• 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!

What should be the future of US-Russian Relations?

What should be the future of US-Russian Relations?

  • The US should do everything reasonbly possible to improve ties with Russia

    Votes: 9 29.0%

  • The US should maintain it's current disposition towards Russia.

    Votes: 3 9.7%

  • The US should treat Russia entirely neutral, with no special attention given.

    Votes: 1 3.2%

  • The US should not improve ties with Russia unless Russia ceases acting against American interests.

    Votes: 8 25.8%

  • The US should do everything reasonably possible to prevent Russian expansion and influence.

    Votes: 6 19.4%

  • The US should sever ties with Russia completely.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Other (Please explain)

    Votes: 4 12.9%
  • Total voters
    31
Helix said:
i'm not sure what that looks like, but if we ****ed with their grid like that, we would move into the realm of real war pretty quickly. i think that it's a better idea to focus on domestic issues and make our own grid and data as close to impenetrable as we can get.
Click to expand...
Russia cannot wage war without electricity. I agree with your last sentence.
 
JamesBY said:
Russia cannot wage war without electricity. I agree with your last sentence.
Click to expand...

if we were to take out their grid, that would be an act of war. they'd have the grid back up in a day or two, and then they'd start responding in kind. at that point, war wouldn't be an abstract concept that two people debate about on an anonymous message board. it would be an "at your doorstep" kind of thing. no thanks.
 
Moderate Right said:
You are the one who used the term crushing Russia. Why don't you explain what you meant by it.
Click to expand...

By isolating them and sanctioning them we need to bring them down to the size of their economy which is about the size of Italy. Putin needs to address his own internal problems, Russia is falling apart and his people are dying at alarming rates.

HIGH DEATH RATE
Russia has a very high death rate of 15 deaths per 1000 people per year. This is far higher than the world's average death rate of just under 9. The death rate in the U.S. is 8 per 1000 and for the United Kingdom it's 10 per 1000. Alcohol-related deaths in Russia are very high and alcohol-related emergencies represent the bulk of emergency room visits in the country.

With this high death rate, Russian life expectancy is low - the World Health Organization estimates the life expectancy of Russian men at 59 years while women's life expectancy is considerably better at 72 years. This difference is primarily a result of high rates of alcoholism among males.
Click to expand...

https://www.thoughtco.com/population-decline-in-russia-1435266
 
Helix said:
neutral. we have plenty of things to fix here at home, and not enough money to cover it all while playing the role of global policeman. if the globe wants a police force, it needs to build and fund one. we need to get out of the Middle East and let Russia devolve into whatever it wants to be, which is probably a dystopian reconstruction of the Soviet Union. if we do choose to pound our chest and maintain current wars while considering new ones, then taxes need to go up significantly, especially on those who directly benefit from the military industrial complex. taxes on that class need to be nearly confiscatory from the time the first bomb is dropped until the war ends. that would be a serious deterrent to entering new wars.
Click to expand...

The problem, of course, is that the US has allies--- many of whom have been good friends to us for decades--- who would be badly hurt by an attempt to withdraw behind the oceans and hide. For example, letting Russia "devolve into whatever it wants" directly places the Baltic States, who are routinely consistent in meeting their obligations towards us via NATO, at risk.
 
Helix said:
if we were to take out their grid, that would be an act of war. they'd have the grid back up in a day or two, and then they'd start responding in kind. at that point, war wouldn't be an abstract concept that two people debate about on an anonymous message board. it would be an "at your doorstep" kind of thing. no thanks.
Click to expand...
No, it would not. We would shut the grid down again for many days. CCC cannot wage war without a sustained grid.
 
Tigerace117 said:
The problem, of course, is that the US has allies--- many of whom have been good friends to us for decades--- who would be badly hurt by an attempt to withdraw behind the oceans and hide. For example, letting Russia "devolve into whatever it wants" directly places the Baltic States, who are routinely consistent in meeting their obligations towards us via NATO, at risk.
Click to expand...

if we're going to do chest pounding with Russia and try to fight wars in the Middle East at the same time, then taxes need to be increased significantly.
 
JamesBY said:
No, it would not. We would shut the grid down again for many days. CCC cannot wage war without a sustained grid.
Click to expand...


this idea is a non-starter. the potential consequences are too catastrophic.
 
Helix said:
neutral. we have plenty of things to fix here at home, and not enough money to cover it all while playing the role of global policeman. if the globe wants a police force, it needs to build and fund one. we need to get out of the Middle East and let Russia devolve into whatever it wants to be, which is probably a dystopian reconstruction of the Soviet Union. if we do choose to pound our chest and maintain current wars while considering new ones, then taxes need to go up significantly, especially on those who directly benefit from the military industrial complex. taxes on that class need to be nearly confiscatory from the time the first bomb is dropped until the war ends. that would be a serious deterrent to entering new wars.
Click to expand...
Theoretically, that's what the UN was supposed to be.
 
iguanaman said:
By isolating them and sanctioning them we need to bring them down to the size of their economy which is about the size of Italy. Putin needs to address his own internal problems, Russia is falling apart and his people are dying at alarming rates.



https://www.thoughtco.com/population-decline-in-russia-1435266
Click to expand...

That's crushing Russia? Has it led to any changes in their behavior? Have the unannexed Crimea? Have they stopped trying to interfere in other country's elections (No - they just tried again in France)? So far I have not seen any crushing.
 
Helix said:
if we're going to do chest pounding with Russia and try to fight wars in the Middle East at the same time, then taxes need to be increased significantly.
Click to expand...

By "chest pounding" of course, you mean "actually standing by our commitments to the Baltic States and our other allies"?

One of the nice things about being a superpower is that we can defend our allies and fight ISIS at the same time.
 
Moderate Right said:
That's crushing Russia? Has it led to any changes in their behavior? Have the unannexed Crimea? Have they stopped trying to interfere in other country's elections (No - they just tried again in France)? So far I have not seen any crushing.
Click to expand...

Much more can be done to isolate and sanction them. Or they could change their ways and become a upstanding citizen of he world. It is up to them to decide.
 
iguanaman said:
Much more can be done to isolate and sanction them. Or they could change their ways and become a upstanding citizen of he world. It is up to them to decide.
Click to expand...

You know what their decision is. They already decided it. Sanctions on them for annexing Crimea? Crimea is still annexed. Sanctions on them for trying to influence our elections and they tried to influence the recent election in France. Europe has already laxed sanctions on Russia. What crushing thing do you want to do next? History has already taught us that sanctions basically don't work, just ask North Korea.
 
Moderate Right said:
You know what their decision is. They already decided it. Sanctions on them for annexing Crimea? Crimea is still annexed. Sanctions on them for trying to influence our elections and they tried to influence the recent election in France. Europe has already laxed sanctions on Russia. What crushing thing do you want to do next? History has already taught us that sanctions basically don't work, just ask North Korea.
Click to expand...

History has taught us nothing of the sort. Multilateral sanctions have brought many nations to the table. Russia is desperately trying clandestine methods to rid them of their crippling sanctions. Why do you think they helped Trump win? That is evidence enough that sanctions work.
 
radcen said:
Theoretically, that's what the UN was supposed to be.
Click to expand...

yep, and the League of Nations before it. i don't find the UN to be useless. it is based on good ideas. however, the model of the US as pro bono global police force is unsustainable, and we need to start moving away from that expectation, IMO. this will leave a void that will have to be filled by Europe and by regional hegemons in the Middle East.
 
Tigerace117 said:
By "chest pounding" of course, you mean "actually standing by our commitments to the Baltic States and our other allies"?

One of the nice things about being a superpower is that we can defend our allies and fight ISIS at the same time.
Click to expand...

while cutting taxes, too, i'm sure.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
There's been a lot of talk about relations between the US and Russia, and how the current administration will approach this. What say you?
Click to expand...

Russia is not an ally, although they can be situationally allied with western interests at times when they have a certain level of influence and/or some internal interests that jive with ours.

That said, I'll go with the old saying "best to keep your friends close and your enemies closer". Russia is entirely capable of conducting mischief in its sphere of influence. They do, however, have a host of internal difficulties, economic and social, and a host of terror interests solely of their own making and focus. They're entirely unlikely to be expansionist at all, at least at this point in time.

Far more important is what China is doing in the North China Sea and in its sphere of influence - they are directly at odds, it seems, with much of the west's economic interests in the region and unless they are willing, and able, to do something related to North Korea, that could be a disaster area waiting to explode.
 
We need to take a stronger stand on Russia (same with China). The Obama administration was largely weak and permissible of Russian abuses IE the takeover of Crimea and backing Assad in Syria. For the future we should work diplomatically and try to solve things peacefully with economic incentives but not permit Russia to do what it has done with Crimea, Syria, and future expansion. That needs to be met with potential military force which is also why NATO nations need to chip in and beef up their militaries.

CanadaJohn said:
Russia is not an ally, although they can be situationally allied with western interests at times when they have a certain level of influence and/or some internal interests that jive with ours.

That said, I'll go with the old saying "best to keep your friends close and your enemies closer". Russia is entirely capable of conducting mischief in its sphere of influence. They do, however, have a host of internal difficulties, economic and social, and a host of terror interests solely of their own making and focus. They're entirely unlikely to be expansionist at all, at least at this point in time.

Far more important is what China is doing in the North China Sea and in its sphere of influence - they are directly at odds, it seems, with much of the west's economic interests in the region and unless they are willing, and able, to do something related to North Korea, that could be a disaster area waiting to explode.
Click to expand...

I'm also more concerned with China. In the South China Sea they are basically wanting to militarize the region and make it an exclusive economic zone (horrible for international shipping and the surrounding countries) and on the North Korea side of things they are seemingly trying to protect the Kim regime because they'd rather have a hostile no the west North Korea over having South Korea/US military right at their border assuming a collapsed NK where SK and the US take over to stabilize the region. Their opposition to the missile defense system there is pure lunacy given NK is almost nuclear.
 
Last edited:
digsbe said:
The Obama administration was largely weak and permissible of Russian abuses IE the takeover of Crimea
Click to expand...

What exactly should've been done in response to the invasion of Crimea? I'm not a fan of Obama's foreign policy in a lot of areas but this is one point I don't understand. Ukraine was clearly the red line in the sand for Moscow, and I'm not sure what realistically could've been done
 
digsbe said:
We need to take a stronger stand on Russia (same with China). The Obama administration was largely weak and permissible of Russian abuses IE the takeover of Crimea and backing Assad in Syria. For the future we should work diplomatically and try to solve things peacefully with economic incentives but not permit Russia to do what it has done with Crimea, Syria, and future expansion. That needs to be met with potential military force which is also why NATO nations need to chip in and beef up their militaries.



I'm also more concerned with China. In the South China Sea they are basically wanting to militarize the region and make it an exclusive economic zone (horrible for international shipping and the surrounding countries) and on the North Korea side of things they are seemingly trying to protect the Kim regime because they'd rather have a hostile no the west North Korea over having South Korea/US military right at their border assuming a collapsed NK where SK and the US take over to stabilize the region. Their opposition to the missile defense system there is pure lunacy given NK is almost nuclear.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on diplomacy, although the current American posture towards Russia as an outcropping of the left's hatred of Trump isn't at all helpful in that regard.

I also agree with your comments about North Korea - that part of the world, with NK, Iran, Pakistan, India, all being nuclear powers and only one a democracy, along with China and Russia, is really too unstable for comfort.

As for Russia and Syria, I have some sympathy there for the Russian position. If, as an example, there was a similar civil war in Japan or South Korea, with the US having multiple naval and military bases in those countries, I'm sure the US would also be meddling internally to ensure they retain their influence and access. To me, that's all Russia is doing in Syria - protecting their naval and military access to the Mediterranean Sea - by propping up the regime that granted that access.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
What exactly should've been done in response to the invasion of Crimea? I'm not a fan of Obama's foreign policy in a lot of areas but this is one point I don't understand. Ukraine was clearly the red line in the sand for Moscow, and I'm not sure what realistically could've been done
Click to expand...

I feel like the world turned a blind eye to the "rebels" that were really Russian troops or militias funded by Russian money. They should have ruled the vote there as void and sent UN peacekeeping troops or NATO to the region to combat the "rebels" and drive them out. After all Russia claimed they didn't invade and that these were independent militias not of their own. The world should have acted like that was true and the Obama admin should have pushed for peacekeeping forces to combat them.
 
iguanaman said:
History has taught us nothing of the sort. Multilateral sanctions have brought many nations to the table. Russia is desperately trying clandestine methods to rid them of their crippling sanctions. Why do you think they helped Trump win? That is evidence enough that sanctions work.
Click to expand...

I never said that sanctions helped Trump win. I said that Obama's many foreign policy failures and his inability to actually be tough with anyone helped Trump win.
 
digsbe said:
I feel like the world turned a blind eye to the "rebels" that were really Russian troops or militias funded by Russian money. They should have ruled the vote there as void and sent UN peacekeeping troops or NATO to the region to combat the "rebels" and drive them out. After all Russia claimed they didn't invade and that these were independent militias not of their own. The world should have acted like that was true and the Obama admin should have pushed for peacekeeping forces to combat them.
Click to expand...

Any effort through the UN would've been pointless given the certainty of a Russian veto in the Security Council, probably along with China.

Sending NATO troops to Ukraine would've quite clearly crossed the red line and resulted in a shooting war with Russia. Moscow made it abundantly clear through it's mobilization and exercises that they would not tolerate NATO involvement in Ukraine.
 
iguanaman said:
By isolating them and sanctioning them we need to bring them down to the size of their economy which is about the size of Italy. Putin needs to address his own internal problems, Russia is falling apart and his people are dying at alarming rates.



https://www.thoughtco.com/population-decline-in-russia-1435266
Click to expand...

It is totally unrealistic to think that the West can gain desired Russian restraint and cooperation without dealing with
Moscow as a great power that possesses real and legitimate interests.
 
slick said:
It is totally unrealistic to think that the West can gain desired Russian restraint and cooperation without dealing with
Moscow as a great power that possesses real and legitimate interests.
Click to expand...

That would be a huge mistake. Although Putin wishes to be a "great power" his country is falling apart at the seams and he is hiding it behind a facade based on the USSR's former strength. The USSR is dead and buried and good riddance to it. I can't wait for the same to happen to Putin.
 
Putin is an ex-KGB agent. That settles the matter. He runs a country where First Amendment rights as we know them here are practically nonexistent. I thought conservatives were all about liberty and freedom? Why kiss the ass of a head of state who clearly despises both?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom