• 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!

On relations with Russia

Thoreau72 said:
This article is a fair analysis of US and Russian relations.

Any thoughts?

Dear Mr. Putin: Time to Give Up on Better Relations with America
Click to expand...

Though I disagree with the conclusions and found the overall article rather trite, I did find one great paragraph within worthy of reflecting on, as that particular paragraph was spot on:

"Americans are perhaps unique in the world in their view of the world—they are truly a conflicted people: they know less about history and the rest of the world than any other developed country, yet they deem themselves experts on all things. More intriguingly, they feel a messianic impulse to save the world, while at the same harboring deep resentment when the world intrudes on them. They are, paradoxically, irredeemably isolationist and compulsively interventionist."
 
Thoreau72 said:
This article is a fair analysis of US and Russian relations.

Any thoughts?

Dear Mr. Putin: Time to Give Up on Better Relations with America
Click to expand...

It would be much shorter if the false statements, wild generalizations, and pretty remarkable flights of fancy, were removed.

However, for now, the general theme is probably on target.

The left is trying to stage a coup by using Russian as the means of doing so. Hard to see how that bodes well for relations going forward.
 
ocean515 said:
It would be much shorter if the false statements, wild generalizations, and pretty remarkable flights of fancy, were removed.

However, for now, the general theme is probably on target.

The left is trying to stage a coup by using Russian as the means of doing so. Hard to see how that bodes well for relations going forward.
Click to expand...

What I liked about the article was its historical perspective, going all the way back to Wilson's efforts to interfere in domestic Russian affairs. And of course James Baker's promises to Gorbachev regarding NATO expansion eastward.
 
Good old Russian propaganda. Some truth, sensationalized and carefully framed with a ton of rhetoric.

Question...if this was for Putin, by Russians, how come I can read it? Clearly the audience is a little different than what is being stated in the "letter"...and here it is, on a primarily American political forum.

This is the same kind of "Yay Russia, Boo America" stuff that you get from Sputnik. Not saying that it is entirely without merit, but I tend to cringe away from obvious propaganda.
 
Thoreau72 said:
What I liked about the article was its historical perspective, going all the way back to Wilson's efforts to interfere in domestic Russian affairs. And of course James Baker's promises to Gorbachev regarding NATO expansion eastward.
Click to expand...

The article touched on points in history, but there are so many lies, false claims, and misrepresentations, it might as well have been written by a Putin himself.

Again, the general idea is probably on point. It appears the left is determined to return to the Cold War with the remnants of the USSR.
 
ocean515 said:
The article touched on points in history, but there are so many lies, false claims, and misrepresentations, it might as well have been written by a Putin himself.

Again, the general idea is probably on point. It appears the left is determined to return to the Cold War with the remnants of the USSR.
Click to expand...

I guess I should not look a gift horse in the mouth, eh? ;)

Some are saying the old Cold War might have been better than what we have today. They might have a point.

I say the Russophobia encouraged by the system today is bad for America. False and crazy and irrational, and bad for America.
 
Thoreau72 said:
I guess I should not look a gift horse in the mouth, eh? ;)

Some are saying the old Cold War might have been better than what we have today. They might have a point.

I say the Russophobia encouraged by the system today is bad for America. False and crazy and irrational, and bad for America.
Click to expand...

Personally, I would put very little credence in any claim made in the "article".

However, I agree with you the current atmosphere surrounding Russia, and the effort to use it to reverse the last election is irrational and bad for America.
 
upsideguy said:
Though I disagree with the conclusions and found the overall article rather trite, I did find one great paragraph within worthy of reflecting on, as that particular paragraph was spot on:

"Americans are perhaps unique in the world in their view of the world—they are truly a conflicted people: they know less about history and the rest of the world than any other developed country, yet they deem themselves experts on all things. More intriguingly, they feel a messianic impulse to save the world, while at the same harboring deep resentment when the world intrudes on them. They are, paradoxically, irredeemably isolationist and compulsively interventionist."
Click to expand...

It is in the long term stragetic interests of the USA that free trade, freedom of the seas, and capitalism flourish where ever possible. The more of that we lose, the less free we become.

China and the Russia can end us now, North Korea and Iran will be able to end us soon, also if they chose to. We have no credible protection against nuclear attack. Retaliation is for the living.
 
Last edited:
Thoreau72 said:
This article is a fair analysis of US and Russian relations.

Any thoughts?

Dear Mr. Putin: Time to Give Up on Better Relations with America
Click to expand...

Putin has a vision of a multipolar world; has for quite some time. It is a bizarre desire and if we go with him, we would be giving up on the only rational solution to global security. The simulations I have seen indicate a nuclear war in the second half of the century has a probability of as close to 1 as you can get. Better relations with Putin is a fool's mission.
 
upsideguy said:
Though I disagree with the conclusions and found the overall article rather trite, I did find one great paragraph within worthy of reflecting on, as that particular paragraph was spot on:

"Americans are perhaps unique in the world in their view of the world—they are truly a conflicted people: they know less about history and the rest of the world than any other developed country, yet they deem themselves experts on all things. More intriguingly, they feel a messianic impulse to save the world, while at the same harboring deep resentment when the world intrudes on them. They are, paradoxically, irredeemably isolationist and compulsively interventionist."
Click to expand...

Yep. That is, what detractors of the country are wont to say. By doing so they reveal exactly the ignorantly uneducated historical and cultural bigotry they are trying to stick to Americans. But, what the hell. So it is. We have to live with it.
 
joG said:
Putin has a vision of a multipolar world; has for quite some time. It is a bizarre desire and if we go with him, we would be giving up on the only rational solution to global security. The simulations I have seen indicate a nuclear war in the second half of the century has a probability of as close to 1 as you can get. Better relations with Putin is a fool's mission.
Click to expand...

What simulations would that be?
 
chuckiechan said:
It is in the long term stragetic interests of the USA that free trade, freedom of the seas, and capitalism flourish where ever possible. The more of that we lose, the less free we become.

China and the Russia can end us now, North Korea and Iran will be able to end us soon, also if they chose to. We have no credible protection against nuclear attack. Retaliation is for the living.
Click to expand...

Interesting post, except I have no idea what you are tying to say. It seems rather unresponsive to my post. Perhaps you were answering someone else.
 
joG said:
Putin has a vision of a multipolar world; has for quite some time. It is a bizarre desire and if we go with him, we would be giving up on the only rational solution to global security. The simulations I have seen indicate a nuclear war in the second half of the century has a probability of as close to 1 as you can get. Better relations with Putin is a fool's mission.
Click to expand...

I think the status quo is a fool's mission. The status quo does NOT provide 'global security', however on earth you choose to define that term. For example, under the current paradigm, the US is involved in the 16th year of combat in Afghanistan, a fool's mission if there ever was one.

Putin at least seeks peace. He seeks to defend the legitimately elected government in Syria, even as we seek the opposite.

I favor George Washington's approach: honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.

Call it propaganda if you will, but I think the Oliver Stone interviews with Putin revealed a man proud of his country, and seeking stability and commerce, not war.
 
gunner said:
What simulations would that be?
Click to expand...

In the early and mid 1990s there was a rather in depth debate among foreign affairs professionals, politicians and academics about the consequences and probable paths of development into the future. The discussion was informal and most easily visible in a large number of articles and studies in professional and near professional publications like Foreign Affairs et al.. It was a very divers debate that approached the topic from very different backgrounds and questions in mind. You might remember Huntington or Fukuyama. They got quite a bit of coverage back then with quite different qualities of predictive results. There were a number of articles on the game structure of the developing constellation of power that went through the probable outcomes. The conclusions of these have been rather close to the developments we have seen and those unfolding before our eyes. It is these simulations I was referring to.
 
Thoreau72 said:
I think the status quo is a fool's mission. The status quo does NOT provide 'global security', however on earth you choose to define that term. For example, under the current paradigm, the US is involved in the 16th year of combat in Afghanistan, a fool's mission if there ever was one.

Putin at least seeks peace. He seeks to defend the legitimately elected government in Syria, even as we seek the opposite.

I favor George Washington's approach: honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.

Call it propaganda if you will, but I think the Oliver Stone interviews with Putin revealed a man proud of his country, and seeking stability and commerce, not war.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely right. The status quo is changing rapidly and the development is in the direction of major war. But that should surprise nobody. This was predicted in the 1990s and anyone should know this. The game structure is not dissimilar to that in the years after 1890 in Europe with the same predictable result. Putin is like Bismarck a bit player optimizing his personal situation under a set of competitive rules.
 
joG said:
In the early and mid 1990s there was a rather in depth debate among foreign affairs professionals, politicians and academics about the consequences and probable paths of development into the future. The discussion was informal and most easily visible in a large number of articles and studies in professional and near professional publications like Foreign Affairs et al.. It was a very divers debate that approached the topic from very different backgrounds and questions in mind. You might remember Huntington or Fukuyama. They got quite a bit of coverage back then with quite different qualities of predictive results. There were a number of articles on the game structure of the developing constellation of power that went through the probable outcomes. The conclusions of these have been rather close to the developments we have seen and those unfolding before our eyes. It is these simulations I was referring to.
Click to expand...

You mean 'Clash of Civilisations ' Vs 'End of History '. I wonder how I'd know about that;)

Do you mean a model devised from 'Game Theory ' or are you talking in a general sense. It's not very clear?
 
gunner said:
You mean 'Clash of Civilisations ' Vs 'End of History '. I wonder how I'd know about that;)

Do you mean a model devised from 'Game Theory ' or are you talking in a general sense. It's not very clear?
Click to expand...

Yes, those two articles/books took some of the spot light and were widely discussed as segments of the debate.
Actually, I can remember a number of articles that applied formal game theory or reported on studies that had applied Coase type models to various aspects of economic growth, defense, international security structures, nuclear proliferation, historical similarities etc in respect to the developments to expect as the world traverses to a multi polar structure.
 
RetiredUSN said:
Putin has to operate the way he does because he's locked into a box.

If he ever gave up any of his power to the people and the courts, he and his cronies would be in the gulag for life.

Nothing in Russia will change until he's gone.
Click to expand...

Did you know that since Putin has been in, trial by jury was re-established in Russia. Quite the tyrant, eh? :mrgreen:
 
Thoreau72 said:
Did you know that since Putin has been in, trial by jury was re-established in Russia. Quite the tyrant, eh? :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Trial by jury means nothing if jurors voting the "wrong way" means they end up in the Volga.
 
ocean515 said:
It would be much shorter if the false statements, wild generalizations, and pretty remarkable flights of fancy, were removed.

However, for now, the general theme is probably on target.

The left is trying to stage a coup by using Russian as the means of doing so. Hard to see how that bodes well for relations going forward.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by that? Is 'coup' another word that conservatives have 'redefined'?
 
internationalclearinghouse is a conspiricy, anti-US, anti-Israel rag.
 
upsideguy said:
Though I disagree with the conclusions and found the overall article rather trite, I did find one great paragraph within worthy of reflecting on, as that particular paragraph was spot on:

"Americans are perhaps unique in the world in their view of the world—they are truly a conflicted people: they know less about history and the rest of the world than any other developed country, yet they deem themselves experts on all things. More intriguingly, they feel a messianic impulse to save the world, while at the same harboring deep resentment when the world intrudes on them. They are, paradoxically, irredeemably isolationist and compulsively interventionist."
Click to expand...

You might enjoy the book Dangerous Nation, by Robert Kagan
 
Rogue Valley said:
internationalclearinghouse is a conspiricy, anti-US, anti-Israel rag.
Click to expand...

Well, that explains how the OP found it, but it's not really an addressing of the argument herein.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom