has a vested interest in the outcome of the matter. So the real question is not what was Russia doing being involved there but what was the U.S. doing being involved there as it's on the entire other side of the world.

And we could even get into the war crimes that are being carried out by the illegitimate Kiev government on what amounts to ethnic Russians

https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/07/24/ukraine-unguided-rockets-killing-civilians

Finally, complaining about Russia doing anything in Ukraine falls flat as the U.S. is militarily involved so many countries it's ridiculous. And these are countries that aren't anywhere close to the U.S., unlike Ukraine being a border nation of Russia. It's like complaining for being pulled over for going 50 mph over the speed limit because the officer didn't stop the person going 10 mph over.
 

I don't really think their actions in Crimea are, by any means, unreasonable and pale in comparison to our levels of global interference. See post #10.
 
Fishking said:
I don't really think their actions in Crimea are, by any means, unreasonable and pale in comparison to our levels of global interference. See post #10.
Click to expand...

Taking over another's country isn't being unreasonable? How do you figure?
 
eohrnberger said:
Taking over another's country isn't being unreasonable? How do you figure?
Click to expand...
Indeed. It is the first time that a European country has had its sovereign borders altered by force since WWII.

I am genuinely fond of Russia and her people. That said, the Putin regime is highly corrupt, increasingly authoritarian, monolithic, aggressive, and xenophobic.
 
Current relations with Russia are actually, at least partially, to blame on NATO foreign policy actions during the 90s and 2000s.

Shortly after the cold war ended, NATO said it would not expand against Russia; but that's exactly what happened, with the incorporation of the Baltic, Poland, Romania, and much of Eastern Europe into NATO.

Russia also feels like the west, especially the USA, has acted hypocritical by criticizing Russian handling of Chechyna and alleged war crimes, when the US has gone into Iraq and Afghanistan and committed similar acts.

Finally, in 1999 NATO bombed Serbia without UN authorization. This was seen by Russia as proof of long suspected antislavic sentiment on the part of NATO.



Sent from my SM-G920K using Tapatalk
 

Sounds like Putin is dragging Russia back to where he's comfortable, as a KGB officer during the Cold War, that'd be where he'd like to take Russian back to, wouldn't it?
 

Did you actually say Putin is "sane and reasonable "?
 
gunner said:
Did you actually say Putin is "sane and reasonable "?
Click to expand...

I compare him to the ones that have attacked Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc. He's head and shoulders on high ground by comparison. Sane, reasonable and pragmatic and I didn't stutter..
 
DaveFagan said:
I compare him to the ones that have attacked Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc. He's head and shoulders on high ground by comparison. Sane, reasonable and pragmatic and I didn't stutter..
Click to expand...

When you put it like that, you almost sound convincing :lol:
 
Simpleχity;1066150775 said:
the Putin regime is highly corrupt, increasingly authoritarian, monolithic, aggressive, and xenophobic.
Click to expand...

Amen. Add grossly homophobic, and increasingly suppressing independent media.
 
For the last eight years or so we've had great relations with Iran, Cuba, Venezuela when Hugo Chavez was in charge, Hamas, which isn't a country but thinks it is and relations with countries that are traditional supportive of the U.S. like Israel, Great Britain, Poland, and Honduras have deteriorated significantly. Perhaps Russia wasn't sufficient anti-American to meet the current administrations criteria for better relations.
 
Fishking said:
- Has their foreign policy, in the recent past been unreasonable?
Click to expand...
"Reasonable" or "unreasonable" don't really apply here. They have made it their policy in recent years to smother the self-determination and independence of former Soviet states and to support the anti-American and authoritarian Assad regime. I consider those good enough reasons for us to oppose them.
- Have they have done less to interfere in, and destabilize nations around the world than the U.S. has?

- How does Russia compare to the actions and behaviors of some of our other allies, like Erdogan's Turkey or the Saudi Arabian government?
Click to expand...
Neither of these are actually relevant to whether or not Russia should be opposed.
The U.S. doesn't manufacture and export much of anything anymore, on a powerhouse level. One of the few things that still remains is military assets. We have to have Russia be the boogie man so that we can export weapons and weapon platforms.
Click to expand...
"We" don't need to do that. Russia's already a sufficient boogieman on its own. There's a reason why all the former Warsaw Pact satellite states joined NATO when Moscow no longer had the ability to send tanks to stop them. Russia essentially claims the right to intervene in any state with a Russian minority - a terrifying prospect if you're Estonia, and a current reality if you're Ukraine, Moldova, or Georgia. We already have a sizable potential market of countries to whom Russian domination poses an existential threat.
Jredbaron96 said:
Current relations with Russia are actually, at least partially, to blame on NATO foreign policy actions during the 90s and 2000s.
Click to expand...
Causality-wise, I would agree, since the Russians certainly don't like the fact that we've been pushing NATO closer to their border. I don't think, however, our actions with respect to Russia have been unjustifiably aggressive or hostile.
Shortly after the cold war ended, NATO said it would not expand against Russia; but that's exactly what happened, with the incorporation of the Baltic, Poland, Romania, and much of Eastern Europe into NATO.
Click to expand...
This was a gentleman's agreement made with Gorbachev, so it certainly had no legal obligation upon NATO after the Soviet Union collapsed. Moreover, the only reason it was agreed to in the first place was because Gorbachev had the ability to roll tanks into East Berlin and prevent German reunification if he chose to do so. Therefore, it has no legal or moral force and should play no role in our foreign policy decisions except as evidence for the already obvious fact that Russia opposes NATO's expansion.

Putin is pretty clearly a realist; I doubt he cares one way or another about American hypocrisy or "anti-Slavism."
 
Last edited:
Fear and neocons.

Putin is a pig...a smart pig, but a pig. But France, Germany and Britain combined (without America/rest of EU) more then double Russia's military spending.

Russia is a fraction of her old USSR-size militarily and is no conventional threat to the West.

And for Americans/Neocons to criticize Russia after Gitmo, invading Iraq, committing acts of war regularly by bombing countries at will and generally playing a huge part in screwing up the entire Middle East is staggering hypocrisy.
 
Last edited:

So we have to be enemies because they invade other countries? Hmmm...

Can a country that invades other countries logically and without being hypocritical consider countries their enemies because they invade other countries?
 
Last edited:

Again, these characteristics are not unique, by any means. We have Turkey, who is much worse on all metrics, as NATO members. Furthermore, you're divorcing Putin's actions from any context, as if they are generating all on their own. The U.S. has been pushing an anti-Russian alliance in NATO to Russian borders. The U.S. is also constantly attacking Russian allies. It's like you're looking at a singular chess move while ignoring the 20 moves that were taken up to that point.
 

You say..." poor relations with Russia" like it is a bad thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…