Biden/Harris Presidency Discussion Thread

AbusesToilets

Manach wrote: »

Can I inquire about your own experiece in Human rights/International law, my own come from a law degree,so I know the appropriateness of when and where to ask such questions. If the Trump admin had been so maladroit so as to confront both China and Russia at the same time, then similar internet-experts like yourself would have been up in arms about the inappropriateness. If for instance you have cared to read this month's Foreign Affairs journal, there was numerous articles praising the new mature, adult Biden approach to diplomatic relations in contrast to previous admin's. Unfortunately it seems based on last week, reflecting social media users, the Biden admin is more about grandstanding and playing to the internet audience rather than engaging with real-politik.

Trump would have been right to call those countries out. You are quick to criticize this action, without laying out what you feel is an appropriate interval for engaging with their clear criminality and aggressive actions.

The realpolitik, as you say, is that the US has been getting attacked repeatedly by both parties, as have the EU. Both countries have profited massively from theft, intimidation and taking advantage of western countries weakness. They need to be challenged directly, in a coordinated fashion. Biden is correct in doing so.

hotmail.com

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Trump would have been right to call those countries out. You are quick to criticize this action, without laying out what you feel is an appropriate interval for engaging with their clear criminality and aggressive actions.

The realpolitik, as you say, is that the US has been getting attacked repeatedly by both parties, as have the EU. Both countries have profited massively from theft, intimidation and taking advantage of western countries weakness. They need to be challenged directly, in a coordinated fashion. Biden is correct in doing so.

That's fine, but the point is the way in which he criticised Putin.

That's the point people are making.

It looks like grandstanding, acting the "hard man". Ironically then, he fell going up a stairs.

StringerBell

Don't think so, think it's just something used to create a narrative to attack him with. This will happen a lot over the next 4 years so get used to it.

There's not a hint of irony though that the same people who will speak about Biden acting the hard man for speaking frankly about Putin would laid trump for his no nonsense straight talking approach.

Wasn't it so empowering to hear how he had a bigger button than little rocket Man?

hotmail.com

StringerBell wrote: »

Don't think so, think it's just something used to create a narrative to attack him with. This will happen a lot over the next 4 years so get used to it.

There's not a hint of irony though that the same people who will speak about Biden acting the hard man for speaking frankly about Putin would laid trump for his no nonsense straight talking approach.

Wasn't it so empowering to hear how he had a bigger button than little rocket Man?

You have to deal with each statement or action in its own and not keep referring back to what his predecessor did.

And in this instance, he's statements were like something from the Cold War. I don't think even Obama would have used such words.

Who thought it would be the Democrats using such aggressive language in relation to foreign policy. What is surprising, is the level of support for this language.

It just underlines, that a lot of people still see America as the guardian of morality in the world. A country with widespread poverty, racism and private healthcare.

AbusesToilets

hotmail.com wrote: »

That's fine, but the point is the way in which he criticised Putin.

That's the point people are making.

It looks like grandstanding, acting the "hard man". Ironically then, he fell going up a stairs.

Was there some aspect of his statement that was inaccurate? You can call it inflammatory, or ill advised, but it's true. Putin is a murderer, has presided over Russia's descent into a kleptocracy and has made concerted efforts to destabilize global institutions and specifically Western Democracies.

He responds and likely only "respects" strength. There's no benefit or purpose to tip toeing about.

Also I'd say the statement was entirely strategic and there doesn't appear to be any real negative blowback for the administration at a global level. So that's successful imho.

Brussels Sprout

AbusesToilets wrote: »

He responds and likely only "respects" strength. There's no benefit or purpose to tip toeing about.

This is key. Putin is a gangster in the true sense of the word. He respects only raw power and wields it himself to maximise his position whenever he spots an opportunity. He came up through the KGB, witnessed the collapse of a system that he had invested his future in and then saw his country get abandoned and humbled in the '90s. He has based his entire political career about ensuring that Russia will never again be seen as weak.

He constantly tests boundaries of western nations, seeing where they themselves are weak or how they react, e.g. encroaching into their territory with war planes, murdering people on their territory and hacking their government systems.

You're not going to make friends with some like Putin. That might have been possible with Medvedev but not Putin. With Putin the best you can do is grudging respect and you have to start by standing up to him and laying down the rules.

TomOnBoard

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

This is key. Putin is a gangster in the true sense of the word. He respects only raw power and wields it himself to maximise his position whenever he spots an opportunity. He came up through the KGB, witnessed the collapse of a system that he had invested his future in and then saw his country get abandoned and humbled in the '90s. He has based his entire political career about ensuring that Russia will never again be seen as weak.

He constantly tests boundaries of western nations, seeing where they themselves are weak or how they react, e.g. encroaching into their territory with war planes, murdering people on their territory and hacking their government systems.

You're not going to make friends with some like Putin. That might have been possible with Medvedev but not Putin. With Putin the best you can do is grudging respect and you have to start by standing up to him and laying down the rules.

Excellent assessment.

Manic Moran

I don’t think anyone should be losing any sleep over a blunt assessment of Russian and Chinese attitudes as long as they are correct. It’s not as if saying it or not is going to affect greatly the practical interactions between countries. A bit undiplomatic, sure, but what harm does it do, really?

Professor Moriarty

hotmail.com wrote: »

That's fine, but the point is the way in which he criticised Putin.

That's the point people are making.

It looks like grandstanding, acting the "hard man". Ironically then, he fell going up a stairs.

Hmm. I think you're conflating two different public perceptions and drawing an inaccurate and irrelevant conclusion. Franklin D Roosevelt was in a wheelchair throughout his presidency. Nobody would suggest he wasn't a hard man.

hotmail.com

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Was there some aspect of his statement that was inaccurate? You can call it inflammatory, or ill advised, but it's true. Putin is a murderer, has presided over Russia's descent into a kleptocracy and has made concerted efforts to destabilize global institutions and specifically Western Democracies.

He responds and likely only "respects" strength. There's no benefit or purpose to tip toeing about.

America consistently destablises countries and carries out serial bombings murdering people.

Russia and America aren't that different.

Trump just didn't bother with anti Russia stuff knowing it was all a charade. Biden's policy looks like it's heading back to the charade stuff to look good domestically and distract from real issues.

BonnieSituation

hotmail.com wrote: »

America consistently destablises countries and carries out serial bombings murdering people.

Russia and America aren't that different.

Trump just didn't bother with anti Russia stuff knowing it was all a charade. Biden's policy looks like it's heading back to the charade stuff to look good domestically and distract from real issues.

But you're not a Trump supporter? Right?

Timberrrrrrrr

hotmail.com wrote: »

America consistently destablises countries and carries out serial bombings murdering people.

Russia and America aren't that different.

Trump just didn't bother with anti Russia stuff knowing it was all a charade. Biden's policy looks like it's heading back to the charade stuff to look good domestically and distract from real issues.

The real issues like 300,000 dead from a pandemic? Mass shootings? Thise sort of real issues?

hotmail.com

BonnieSituation wrote: »

But you're not a Trump supporter? Right?

You have to separate being pro and anti Trump and someone that doesn't support US foreign policy.

Are you not able to see the difference?

hotmail.com

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

The real issues like 300,000 dead from a pandemic? Mass shootings? Thise sort of real issues?

Yep, systemic racism, lack of health care, dreadful poverty.

Issues that Trump didn't bother to address and issues that successive governments don't address.

Oh look at Russia/terrorism in the Middle East. Same old stuff from America.

At least Trump didn't pretend to care about those issues.

I don't think Trump cared about anything.

Professor Moriarty

hotmail.com wrote: »

Yep, systemic racism, lack of health care, dreadful poverty.

Issues that Trump didn't bother to address and issues that successive governments don't address.

Oh look at Russia/terrorism in the Middle East. Same old stuff from America.

At least Trump didn't pretend to care about those issues.

I don't think Trump cared about anything.

How many billions of dollars worth of arms did Trump sell to Saudi Arabia during his presidency?

hotmail.com

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

How many billions of dollars worth of arms did Trump sell to Saudi Arabia during his presidency?

No idea but probably a lot and not out of line with American foreign policy I.e. to sell weapons to foreign countries.

Mitch Connor

hotmail.com wrote: »

You have to deal with each statement or action in its own and not keep referring back to what his predecessor did... even Obama would have used such words.

"Don't compare him to previous presidents. Not even the previous previous president would have said the same."

Cool.

Professor Moriarty

hotmail.com wrote: »

No idea but probably a lot and not out of line with American foreign policy I.e. to sell weapons to foreign countries.

Indeed. Even though the Senate and House were against the sale. Wonder why he pushed it though.

hotmail.com

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Indeed. Even though the Senate and House were against the sale. Wonder why he pushed it though.

Because he was a dodgy gangster president.

We know that.

The point I've been making, is that aren't all US presidents dodgy. Some worse than others, but overall most are terrible.

Tell me how

hotmail.com wrote: »

Because he was a dodgy gangster president.

We know that.

The point I've been making, is that aren't all US presidents dodgy. Some worse than others, but overall most are terrible.

What leader, from any country you are familiar with in your lifetime, would you say isn't/wasn't dodgy?

hotmail.com

Tell me how wrote: »

What leader, from any country you are familiar with in your lifetime, would you say isn't/wasn't dodgy?

None really. Their job is to protect the interests of your country and to ensure you get re elected. This leads to short term bad decisions.

StringerBell

hotmail.com wrote: »

You have to deal with each statement or action in its own and not keep referring back to what his predecessor did.

And in this instance, he's statements were like something from the Cold War. I don't think even Obama would have used such words.

Who thought it would be the Democrats using such aggressive language in relation to foreign policy. What is surprising, is the level of support for this language.

It just underlines, that a lot of people still see America as the guardian of morality in the world. A country with widespread poverty, racism and private healthcare.

I think given the direction the GOP and the right wing media have decided to continue to go despite the trump's loss it is very much of value at the minute to draw comparison's with the previous office holder and those people's words and actions at the time.

I've already said for Biden's statement, it doesn't need defending it was perfectly fine. It achieved its goals of drawing a contrast, keeping his supporters happy and publicly showing Putin that he is not going to be the same lap dog as he has had for the past 4 years.

Nothing about it was inaccurate or egregious. It was important, and more importantly drew a line publicly. This is all Putin cares about, if Russia wants back in to the G8 (which it obviously does) the kind of publicity is not good for him.

Jelle1880

I always heard that Biden would be soft on China and Russia, especially the former because of the claims about his son.

But when he talks out against these countries it's also a problem ?
It just reminds me of general right wing rhetoric where certain groups are simultaneously freeloaders but also taking jobs and in control.

rock22

Since Gorbachev and Glasnost It has been the west, particularly NATO, that has been most aggressive in dealing with Russia. It is not too surprising that the Russian distrust the west and prefer to have a Putin in charge.

A lot of Russian are well aware of his deficiencies but until the west lives up to the promises it made to Russia they will continue to turn to a hard man type president.

There is no indication that Biden is the president who can reset relations with either China or Russia . Luckily the EU seem unwilling to give US unconditional support

Melanchthon

StringerBell wrote: »

keeping his supporters happy and publicly showing Putin that he is not going to be the same lap dog as he has had for the past 4 years.

This is an example of a very partisan viewpoint

Governor Romney, I’m glad that you recognize that Al Qaida is a threat, because a few months ago when you were asked what’s the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia, not Al Qaida; you said Russia, in the 1980s, they’re now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because, you know, the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.
But Governor, when it comes to our foreign policy, you seem to want to import the foreign policies of the 1980s, just like the social policies of the 1950s and the economic policies of the 1920s.
And here’s Romney:

Russia I indicated is a geopolitical foe… and I said in the same – in the same paragraph I said, and Iran is the greatest national security threat we face. Russia does continue to battle us in the U.N. time and time again. I have clear eyes on this. I’m not going to wear rose-colored glasses when it comes to Russia, or Mr. Putin. And I’m certainly not going to say to him, I’ll give you more flexibility after the election. After the election, he’ll get more backbone.

You can't turn around and say Putin was dealing with a lapdog under Trump ignore that if thats the case, what was Obama's administration which Biden was a part of.
Don't forget either Trumps relocating of Troops to Poland.

I don't actually agree that Russia is a geo-political threat on the scale of China to the US, it just isn't but you can't hammer Trump on that and ignore Obama.

Jelle1880 wrote: »

I always heard that Biden would be soft on China and Russia, especially the former because of the claims about his son.

But when he talks out against these countries it's also a problem ?

He was fairly wishywashy on China which is the real issue, as far as I know he hasn't came out and stated that the arms deal to Taiwan will definitely go ahead for example, he didn't say anything about tariffs and so on, I mean saying that he would ban products of forced labour isn't a huge ask,. He should have also clearly stated that he backs the UK in the assertion that they are in breach of the 1984 Hong Kong declaration

Jelle1880

rock22 wrote: »

Since Gorbachev and Glasnost It has been the west, particularly NATO, that has been most aggressive in dealing with Russia. It is not too surprising that the Russian distrust the west and prefer to have a Putin in charge.

A lot of Russian are well aware of his deficiencies but until the west lives up to the promises it made to Russia they will continue to turn to a hard man type president.

There is no indication that Biden is the president who can reset relations with either China or Russia . Luckily the EU seem unwilling to give US unconditional support

Maybe it would be better to ponder why so many former Warsaw Pact countries want to join NATO and get away from the Russian sphere of influence ?

I know Russia loves to moan about how NATO is threatening them because their neighbouring countries join up but these countries are looking at NATO to protect them from Russia, not the other way around.

Melanchthon wrote: »

He was fairly wishywashy on China which is the real issue, as far as I know he hasn't came out and stated that the arms deal to Taiwan will definitely go ahead for example, he didn't say anything about tariffs and so on, I mean saying that he would ban products of forced labour isn't a huge ask,. He should have also clearly stated that he backs the UK in the assertion that they are in breach of the 1984 Hong Kong declaration

I don't really know what you'd class as 'wishywashy'. He literally said that he won't allow China to become the richest country on earth just yesterday.
Anthony Blinken is in Europe now meeting with leaders to discuss China as well, no doubt in a bid to get allies for this sort of alliance Biden seems to want to build to counter China's influence in various regions. They also literally used the word 'genocide' regarding the Uighur people.

Could he do more ? Sure, maybe. But he also has a few more important things on his plate than to tackle a country at the other side of the world.
And the things he has said seem pretty clear and strong.

rock22

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Maybe it would be better to ponder why so many former Warsaw Pact countries want to join NATO and get away from the Russian sphere of influence ?

I know Russia loves to moan about how NATO is threatening them because their neighbouring countries join up but these countries are looking at NATO to protect them from Russia, not the other way around.


.......

In the late 80's and early 90's there was an opportunity to engage and help Russia on the road to democracy. Bush said as much , saying they should have helped Russia more. ( Havel from Czechoslovakia said that if the US wanted to help the satellite states then they needed to focus on helping Gorbachev. . But the west, and in particular NATO , was wedded to the idea of a big bad enemy.

It was understandable that eastern block countries wanted protection from USSR. But wit hthe dissolution of that entity and a friendly Russia there was no need for NATO and missiles aimed at Russia. Remember there was no Putin then.

Today , it is natural that Russia feels threatened by having American missles aimed at it from neighbouring states. Do you think the US would react differently if , for instance, Russia ( or other 'enemy' ) were to place missiles in a neighbouring state and aim then at US?

duploelabs

rock22 wrote: »

In the late 80's and early 90's there was an opportunity to engage and help Russia on the road to democracy. Bush said as much , saying they should have helped Russia more. ( Havel from Czechoslovakia said that if the US wanted to help the satellite states then they needed to focus on helping Gorbachev. . But the west, and in particular NATO , was wedded to the idea of a big bad enemy.

It was understandable that eastern block countries wanted protection from USSR. But wit hthe dissolution of that entity and a friendly Russia there was no need for NATO and missiles aimed at Russia. Remember there was no Putin then.

Today , it is natural that Russia feels threatened by having American missles aimed at it from neighbouring states. Do you think the US would react differently if , for instance, Russia ( or other 'enemy' ) were to place missiles in a neighbouring state and aim then at US?

You've heard of Cuba right?

Timberrrrrrrr

rock22 wrote: »

In the late 80's and early 90's there was an opportunity to engage and help Russia on the road to democracy. Bush said as much , saying they should have helped Russia more. ( Havel from Czechoslovakia said that if the US wanted to help the satellite states then they needed to focus on helping Gorbachev. . But the west, and in particular NATO , was wedded to the idea of a big bad enemy.

It was understandable that eastern block countries wanted protection from USSR. But wit hthe dissolution of that entity and a friendly Russia there was no need for NATO and missiles aimed at Russia. Remember there was no Putin then.

Today , it is natural that Russia feels threatened by having American missles aimed at it from neighbouring states. Do you think the US would react differently if , for instance, Russia ( or other 'enemy' ) were to place missiles in a neighbouring state and aim then at US?

Yeah, they tried that once in 1962

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis

 month, 4 day (16 October – 20 November 1962) confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union which escalated into an international crisis when American deployments of missiles in Italy and Turkey were matched by Soviet deployments of similar ballistic missiles in Cuba. The confrontation is often considered the closest the Cold War came to escalating into a full-scale nuclear war.[2]