• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Russia our greatest enemy?

rocket88 said:
So Reagan didn't win the Cold War then?
Click to expand...

he did.. so what? things change.. and we see Russia is walking all ove us now with Obama.. spitting on us,..
 
Wake said:
Why would Russia be a bigger threat than China?
Click to expand...

From a geostrategic standpoint, Russia actually is better positioned than China with relation to the United States. China and the U.S. are too interconnected to seriously consider taking each other on at any point. However, the relationship between the U.S. and Russia is less intertwined. The U.S. depends on Russia for certain raw materials, leading in numerous metals markets, but there is not the same complex producer and consumer relationship that exists between the U.S. and China. Additionally, while China continues to open up its markets to foreign companies and privatizes its industries, Russia remains locked in a more protectionist standpoint where state-owned enterprises dominate critical industries and push out non-Russian competition.

The fact that Russia's main trade is in resources presents them as a greater threat because this is purely a relationship of dependency where other nations need Russia for what it provides and Russia tries to maintain, even increase, that dependency. When a trade relationship is centered on specialized goods it is only necessary that the nation maintain its ability to produce such goods independently by encouraging education and training among the general population. As we see with Russia it has to do what it can to deny customers access to the resources of other countries or somehow take over the resources of those countries, because there are fewer barriers to gaining a foothold in such a market. Where this is best exemplified is the pipeline politics raging through the Former Soviet Union and gradually increasing westward in the European sphere.

In seeking to preserve its grip on critical resource markets Russia has moved to buy out the resource companies of other countries such as in Serbia and Ukraine or force them to transport resources through its territory as has long been the case with the nations of Central Asia and the Caucasus. European leaders, wanting to decrease their dependence on a single foreign power for critical strategic materials, work with U.S. officials to by-pass those routes and this threatens to limit Russia's control of the market. It is in this respect that the Russian relationship with Iran is more intertwined than to China's relationship with Iran. For China Iran is just one of many potential suppliers of resources that are outside American control and a possible customer for Chinese goods. It is more of a mercantile relationship with less strategic significance. China's relationship with countries in Africa or other Middle Eastern nations such as Iraq and even Israel are of more importance in China's strategic calculations. With the latter China has more often found itself aligned with the United States or acting in what is relatively a vacuum of foreign influence. Russia, however, needs to keep Iran out of the U.S. orbit to prevent more open Western access to its resources. Behind Russia, Iran has the largest supply of natural gas in the world. Insuring that a government more friendly to Russian interests maintains control of that supply is critical for Moscow.

Another critical difference between the relationships is one of distance. Russia is very close to the U.S. geographically and this includes the increasingly important Arctic Ocean where both countries have competing interests. At the same time Russia borders Europe and is right at the edge of the Middle East. For the U.S. only Japan and the Korean peninsula would be areas with significant American strategic interests that conflict with China's. While the U.S. naturally wishes to maintain its current grips on the world's waterways the areas in question are not the most critical for the United States. China is still at least a decade away from seriously moving beyond the South and East China Seas into the Indian and Pacific Oceans. However, Russia can very quickly establish a major presence in the Mediterranean and already has a significant presence in the North Pacific Ocean. These waters are far more critical and closer to core American interests, as well as the Arctic Ocean that I previously mentioned, and this puts them in more immediate confrontation.

This means there is a greater likelihood of conflict in the immediate future due to proximity, conflicting core interests, and less cause for avoiding war. While conflict with China would threaten American economic conditions through a loss of commerce, conflict with Russia could actually open up new markets for exploitation that were previously closed to them. For China the same threat to its economy exists, while for Russia it would perhaps give them greater freedom to corner critical markets. Prospects for war being higher makes this a more immediate and volatile threat.

Do not think it is simply about resources though, as there is a complex history between these nations that makes the prospect for conflict more likely between the U.S. and Russia and less likely between the U.S. and China. The easiest way to understand it is that the U.S. and Russia always had an equal relationship. For the first century of America's rise the relationship was one of friendship, with this second century being mainly one of rivalry. In contrast, China's relationship with America began as a relationship of subjugation where the U.S., together with other world powers, controlled Chinese markets and frequently intervened directly in its internal affairs. While seemingly counter-intuitive it actually means they have a less confrontational relationship. Consider it the difference between a parent's relationship with his or her child and a relationship between siblings. Since China is a rising power it sees the U.S. attempts to restrain and control it the way a child sees a parent's attempts to meddle in his or life. However, as Russia has no history of being subjugated by the United States the attempts to restrain and control it are seen as an insult in the same way a sibling would see another sibling's attempts to act like a parent.

For the U.S. it is not even really about Russia, which adds to the insult. The U.S. only seeks to edge out Russia out of its own desire to increase its control over territory. Any restraining of Russia is only done in order to safeguard this newly-garnered control. Since Russia sees the U.S. as an equal this disregard for its interests has caused it to lash out. What is worse is that the U.S. even perceived Russia itself as a "new territory" to control before Putin began consolidating Russian control domestically. It leaves very little room for trust between Russia and the United States.

Militarily speaking, while China is a looming threat, it is not yet ready for the stage of reigning superpower. Russia has long been ready for that stage, but has been frequently blocked by the United States. It lacks the kind of warm water port that can give its navy serious projection power, but it also has no natural barriers to its projection ability as China does. Also unlike China, Russia is not lacking in the expertise necessary to be a reigning superpower, but instead is lacking in the necessary financial resources. Its resource-based economy does give it a better position to build its military, but it will always be limited in what it can do without diversifying its economy. This does not prevent them from successfully launching a major military buildup that can directly threaten the United States in a serious manner as the Germans did prior to World War I, but it probably will prevent them from ever being a reigning superpower without building strategic relationships with other countries.

There is where the greatest threat exists. Russia is a rational power and is thus less likely on its own to ever go to the level of conflict, but unlike China it has to rely on other countries to build its strategic profile beyond its borders. Few options favorable to Russia exist on the current geopolitical map and most of them create ripe opportunities for conflict with the United States. China's strongest strategic allies are countries such as Pakistan that, while prone to conflict, are less likely to drag China into major conflagrations with the United States. Far from it, its relationships tend to put them more closely in line with the interests of the United States.

While it is a much more beloved scenario for certain Americans who want the U.S. to remain the ruling empire in perpetuity, the prospect of war with China is lower compared to the prospect of war with Russia. They are less positioned for conflict in the near future and have fewer core interests in conflict with our own.

Of course, none of that actually means we have to stir the pot. It is, after all, our own figurative victorious humping of the corpse of the Soviet Union that has fueled such enmity between our two countries. Us building missile defenses is not the reason for the tension. Were we less insistent on trying to peel away Russia's support in the region and not attempting to bring all its former subjects into a military alliance that was historically targeted at Russia there may be less opposition to us stationing Arleigh Burkes in the Med armed with SM-3s.
 
I don't mean to be disrespectful DoL, but could you condense that a bit? Frankly I appreciate the thorough post and will read it, but sometime later today. Skimming it, it looks like a very thorough and well-written post from my limited experience on international issues.
 
Last edited:
Being a world superpower is not only about having a strong military and lots of WMDs, it requires a sizable and stable economy, reliable food supply, good manufacturing capability and steady supply of raw materials. Once our economy tanks, that alone makes the U.S.A. no longer a superpower. We are very close to spending more on just the interest on our national debt than on defense, in fact, the we now pay for the entire military budget of China just on their share of interest on our debt. Russia is not a threat to the U.S. mainland, although eastern Europe may be a bit nervous right about now.
 
Wake said:
I don't mean to be disrespectful DoL, but could you condense that a bit? Frankly I appreciate the thorough post and will read it, but sometime later today. Skimming it, it looks like a very thorough and well-written post from my limited experience on international issues.
Click to expand...

Basically, Russia is an established power seeking to return to its old glory in the face of American opposition in ways that are more likely to ratchet up tensions, while China is a rising power that is just setting out and will mainly do so in a way that is compatible with American interests. The main barriers to Russia threatening the U.S. seriously are financial, though it is something within their means to attain should they fully commit to it. However, China faces numerous headwinds that will prevent its growth beyond a major regional power until the next decade at the earliest. At the same time, American foreign policy is aggravating the situation by continuing a campaign of encircling and containing Russia while venturing into that country's traditional sphere of influence.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
No, not all of it, and Putin isn't protesting over old shields, his objection (at least what you are talking about) is to the new system.

Looks like it is a new system.

Yeah, it is bad to speculate on international negotiations on ICBM's/Missile Shields when you don't know the full story.

It is funny, some of the system is directed at defending the region from Russian missiles, but Obama gets damned for doing exactly what Romney wants. Meanwhile, you still deny Romney's expansive defense spending plans.
Click to expand...

Wow... I wouldn't have pegged you for a such a political novice when it comes to election year pandering...

You do realize that Romney criticized him for not doing it in 2009... then now in 2012 Obama does it... But only after telling Medvedev to give him some space on the issue, and after the election he will have more flexibility...

We Americans don't want to elect him to be flexible with our security vis a vis the Russians...

You still fail to grasp that it's not just that it got done which Romney was criticizing him for, but how he hasn't been able to leverage the Russian cooperation with the embargo against Iran... through these negotiations...

I don't deny Romney's plans to increase funding to restore and update our military capacity, I favor it... What I deny is that he would do so in a detrimental or irresponsible way financially as that is counter to all of his life's work, where he has created growth with fiscal responsibility...
 
Something I think people are squarely missing here is not the military threat, but the geopolitical threat that was being discussed...

The cooperation of France and Germany with the War in Iraq collapsed because Russia.

The economic embargo on Iran will not cripple them because Russia and China will not comply with it... and Iran can go on trading with them freely...

Russia heavily influence China, Russia wields power in Europe, and Russia holds sway with most of the rogue nations below Russia, such as Syria, Iran, Khazakstan, etc. where a lot of loose nukes could cause a major catasrophe...

We need to work with Russia, to get the nukes destroyed, and to prevent the spread of hatred throughout the region... We don't get that cooperation by backing down when the Russians make demands, we get it when we make demands of Russia, and hold them to them...

Obama has been getting walked all over in negotiations with the Russians... Suddenly, as it's becoming a political issue, he's trying to step up his game, and it shows, he's outclassed in this...

His first actions as president were to go bending over and take it from the rest of the world... stating that America has been wrong to seek a role as leader of the free world...

Where Romney differs is he accepts that if the US is not the leader of the free world, there may soon not be a free world... With the threat of Russia, China, and Jihadism... He wants to make the US strong economically, socially, and militarily, the way we have been... and how we've been able to be the leader of the free world for the past 50-75 years...
 
IndepCentristMA said:
The cooperation of France and Germany with the War in Iraq collapsed because Russia.
Click to expand...

If I were French or German, I would be offended that you think we didn't make the excellent decision not to go to war on Iraq on our own.

Russia heavily influence China, Russia wields power in Europe, and Russia holds sway with most of the rogue nations below Russia, such as Syria, Iran, Khazakstan, etc. where a lot of loose nukes could cause a major catasrophe...
Click to expand...

Every major oil supplier "holds sway," and a lot of loose nukes would cause major catastrophes anywhere.

We need to work with Russia, to get the nukes destroyed, and to prevent the spread of hatred throughout the region... We don't get that cooperation by backing down when the Russians make demands, we get it when we make demands of Russia, and hold them to them...
Click to expand...

Our we could make demands on ourselves and stop using oil. But no, it's easier to make demands on others of course, and unfortunately is all we can expect from our politicians.

His first actions as president were to go bending over and take it from the rest of the world... stating that America has been wrong to seek a role as leader of the free world...
Click to expand...

Were you not stating your dismay at the deficit in the thread about Mr Obama lowering the rate of spending increase? Does this not seem contradictory?

Where Romney differs is he accepts that if the US is not the leader of the free world, there may soon not be a free world... With the threat of Russia, China, and Jihadism... He wants to make the US strong economically, socially, and militarily, the way we have been... and how we've been able to be the leader of the free world for the past 50-75 years...
Click to expand...

Russia is a major oil supplier which doesn't treat women like second class citizens, so obviously a threat we need to confront. China is our largest trading partner, so also a major problem we need to eliminate. And Mr Obama has shown he's unwilling to send Navy Seals/Armed Predator Drones into sovereign nations to remove prominent jihadis. I'm glad you outline the threats Mitt is going to take on with zest.
 
No of course Russia is not our biggest enemy. Romney just thinks it makes him look Reaganesque to play tough against the USSR... But really it just makes him look stupid.
 
IndepCentristMA said:
Wow... I wouldn't have pegged you for a such a political novice when it comes to election year pandering...

You do realize that Romney criticized him for not doing it in 2009... then now in 2012 Obama does it... But only after telling Medvedev to give him some space on the issue, and after the election he will have more flexibility...
Click to expand...
"Not doing it" ?

Uh, no, Romney is criticizing the change in missile defense:

"Mr. Romney also criticized a White House decision scrapping a proposed (Bush) antiballistic missile shield in Eastern Europe and building in its place a reconfigured system to shoot down short- and medium-range Iranian missiles. Mr. Romney argued that Mr. Obama had caved to Russian pressure, trading away a crucial program with little in return. Administration officials say their reconfigured system offers better protection for American allies."




We Americans don't want to elect him to be flexible with our security vis a vis the Russians...
Click to expand...
This isn't about "our" security, this is about EUROPEAN security.

You still fail to grasp that it's not just that it got done which Romney was criticizing him for, but how he hasn't been able to leverage the Russian cooperation with the embargo against Iran... through these negotiations...
Click to expand...
Russia doesn't need to cooperate on the embargo, they will profit from it with or without the cooperation. Less Iranian oil for the EU means greater RU sales. What Russia doesn't want is ABM sites in Poland or Cz, there is where the leverage of this new system will start from.

I don't deny Romney's plans to increase funding to restore and update our military capacity, I favor it... What I deny is that he would do so in a detrimental or irresponsible way financially as that is counter to all of his life's work, where he has created growth with fiscal responsibility...
Click to expand...
We are at @ 4.3% of GDP, he wants to increase that to 8% as I documented, that would be very irresponsible. You claim he would not raise it that much, but you still refuse to cite anything.
 
Travis007 said:
John Bolton ios a great man.. Powel is long past his shelf life.. and a joke at this point..
Click to expand...
Weapons of mass destruction

Bolton was instrumental in derailing a 2001 biological weapons conference in Geneva convened to endorse a UN proposal to enforce the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention. "U.S. officials, led by Bolton, argued that the plan would have put U.S. national security at risk by allowing spot inspections of suspected U.S. weapons sites, despite the fact that the U.S. claims not to have carried out any research for offensive purposes since 1969."

Also in 2002, Bolton is said to have flown to Europe to demand the resignation of Jose Bustani, head of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), and to have orchestrated his removal at a special session of the organization. The United Nations' highest administrative tribunal later condemned the action as an "unacceptable violation" of principles protecting international civil servants. Bustani had been unanimously re-elected for a four-year term — with strong U.S. support — in May 2000, and in 2001 was praised for his leadership by Colin Powell.

He also pushed for reduced funding for the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program to halt the proliferation of nuclear materials. At the same time, he was involved in the implementation of the Proliferation Security Initiative, working with a number of countries to intercept the trafficking in weapons of mass destruction and in materials for use in building nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...
What makes John Bolton great - given that he has been on the wrong side of every iniative he supported!

There is just no comparison with the "non-achievements" of a John Bolton and the services rendered to the nation by Colin Powell.
 
He already made a big enemy before he could assume presidency if elected. Any negotiations with Russia will be futile unless he withdraws his statement.
 
RDS said:
He already made a big enemy before he could assume presidency if elected. Any negotiations with Russia will be futile unless he withdraws his statement.
Click to expand...

well given Obama has already told Russia he would do whatever they wanted, Romney would have a hard time getting Russian money and support anyway.
 
Travis007 said:
very well said.. and lets not forget that its Russia who is supplying the nuke rectors for Iran.. as thats what Russia exports..
Click to expand...

Which is not illegal. The US is the nr. 1 exporter of nuclear reactors.. so why is it bad when Russia exports some but not bad when the US does?

Obama stabbed our allies like Poland in the back .. that was his slap for supporting GWB in Iraq..
Click to expand...

Only in the warped minds of right wingers.

Our allies now have to worry that the word of the USA cant be trusted..
Click to expand...

HAHAHAH, the word of the US has not been trusted since 2003 when the US attacked Iraq. Obama is and has been trying to mend those fences the best he can, but it does not happen over night.

Obama is such a low life..
Click to expand...

Compared to Bush and most in the warmongering GOP.. hell no.
 
PeteEU said:
Which is not illegal. The US is the nr. 1 exporter of nuclear reactors.. so why is it bad when Russia exports some but not bad when the US does?



Only in the warped minds of right wingers.



HAHAHAH, the word of the US has not been trusted since 2003 when the US attacked Iraq. Obama is and has been trying to mend those fences the best he can, but it does not happen over night.



Compared to Bush and most in the warmongering GOP.. hell no.
Click to expand...

Yeah its a good reason to vote for the guy that is most likely to endear himself to Eurosocialists
 
TurtleDude said:
Yeah its a good reason to vote for the guy that is most likely to endear himself to Eurosocialists
Click to expand...

Hey those Eurosocialists are the only friends you got left... so...
 
TurtleDude said:
well given Obama has already told Russia he would do whatever they wanted, Romney would have a hard time getting Russian money and support anyway.
Click to expand...
Conservatives and libertarians are always of the opinion that unless you "grandstand" and are publically rude and confrontational like John Bolton, you've told them "they would do whatever they wanted."

International "bullying" may sell well domestically BUT its a high risk tactic - especially when the other side refuses to back down!
 
jgarden47 said:
Conservatives and libertarians are always of the opinion that unless you "grandstand" and are publically rude and confrontational like John Bolton, you've told them "they would do whatever they wanted."

International "bullying" may sell well domestically BUT its a high risk tactic - especially when the other side refuses to back down!
Click to expand...

Yes, its such a better technique for the US President to be the one who backs down :roll:...

This isn't about bullying or grandstanding, its about replacing a novice at negotiation, with a guy who has won numerous high stakes decisions in the board room...
 
Travis007 said:
John Bolton ios a great man..
Click to expand...

Bolton is dog crap with a mustache.

He was great at failing upwards.



Powel is long past his shelf life..
Click to expand...

Powell is a national hero who served his county.


and a joke at this point..
Click to expand...

Your comments are the joke. They are the typical moronic talking points regurgitated here by the Foxy Newsie spin and propaganda watchers...

Go GOP!! You're almost there. You've almost arrived at the land of complete irrelevancy.
 
TurtleDude said:
well given Obama has already told Russia he would do whatever they wanted, Romney would have a hard time getting Russian money and support anyway.
Click to expand...

Can you support this claim, or is it wishful thinking on your part?
 
Texmex said:
Can you support this claim, or is it wishful thinking on your part?
Click to expand...

Turtledude is right. Our sources tell us that after the election that Obama will give an executive order that changes the law so that future treaties will be ratified by the presidents signature instead of a vote by the Senate.
 
Let me see if I have this correct- President Obama has the power through executive order to over turn the Constitution and eliminate the Senate from Treaty confirmation? Just what are 'your sources'? Sounds like more of the BS smear campaign of the last election. No real proof, just fearmongering, and piss poor mongering at that, but it is early, lots more time to make it better mongering.

Now the right wing's insistence that any diplomacy is 'weakness' comes from the corruption of our containment theory. When first put forward in the 'long telegram' it stressed picking and choosing where we fight for 'freedom' and where it matters little if a communist or 'friendly' dictator held power. That our resources are finite and we could easily ruin our economy attempting to protect marker share abroad.

Former Ambassador Bolton was a piss poor selection. His constant demand for a harder line, no matter the cost was foolish and as harmful to us around the world as anything done by our 'enemies'.

To attempt to turn some criticism of Gen. Powell over his WMD speech into 'the fickle left' just shows the dogma and mindless loyalty demanded by the radical right ranters. You don't have agree with everything someone says all the time. Free yourself from the mindless slavery demanded by the radical right! (Let's not recall the information Gen. Powell was given didn't come from his state dept.)

Bottomline is Russia isn't our greatest enemy, our uncompromising political agendas are.

And that'sa fact Jack! :cool:
 
johnny_rebson said:
Turtledude is right. Our sources tell us that after the election that Obama will give an executive order that changes the law so that future treaties will be ratified by the presidents signature instead of a vote by the Senate.
Click to expand...

Care to share these "sources?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom