[Rancid]

I like the foreign policy concept of arming yourself to the teeth.

Just don't shoot at shadows.

[Politics_Observer]

@Rancid

I don't like the idea of arming to the teeth as foreign policy because it costs a lot of money to do so. However, depending on the situation and circumstances it might be a necessity in order to maintain the balance of power and deterrence. In some circumstances, it might be possible to reduce arms between competing nations and that is the desirable outcome. However, that might not always be possible though. It all just depends on the situation and circumstances.

[Political Interest]

I am not buying that rationale completely. I think the reason why we have a tense relationship with Russia currently is because you have some NATO states on his borders that are becoming more successful, developing stronger economies and the Russian people can easily just cross some of those borders and see how life is better in those countries and that gives them dangerous ideas (dangerous to Putin) such as "why can't we have this kind of good life too like they do?" And that is just not acceptable to Putin. That could threaten his power.

Russia do not want an antagonistic relationship with Europe if they can avoid it. They would not go out of their way to be belligerant just for its own sake. There is however a fundamental clash of interests. Their contacts with Germany would suggest that Moscow is open to working with European states. But these states are members of NATO and there are fundamental differences of perceived interest on both sides.

Putin in the early 2000s tried to pursue a more Western oriented foreign policy, however it was not reciprocated in any significant way.

It is therefore necessary for NATO to implement a policy of deterrence in that if Russia attacks any of those NATO border states they will be starting World War III which could very well turn into a global thermonuclear war. NATO has to draw the line and mean it and back it up with credible deterrence. Part of credible deterrence is to mean what you say and being prepared to fight. On the same token, that also means, not threatening to attack Russia either. It is a mistake for any country to invade or attack Russia. But Russia isn't 10 feet tall either (nobody is 10 feet tall). The country can be deterred from attacking it's neighbors that are NATO members. NATO has to remain firm in it's commitment to it's member states that border Russia in order to keep the world safe for freedom and democracy.

At the same time it is important to start trying to improve relations, find common points of agreement and then work to improve relations from there. A lot more could be done.

[Politics_Observer]

@Political Interest

I don't see how it's possible to improve relations with Russia so long as Russian is governed by an authoritarian regime and we have NATO member states on their borders who are not authoritarian regimes and are now enjoying a higher standard of living and a better life than most Russian people. Authoritarians want to stay in power for as long as they live.

And they probably have to because if they don't, their own people would probably put them on trial for the crimes these authoritarians committed against their own people. Authoritarians like Putin know this and hence why he will do whatever he can to stay in power. He views those border NATO member states as a threat to him staying in power in Russia because of the good example they set for the Russian people to look to. Thus, perhaps a threat to his own survival given the consequences if he loses power in Russia to any popular democratic movements from within his own country.

On the same token, it would be a bad idea and irresponsible for NATO to just leave those NATO border states at the mercy of Russia would most certainly invade those countries and conduct massive purges against of those people on those border states to crush any opposition to any sort of new Russian (Putin imposed) authoritarian regimes.

It's in Putin's interests to make those NATO member border states authoritarian regimes if he can. And he will do so if he is given the opportunity to do so. Due to this issue, that makes it impossible to have good relations with Russia. You have to be realistic and pragmatic. The relations with Russia will have to be based on deterrence and mutually assured destruction until such time Russia is governed by a more free and democratic government.

We need to treat Putin not as a friend but an adversary and keep it strictly business with him in regards to our relations. A more democratic government in Russia means Putin could find himself out of power and probably on trial by his own people and that is certainly something Putin doesn't want. That and he doesn't want to give up all the privileges and perks that come with being an authoritarian leader in power.

[annatar1914]

@Political Interest

I don't see how it's possible to improve relations with Russia so long as Russian is governed by an authoritarian regime and we have NATO member states on their borders who are not authoritarian regimes and are now enjoying a higher standard of living and a better life than most Russian people. Authoritarians want to stay in power for as long as they live.

And they probably have to because if they don't, their own people would probably put them on trial for the crimes these authoritarians committed against their own people. Authoritarians like Putin know this and hence why he will do whatever he can to stay in power. He views those border NATO member states as a threat to him staying in power in Russia and thus perhaps a threat to his own survival given the consequences if he loses power. On the same token, it would be a bad idea and irresponsible for NATO to just leave those NATO border states at the mercy of Russia would most certainly invade those countries and conduct massive purges against of those people on those border states to crush any opposition to any sort of new Russian (Putin imposed) authoritarian regimes.

It's in Putin's interests to make those NATO member border states authoritarian regimes if he can. And he will do so if he is given the opportunity to do so. Due to this issue. that makes it impossible to have good relations with Russia. You have to be realistic. The relations with Russia will have to be based on deterrence and mutually assured destruction until such time Russia is governed by a more free and democratic government. But such a government in Russia means Putin could find himself out of power and probably on trial by his own people and that is certainly something Putin doesn't want. That and he doesn't want to give up all the privileges and perks that come with being an authoritarian leader in power.

@Politics_Observer ,

I guarantee you that you and the liberal elites of the West would not like a truly representative Russian government in Russia, one that follows the will and the best interest of the Russian people and their sovereignty over the Russian Land. I can assure you of that. By their metric, horrifying though it may be to you and others, President Putin is a Western-loving Liberal, just barely on the edge of their acceptability.

[Politics_Observer]

@annatar1914

Ohh yeah, you don't know that because your fellow comrade Putin over there in Russia hasn't allowed any free and fair elections in his own country for several decades now.

[annatar1914]

@annatar1914

Ohh yeah, you don't know that because your fellow comrade Putin over there in Russia hasn't allowed any free and fair elections in his own country for several decades now.

No...

@Politics_Observer ;

If he did allow it, the newly elected and last President of Russia would be like a cross between General Skobolev and Vladimir Lenin with a touch of Tsar Ivan Grozny. Certain people around the world would spontaneously shit themselves and go into mass catatonia.

[Politics_Observer]

@annatar1914

Whatever dude, you and your Russian wife should move to Russia and join Putin's cult of personality. But I guess you and your wife don't do that, because life is better here in the U.S. Otherwise, why not? You have a Russian wife.

[annatar1914]

@annatar1914

Whatever dude, you and your Russian wife should move to Russia and join Putin's cult of personality. But I guess you and your wife don't do that, because life is better here in the U.S. Otherwise, why not? You have a Russian wife.

@Politics_Observer ; ''whatever'' is not a very good rebuttal. You managed to be both offensive and personally disrespectful, while also wildly inaccurate, ill-informed, and xenophobic. Of course, it's okay in the West for liberals to mock modern day Slavs for holding to attitudes held by their own ancestors in the not-so-recent past

[Politics_Observer]

@annatar1914

It's offensive that you defend a tyrant like Putin who is also an adversary of the U.S.

[annatar1914]

@annatar1914

It's offensive that you defend a tyrant like Putin who is also an adversary of the U.S.

@Politics_Observer

Then you are offended over imaginary things, and therefore cannot maintain this as a rational discussion.

[Politics_Observer]

@annatar1914

Well the same can be said for you, so I guess that makes us even.

[annatar1914]

@annatar1914

Well the same can be said for you, so I guess that makes us even.

@Politics_Observer ;

Even if what you said was some kind of hyperbolic rhetorical flourish, words have meanings, and so when you call the elected leader of a country a ''Tyrant'', you have to know what being a ''Tyrant'' is, and you have to defend your thesis of said leader being a ''Tyrant''.

If you can't do that, you run the risk of reducing the word ''Tyrant'' to; ''strong leader I don't like''. So, where is Putin's ''Tyranny''?

[Rich]

They are not our ancestors they are the ancestors of rich scum, our ancestors were down mines or in factories with a life expectancy not much higher than that of a slave.

Until relatively recently rich people had significantly more children survive to adulthood than poor people, particularly when illegitimate children are taken into account.. This meant there was a continual and relentless tendency to downward mobility. The son of a King was a prince, his son a duke and so on down the socioeconomic hierarchy. Illegitimate children moved down the hierarchy even quicker. William the Conqueror being a notable exception to that rule.

I suspect nearly every indigenous British person has at least one rich male lineage from the 19th Century in their biological inheritance. And the further you go back the more the richer socio economic classes will dominate your biological inheritance. When you talk about "rich scum" I immediately think of Genghis Khan and his hench men. Millions of men have inherited Ghenghis (or a close male relatives) Y Chromosome. But I don't see them showing any shame about being descended from murderous, terrorist slaver genociders.

In every day life in a modern western country its good to treat morals as absolute. We don't kill people, even of we're sure we can get away with it, decent men don't rape women. we don't have sex with underage girls. If I go round to someone's house I don't nick things or take their money, even if they are a lot richer than me, although I supporter greater wealth redistribution. There's a word for people who treat morality as relative in every day life in a prosperous wester country - psychopaths. But if you send me back in a time machine to a pre modern era, or even of you forced me to live out the rest of my life in Afghanistan or some other ghastly society, then I'm sorry all bets are off.

I'm glad we punish murderers. I'm glad we punish thugs who attack people, including racist thugs who attack people of Asian or West Indian decent. But criticising Julius Caesar for genocide and industrial scale slavery in Gaul is just absurd. Whining about Gaulish right to self determination is ridiculous. Even criticising him for undermining the Republic is grossly mistaken in my view.

[Patrickov]

@Rich

I am sorry but I think critizing Julius Caesar for destroying the republic is the right thing to do because the society he was in was closer to now than the other contemporary societies in his time. In some sense he was the Trump, Putin or Xi Jinping of his time, only far more competent than them.

[Deutschmania]

In answer to the question of the original post , I support non-intervention . I believe that the population of each nation deserves to have the right to self determination .