U.S sactions on Russia over Ukraine.
Debate Rounds (5)
Ukraine is at Russia's front door. The U.S should not get in the middle. I think Putin will take it to the end knowing the sanctions won't effect him much and odds are the U.S. is bluffing any way.
Maybe it's a foolish pissing match after the west belittled Russia over the Olympic games. I asked the Olympic committee not to allow Russia to host in the past . Russia however did a fine job maintaining safety and security, not that I doubted their ability. In my opinion they flat out didn't deserve to host, but the west had no reason to cut them down the way they did either.
I couldn't agree more that backing down from threats makes you look weak.
I also agree that past threats and subsequent failure to follow up discredited Obama and US influence.
Now, when it comes to Ukraine, it is a given backing down again would have similar negative effects.
But must also agree that the threats have already been clearly made, have they not?
Thus given our past agreements(if we do indeed agree) we must also agree the US must now follow through. If this creates a mini cold war dynamic, so be it. Does Russia violations of no less than 3 international treaties and brazen behavior not well warrant such a thing? The only question should be whether this behavior is acceptable, not our determination.
The US does have a heavy blow it can strike against Russia admits other things.
Most of Russia's trade is in resources, gas and oil totaling about 330 Billion. Mostly with the EU and G7. (china is the other major partner)
By colluding the US and EU have the ability to damage russia.
I don't like blood shed, but I feel a new cold war will benefit many economies that have gone stagnant.
One really needs to review how Russia backed Assad at the time, time to see the relevance in my argument. The US backs far to many extremist groups everyday claiming it is promoting Democracy, when it is in fact a Republic. Syria is a place where the US would likely be supporting terrorists to topple Assad. That wouldn't make much sense so I agree no action was good, but If he never bluffed and never said anything I think Russia might be behaving different in the Ukraine.
I wold like to begin by pointing out we have agreed once a threat is made not following through discredits you. As such, the US should follow through or be discredited again.
"But cutting off the natural resources to the market hurts everyone involved."
This is true. But I propose 3 points about this.
1. It will hurt Russia more. (over 65% of russia's trade is susceptible to US and allied efforts)
2. The world has survived without russian resources before; only 24 years ago. People were not so bad off.
3. The world can do it again, and is perhaps is even better equipped.
To elaborate on point 3, the US has surpassed Russia as the largest gas producer recently and continues to grow. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) As over 180 billion (50%+) of Russia's export is natural gas, the US can provide the shortfall. The only issue is increase transportation costs, which is how it was done pre mid 1990s.
As for syria, there are non-terrorist groups to support.
Russia needs oil from no one. Russia is one of the least dependent economies in the world as far as consumption. (needs citing )
There was an article In the IRNA On 2014 oil price reduction predictions if Iran sanctions ease. This shows how volatile the supply is to the demand . I'm sure I don't need to remind you about the oil embargo in the 70's, and the effect it has had on the US.
Obama calls Putin "weak" for try to keep Ukraine under control... I guess Obama doesn't understand what power is.lol
As I said, only 20 years ago the world did fine without russian oil. The US is also now self sufficient in energy as well, meaning, former US suppliers now can supply the EU more.
Most of Russia's export and money comes in natural Gas rather than oil. Russia's oil export was similar to Iran's in 2006. Iran's exports were reduced by 80% by sanctions and the world has suffered negligibly. This is better proof than alarmist remarks saying the world can't do without something it has already done without more often than not.
"Our stock market is in trouble"
By the that logic the stock markets would have collapsed when they sanctioned Iran, an oil exporter just as large before sanctions.
The effects have been minimal.
The US S&P 500 closed March 18 on a year to year HIGH, 0% losses.
By contrast, the russian stock market has suffered a net loss of 12% since Feb 17. to March 18., equal to hundreds of billion of rubles. Just gone over night.
Because of char limit, sources will be in comments.
People living with a class war mind set need to think things through. Every poor person in the US will have less if we shut off Russia's energy supplies. Same goes for the rest.
I live in the US and I hope Putin can kill Obama....I don't like many things Putin pushes, but I have more respect for Putin.
I hate Obama for treading on our constitutional rights.
Do you notice having much less since they sanctioned Iran? Most people don't.
We should admit there are more important things than our wallet.
Like whether or not the world is going to allow behaviors that belong in the WWII era. Failure to respond sets a very dangerous precedent. Russia could go on tro try and subjugate all former soviet places, China could also be enboldend. The long term implications pale in comparison to what Americans might suffer from sanctioning Russia.
Really, its up to Europe to effictively santion Russia because they trade much more. The US, and all the other major suppliers can just provide the energy shortfall. You will not suffer very much either way.
Whether or not you like Obama is irrelevent, Obama is an elected man an Putin is a bloody dictator who says in power by cheating, oppressing, and murdering. To support such a man against the leader of not only a democratic country, but your own democratic country, is really a sign you need to rethink things.
frankienstien forfeited this round.
LaughingRiddle forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||1|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for Con's initial forfeit. As to arguments: This seemed more a conversation than a debate, and the resolution was not really clearly outlined. So I'm leaving that tied, as I find myself unable to find the specific thing that Con was arguing and had the BoP for. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.