• 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

I agree that SA 838 was complete bull****, it doesnt at all mean that they would want to sell a State. It is completely illogical to even accuse them of possibly doing that. SA 838 in fact is good evidence that Republicans dont want to sell Alaska to Russia not when it has all those resources.

Its unconstitutional!!!
 
probably so but, it isnt like SA 838 every had a chance in hell of becoming law. Nor is there any chance that Russia would get Alaska back without nukes flying all around.

Probably so, but not because of anything the republicans will be doing.
 
And so was the transfer back. You guys love self determination...................until you don't. ;)
Ukraine never transferred Crimea to Russia. There is no mechanism in the Ukraine constitution or law that would facilitate giving Crimea to another country.

This is why Russia had to use military force.
 
Its unconstitutional!!!
So was the phony Crimea referendum which violated both the Ukrainian and the Crimean constitutions.

Lol. Your concern for constitutionality is ... superficial and decidedly situational.
 
Simpleχity;1064719156 said:
Ukraine never transferred Crimea to Russia. There is no mechanism in the Ukraine constitution or law that would facilitate giving Crimea to another country.

This is why Russia had to use military force.

A very tiny percentage of Ukrainians rioting in the streets of Kiev, burning government buildings, driving the elected president from office under threat of death, wasn't a constitutional process to begin it all with. Little surprise to me that Russia moved to secure their interests and assets in Crimea.
 
Simpleχity;1064719165 said:
So was the phony Crimea referendum which violated both the Ukrainian and the Crimean constitutions.

Lol. Your concern for constitutionality is ... superficial and decidedly situational.

Russia says the referendum was very legit!!!
 
When Russia withdraws from Ukraine, Georgia, and Transnistria, when it democratizes and abandons its fascistic strongman model of government, when it decides to liberalize and fully join the Democratic Community it will not only have nothing to fear it will be one of the leaders of a new world order.
 
When Russia withdraws from Ukraine, Georgia, and Transnistria, when it democratizes and abandons its fascistic strongman model of government, when it decides to liberalize and fully join the Democratic Community it will not only have nothing to fear it will be one of the leaders of a new world order.

Nope, unfortunately it won't.

Your scenario not only asks Russia to abandon its' regional interests but also tells Russia to stop being Russia which in turn would possibly lead to its break down into smaller states - as what you're asking for Russia to do, is to ignore its' past and history and to completely restructure the Russian mentality.
This was already attempted in the 90's, it failed miserably.


Fallen.
 
A very tiny percentage of Ukrainians rioting in the streets of Kiev, burning government buildings, driving the elected president from office under threat of death, wasn't a constitutional process to begin it all with. Little surprise to me that Russia moved to secure their interests and assets in Crimea.

That's an excuse. And also, explain Russian aggression in Eastern Ukraine.
 
Nope, unfortunately it won't.

Your scenario not only asks Russia to abandon its' regional interests but also tells Russia to stop being Russia which in turn would possibly lead to its break down into smaller states - as what you're asking for Russia to do, is to ignore its' past and history and to completely restructure the Russian mentality.
This was already attempted in the 90's, it failed miserably.


Fallen.

Then Russia will have to be forever contained and one destroyed by fragmentation. If you are telling me there is some racial inability among Russians to accept democracy and liberalism, or to eschew reactionary fascistic nationalism, (which I do not accept) then the only other alternative is to treat them as permanent enemies and continue to bleed and hem them in.
 
That's an excuse. And also, explain Russian aggression in Eastern Ukraine.

So you call it an excuse, Russia considers it a reason, and to not lose there warm water port, a damn good one. And what the EU or the US thinks about it didn't change that fact a bit.

As to Russia's involvement in Eastern Ukraine, not unlike the US is Keene to do when it suits our interests, wink wink, nod nod, they are supporting a people fighting for self determination. Something we hear Americans cry all the time!
 
Then Russia will have to be forever contained and one destroyed by fragmentation. If you are telling me there is some racial inability among Russians to accept democracy and liberalism, or to eschew reactionary fascistic nationalism, (which I do not accept) then the only other alternative is to treat them as permanent enemies and continue to bleed and hem them in.

No, I'm simply telling you an obvious fact. Russia had no history of "democracy" and "liberalism", hence, it is asinine to expect a country which was living and its territories and mentality were formed under "strongmen" for so long to magically turn into some liberal fantasy world.
It didn't work in the 90's when Western/Russian "experts" pushed Russia's political pendulum into a "liberal" direction way too hard, to a point it simply swung back on them, and it's not going to work now either.
It's very simple, yet for some reason still so hard to comprehend.

Fallen.
 
No, I'm simply telling you an obvious fact. Russia had no history of "democracy" and "liberalism", hence, it is asinine to expect a country which was living and its territories and mentality were formed under "strongmen" for so long to magically turn into some liberal fantasy world.
It didn't work in the 90's when Western/Russian "experts" pushed Russia's political pendulum into a "liberal" direction way too hard, to a point it simply swung back on them, and it's not going to work now either.
It's very simple, yet for some reason still so hard to comprehend.

Fallen.

Plenty of countries that have had "no history" of democracy, liberalism, or the like have become converts to democracy. There is no basis for asserting that there is some sort of permanent, immovable, cultural impediment to democratization in Russia. Moreover if what you are saying is true then it makes sense to consider Russia a perpetual enemy and do out utmost to contain them and roll them back. We have already made great progress over the past 20 years in doing so, perhaps the next step is to make Western Ukraine a military bulwark.
 
Plenty of countries that have had "no history" of democracy, liberalism, or the like have become converts to democracy. There is no basis for asserting that there is some sort of permanent, immovable, cultural impediment to democratization in Russia. Moreover if what you are saying is true then it makes sense to consider Russia a perpetual enemy and do out utmost to contain them and roll them back. We have already made great progress over the past 20 years in doing so, perhaps the next step is to make Western Ukraine a military bulwark.

Which countries are you talking about?

I've already explained that there is major historical basis, that helped in shaping the "Russian mentality" and the Russian people's affection to "strongmen" in power of a country which considers itself a heavy-weight in the global arena. Moreover, these "strongmen" are also those that often keep the vast Russian territories from breaking apart.
Does it mean that Russia would never become "democratic"? No. It simply means that changes need time, and that the final result might not be the democratic fantasy world that you want Russia to be, but something that Russians want their country to be.

Lastly, those "roll back" policies of the 90's are actually those that contributed to the rise of another strongman. Many Russians, contrary to the West didn't see the break down of the Soviet Union as a complete defeat after which they should follow every Western whim, but as some sort of a humiliating treason committed by the heads of the state towards their own nation. The first glee from having Coca Cola, McDonald's and promises of a bright future were quickly relapsed by hate and despair of people not getting paid at all despite coming to work every day, or getting "paid" in the products that they themselves produced.
Seeing factories that produced parts for rockets being "privatized" and destroyed, or converted to production of some toilet seats, the crime rampage, Chechnya, and so many other things... basically people saw a country which was a Superpower only few years ago being stolen away and taken apart by people that are considered to be the beacons of progress in the West. Hence, naturally people turned to the strongman model again, which provided them with relative economic security, and the feeling of some sort of a meaning and pride in what they do and in their own country.


Fallen.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom