• 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!

New Russian Boldness Revives a Cold War Tradition: Testing the Other Side

Jango said:
Russia is trying to regain lost power, and while they may succeed in doing so, they will inevitably return to losing that power again. They are not able to surpass the U.S.
Click to expand...

Not in any more probable middel term scenario, anyway. There are certain risks, however. Europe could fall over or the USA could be drawn into a costly conflict with some rising power or an other.
 
joG said:
Not in any more probable middel term scenario, anyway. There are certain risks, however. Europe could fall over or the USA could be drawn into a costly conflict with some rising power or an other.
Click to expand...

It would have to be of such a magnitude that it would blow away all of our previous conflicts to disable the potency of the U.S. military. I must say, it really must not be misunderstood the overwhelming power of it. Sure, there will be shifts of power, but it would take a conglomeration of powerful countries to compete against the lethality of America's armed forces. Some may think that is hyperbole, but research into the subject proves otherwise. One of the main reasons why the U.S. military is successful, and this is often enough overlooked, is because of the American people themselves who support the military during War. Look at the American civilian contributions to the U.S. War effort during World War II. That effort would be matched if countries were trying to overthrow us, as in, either embargo us or invade us or were just on a global conquest. It will inevitably lead to that given current realities. By that time I'll be middle aged and a minority.
 
Kobie said:
Arctic =/= Antarctic
Click to expand...
I did notice the mistake later. Too late to edit it though.

In the interests of accuracy: Russia claims 460,000 square miles of Arctic territory
 
Simpleχity;1063932149 said:
I did notice the mistake later. Too late to edit it though.

In the interests of accuracy: Russia claims 460,000 square miles of Arctic territory
Click to expand...

Great!

Why does it not takes the whole arctic while at it! Ask the Arcticians to vote under the gun and annex the whole thing like Ukrainian Crimea!
 
After what has happened in Ukraine and Georgia, and considering the supreme hypocrisy of the US government, it makes perfect sense that Russia would respond in such a manner.

To a neutral observer, the provocative actions of the US government over the last 10 years or so are blatant.
 
Henry David said:
To a neutral observer, the provocative actions of the US government over the last 10 years or so are blatant.
Click to expand...
Nothing as blatant as annexing part of another state.
 
Henry David said:
After what has happened in Ukraine and Georgia, and considering the supreme hypocrisy of the US government, it makes perfect sense that Russia would respond in such a manner.

To a neutral observer, the provocative actions of the US government over the last 10 years or so are blatant.
Click to expand...

An invasion and occupation is one thing, but annexing the land itself is an entirely different can of worms.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1063932389 said:
Why? You don't think she could be "flexible" with the Russians too?
Click to expand...

She could probably kill millions of Russians with her droning speech style.
 
Simpleχity;1063932668 said:
Nothing as blatant as annexing part of another state.
Click to expand...

Do you mean like our annexing Texas?
 
Jango said:
An invasion and occupation is one thing, but annexing the land itself is an entirely different can of worms.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't that depend upon a number of factors?
 
Simpleχity;1063935757 said:
One wrong never excuses another.
Click to expand...

True, dat.

But an understanding of history and human behavior is most helpful in understanding current events.

Just noticed your signature regarding Crimea. Didn't Crimea vote on that issue of re-entering the Russian political scene a few years back?
 
Henry David said:
True, dat.

But an understanding of history and human behavior is most helpful in understanding current events.
Click to expand...
I agree. With the onset of global organizations such as the League of Nations and the United Nations, modernity has embraced and operated under the Westphalian concept of sovereignty.

Henry David said:
Just noticed your signature regarding Crimea. Didn't Crimea vote on that issue of re-entering the Russian political scene a few years back?
Click to expand...
There was a referendum in Crimea in March of 2014 while under Russian occupation. However, the constitutions of both Ukraine and Crimea stipulated that the legal status of Crimea can only be altered with the approval of Ukraine. The UN and the international community do not recognize the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation as a legitimate transfer.
 
Simpleχity;1063935858 said:
I agree. With the onset of global organizations such as the League of Nations and the United Nations, modernity has embraced and operated under the Westphalian concept of sovereignty.


There was a referendum in Crimea in March of 2014 while under Russian occupation. However, the constitutions of both Ukraine and Crimea stipulated that the legal status of Crimea can only be altered with the approval of Ukraine. The UN and the international community do not recognize the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation as a legitimate transfer.
Click to expand...

And I assume the referendum passed? I wonder what Victoria Nuland thinks of all that?
 
Henry David said:
And I assume the referendum passed? I wonder what Victoria Nuland thinks of all that?
Click to expand...
The referendum did pass. Crimea is ~80% ethnic Russian. However, it was unconstitutional and conducted under occupation. In addition, the referendum's two choices guaranteed the same outcome, the only difference was in timescale.

Globally, it set a bad precedent which contravenes the accepted modern concepts of sovereignty. Today, the rebels in eastern Ukraine are conducting an election which also violates the Ukrainian constitution and its laws, not to mention negotiated accords recently signed in Minsk by Ukraine, the rebels, and Russia. No surprise.... Russia is the only country that has said it will recognize the results.
 
Russia and Putin are going broke as we speak. They can't survive economically with oil prices this low. This is the reason for all the posturing. Putin 's back is against the wall.
 
Simpleχity;1063935924 said:
The referendum did pass. Crimea is ~80% ethnic Russian. However, it was unconstitutional and conducted under occupation. In addition, the referendum's two choices guaranteed the same outcome, the only difference was in timescale.

Globally, it set a bad precedent which contravenes the accepted modern concepts of sovereignty. Today, the rebels in eastern Ukraine are conducting an election which also violates the Ukrainian constitution and its laws, not to mention negotiated accords recently signed in Minsk by Ukraine, the rebels, and Russia. No surprise.... Russia is the only country that has said it will recognize the results.
Click to expand...

Bad precedent?

It seems many modern governments set bad precedents all the time, eh?

I think it's a bad precedent to nullify the Fourth Amendment or Habeas Corpus by illegitimate legislative actions, but that's just me.

Thank you for being honest. I am sympathetic to the Russian actions in Crimea and Ukraine, as both are their backyards. Further, agreements made during the Reagan years by the US and NATO regarding encroachment and the placement of missiles have been violated willfully. We do NOT have the high moral ground in that controversy.
 
Jango said:
I don't know what you mean. What factors?
Click to expand...

Factors such as historical perspective and the proximity of the land in question to the country doing the annexing. Factors such as the ethnic makeup of the populace involved.
 
Henry David said:
It seems many modern governments set bad precedents all the time, eh?
Click to expand...
Some do, but not all.

Henry David said:
Thank you for being honest.
Click to expand...
A reputation for fairness and honesty is a highly valued commodity in a venue such as this.

Henry David said:
I am sympathetic to the Russian actions in Crimea and Ukraine, as both are their backyards.
Click to expand...
All countries have backyards, but I've never seen any border markers that welcomed invasion.

Henry David said:
Further, agreements made during the Reagan years by the US and NATO regarding encroachment and the placement of missiles have been violated willfully.
Click to expand...
Ukraine was not a party to any of the above. As a matter of fact, Ukraine relinquished her nuclear arsenal when the USSR dissolved in exchange for neutrality and honoring her sovereignty. The Budapest Memorandum was signed by Ukraine, the United States, Great Britain, and Russia.

Henry David said:
We do NOT have the high moral ground in that controversy.
Click to expand...
Once again, Ukraine had no part in Reagan's machinations.
 
With a weak sister of a President like this one in office, it would be surprising if our adversaries did not test this country's resolve. As soon as a boxer sees his opponent has no punch or seems to hesitate, he is going to feel he has less to fear, and start to come forward swinging.
 
matchlight said:
With a weak sister of a President like this one in office, it would be surprising if our adversaries did not test this country's resolve. As soon as a boxer sees his opponent has no punch or seems to hesitate, he is going to feel he has less to fear, and start to come forward swinging.
Click to expand...

Why do think he's weak? What do expect him to do short of going to war with Russia over a country that is not only divided in its loyalties but not of strategic importance to us.

Did you think Bush was strong leader when it came to Russia? Bush didn't do squat when Georgia was invaded by Russia. At least Obama is hurting Russia in its wallet by the sanctions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom