• 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!

US, Russia exchange threats at tense UN meeting

I honestly don't know what is in Putin's mind with regards to Barack Obama. But Putin is intelligent and if he is indeed seeing accurately, he sees a man whose instincts are being constrained by political opponents who are punching above their weight. Men like the Koch brothers who bankroll the Tea Party. Because their ideology is unappealing except to those who are either rich or susceptible to hate and fear mongering, they cannot compete politically on a national level. Rather they are confined to pockets of the country that tend to be sparsely populated. However because of the strong in influence of geographical state boundaries, and political boundaries that have been devised to give the party that draws them the advantage, they are able to exert more influence than their numbers would otherwise permit. Recently it is this group that was able to shut down the entire US government because the Speaker of the House of Representatives was a weak leader who did not have the courage to stand up to them. However, it was Barack Obama that had the strength and courage to stand up to the childish cabal lead by Rand Paul, and Tom Cruz.
Thee Koch Brothers? The Tea Party? Tom Cruz??? None of this makes any sense.
No it is correct. And your assertion is self refuting because to back your claim, you state that the President of the United States was pushing for NATO membership for Ukraine.
I said George Bush was pushing for Ukrainian entrance into NATO, as well as Georgia in fact. Are you seriously denying this??
 
You can pull a country towards a certain political direction without using military force. Neither the U.S. and E.U. nor Russia are really allowing the Ukrainian people to determine their own future. Both sides have spent the past two decades using every means at their disposal short of military intervention to manipulate political events inside the country to their side's advantage. Unfortunately, things have moved into a military phase and if neither side gives ground then it will only get worse from this point forward.
Certainly corruption was a factor, as well as the Ukrainian people wanting to be, quite naturally, be more aligned with the West. Why would any people want to be controlled by Russia?
 
Last edited:
I said years ago that Putin and Russia were going to attempt to reclaim the former USSR once they were in an economic position to do so. Now they are and now we have an idiot for a president that will let them.

I understand not wanting to put US troops on the ground, however we don't need to. We just need to arm the Ukraine, especially the rebels.

As it stands right now Putin holds all the cards and Obama has absolutely no hand whatsoever.

Hell, I say we go at it with Russia, however would China sit back and allow it? maybe - they might have to for their own security, especially economic security.

But yeah, this could get real nasty and Obama is the last person I want in charge when the **** hits the fan.
It would not be in China's best interests to turn on the United States, especially with the debt owed China and the loss of a huge market for their products. China has already made moves into Russia, and will likely continue to do so. But American certainly needs a leader, and quickly.
 
I honestly don't know what is in Putin's mind with regards to Barack Obama. But Putin is intelligent and if he is indeed seeing accurately, he sees a man whose instincts are being constrained by political opponents who are punching above their weight. Men like the Koch brothers who bankroll the Tea Party. Because their ideology is unappealing except to those who are either rich or susceptible to hate and fear mongering, they cannot compete politically on a national level. Rather they are confined to pockets of the country that tend to be sparsely populated. However because of the strong in influence of geographical state boundaries, and political boundaries that have been devised to give the party that draws them the advantage, they are able to exert more influence than their numbers would otherwise permit. Recently it is this group that was able to shut down the entire US government because the Speaker of the House of Representatives was a weak leader who did not have the courage to stand up to them. However, it was Barack Obama that had the strength and courage to stand up to the childish cabal lead by Rand Paul, and Tom Cruz.



No it is correct. And your assertion is self refuting because to back your claim, you state that the President of the United States was pushing for NATO membership for Ukraine.

That one was easy. lol



It was a strategic blunder by the United States for two reasons:

1. It forced Putin's hand and he had to move to keep Crimea from falling under the Western influence that was exerting itself in the government of Kiev. It thereby exposed the weakness of the West with regards to Crimea.
2. It set back relations between the US and Russia. Essentially the "new thinking" of Gorbachev has likely come to and end.

The Koch brothers?

Is that the progressive answer to everything???

You do realize the Koch brothers aren't even in the top 15 when it comes to political donations to any party despite their wealth?

Furthermore, how the hell would the Koch brothers have ANY influence over Obama whatsoever?

How about George Soros' geopolitical interests (who BTW donates way more than the Koch bros)?

You know Putin is threatening to drop like 110 billion in US bonds, which makes anyone that is mega-rich worried, regardless of political affiliation. However that is just the tip of the iceberg here - I wonder who has more invested in Russia wealthy conservatives or wealthy progressive socialists like Soros? who has more to lose beyond economic impact of the bonds?

My money is on the notion that a lot of wealthy progressives have a lot of money tied up in Russian investments, and pissing on Mother Russia and Putin would be like pissing on some of Obama's most lucrative campaign contributors.
 
It would not be in China's best interests to turn on the United States, especially with the debt owed China and the loss of a huge market for their products. China has already made moves into Russia, and will likely continue to do so. But American certainly needs a leader, and quickly.

Exactly......

That's why I highly doubt China would do anything - we only basically supply China's economy, with everything from jobs to steel. So I don't think China would get involved.

If I was Obama I would tell Putin to pull out of the Ukraine otherwise he will have another Afghanistan on his hands - just this time the United States will be eliminating his assets via carpet bombings.

Also, there is no way Russia could ever defend themselves against the US in aerial combat or naval combat, and Putin certainly wont launch nukes, if he threatened and was serious China would certainly get involved and would put Russia down themselves.

Besides, China and Russia were never buddies to begin with. The United States is certainly more of an asset to China than Russia ever will be.
 
US, Russia exchange threats at tense UN meeting - The Washington Post



Thus ends the "new thinking" of Gorbachev. In his speech to a joint session of parliament, Putin said that Ukraine was the line that the US should not have crossed.

If these people are not careful, this may go down in history as the beginning of WWIII

I think our approach to this event will set the stage for the rest of the 21st century in regards to geopolitics. So far, the response has been a complete failure, but It is to early to tell. Sanctions will do one of two things. They will either embolden and enrage Russia and Russian's similar to the stiff sanctions on Germany after WW1, or they will bring Russia to the bargaining table. A measured response is important, one in which non compliance results in stiffer sanctions, but we must also keep our eyes on their reaction to the sanctions and not make the same mistakes as we did with Germany after WW1. Sanctions must be stiff and temporary instead of long lasting and crippling to the people. Sanctions should only ever be used to weaken an apponent prior to military action. At some point, a military response is the only responsible thing to do in order to keep the citizens of the sanctioned country from suffering the plight of their government.
 
Certainly corruption was a factor, as well as the Ukrainian people wanting to be, quite naturally, be more aligned with the West. Why would any people want to be controlled by Russia?

No one want's to be part of the "USSR reboot" - even if they adhere to the socialist model presently. They've been there and done that.

All Russia/Putin wants is resources despite what Putin says or his excuses. Putin is no better than a Viking marauder....
 
Thee Koch Brothers? The Tea Party? Tom Cruz??? None of this makes any sense.

It's ok. Don't be confused. I'll walk you through it.

You said

He quite accurately sees Barrack Obama as weak and way out of his depth

I responded that

I honestly don't know what is in Putin's mind with regards to Barack Obama. But Putin is intelligent and if he is indeed seeing accurately, he sees a man whose instincts are being constrained by political opponents who are punching above their weight.

So you said he sees Obama as weak. I said that if he's seeing accurately he sees a man whose instincts are being constrained by his political opponents. So you put forward what you think Putin sees when he views Obama. Then I put forward what I think Putin sees when he views Obama. Do you follow so far?

Then I gave an example of how Obama's political opponents try to constrain him. One of Obama's political opponents is the Koch brothers. Here's my example:

Men like the Koch brothers who bankroll the Tea Party. Because their ideology is unappealing except to those who are either rich or susceptible to hate and fear mongering, they cannot compete politically on a national level. Rather they are confined to pockets of the country that tend to be sparsely populated. However because of the strong in influence of geographical state boundaries, and political boundaries that have been devised to give the party that draws them the advantage, they are able to exert more influence than their numbers would otherwise permit. Recently it is this group that was able to shut down the entire US government because the Speaker of the House of Representatives was a weak leader who did not have the courage to stand up to them. However, it was Barack Obama that had the strength and courage to stand up to the childish cabal lead by Rand Paul, and Tom Cruz.

Is it clear to you now or does it have to be broken down further so that you understand?

I said George Bush was pushing for Ukrainian entrance into NATO, as well as Georgia in fact. Are you seriously denying this??

Ok. Let's go over that again step by step.

I said

He sees that the US, through NATO, is trying to push it's way right up to Russia's borders through it's recent activity in Ukraine.

But you said that was incorrect

That is incorrect. When George Bush was President he pushed for Ukarianes membership in NATO

You said it is incorrect, but at the same time you say that George Bush, the President of the United States pushed for NATO membership for Ukraine. Therefore you refuted yourself. Get it?
 
So you're using opinion pieces as fact?

I thought some people believe anything they see on Fox. But here's something

Top U.S. official visits protesters in Kiev as Obama admin. ups pressure on Ukraine president Yanukovich - CBS News

U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland visited Independence Square in the Ukrainian capital Kiev on Wednesday, the U.S. embassy said, and an opposition leader said she talked to protesters.

A spokesman for the embassy said she had visited Maidan, where several thousand of protesters were calling for the resignation of President Viktor Yanukovich.

Here she is passing out cookies to protesters

nuland-cookies_240x170.jpg


Here's John McCain with the protesters

mccain.jpg


Then right after passing out cookies to the protesters, Nuland goes to meet the head of state, Yanukovych

So like I said in the first point, the US fomented protest against Yanukovych
 
The Koch brothers?

Is that the progressive answer to everything???

You do realize the Koch brothers aren't even in the top 15 when it comes to political donations to any party despite their wealth?

Furthermore, how the hell would the Koch brothers have ANY influence over Obama whatsoever?

The point was that Obama's political opponents seek to constrain his instincts. The example of the Koch brothers is a good one. They are opponents of Obama. They help bankroll the Tea Party. Rand Paul and Tom Cruz are supported by the Tea Party. Both men lead the effort to shut down the government to try to constrain Obama.

It's very easy to understand.
 
Passing out cookies != fomenting protest

I'm seriously not sure why you continue to push this conspiracy theory as a fact in an otherwise serious discussion, it's just weird.
 
Passing out cookies != fomenting protest

I'm seriously not sure why you continue to push this conspiracy theory as a fact in an otherwise serious discussion, it's just weird.

It is unprecedented for an Assistant Secretary of State to pass out cookies to people protesting against a head of state right before going to meet the head of state. What arrogance. What an insult. Why? Because the head of state refuses to sign a deal with the EU. A deal which BTW, will cause so much suffering to the people of the Ukraine, just like what happened in Greece.

Was is remarkable and weird, is that despite the fact that you cannot produce one single instance of someone at the level of Assistant Secretary of State doing so before, you want to insist that the US did not foment protest in the Ukraine. It is simply amazing that you want to engage such an intellectual insult. Amazing!
 
So you said he sees Obama as weak. I said that if he's seeing accurately he sees a man whose instincts are being constrained by his political opponents. So you put forward what you think Putin sees when he views Obama. Then I put forward what I think Putin sees when he views Obama. Do you follow so far?

So Barrack Obama can't act as freely as he would like because of the Tea Party and the Koch brothers. I see your point of view here. Barrack Obama himself is a strong leader but it is other people who are making him weak.

Then I gave an example of how Obama's political opponents try to constrain him. One of Obama's political opponents is the Koch brothers. Here's my example:



Is it clear to you now or does it have to be broken down further so that you understand?



Ok. Let's go over that again step by step.

I said
He sees that the US, through NATO, is trying to push it's way right up to Russia's borders through it's recent activity in Ukraine. But you said that was incorrect
And it is incorrect.
You said it is incorrect, but at the same time you say that George Bush, the President of the United States pushed for NATO membership for Ukraine. Therefore you refuted yourself. Get it?

This is what I said. George Bush, who is no longer President of the United States, wanted the Ukraine and Georgia in NATO but this idea was rejected by the Democrats. Western Europeans and, mostly, the Russians. But George Bush is no longer President and Barrack Obama has shown no interest in the Ukraine joining NATO, even the that's what the majority of the Ukrainian people want. Your claim that "He sees that the US, through NATO, is trying to push it's way right up to Russia's borders through it's recent activity in Ukraine". That is totally and completely false, unless you are arguing that George Bush is still trying to personally get the Ukraine into the NATO. Is that it? I r.epeat. The US is not interested in the Ukraine joining NATO. It was a non-starter and I explained why.

If you are looking for excuses as to why Russia should invade the Ukraine you'll have to find another. Confusing America's interests with those of George Bush is not helpful to your cause.
 
It is unprecedented for an Assistant Secretary of State to pass out cookies to people protesting against a head of state right before going to meet the head of state. What arrogance. What an insult. Why? Because the head of state refuses to sign a deal with the EU. A deal which BTW, will cause so much suffering to the people of the Ukraine, just like what happened in Greece.

Was is remarkable and weird, is that despite the fact that you cannot produce one single instance of someone at the level of Assistant Secretary of State doing so before, you want to insist that the US did not foment protest in the Ukraine. It is simply amazing that you want to engage such an intellectual insult. Amazing!

Are you seriously making the claim that the US Assistant Secretary of State bribed the Ukrainian people with cookies? Or their government?
 
The point was that Obama's political opponents seek to constrain his instincts. The example of the Koch brothers is a good one. They are opponents of Obama. They help bankroll the Tea Party. Rand Paul and Tom Cruz are supported by the Tea Party. Both men lead the effort to shut down the government to try to constrain Obama.

It's very easy to understand.

What do you believe Obama's true instincts are?
 
I agree with this with the small quibble that I think that the sanctions have had an effect. It's more like a shot across the bow.

I can't see where they have as it's only been days.

They will, likely have an effect over the long term. A return to the cold war dynamic will mean that Russians will have difficulty doing business abroad, individuals will find it hard to travel, companies will find it hard to get credit.

When Europe shuts off Russian oil, then we'll see some real impact. I shudder to think what....Putin has this planned out well in advance.
 
It is unprecedented for an Assistant Secretary of State to pass out cookies to people protesting against a head of state right before going to meet the head of state. What arrogance. What an insult. Why? Because the head of state refuses to sign a deal with the EU. A deal which BTW, will cause so much suffering to the people of the Ukraine, just like what happened in Greece.

Okay?

Was is remarkable and weird, is that despite the fact that you cannot produce one single instance of someone at the level of Assistant Secretary of State doing so before, you want to insist that the US did not foment protest in the Ukraine. It is simply amazing that you want to engage such an intellectual insult. Amazing!

I asked you if the RSO handing out water was good enough. You never answered. That you think that proves something is silly.
 
So Barrack Obama can't act as freely as he would like because of the Tea Party and the Koch brothers. I see your point of view here. Barrack Obama himself is a strong leader but it is other people who are making him weak.

LOL

No that's not my point. My point is that, contrary to your assertion that Putin sees Obama as weak, if he is viewing Obama accurately, he sees him as someone who is having to operate in an environment in which his political opponents are making significant attempts to constrain him. The efforts of Rand Paul, et al, in the recent government shutdown is an example. However, contrary to your assertion that Obama is a weak leader, unlike the Speaker of the House, Obama successfully stood up to them. A weak leader, like John Boehner, would not be able to do so.

This is what I said. George Bush, who is no longer President of the United States, wanted the Ukraine and Georgia in NATO but this idea was rejected by the Democrats. Western Europeans and, mostly, the Russians. But George Bush is no longer President and Barrack Obama has shown no interest in the Ukraine joining NATO, even the that's what the majority of the Ukrainian people want. Your claim that "He sees that the US, through NATO, is trying to push it's way right up to Russia's borders through it's recent activity in Ukraine". That is totally and completely false, unless you are arguing that George Bush is still trying to personally get the Ukraine into the NATO. Is that it? I r.epeat. The US is not interested in the Ukraine joining NATO. It was a non-starter and I explained why.

If you are looking for excuses as to why Russia should invade the Ukraine you'll have to find another. Confusing America's interests with those of George Bush is not helpful to your cause.

Although you have correctly pointed out that the current President of the United States has not called for NATO membership for Ukraine, you have ignored the historical context of the expansion of NATO since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Significantly, you have ignored the fact that Gorbachev was assured that there would be no NATO expansion. At the end of the cold war the Soviet Union had 380,000 troops in East Germany and still held legal rights of occupation emanating from the unconditional German surrender in 1945. In return for removing his troops from East Germany and renouncing LEGAL Soviet claims to East Germany, Gorbachev was promised that there would be no NATO expansion. In spite of this NATO did expand to former Warsaw pact members and even some former Soviet republics. Not only that, but you have ignored the fact that although Obama is currently president, influential members of the foreign policy establishment in Washington have supported NATO expansion in the past, and continue to do so at the present. For these reasons, Putin has every reason to look at current US activities in the Ukraine and interpret them as possibly resulting in NATO membership for Ukraine.
 
The point was that Obama's political opponents seek to constrain his instincts. The example of the Koch brothers is a good one. They are opponents of Obama. They help bankroll the Tea Party. Rand Paul and Tom Cruz are supported by the Tea Party. Both men lead the effort to shut down the government to try to constrain Obama.

It's very easy to understand.

Oh look out for "Tom Cruz", he may jump on your couch and crash your religion.

No I think you miss the point - The Koch brothers have no sway in Obama's dealings...

Seriously what are you going to say next? the Koch brothers bought Obama off?

If we're going to sit here and do this than maybe the Koch brothers are behind every Obama move????
 
I can't see where they have as it's only been days.

They will, likely have an effect over the long term. A return to the cold war dynamic will mean that Russians will have difficulty doing business abroad, individuals will find it hard to travel, companies will find it hard to get credit.

When Europe shuts off Russian oil, then we'll see some real impact. I shudder to think what....Putin has this planned out well in advance.

Well Russian stocks were down and at the very least it's going to be harder for Bank Rossiya to borrow money as US banks can't lend to them. Also definitely Visa and Mastercard have stopped providing services for clients of Bank Rossiya. That must be awkward.

If shipments of Russian energy are stopped for Europe, it will definitely hurt Russia, no doubt. But it will also hurt not only Europe, but the global economy as well. Recall that Europe is in bad shape economically now. Germany is basically keeping Europe afloat. However, Germany depends on Russia for 36 percent of their natural gas. If that stops, German exports will become too expensive and the German economy will come down bringing Europe and the rest of the world with it.
 
I asked you if the RSO handing out water was good enough. You never answered.

The RSO is not on the level of the Assistant Secretary of State, so no, it's not the same. It's not as significant.
 
Oh look out for "Tom Cruz", he may jump on your couch and crash your religion.

No I think you miss the point - The Koch brothers have no sway in Obama's dealings...

Seriously what are you going to say next? the Koch brothers bought Obama off?

If we're going to sit here and do this than maybe the Koch brothers are behind every Obama move????

What I said was clear. The Koch brothers are helping to bankroll the Tea Party. Rand Paul is backed by the Tea Party, Rand Paul led the effort to shut down the government to attempt to thwart the ACA. It's simple to understand.
 
Eating, sleeping, fighting and sex, like everyone else.

I thought Jesus didn't need any of that **** - at least according to atheist progressives.

Really tho? if he is as "normal" as you claim then what sets anyone apart from being president? the food they eat, who they fight, who they screw?

If that is the case then Obama is up there with some quality nutjobs.
 
Back
Top Bottom