Debate on Russo-American relations

[K. A. Pital]

The simple virtue of being a great power which is capable of indepent pursuit of interest puts ANY nation at odds vs. America, considering the general adherence of US political elites to U.S. dominance a-la the PNAC plan (and their involvement in the PNAC).

[Guardsman Bass]

There are at least a few things the US and Russia should have common interest on, like keeping Islamic terrorism down in Central Asia and generally keeping the number of nations with nuclear weapons low in number. That's not exactly friendship, but you can build a working relationship off of arms-length self-interest.

[irishmick79]

There are at least a few things the US and Russia should have common interest on, like keeping Islamic terrorism down in Central Asia and generally keeping the number of nations with nuclear weapons low in number. That's not exactly friendship, but you can build a working relationship off of arms-length self-interest.

As well as fighting transnational crime. The scope and ability of some of the big Eurasian syndicates is pretty scary and present a direct threat to Russia's economy as well as threatening the rest of Europe and the US.

I also think a lot of the problem is that US policy towards Russia has ranged from fairly apathetic to outright confrontational. The lack of consensus on how to approach Russia I think skews policymaking considerably, and the resulting inconsistent application of policy destabilizes an already challenging relationship.

[K. A. Pital]

As well as fighting transnational crime.

That's right. Destroying those overpowered mafiosi could and should've been a point for friendship. And i think it still should be.

However, instead a lot of the leaders of those mega-cartels reside in Britain or US, even as charges are lobbed at them in Russia, applied for "political asylum".

I wonder how the US would have reacted if Russia at some time gave 'asylum' to a high-profile mafia boss... someone of Corleone's style

[RedImperator]

Split from here.

[Shroom Man 777]

You know, this would make for an excellent topic at the Coliseum.

[Axis Kast]

Quit shifting goalposts. Why should Russia allow a hostile power into its own domain? The word "right" can not only be tossed at Russia but at the United States. Quit your usual biased high horse posturing. Are you forgetting the Monroe Doctrine with the United States still follows to a great extent?

Its “own” domain?

I’m still waiting for the logic behind divvying up the world between the two Cold War superpowers. You know; throwing Central Asia, the Caucasus, and Eastern Europe out with the bathwater in the interests of “cooperation” with Russia.

The Monroe Doctrine should not be regarded as legitimizing the creation of spheres of immaculate interest by other nations. We do not “pay” for our “rights” in the Western Hemisphere by ceding a free hand to Russia elsewhere.

The West should be more careful to address specific Russian concerns about encirclement, arising from historical experience.

The point was that no fuckign democracy is immune to dickery, and no so-called free society can possibly be immune to the same nonsense pervading "authoritarian nations". For all the so-called free society you espouse, the US elite has wantonly exploited the poor, misled the masses etc. and even abetted with "undemocratic regimes" to achieve policy goals. And which other "progressive" democratic regime has any strength for war other than the United States?

No. The point was that democratic governments, in a large number of cases, are well disposed toward the United States, and even its defense policies. You then questioned if the United States was an exemplar of the values necessary for this “democratic good-feeling/peace” to thrive, and, when I asserted that it was, your response was to begin substantiating that even the United States has its “undemocratic” flaws. You’re arguing on a tangent.

And yet none of these media organisations so much as apologised for their bad reporting, and none of them even bothered to correct themselves. Quite frankly, saying the Russians are wholely responsible for the prejudice they get from the rest of the world is bloody dishonest.

The Russians are responsible for a good deal of the bad name they’ve developed. Putin and Medvedev are nearly synonymous with the idea of power politics.

You can throw slime at the Georgians and make it stick for valid reasons, but don’t let the nature of the war fool you into believing that it wasn’t what the Russians anticipated, planned for, hoped for.

Russia is every bit as determined to have its will done in some places, as the United States is, elsewhere.

And I would like to repeat, since when did democracies ensure the election of benevolent adminstrators, who would thereotically thus be immune to the pressures of war, conflict and general dickery?

The transparency and accountability that are entailed in a democracy are the safeguards against wars against like-minded peoples. Young democracies don’t always display these features; about fifteen years on, however, they are generally entrenched.

And given that leaders are humans and thus conditional to above said pressures of conflict and being a dick, who is to say they won't oppose　ＵＳ　ｉｎｔｅｒｅｓｔｓ　based　ｏｎ　ｔｈｅｉｒ　ｏｗｎ　ｄｅｆｉｎｉｔｉｏｎ　ｏｆ　ｎａｔｉｏｎａｌ　ｉｎｔｅｒｅｓｔｓ？

Nobody has said that.

Ａｎｄ　ｏｆ　ｃｏｕｒｓｅ，　ｔｈｅ　ｕｓｅ　ｏｆ　ｇｕｎｂｏａｔ　ｐｏｌｉｃｉｅｓ　does not carry the potential of escalation to a war or armed conflict..............

If the fisheries incident had ended unsatisfactorily for one side, general war would have been the result? Or even “precision” strikes? Maybe “incidents at sea.” Maybe.

The very fact that diplomatic/economic disputes between democracies has led to the use of armed forces to maintain the status quo is damming of the argument that democracies would be inclined to negotiate and talk things over always with each other.

When? It is not impossible for democracies to be antagonistic; it is supremely difficult, however, for one democracy to war on another. While both were democracies, the United States overthrew the Arbenz regime in Guatamala and the Allende regime in Chile. But it did so via the CIA and other organizations, not a general invasion.

We can easily point to actual historical examples of democracies fighting each other. War of 1812 anyone? You of course would just weasel out of that by claiming that Britain wasn't a "true" democracy. But then again, which country is?

This goes back to the earlier clarification at the start of this present post; the United States was not a true democracy at the time, leaving aside the British quandary.

I invite you to adduce further examples, however. You may find only two of which I am aware.

Which proves the fallacy of seeking absolute, or even "trends" in politics. Actual interests and conflicts from national interests can easily lead to armed conflict, or as a certain　Ｇｅｒｍａｎ　ｓａｙｓ，　ｗａｒ　ｉｓ　ｓｉｍｐｌｙ　ｃｏｎｔｉｎｕａｔｉｏｎ　ｏｆ　ｐｏｌｉｔｉｃｓ　ｂｙ　ｏｔｈｅｒ　ｍｅａｎｓ.

The mechanisms of the democratic peace theory have been laid out for you. It is as much a “trend” or a truth as we will get, in politics, according to those who study it.

Diverging interests can lead to conflict; between democracies, however, conflicts tend to be more moderate.

Ｔｏ　ｐｕｔ　ｉｔ　ｓｉｍｐｌｙ，　ｓｉｍｐｌｙ　ｅｎｃｏｕｒａｇｉｎｇ　ｄｅｍｏｃｒａｃｉｅｓ　ｔｏ　ｅｍｅｒｇｅ　ｄｏｅｓ　ｎｏｔ　ｉｎｃｒｅａｓｅ US soft power by default. It is the entire context, the entire picture which does.

Actually, encouraging transparent, responsive government in all places would go a long way toward reducing the sense of powerlessness and external manipulation that motives terrorists. There will always be crazies who demand maximal or non-negotiable ends; there needn’t be as many disempowered to support, or fight in, insurgencies.

In Eastern Europe, the spread of democracy worked to our benefit.

No. I showed that they aren't neccessarily friendlier. India and Malaysia are prime examples of this, creating the Non Aligned Movement led by India during the　Ｃｏｌｄ War. India was also more closely aligned to　Ｓｏｖｉｅｔ　ｉｎｔｅｒｅｓｔｓ　ｐｏｓｔ　ｉｎｄｅｐｅｎｄｅｎｃｅ，　ｄｅｓｐｉｔｅ　ｔｈｅｍ　ｂｅｉｎｇ　ａ　ｄｅｍｏｃｒａｃｙ．　Ｍａｌａｙｓｉａ　ｉｓ　ａｌｓｏ　ｎｏｔ　ａｌｉｇｎｅｄ　ｃｌｏｓｅｌｙ　ｔｏ　ＵＳ　ｉｎｔｅｒｅｓｔｓ．　Ｓｉｍｉｌａｒｌｙ，　Ｓｏｕｔｈ　Ｋｏｒｅａ　ｌｉｂｅｒａｌｉｓａｔｉｏｎ　ａｎｄ　ａｄｏｐｔｉｏｎ　ｏｆ　ｄｅｍｏｃｒａｔｉｃ　ｐｒａｃｔｉｃｅｓ　ｈａｖｅ　ｃｏｎｃｉｄｅｄ　ｗｉｔｈ　ａ　ｇｒｅａｔｅｒ　ｓｗｉｎｇ　ａｗａｙ　ｆｒｏｍ　ＵＳ　ｉｎｔｅｒｅｓｔｓ　ｖｉｓ　ａ　ｖｉｓ　Ｎｏｒｔｈ　Ｋｏｒｅａ．　Ｔｈｉｓ　ｉｓ　ｃｌｅａｒｌｙ　ｐｒｏｏｆ　ｔｈａｔ　ｉｔ　ｉｓ　ｔｈｅ　ｎａｔｉｏｎａｌ　ｉｎｔｅｒｅｓｔｓ，　ｐｏｐｕｌａｔｉｏｎ／ｌｅａｄｅｒ　ｗｉｌｌ　ｔｈａｔ　ｈａｓ　ｍｏｒｅ　ｉｎｆｌｕｅｎｃｅ　ｏｎ　ｗｈｅｔｈｅｒ　ｔｈｅ　ｃｏｕｎｔｒｙ　ｉｓ　ａｌｉｇｎｅｄ　ｏｒ　ｆｒｉｅｎｄｌｙ　ｗｉｔｈ　ｔｈｅ　ＵＳ．

You listed a handful of examples; I provided many more. You had a few countries; I cited entire regions.

South Korean liberalization has meant that we are taking a bumpier ride. But, American troops remain, and the security agreements are in force. The level of degradation to the relationship was not assuredly worse than provoking popular ire over American backing for unpopular generals after Park.

Ｂｕｌｌｓｈｉｔｔｅｒ．　Ｉ　ｐｏｉｎｔｅｄ　ｏｕｔ　ｔｈａｔ　Ｐｈｉｌｌｉｐｉｎｅｓ　ａｓ　ａ　ｄｅｍｏｃｒａｃｙ　ｈａｄ　ＮＯＴ　ｂｅｅｎ　ａｌｉｇｎｅｄ　ｗｉｔｈ US interests, mainly, the USN　ｄｅｓｉｒｅ　ｆｏｒ　ｎａｖａｌ　ｂａｓｅｓ　ｉｎ　Ｓｕｂｉｃ　Ｂａｙ．　Ｓｉｍｉｌａｒｌｙ，　ｓｈｅ　also pursued her own interest in trade balance between the two, with Phillipines wishing to continue the previous trade status quo from the era where she was a colony.

You mentioned policy disagreements even though the United States has military cooperation programs with the Philippines. I called you on appealing to the drift apart during the 1990s, when the trend these days has been a divergence.

By WHAT default? The fact that western democracies desired US power to resist soviet influence no longer applies in the post Cold war era. In such an era, US interests may very well be more damaging, and even in the past, US interests have come into conflict with other democracies national interests and thus caused a shift away from the US, namely India and Malaysia.
You're simply ignoring the context that US and Western democracies interests were aligned, and the significant cultural/political/economic links this created. Similarly, the fact that as nations liberalise, the US is no longer seen as the land of freedom and oppurtinity as such freedom is now available in their own countries, weakening US soft power further.

I just explained it to you. A shared sense of culture and easier communication of intent, tending to reduce points of friction and heighten goodwill. Democratic regimes also tend to take a collective dim view of non-democratic regimes, often without necessarily weighing issue preferences beforehand. This explains some of the knee-jerk negative reactions to Russia and China in the United States, for example.

The number one grievance of people in the Middle East? That the United States hinders formation of accountable government. Sometimes, as in Iran, we wait too long, and suffer a backlash that is stronger than the democratic norm. What happened in Pakistan is a more recent example.

lolbat! You do know that the average Iranian populace is actually PROUD of their potential nuclear status? That if they had their way, they would actually want Iran to become a nuclear power? How would this benefit the US again?

That in no way addresses my point.

Right. The new Venezuelan government is simply going to cave into US economic interests simply because its a democracy........... I can see that happening if the democratic government requires US support to stay in power, but otherwise, bullshit.

Who equated benefit with “must necessarily cave into U.S. economic interests?”

And, by the way, the truth is that, even under Chavez, Venezuela requires a good relationship with the U.S.; we refine his oil.

Also, you are strawmaning my argument. I said the major factors were Russo-phobia and the US's policy of exporting democracy. Furthermore, "a lot closer" doesn't mean best friends forever, just friendly relations (however, see below).

Are you referring to Eastern European democracy?

We clashed with the Russians over Kosovo, but otherwise, there was an outpouring of general goodwill before Putin came to power.

[K. A. Pital]

The Monroe Doctrine should not be regarded as legitimizing the creation of spheres of immaculate interest by other nations.

No, it should be seen as a futile attempt at moral high ground by someone who has none.

The transparency and accountability that are entailed in a democracy are the safeguards against wars against like-minded peoples.

You mean like the India-Pakistan war?

In Eastern Europe, the spread of democracy worked to our benefit.

Yeah, but not to our benefit. Do we have a right to feel ire and say fuck you to you? I bet we do.

Democratic regimes also tend to take a collective dim view of non-democratic regimes, often without necessarily weighing issue preferences beforehand.

Ah, right. "Collective dim view". Where are the "collective" dim viewers when it comes to China? Kazakhstan? No, mean Bad Ruskies hur-hur.

...there was an outpouring of general goodwill before Putin came to power

Right, at the same time when Russian citizens were dying by the millions in the man-caused demographic crisis, there was "general goodwill". At the same time as Russia protested, Yugoslavia was bombed - and don't even get me started on overseas sponsors of those little Chechen freedom fighters.

I believe "general goodwill" meant something else. It meant not rooting for islamist terrorists inside your friend's nation. You know, like the US thought Pakistan should work. It meant not bombing a sovereign nation, especially when Russia was against it.

It meant many things, but the US unilateralist policy of "fuck you, we have ours and you are fucked" is not one of those.

[Guardsman Bass]

You know, this would make for an excellent topic at the Coliseum.

I second that, as well. Anyone interested?

I'm not sure exactly how to phrase the debate question - would it be something like "Do the United States and Russia have combined interests that outweigh their rivalry in Eastern Europe and the Black Sea region?" Or, "Do Russia and the United States have 'spheres of influence', and what should the nature of these be?" Or something like that.

[irishmick79]

Frankly, it might be best to start simple and actually define the US-Russian relationship. Are the US and the Russian Federation allies or enemies? How the other issues play out is largely dependent on how the nature of the relationship is interpreted to begin with.

[ray245]

You know, this would make for an excellent topic at the Coliseum.

I second that, as well. Anyone interested?

I'm not sure exactly how to phrase the debate question - would it be something like "Do the United States and Russia have combined interests that outweigh their rivalry in Eastern Europe and the Black Sea region?" Or, "Do Russia and the United States have 'spheres of influence', and what should the nature of these be?" Or something like that.

How about the proper international reaction in regards to Russia's actions?

One side is bascially anti-russia in regards to its foreign policy, while the other is basically justifying Russia's actions.

[Pablo Sanchez]

Stuart has said that America and Russia make for natural allies, but I don't know how he arrived at that conclusion, and I am unable to arrive at that same conclusion independently with the information I have at hand. I can see that both nations have an interest in keeping South-West and Central Asia stable, but that's ground for only cordial relations.

But that's also a potential point of contention because the USA's SOP is the placement of bases for power projection, such as the two it placed in the run-up to the Afghanistan invasion in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. The base in Uzbekistan was vacated as a result of Uzb. demanding that we leave (with moral support from Russia and others) but Manas in Kyrgyzstan remains in operation.

Intellectual integrity thus requires me to concede that implying friendship was overstating my case, but I continue to hold that self-defeating American policy/attitudes are a major cause of friction between the two States.

Fair enough, sorry for misinterpreting you.

[Guardsman Bass]

Frankly, it might be best to start simple and actually define the US-Russian relationship. Are the US and the Russian Federation allies or enemies? How the other issues play out is largely dependent on how the nature of the relationship is interpreted to begin with.

You're right, that would be the better question. "Define the US-Russian relationship, and make arguments as to why your definition is the better one".

[Kane Starkiller]

US and Russia are competitors and have been for the last 50 or so years. Both countries protected their own areas of influence and tried to expand into that of the other. In 1990s and later US achieved major victories and expanded it's own influence all the way to Russia's borders.
So are we saying that US was suddenly "wrong" in the context of that struggle for trying to go for a decisive victory? Or should we accept that Soviet leaders were honest when yelling "quitsies" as they realized their economy is falling apart around them as opposed to trying to buy time until they get their shit back in order?

[Gandalf]

US and Russia are competitors and have been for the last 50 or so years. Both countries protected their own areas of influence and tried to expand into that of the other.

They've been interacting and competing for at least a hundred years. It's just that once the Cold War got interesting, the conflict became more serious.

[Axis Kast]

No, it should be seen as a futile attempt at moral high ground by someone who has none.

The Monroe Doctrine was an attempt to preclude competition between the United States and stronger European powers; morality didn’t really enter the picture. None of the Latin American leaders really accepted that the United States was acting altruistically in the first place.

You mean like the India-Pakistan war?

Pakistan was merely a quasi-democracy. The only remotely valid wars to adduce as examples against Democratic Peace Theory are the War of the Pacific, in which nominally democratic Peru fought newly-democratic Chile, and the Second World War, which briefly involved hostilities between the United Kingdom and Finland.

Yeah, but not to our benefit. Do we have a right to feel ire and say fuck you to you? I bet we do.

Me too.

Ah, right. "Collective dim view". Where are the "collective" dim viewers when it comes to China? Kazakhstan? No, mean Bad Ruskies hur-hur.

You’re kidding, right?

Plenty of Americans have a very negative regard for China; witness the “China Rising” literature.

Most Americans know nothing about Central Asia.

Right, at the same time when Russian citizens were dying by the millions in the man-caused demographic crisis, there was "general goodwill". At the same time as Russia protested, Yugoslavia was bombed - and don't even get me started on overseas sponsors of those little Chechen freedom fighters.

The goodwill certainly had to do with the fact that Americans no longer felt threatened by Russia. Today, they feel that Russia threatens its neighbors. The truth is, Russia does. If the United States is “the greatest threat to world peace” because it chooses to make certain wars, whatever its reasons, Russia is, at the very least, a successful bully. The fact that Georgia decided to go with a sucker punch doesn’t mean that the Russians weren’t playing dirty pool for quite some time.

I believe "general goodwill" meant something else. It meant not rooting for islamist terrorists inside your friend's nation. You know, like the US thought Pakistan should work. It meant not bombing a sovereign nation, especially when Russia was against it.

I don’t understand why “general goodwill” necessarily means we give a free pass to the Serbs. What do you think Russia would have traded us for that? I’m skeptical Russia was ever going to pass up the chance to keep making money in Iraq, or that it will give up on selling nuclear infrastructure to Iran without some major recompense. I don’t think “diplomatic understandings” will have much to do with it, unless Russia gets a free hand somewhere as the quid pro quo.

Senate Question

A good question would be…

“Describe the nature of the contemporary relationship between the United States and the Russian Federation, touching on interests (where they diverge or converge) and perceptions. What do you anticipate will be the modality of future relations in the mid-term? What do you believe is the appropriate modality? Why?

[K. A. Pital]

What do you think Russia would have traded us for that?

Um... friendly relations? The kind of stuff we were talking about? Mutual respect, etc?

I’m skeptical Russia was ever going to pass up the chance to keep making money in Iraq

The US was likewise selling arms to Iraq. So what? Tell me please, how do the desires of US administration to see Iraq crushed corresponded with reality politics?

And "without major recompense"? Well gee, you were saying "we will order you not to make money in Iran and you will not because we don't want you to"? That's not "friendly relations". That's the exact opposite of that.

[Axis Kast]

Um... friendly relations? The kind of stuff we were talking about? Mutual respect, etc?

Friendly relations typically arise from concordance of interest.

What was "mutual respect" going to buy us? You say it yourself in the next reply: business is business, and nobody is going to pack up and go home just because it would please the other guy.

And "without major recompense"? Well gee, you were saying "we will order you not to make money in Iran and you will not because we don't want you to"? That's not "friendly relations". That's the exact opposite of that.

It's been stated before (though not by you, I think) that Russia has an interest in whether or not Iran obtains nuclear weapons. But their economic ambitions in Iran obviously outweigh that fear. Without Moscow's assistance, screws are never going to be turned tight enough to make the "sanctions route" really work. Moscow is unlikely to give its assistance, however, because it values Iran as a destination market. What do you propose the United States "trade" for a Russian volte-face on the issue? Was it going to be Serbian sovereignty in Kosovo, to your mind?

[K. A. Pital]

Was it going to be Serbian sovereignty in Kosovo, to your mind?

Why not?

[Axis Kast]

Why not?

You believe that Russia equates the value of Serbian sovereignty over Kosovo with the financial opportunities in Iran?

There's a lot of talk about mutual interest in preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, but it looks as if the Russians have written it off as a foregone conclusion, given the fact that they've thwarted effective sanctions.

If Russia is so worried about creating a negative precedent in favor of self-determination, it did that notion a great favor in S. Ossetia and Abkhazia only very recently.