• 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!

McCain To Russia: 'Putin Doesn't Respect You'

The guy clinging to him with a helmet kind of takes away from the manly affect of the photo. That's awkward looking.



You're right about McQueeg...no one cares what he says.

As far as Barry...

BUN65XHCIAEdwUw.jpg:large
 
The guy clinging to him with a helmet kind of takes away from the manly affect of the photo. That's awkward looking.

That's a photoshopped image of Obama I presume riding a bike. That's the joke.
 
But Russia has a tendency of saying "screw the rules everyone else agreed to, we're doing it our way."

I don't disagree. That's why the U.S. needs to deal with Russia in a strategic fashion and with attention to verification of commitments. An ad hoc approach or appeals to sentimentalities won't cut it when it comes to dealing with Russia.

Putin is saying that any act without UN authorization is aggression, but Putin had no problem invading Georgia without one.

It should be noted that Russia had specifically warned Georgia not to use military force to settle the situation concerning its breakaway provinces, as Russia has long argued that it would act to protect its interests in its "Near Abroad." Even as it faced an enormous military disadvantage, Georgia's leadership recklessly ignored that warning. With regard to the warning, the following are excerpts from a report published by Russia's Interfax news agency on April 25, 2008:

If Georgia unleashes a military conflict in Abkhazia or South Ossetia, Russia will use force to defend its fellow countrymen living in these regions, Valeriy Kenyaykin, the Russian Foreign Ministry's special envoy for relations with the CIS countries, told a news conference at the RIA Novosti office today.

"We are doing everything to prevent a military conflict. But if it is unleashed, we will have to respond, including by military means," he said.

"No-one should have any illusions in this respect!" the diplomat stressed.


In diplomatic terms, warnings don't come any clearer than that.

And he had no problems order the war in Chechnya which killed 160,000 people.

There's little dispute that Russia has used force in a very blunt fashion leading to exceptionally high casualties. On the Chechnya issue, Russia has asserted that the matter is strictly an internal one solely within its sovereign jurisdiction.

In both cases--Georgia and Chechnya--Russia has acted in a fashion that it views is consistent with its major interests. That's really no surprise. Russia also views others as trying to impose roadblocks to its ability to act in its interests. It tries to do the same, as well. However, the only real calculation that matters when devising foreign policy is that nations act in their interests and, if they possess greater power, they have more flexibility to do so. If the interests are important, one can expect a higher likelihood of response with or without UN sanction for that response.

The U.S. is more than strong enough to deal with Russia as it is. Nevertheless, it needs to maintain a tight focus on areas of common interest/mutual benefit in its dealings. Where differences exist, it can't view things through the prism of its own ideals or hopes, as Russia does not necessarily embrace those same hopes and ideals.

Smaller countries e.g., Georgia, need to be very careful when standing up to Russia. If the balance of power is against them, they need to avoid taking risks that would trigger a big Russian response. In terms of policy content, the former President of Georgia grossly discounted the power disparity in ignoring Russia's warning. Unfortunately, he has yet to write any memoirs, so it is difficult to understand his thought process. Did he think Russia was bluffing? Did he think a rapid military resolution would create a fait accompli resulting in Russian inaction? Did he think bilateral relations with the U.S., even in the absence of NATO membership, would deter Russia? Did he selectively view the issue through his ambitions in a fashion that led him to miss the big risks involved? Confirmation bias and overconfidence are a deadly combination.

True there are matters that should be cooperated on, but with Putin in power, I don't see that happening. Every inch we give Putin will take a mile in his favor. We simply may have to wait until he's out of power for anything to change. Millions of Russians are doing the same thing: waiting for the Dawn to break on Putin's Russia.

I share the hope for a more liberal and democratic Russia. Right now, I don't think that is very likely in the near-term. In many ways, today's Russia is less a reflection of President Putin than President Putin is a reflection of Russia's history and structural realities.
 
The funny thing about this talk about Putin...

Remember 2 months ago when someone used chemical weapons and Obama was all gonna kick some serious ass to punish them for crossing his red line? It was significant enough to mobilize the fleet, threaten to launch missiles, and now....


crickets...
 
I don't disagree. That's why the U.S. needs to deal with Russia in a strategic fashion and with attention to verification of commitments. An ad hoc approach or appeals to sentimentalities won't cut it when it comes to dealing with Russia.

But how do we do that with things where Putin's being a pain in the ass, purely to be pain in the ass? Russian power is declining and to me, it looks like Russia is trying to grab whatever power and influence it can. Unfortunately, that has resorted to them being obstacles to get what they want.

It should be noted that Russia had specifically warned Georgia not to use military force to settle the situation concerning its breakaway provinces, as Russia has long argued that it would act to protect its interests in its "Near Abroad." Even as it faced an enormous military disadvantage, Georgia's leadership recklessly ignored that warning. With regard to the warning, the following are excerpts from a report published by Russia's Interfax news agency on April 25, 2008:

If Georgia unleashes a military conflict in Abkhazia or South Ossetia, Russia will use force to defend its fellow countrymen living in these regions, Valeriy Kenyaykin, the Russian Foreign Ministry's special envoy for relations with the CIS countries, told a news conference at the RIA Novosti office today.

"We are doing everything to prevent a military conflict. But if it is unleashed, we will have to respond, including by military means," he said.

"No-one should have any illusions in this respect!" the diplomat stressed.


In diplomatic terms, warnings don't come any clearer than that.

Yeah, but Russia has been funding insurgents in that area for decades. Ultimately, Putin resorted to aggression without a UN security approval. He bashes us for wanting to eventually end the slaughter in Syria saying we can't do it without a UN security agreement, but he went ahead and did it himself in Georgia without a UN security approval. Putin doesn't care about global agreements. He'll do what he wants to do and then throw the rules at others saying they're not following them. The hypocrisy that Putin displays is amazingly large. I just don't get why most people can't see this obvious ugly fact.

The U.S. is more than strong enough to deal with Russia as it is.

Not with Obama at the helm and definitely not with Congress in the shape it's in now. Our Federal government leadership is a giant mess. And the US can't call upon its allies anymore. When Cameron gets defeated at home and Hollande is facing stiff resistance, what are we going to do?

I read World War Z a while ago and it's starting to resemble reality. Our foreign engagements have bled us dry in blood and treasure and now our populations have no stomach for anything.
This is hampering our combined capacity to do much of anything. We went to an extreme invading and nation building and now the pendulum has swung back and it's isolationism. I don't see how we're going to get out of this any time soon.

Nevertheless, it needs to maintain a tight focus on areas of common interest/mutual benefit in its dealings. Where differences exist, it can't view things through the prism of its own ideals or hopes, as Russia does not necessarily embrace those same hopes and ideals.

Perhaps, but Russia will always seek to screw with us.

Smaller countries e.g., Georgia, need to be very careful when standing up to Russia. If the balance of power is against them, they need to avoid taking risks that would trigger a big Russian response. In terms of policy content, the former President of Georgia grossly discounted the power disparity in ignoring Russia's warning. Unfortunately, he has yet to write any memoirs, so it is difficult to understand his thought process. Did he think Russia was bluffing? Did he think a rapid military resolution would create a fait accompli resulting in Russian inaction? Did he think bilateral relations with the U.S., even in the absence of NATO membership, would deter Russia? Did he selectively view the issue through his ambitions in a fashion that led him to miss the big risks involved? Confirmation bias and overconfidence are a deadly combination.

Georgia made an obvious tactical error and expected the West to back them up. However, that doesn't change the fact that it's a prime example of Russia completely tossing the rules it throws at others out the window.

I share the hope for a more liberal and democratic Russia. Right now, I don't think that is very likely in the near-term. In many ways, today's Russia is less a reflection of President Putin than President Putin is a reflection of Russia's history and structural realities.

Fair enough.
 
But how do we do that with things where Putin's being a pain in the ass, purely to be pain in the ass? Russian power is declining and to me, it looks like Russia is trying to grab whatever power and influence it can. Unfortunately, that has resorted to them being obstacles to get what they want.

Of course Russian power is declining. That's part of what's amplifying Russia's fears. Russia is desperate to demonstrate that it remains a global player. I do believe Senator Kerry is doing a good job vis-à-vis the Syria issue.

Putin will invoke whatever he can to advance Russia's interests. For him, the ends justify the means. On the surface, one can describe such actions as hypocritical. But the total pursuit of Russia's interests is what's driving Russian decision making.

Not with Obama at the helm and definitely not with Congress in the shape it's in now. Our Federal government leadership is a giant mess. And the US can't call upon its allies anymore. When Cameron gets defeated at home and Hollande is facing stiff resistance, what are we going to do?

Were U.S. and British interests in Syria larger than they really are, I still believe both leaders could have attained the support they needed. The reality is that the interests for both countries (France has somewhat larger interests, but those have eroded, too) are peripheral. Invoking military action for humanitarian ends, especially when the outcome is unclear and both parties to the conflict have demonstrated brutality in abundance, is a difficult sell. Had Syria posed a credible and imminent threat of using such weapons against Israel or Jordan, the outcome would have been far different.

In the longer-term, I agree that the U.S. has become quite dysfunctional in the foreign policy realm. Things need to improve or there will be a time when major U.S. interests could be compromised.

I read World War Z a while ago and it's starting to resemble reality. Our foreign engagements have bled us dry in blood and treasure and now our populations have no stomach for anything.
This is hampering our combined capacity to do much of anything. We went to an extreme invading and nation building and now the pendulum has swung back and it's isolationism. I don't see how we're going to get out of this any time soon.

I believe it's going to be a long and difficult process. Unless the nation's long-term imbalances are addressed so as to give it greater fiscal flexibility elsewhere, resources will continue to impose heavy constraints.
 
Of course Russian power is declining.

As usual, we don't disagree. I don't see the point in quoting things I entirely agree with.

Anyways, you read World War Z? It's quite scary how Western governments are starting to resemble the fictional depictions of Western governments in the book.
 
Back
Top Bottom