• 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!

President Vladimir Putin tells West not to fear Russia

It seems very obvious that Russia seeks peace much more actively than the US does.

The US gives lip service to peace, but its actions with drones and other military aggression is well known around the world.

I'm sorry, but that's just simply incorrect. The only difference is scale, and the only reason for that is Russia's inability to project larger and further.
 
Vlad plays the passive aggressive card a bit too much for my liking..... we already know he's a narcissist but perhaps he's bi-polar as well?

No, he is just good at saying things that the Montecrestos of the world want to hear.
 
I'm sorry, but that's just simply incorrect. The only difference is scale, and the only reason for that is Russia's inability to project larger and further.

Didn't the Russians work to get the Minsk Agreement last year that brought some sort of cease fire in Ukraine?

What has the US done to further peace in the area? Besides help cover up the real cause of the MH17 take down? What peace efforts has the US brokered there?
 
Didn't the Russians work to get the Minsk Agreement last year that brought some sort of cease fire in Ukraine?

What has the US done to further peace in the area? Besides help cover up the real cause of the MH17 take down? What peace efforts has the US brokered there?
Anything for "peace" that Russia has done was to buy them time.
 
Anything for "peace" that Russia has done was to buy them time.

But the question was, what has the US "done for peace" other than lip service?
 
It seems very obvious that Russia seeks peace much more actively than the US does.

The US gives lip service to peace, but its actions with drones and other military aggression is well known around the world.

Please explain how Russia is seeking peace in Crimea and the Ukraine.
 
But the question was, what has the US "done for peace" other than lip service?

I'm not addressing what the US has done or hasn't done. I'm addressing the absurd notion that Russia has noble and altruistic motives. It's not a relative issue with the lesser antagonist being the good guy and public relations winner. You can debate the other part with someone else.
 
I'm not addressing what the US has done or hasn't done. I'm addressing the absurd notion that Russia has noble and altruistic motives. It's not a relative issue with the lesser antagonist being the good guy and public relations winner. You can debate the other part with someone else.

You responded to a post of mine in which I said that Russia had sought peace more actively than the US has. I did not claim that Russia has noble and altruistic motives. I claimed that by way of the Minsk Agreement, peace had been sought. Indeed, temporarily at least, peace had been achieved.

My point was that is more peace-seeking than the US has done. That was the point of my post to another poster to which you replied.

Sawdust

We must keep in mind that Crimea and Ukraine are to Russia what Mexico, Cuba and other regions are to the US. Their sphere of influence there is fairly equal to the sphere of influence the US claims by way of its Monroe Doctrine.

That Russia would act aggressively to protect its naval interests and others in that region is natural and normal.
 
There's a strange atmosphere of illogicality and confusion when Russia is raising concern about NATO nations upgrading their defenses reasoning said concern with "you have nothing to fear". Then what is Russia fearing, exactly?

You do realize that the USA has been waging an ECONOMIC WAR against Russia, don't you? The USA and the Fed have been using the IMF, World Bank, etc., to pressure Nations all over the World to kowtow to USA demands are bankrupt them. Sanctions, currency manipulations, banking restrictions, credit constraints, interference in Russian Energy Distribution networks, and other Full Sprectrum Dominance in the economic areas has been the USA agenda targetted against Russia for over a year now. Much of this policy has suffered serious blowback and been detrimental to EU Nations. I would say our behavior gives the Russians a great deal to fear and causes tit for tat defensive responses by Russia. Our NATO interference and belligerence and posturing is also required to be responded to by Russia. Keerist, I believe our NeoCon foreign policy is an absolute failure and creates huge threats to World Peace. On the other hand, in the USA, "War is good business, and business is good." don't ya' know?
 
You responded to a post of mine in which I said that Russia had sought peace more actively than the US has. I did not claim that Russia has noble and altruistic motives. I claimed that by way of the Minsk Agreement, peace had been sought. Indeed, temporarily at least, peace had been achieved.

My point was that is more peace-seeking than the US has done. That was the point of my post to another poster to which you replied.

Sawdust

We must keep in mind that Crimea and Ukraine are to Russia what Mexico, Cuba and other regions are to the US. Their sphere of influence there is fairly equal to the sphere of influence the US claims by way of its Monroe Doctrine.

That Russia would act aggressively to protect its naval interests and others in that region is natural and normal.
And my point was that they only "sought peace" to buy time for their real goal, which is to continue and bring as much of the former Soviet Union back under their influence as possible, not because they actually wanted peace. It was a strategic means to and end, not the end itself, hence it has zero value in comparison.
 
You do realize that the USA has been waging an ECONOMIC WAR against Russia, don't you? The USA and the Fed have been using the IMF, World Bank, etc., to pressure Nations all over the World to kowtow to USA demands are bankrupt them. Sanctions, currency manipulations, banking restrictions, credit constraints, interference in Russian Energy Distribution networks, and other Full Sprectrum Dominance in the economic areas has been the USA agenda targetted against Russia for over a year now. Much of this policy has suffered serious blowback and been detrimental to EU Nations. I would say our behavior gives the Russians a great deal to fear and causes tit for tat defensive responses by Russia. Our NATO interference and belligerence and posturing is also required to be responded to by Russia. Keerist, I believe our NeoCon foreign policy is an absolute failure and creates huge threats to World Peace. On the other hand, in the USA, "War is good business, and business is good." don't ya' know?

What I do realize is that it's a two-way street, and whatever the US was doing to Russia and to the Soviet Union before it behind the iron curtains Russia was also trying to do to the US, only difference being that the US had done so more successfully.
 
What I do realize is that it's a two-way street, and whatever the US was doing to Russia and to the Soviet Union before it behind the iron curtains Russia was also trying to do to the US, only difference being that the US had done so more successfully.

You're hearing this News "Narrative" because it is necessary to ratchet up fear to get more money for weapons. You know. Wars on terror, drugs, people, Islam, etc. The Russians do not project dominance through bases all over the World. It is the USA that does that to enforce its' hegemony, as needed. Russia is rebuilding from a bankruptcy and USA Corporatists are angry because they were outsmarted by the Russians in the "Spoils of War" economy during privatization. The USA wants Russia to behave as a vassal State, and has force Russia to ally with China to remain independent. More power to the Russians for resisting the hegemony.
 
You're hearing this News "Narrative" because it is necessary to ratchet up fear to get more money for weapons. You know. Wars on terror, drugs, people, Islam, etc. The Russians do not project dominance through bases all over the World. It is the USA that does that to enforce its' hegemony, as needed. Russia is rebuilding from a bankruptcy and USA Corporatists are angry because they were outsmarted by the Russians in the "Spoils of War" economy during privatization. The USA wants Russia to behave as a vassal State, and has force Russia to ally with China to remain independent. More power to the Russians for resisting the hegemony.

So I can only conclude that in your universe Spock has a beard.
 
So I can only conclude that in your universe Spock has a beard.

So I can only conclude that you are in complete agreement with everything I said. Thanks. Too much sage in an avatar means it's over-seasoned.
 
Why fear us? We didn't do anything in Ukraine. And even if we did, we still weren't a threat Russia and it sure as hell doesn't justify what it's doing in Ukraine.

Perception is reality. And whether or not you're capable of acknowledging it, Russian intelligence is keenly aware of the US fingerprints in Kiev, late 2013 (and before really). And, though you disagree with them, there are plenty of people outside of Russia that acknowledge it as well.

Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault
http://www.cfr.org/russia-and-central-asia/why-ukraine-crisis-wests-fault/p33940
 
Last edited:
As Russia supplies Europe with a large portion of it's energy needs, and honors it's contracts to do so...

And if you care about Europeans and their general welfare...work, keeping warm in the winter, etc...

It might be thoughtful, courageous, (setting aside the USSR days), and forward thinking to work with Russia as partner for common goals.

Oh HELL NO, we can't have that, wth are you thinking. ;)
 
Which is why he/they prefer to keep conflicts small, as they have been able to do so far.

True, and we've been fairly successful with that as well!
 
I am afraid, that that type of homily, though, very helpful at times, will tend to desert you, when it is Game Theory you should be applying.

Any time heads of state say something for an international audience, it tends to be parsed. Language is very analyzed for all nuance, and everything has meaning.
 
I'm not addressing what the US has done or hasn't done. I'm addressing the absurd notion that Russia has noble and altruistic motives. It's not a relative issue with the lesser antagonist being the good guy and public relations winner. You can debate the other part with someone else.

Russia doesn't, nobody said they do. National foreign policy's are not noble or altruistic, they're practical, and they advance a nations national interests, and that doesn't have much to do with the interests of the nations citizens either, and the US is no exception. Just like we accept the fact that all nations spy on each other, we ought to accept the fact that all nations will **** their neighbors if that's beneficial, or ally themselves with another nation if that serves a benefit, not because the other nation is righteous, noble or "altruistic", instead of this patronizing notion that the US is particularly benevolent, and it and its ally's are the good guys, and "they" are the bad guys. Not that everybody does that, a couple of senior fellows at the CFR have told the truth about Russia, Ukraine and the US.
 
Russia doesn't, nobody said they do. National foreign policy's are not noble or altruistic, they're practical, and they advance a nations national interests, and that doesn't have much to do with the interests of the nations citizens either, and the US is no exception. Just like we accept the fact that all nations spy on each other, we ought to accept the fact that all nations will **** their neighbors if that's beneficial, or ally themselves with another nation if that serves a benefit, not because the other nation is righteous, noble or "altruistic", instead of this patronizing notion that the US is particularly benevolent, and it and its ally's are the good guys, and "they" are the bad guys. Not that everybody does that, a couple of senior fellows at the CFR have told the truth about Russia, Ukraine and the US.
Agreed. I took issue with the statement that Russia "sought peace" without any qualifiers. The lack of qualifiers implies they were selfless in doing so.
 
Any time heads of state say something for an international audience, it tends to be parsed. Language is very analyzed for all nuance, and everything has meaning.

And the meaning is that Putin is a destabilizer and spreading the fire. That might be legitimate. It is certainly pushing the world towards war.
 
Hitler began pressing German claims on the Sudetenland whilst at the same time he told the rest of Europe that Germany were not a threat.
 
Agreed. I took issue with the statement that Russia "sought peace" without any qualifiers. The lack of qualifiers implies they were selfless in doing so.

They are acting along the lines of a strategic game and formulated their goal as a "multipolar international structure" before Iraq2 in accord with Chirac who formulated it in the same words. Putin has kept it up and played the game masterfully ever since, while France recognized the enormous danger to it and desisted. The problem with the multipolar structure is that it is that its solution is not stable and in international security terms that is equivalent to continuing small and large wars. It as good as guarantees a Great War withing the century and possibly before the halfway point is reached.
 
What Mr. Putin says means much less than what he does. And what he does is influenced by what Mr. Obama does--or fails to do. Drawing a phony "red line" regarding Syria's use of chemical weapons, putting ships in place to attack sites in Syria, and then showing it was all a bluff, was just one of many instances in which this president has shown the world he is a weak sister. And his weakness has encouraged not only Putin but all our other actual or potential adversaries. It is very dangerous. It invites trouble, just as a vigorous, engaged posture toward the world discourages it.

I would like to see the next U.S. president view nuclear weapons more as Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, and Reagan seemed to view them--as something whose use was not unthinkable. In particular, I would like to see, first, an occasional carefully veiled reference to these weapons in a presidential speech, just enough to plant a seed of doubt in the minds of other national leaders about what was meant by it. And I would also like to see the U.S. nuclear arsenal exercised more often and more openly, rather than being allowed to stagnate and lapse into obsolescence. We should develop new designs, and we should go back to staging at least partial underground tests, rather than just mocking up the explosions on computers. We should also keep up ballistic missile tests, just to demonstrate their capabilities in a way the whole world can see.
 
Last edited:
And my point was that they only "sought peace" to buy time for their real goal, which is to continue and bring as much of the former Soviet Union back under their influence as possible, not because they actually wanted peace. It was a strategic means to and end, not the end itself, hence it has zero value in comparison.

Silly me, I thought everybody liked peace...:lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom