US-Russia relationship

[ray243]

From 'liberal' media to the forum members here, many americans seems to support the idea that Russia is going to be a potential enemy, and we must keep russia down at all cost.

So, in your opinion, should Russia and US treat themselves as allies or friends, instead of treating each other as enemies that must be kept down?

[Sidmen]

Its a mutual distrust and hatred that goes all the way back to the cold war. Russians do things that royally screw with US ambitions - so that breeds hatred, and because of that hatred we do things to keep the Russians from ever becoming stronger than us. Its a nice circle-*** that keeps going around and around.

[alhoon]

Its a mutual distrust and hatred that goes all the way back to the cold war. Russians do things that royally screw with US ambitions - so that breeds hatred, and because of that hatred we do things to keep the Russians from ever becoming stronger than us. Its a nice circle-*** that keeps going around and around.

Nicely put. However:
Russia needs money, USA needs Resources.
Russia and USA need each other.

[humvee2800]

Russia isn't much different from US. They are both democratic, capitalist and strong.

America is free market capitalist, russia is nowhere near the same, and hardly strong.

Its not like Russia would invade or annex someone, so the whole "russian threat" issue is just an american propaganda tool.

They are essentially annexing south ossetia and invaded georgia, whether you argue the reasons why the fact is they did both.

I'm pretty sure, as soon as EU will become more strong and independent, we will see american right-wing media show them as "nazis" or something like that.

India is a rising power, democratic, and very strong, but america is helping them build reactors for power and aiding them along.

Nicely put. However:
Russia needs money, USA needs Resources.
Russia and USA need each other.

-_-, except Russia and The USA do nearly zero business whatsoever with eachother.

As much as people dont like to believe it, America is no worse then anyone else, and fairly light handed with its capabilities. They do play world police a bit but mainly because theres noone else to do the job, and with all of Americas power people expect it to act, and will attack it whether it does or doesnt. Fact is in the end, America stepped into two world wars, won them, and kept europe and a large portion of the world from falling to a totalitarian regime in the soviet union.

[DJ Putin]

Fact is in the end, America stepped into two world wars, won them, and kept europe and a large portion of the world from falling to a totalitarian regime in the soviet union.

WW1 maybe, the manpower boost given by the Americans (and Canadians, don't forget them) gave a huge advantage to the Allies, but America was only involved in WW1 for about a year, hardly enough time to shatter Germany all on its own.

As for WW2, sure, the entire Pacific campaign was almost exclusively fought between the U.S. and Japan, with a few exceptions in Burma and around Austrailia. But in Europe, 8 out of every 10 German soldier killed in WW2 was by a Russian. Sure liberating France and Western Europe was a great feat and it kept the Russians from dominating the continent which was a brilliant move by the Allies, but no one had a bigger part in defeating the Germans than Russia. By the time Normandy was underway, the Germans were already being pushed back into Eastern Europe. So please, don't word it like the U.S. won both wars by itself.

[cfmonkey45]

As for WW2, sure, the entire Pacific campaign was almost exclusively fought between the U.S. and Japan, with a few exceptions in Burma and around Austrailia. But in Europe, 8 out of every 10 German soldier killed in WW2 was by a Russian. Sure liberating France and Western Europe was a great feat and it kept the Russians from dominating the continent which was a brilliant move by the Allies, but no one had a bigger part in defeating the Germans than Russia. By the time Normandy was underway, the Germans were already being pushed back into Eastern Europe. So please, don't word it like the U.S. won both wars by itself.

Nonono, when we say "we saved your ass in Dubya Dubya Two," we're saying it to the Western Europeaners, like the Brits and French. We know Russia could hold it's own... that's why we didn't help . Besides... the only good Commie is a dead Commie, and we didn't want Western Europe to be filled with dead commies, so we had to step in...

[Urban fox]

America is free market capitalist, russia is nowhere near the same, and hardly strong.

Yeah, but Russia is getting stronger just as the USA is starting to decline, their biggest problem isnt the US demographic

They are essentially annexing south ossetia and invaded georgia, whether you argue the reasons why the fact is they did both.

Saakashvili the Georgian leader is a whiney, nationalistic, authoritarian turd who picked a fight with Russia then lost, the Osstains never wanted to be part of Georgia in the first place they only got included as part of ‘’Georgia’’ because the Soviet re-drew the maps. The only reason we support Saakashvili is because he a good boot-licker.

India is a rising power, democratic, and very strong, but america is helping them build reactors for power and aiding them along.

That a very recent development for most of the Independent India’s history the USA has been giving support to Pakistan India’s biggest enemy…So much for democratic solidarity.

-_-, except Russia and The USA do nearly zero business whatsoever with eachother.

Yeah, that true, the EU trades a lot with Russia, and China could be a huge market for Russia.

As much as people dont like to believe it, America is no worse then anyone else, and fairly light handed with its capabilities. They do play world police a bit but mainly because theres noone else to do the job, and with all of Americas power people expect it to act, and will attack it whether it does or doesnt. Fact is in the end, America stepped into two world wars, won them, and kept europe and a large portion of the world from falling to a totalitarian regime in the soviet union.

Eh, well thats BS the US reserves the right to do as it’s see’s fit but when anyone else attempts to do the same it’s ''evil''. Spare me the moralistic crap the US is an empire just like Britain used to be...And any war with the Soviet Union would've went nuclear within 10 mins so unless the commies got voted into power in say...France Europe wasnt going to go red.

Oh in WW1 it was Britain and France who beat Germany not the US you guys also stepped in after we'd stopped the German's ditch offensive, the German armies were being forced steadily back, and their population was near starvation the US intervention only sped things up a little.

In WW2 the Soviets did 80% to 90% most of the work beating the Germans, and I mean that literarily over 80% of German losses were on the eastern-front.

The US did beat Japan though.

[alhoon]

-_-, except Russia and The USA do nearly zero business whatsoever with eachother.

While the direct Russia-USA business isn't too much (although it's substantial enough to play a role in economy) they have indirect relations like: Russia sells resources to X nation. X nation does business with USA.

with all of Americas power people expect it to act, and will attack it whether it does or doesnt.

Guilty as charged. Many of us attack USA for doing next to nothing in Rwada or other nations in trouble (Somalia, Sudan) etc.

In our defence though, USA tends to "promote freedom" most forcefully to nations that USA multinationals have economic interest in or that USA needs as allies because of resources.

[Heathen Hammer]

America is free market capitalist, russia is nowhere near the same, and hardly strong.

For a country that is 18 years old, Russia is doing much better than US.

They are essentially annexing south ossetia and invaded georgia, whether you argue the reasons why the fact is they did both.

They pushed back Georgia from South Osetia, they didn't invade Georgia. And Russia only recognised independence of South Osetia, not annexed it. Its for Osetians to decide.

India is a rising power, democratic, and very strong, but america is helping them build reactors for power and aiding them along.

Because they want stronger allies. And they are not as big as Russia anyways.

As much as people dont like to believe it, America is no worse then anyone else, and fairly light handed with its capabilities. They do play world police a bit but mainly because theres noone else to do the job, and with all of Americas power people expect it to act, and will attack it whether it does or doesnt. Fact is in the end, America stepped into two world wars, won them, and kept europe and a large portion of the world from falling to a totalitarian regime in the soviet union.

No one needs world police anyway. Countries like Iraq did far more better with dictatorships, rather than with US invasion, which destryed most of their economy and infrustructure. And after 1956 Soviet regime wasn't any different from American regime, except for economy, so the whole "liberation" thing was just a division of spheres of influence.

[George W. Bush]

The past century has shown us that Russia was a great world-power, and it still is to this day. Eventually, I fear that some of their interests will conflict with ours, or the reverse. I feel that war is inevitable with Russia, whether it's less than ten years from now, or fifty years from now.

[DJ Putin]

I feel that war is inevitable with Russia, whether it's less than ten years from now, or fifty years from now.

Well, in all fairness, people have been saying that ever since the beginning of the Cold War. Personally I like the idea of a powerful Russia, and not because I want to see an eventual conflict. Ever since the fall of the Soviet Union, we've made boneheaded foreign policy decisions right and left. Another superpower in the world would keep our power in check and vice-versa. Whether or not you want to admit it, Russia and the U.S. aren't that different from each other and a powerful Russia would be a helluva lot better than the current power vacuum in the world.

[Sidmen]

Well, in all fairness, people have been saying that ever since the beginning of the Cold War. Personally I like the idea of a powerful Russia, and not because I want to see an eventual conflict. Ever since the fall of the Soviet Union, we've made boneheaded foreign policy decisions right and left. Another superpower in the world would keep our power in check and vice-versa. Whether or not you want to admit it, Russia and the U.S. aren't that different from each other and a powerful Russia would be a helluva lot better than the current power vacuum in the world.

You'll get your wish in the next decades. China is on the rise rapidly, and will not stop (they've got the population, raw materials, and will to be powerful). India is rapidly advancing to keep pace with china. And the EU is slowly turning into a unified Oligarchy. All of which will easily compare to the USA in the near future (30-50 years)

[Heathen Hammer]

Russia isn't much different from US. They are both democratic, capitalist and strong. Its not like Russia would invade or annex someone, so the whole "russian threat" issue is just an american propaganda tool. I'm pretty sure, as soon as EU will become more strong and independent, we will see american right-wing media show them as "nazis" or something like that.

[Norge]

Russia isn't much different from US. They are both democratic, capitalist and strong.

Democratic and strong? Give me a break!

And after 1956 Soviet regime wasn't any different from American regime, except for economy,

The term "free world" is used for a reason. Life under Soviet rule was oppressive, censorship, corruption, and police brutality widespread long after the death of Stalin. People in East-Berlin risked their lives to get into West-Berlin, not the other way around. Just coincidence?

[Heathen Hammer]

Democratic and strong? Give me a break!

I stand by my statement. Unless you can provide any proof.

The term "free world" is used for a reason. Life under Soviet rule was oppressive, censorship, corruption, and police brutality widespread long after the death of Stalin. People in East-Berlin risked their lives to get into West-Berlin, not the other way around. Just coincidence?

It was used by US, so no wonder. Hitler probably called thrid reich "free" as well. And Soviet rule wasn't opressive, just because you couldn't choose governments. Police brutality and censorship were in US as well.
Many Cubans risked their lives to get rid of Batista's proamerican regime. Coincidence as well?

[ray243]

Democratic and strong? Give me a break!


The term "free world" is used for a reason. Life under Soviet rule was oppressive, censorship, corruption, and police brutality widespread long after the death of Stalin. People in East-Berlin risked their lives to get into West-Berlin, not the other way around. Just coincidence?

Talk about censorship when people from Russia told you it is not the case.

And by the way, USSR and east germany is two seperate thing

[cfmonkey45]

Doubtful. The only burgeoning industry in Russia is oil. They had to nationalize their banks, as did most countries.

China, on the other hand, probably will become a major world player. How they will act on the world stage, however, is a different story. In my honest belief, I think that once they get within range of the United States in terms of military and financial infrastructure, which might take a while, they'll basically begin expanding their sphere of influence to get so much more oil.

India, doubtful. Probably not going to amount to much as they their society is so disproportionately divided. They're also in a quasi-war with Pakistan that they don't honestly have the balls to duke out all right and proper. Their economy might be fast tracked, but them as a superpower?


As for the E.U., sure... once they get past the problem of nationalism and create a unified military. Otherwise it's all for naught.




Strangely, I can't help but think of eschatology when I think of these nations... interesting.

[humvee2800]

See the issue with the eu is so many expect it to become a world superpower, what about the interests of all those in it? sure a unified EU means a strongers power, and a massive military power, but beyond protection, why should the EU be created as power for the sake of power.

Ultimately i just hope whether they do or do not its the wish of the EU's people and not power hungry leaders in france.

[Exarch]

russia should be a part of the EU

[Sidmen]

russia should be a part of the EU

What a perfect way to kill any hope the EU has of becoming a nation.

Which is good IMO.. The EU is the least democratic of all the potential future superpowers. A Bunch of democratic states is way better than a single huge Oligarchy.