• 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!

U.S. - Russia, who wins?

Will the Ukraine lead to further Regional Conflicts?


  • Total voters
    47
what can we do?

I'm sure that's Obama's sentiments exactly. Helplessness. Weakness. He's a weak and helpless leader.

If he doesn't know what to do, he should step down and let someone with some balls and a brain upstairs run the show.

What we should do is take a strong stand. We should send troops to Kiev to send a message. We should train and arm the Ukrainian military.
 
I'm sure that's Obama's sentiments exactly. Helplessness. Weakness. He's a weak and helpless leader.

If he doesn't know what to do, he should step down and let someone with some balls and a brain upstairs run the show.

What we should do is take a strong stand. We should send troops to Kiev to send a message. We should train and arm the Ukrainian military.

what? and run the risk of provoking this?

Operation_Upshot-Knothole_-_Badger_001.jpg
 
and we don't want to have a war.

We know our limits.

So just let Russia walk all over us? The Kremlin is making a land/power grab and Obama is sitting around like a flaccid wet noodle. What an absolute sissy.

Nobody said anything about us going to war, but we need to assist the Ukrainians.
 
How has the US been damaged other than in the mind of some Americans that think everything in the world that happens is a slap in the face to America?

At the end of WW2, there was a sort of stalemate between the Russians and the Americans over what to do with a then-tattered Europe. A tentative balance held during the Cold War, where eastern bloc countries like Poland, East Germany, and Soviet States like Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and so forth fell under the sphere of Russian influence. Western European states (the NATO states) fell under the American sphere.

At the end of the Cold War, the balance shifted decidedly westward. Poland and Germany shifted from East to West. The European Union formed.

Where the Russians seem to have drawn the line is with the old Soviet states. Under the Bush administration, they invaded Georgia. As Ukraine seemed to be moving westward, the Russians, predictably, reacted with force.

If we simply allow Russia to take Ukraine, we see the balance of power in Europe shift away from the United States and toward Russia for the first time since the end of the Cold War.

Unsurprisingly, it's happening under the leadership of Barak Obama.
 
At the end of WW2, there was a sort of stalemate between the Russians and the Americans over what to do with a then-tattered Europe. A tentative balance held during the Cold War, where eastern bloc countries like Poland, East Germany, and Soviet States like Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and so forth fell under the sphere of Russian influence. Western European states (the NATO states) fell under the American sphere.

At the end of the Cold War, the balance shifted decidedly westward. Poland and Germany shifted from East to West. The European Union formed.

Where the Russians seem to have drawn the line is with the old Soviet states. Under the Bush administration, they invaded Georgia. As Ukraine seemed to be moving westward, the Russians, predictably, reacted with force.

If we simply allow Russia to take Ukraine, we see the balance of power in Europe shift away from the United States and toward Russia for the first time since the end of the Cold War.

Unsurprisingly, it's happening under the leadership of Barak Obama.

strange how russia is alone on this issue.

BBC News - Ukraine crisis: Russia isolated in UN Crimea vote

Russia has vetoed a draft UN resolution criticising Sunday's secession referendum in Ukraine's Crimea region - the only Security Council member to vote against the measure.

China, regarded as a Russian ally on the issue, abstained from the vote.

Western powers criticised Russia's veto over the referendum, which will ask Crimeans if they want to rejoin Russia.

funny how china abstained from voting with russia against the resolution.
 
strange how russia is alone on this issue.

BBC News - Ukraine crisis: Russia isolated in UN Crimea vote



funny how china abstained from voting with russia against the resolution.


The entire history of Russia is that of a country isolated from the rest of the world. "Isolating" Russia will have no effect at all.

Furthermore, the only action thus far taken has been to freeze the assets of some top Crimean and some mid-level Russian officials. That's like slapping the with a wet noodle.

Russians respond to power and force. Obama is the wrong man for the job as he is neither powerful nor forceful.
 
At the end of WW2, there was a sort of stalemate between the Russians and the Americans over what to do with a then-tattered Europe. A tentative balance held during the Cold War, where eastern bloc countries like Poland, East Germany, and Soviet States like Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and so forth fell under the sphere of Russian influence. Western European states (the NATO states) fell under the American sphere.

At the end of the Cold War, the balance shifted decidedly westward. Poland and Germany shifted from East to West. The European Union formed.

Where the Russians seem to have drawn the line is with the old Soviet states. Under the Bush administration, they invaded Georgia. As Ukraine seemed to be moving westward, the Russians, predictably, reacted with force.

If we simply allow Russia to take Ukraine, we see the balance of power in Europe shift away from the United States and toward Russia for the first time since the end of the Cold War.

Unsurprisingly, it's happening under the leadership of Barak Obama.

That balance of power will not of shifted in Europe....

Are you saying the Georgia and the Crimea has supposedly resulted in a major reshuffling of power in Europe? The Ukraine is different than the Crimea. I agree with you that if Russia tries to forcibly annex the Ukraine that NATO needs to react strongly. With force if necessary. Crimea joining Russia if anything just weakens them. It's the poorest part of the Ukraine and adds nothing valuable. They already had their fleets stationed there. As of now it's a drain on the rest of Ukraine economically and will be to the Kremlin.

Hell, some people are saying that Crimea is going to cost Russia like 20-30 billion in the next couple of years to annex and from here on out they will be net "takers" as you conservatives say.
 
The entire history of Russia is that of a country isolated from the rest of the world. "Isolating" Russia will have no effect at all.

Furthermore, the only action thus far taken has been to freeze the assets of some top Crimean and some mid-level Russian officials. That's like slapping the with a wet noodle.

Russians respond to power and force. Obama is the wrong man for the job as he is neither powerful nor forceful.

russia responds to power and force because it only can deal with threats with power and force.

BBC News - Has Russia anything to fear from US sanctions tool kit?

The White House has said the US will "impose a cost" on Russia for its actions in Ukraine, but how much pain can the US inflict through diplomatic, political and economic means?

Several analysts weighed in on the options available to the US, from those the country has already taken to those that would take months or years to enact. Mark Katz, professor of government and politics at Virginia's George Mason University, then rated these options based on how devastating they might be to Russia and its President, Vladimir Putin.

Freezing assets

President Barack Obama has already signed an executive order to freeze the US-held assets of those responsible for undermining democracy in Ukraine. A black list is still being compiled, but it's likely to include Russia's wealthiest.

Pain Index (out of 10):9 "Asset freezes on the Russian elite's holdings in the West would be very painful," says Katz, who notes that Mr Putin is already calling on those with assets in the US to move them before the freeze can be put into effect.

Restricting travel

The state department is cancelling or rejecting visas of Russian officials who it says have contributed to Ukraine's instability. But consider it a warning shot, says Stephen Larrabee, distinguished chair in European Securities at the Rand Corporation.

"It is to show some sort of determination" on the part of the US, he says. "It could hurt the people that are sanctioned, but that's only a very few people." Still it has the power to cause disproportionate pain, especially if Europe joins in.

Pain Index: 8 "Moscow is especially sensitive to visa bans affecting the elite, though not so sensitive that it would change policy on Crimea," says Katz.

Isolating Russia via the G8

Secretary of State John Kerry has suggested kicking Russia out of the G8, the powerful group of nations and one of the most exclusive clubs in the world.

While outright expulsion isn't yet on the table, the US and the other nations have already pulled out of preparations for an upcoming G8 summit due to be held in Sochi, Russia, in June, and could boycott the event. But Russia may be willing to sacrifice the G8 in the name of a larger prize.

"It's something that matters, but at the end of the day it's a cost they are willing to live with if they can get what they want in Crimea," says Jeff Mankoff, deputy director and fellow with the Center for Strategic and International Studies Russia and Eurasia programme.

Pain Index: 1 for skipping the G8 talks, but 5 for kicking out Russia entirely. "This move would suggest that Russia under Putin is not a civilised state," says Katz.

Ending military exercises

The US already announced the cancellation of a joint military exercise between Russia, the US and Norway, but experts say it's another example of how limited America's options are.

"We're using most of our cards right now. We suspended military ties for the time being," says Larabee. "But there isn't a lot that we can easily do that would really hurt Russia."

Pain Index: 2 A powerful snub, but "the Russian military may not be eager for these anyway," says Katz.

Enabling a Russian gas boycott

Exporting natural gas to Europe is big money for Russia - a fifth of its total earnings, some $100bn (£60bn) a year, says Anders Aslund, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute. If Europe stopped buying, it could introduce massive instability to the already weakening Russian economy.

It would be painful for Europe to wean itself off that gas. One way to soften that blow is for the US to provide some of the shale gas it now has in abundance.

At present the US offers a limited number of permits to export natural gas. So far, the White House says they have no plans to change the current energy policy - and putting the plan in place would take time and sacrifice for all parties involved. "It's not something you could just switch overnight," says Aslund.

Pain Index: 10 "If Western countries greatly curtailed oil and gas purchases from Russia, this would have a sharp negative effect on the economy of Russia," says Katz. But he adds that it would also have negative effects on the West.
 
That balance of power will not of shifted in Europe....

Are you saying the Georgia and the Crimea has supposedly resulted in a major reshuffling of power in Europe? The Ukraine is different than the Crimea. I agree with you that if Russia tries to forcibly annex the Ukraine that NATO needs to react strongly. With force if necessary. Crimea joining Russia if anything just weakens them. It's the poorest part of the Ukraine and adds nothing valuable. They already had their fleets stationed there. As of now it's a drain on the rest of Ukraine economically and will be to the Kremlin.

Hell, some people are saying that Crimea is going to cost Russia like 20-30 billion in the next couple of years to annex and from here on out they will be net "takers" as you conservatives say.

Correct, but we have two issues we need to address. First, we have a signed treaty with Ukraine: they gave up their nuclear weapons in return for protection against a Russian invasion of their territory. That's a signed legal agreement. What just happened? Russia either has invaded or imminently will invade/annex at least a part of Ukraine's legal territory (Crimea).

Our legal obligation is clear. We made a promise, so what are we going to do about it?

The second issue that concerns me is if we do nothing, what reason do we have to believe that the Russians will stop with Crimea? If I were Putin, I would be feeling pretty bold right about now. He can get away with anything he wants. He's throwing punches and the west is covering up yelling "please don't hit me any more." He has won this fight.

You say he won't take the rest of Ukraine, but what facts support that? I'd say it's a 50/50 proposition at best, and the only thing holding him back would be the resistance from the Ukrainian military.
 
Ehhh...the whole "not having a foreign policy" is just baloney. The fact is that for decades foreign policy by US Presidents was primarily how they reacted to the Soviet Union. Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union foreign policy isn't some unified approach to all things. Also...I much prefer Obama's foreign policy to a would be McCain's presidency.

Based on his opposition to everything Obama we would of taken a "lead" on Libya. We would be supplying Syrian rebels with arms. We would of bombed Iran. I guess now we'd be at war with Russia? Yeah..I'll take "no foreign policy" over that.

McCain? Who cares what McCain thinks?

As to no foreign policy, I guess you get what you wish for, because that is what you have.
 
Correct, but we have two issues we need to address. First, we have a signed treaty with Ukraine: they gave up their nuclear weapons in return for protection against a Russian invasion of their territory. That's a signed legal agreement. What just happened? Russia either has invaded or imminently will invade/annex at least a part of Ukraine's legal territory (Crimea).

True...I partially agree with you here...but how far do you think anybody should go over the Crimea?

The second issue that concerns me is if we do nothing, what reason do we have to believe that the Russians will stop with Crimea? If I were Putin, I would be feeling pretty bold right about now. He can get away with anything he wants. He's throwing punches and the west is covering up yelling "please don't hit me any more." He has won this fight.

That's if he believes the response will be the same regarding a full annexation of the Ukraine. If anything he can go back to his people and talk about giving the West a black eye. How America backed down and he got the Crimea. Do you think Putin wants to press over the Ukraine and the response over an invasion of it? I doubt it. The US and the EU won't have the same type of response and he knows that.

You say he won't take the rest of Ukraine, but what facts support that? I'd say it's a 50/50 proposition at best, and the only thing holding him back would be the resistance from the Ukrainian military.

I think he understands the response won't be the same.
 
McCain? Who cares what McCain thinks?

Ehhhh...if Obama wasn't President it would of been McCain. I think that's a pretty big reason to care about his view on foreign policy.

As to no foreign policy, I guess you get what you wish for, because that is what you have.
Yeah...I want a president that responds to specific circumstances based upon the interest of the US. Not some broad sweeping policy that the invasion of Georgia is met with the same response as say a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.
 
True...I partially agree with you here...but how far do you think anybody should go over the Crimea?

We should honor our commitment and help the Ukrainians re-establish their legal territory. That doesn't mean the USA going to war, but it does mean training, arming, and aiding the Ukrainians.



That's if he believes the response will be the same regarding a full annexation of the Ukraine. If anything he can go back to his people and talk about giving the West a black eye. How America backed down and he got the Crimea. Do you think Putin wants to press over the Ukraine and the response over an invasion of it? I doubt it. The US and the EU won't have the same type of response and he knows that.



I think he understands the response won't be the same.[/QUOTE]
 
You actually think a "winner" will emerge from nukes the world over?
 
I think Putin has done the right thing. I think McCain should be institutionalized for his comments. Everybody knows that Russia encompasses 10 or 11 time zones, or do they. ?
"Gas Station," what a maroon.
I have to admit I trust Putin over Obama any day of the week.
 

Except they stand to lose one of their biggest markets if the US loses too badly.

At the end of WW2, there was a sort of stalemate between the Russians and the Americans over what to do with a then-tattered Europe. A tentative balance held during the Cold War, where eastern bloc countries like Poland, East Germany, and Soviet States like Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and so forth fell under the sphere of Russian influence. Western European states (the NATO states) fell under the American sphere.

At the end of the Cold War, the balance shifted decidedly westward. Poland and Germany shifted from East to West. The European Union formed.

Where the Russians seem to have drawn the line is with the old Soviet states. Under the Bush administration, they invaded Georgia. As Ukraine seemed to be moving westward, the Russians, predictably, reacted with force.

If we simply allow Russia to take Ukraine, we see the balance of power in Europe shift away from the United States and toward Russia for the first time since the end of the Cold War.

Unsurprisingly, it's happening under the leadership of Barak Obama.

and GWB.
 
Ehhhh...if Obama wasn't President it would of been McCain. I think that's a pretty big reason to care about his view on foreign policy.


Yeah...I want a president that responds to specific circumstances based upon the interest of the US. Not some broad sweeping policy that the invasion of Georgia is met with the same response as say a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.

Well, since McCain didn't win, I can see why one would spend time thinking about his foreign policy. :doh
 
We should honor our commitment and help the Ukrainians re-establish their legal territory. That doesn't mean the USA going to war, but it does mean training, arming, and aiding the Ukrainians.
That may lead to war. If the US is arming/training/aiding the Ukrainians in large enough numbers to fight off Russian invasion that's a lot of aide. The Ukraine is plains not rocky mountainous terrain with sparsely populated countrysides.
 
Well, since McCain didn't win, I can see why one would spend time thinking about his foreign policy. :doh

Because that was the alternate provided. What are we going to measure his foreign policy reaction to? Some fictitious non-extent easy solution that just assumes if he was "tougher" Syria would be solved, Iran would give up nukes, and Putin would be scared to expand?
 

Because that was the alternate provided. What are we going to measure his foreign policy reaction to? Some fictitious non-extent easy solution that just assumes if he was "tougher" Syria would be solved, Iran would give up nukes, and Putin would be scared to expand?

If only he'd give up those mom jeans, all those problems would go away.
 
Back
Top Bottom