Russia has become a threat to US interests

Public Forum topics are about topics that are current, ot the 1950's, so okay since you did not define, when they were a were a threat, fell form a threat, and then became a threat again. You have failed to prove this, and thus, you are a crappy debater, the judges will know, this. It is a broad topic as well, as it says interests. So, sure i will give you one of many interests in a mine. "Theyve already cut oil to Kosovo, Georgia, Estonia and Ukraine. Theyre fully capapble of this and reamin a threat in this sense. Russia is not an OPEC member so Saudi arabia has no effect over them (not that they would anyway)", look it up. OPEC has 40% of all the oil on this earth. So they can switch to OPEC or other suppliers. Their economy relys too much on poil, to use this influence on larger countries. "3) You can say that as often as youd like, but they simply have displayed aggresive political tendencies to counter our hegemoic force in the UN. And yes, there is a deal is place in which russia has to sell oil stock to the US in exchange for Russias vote, but the point is that this shows russia isnt afraid to go against the US for personal gain. That makes them a threat to that interest", No,interests is broad, we have many, how does Russia hurt Africa, human trafficking, Terrorism, they wrok with us on Terror, they work with us on proliferation, they work with us on many issues, so we have a few issues, that have not even happened yet, just speculation from my opponent, no, it just is not true, we have similar interests. What the heck are you talking about it was all over the moscow news and CNN, they have agreed to make this sites already with poland and Czech republic, if Russia was a threat, would they stop this, they haven't stopped this at all. "Russia has a crap hole economy and even crappier military basis. They cant afford a revamped system, thats why it hasnt been changed in over 30 yeas.", They are fixing it with us, go to the state department and learn. "If russia is selling arms to a threat, they are a threat.", No if a bad guy buys a gun legally from a gun store owner. Who is the threat, the guy that sold the gun or the buyer. The buyer, and besides, they have started to stop suppling them. Well, I think there is a big difference between Russian foreign policy and Soviet foreign policy. I think there is a big improvement. I mean, Russia is a state. I think it has a sense of its national interest, or it's groping for a sense of its national interest. It doesn't have this Leninist ideological thrust to disrupt the Western position all around the world. So even I, who worry about it, I can see a big difference. Russian President Vladimir Putin said last weekend that Russia would resume its Cold War stance of targeting its missiles at Europe if Washington goes ahead with basing parts of the planned shield in the Czech Republic and Poland. But Bush told reporters at the start of a Group of Eight (G8) summit in Germany that "Russia is not going to attack Europe," and is "not something to be hyperventilating about." From the beginning of his presidency in January 2000, Putin pushed the idea of a concerted campaign against terrorism with American and European leaders. He was one of the first to raise the alarm about terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and to warn of linkages between these camps, well-financed terrorist networks, and Islamic militant groups operating in Europe and Eurasia. Russia also actively supported the Northern Alliance in its struggle with the Taliban in Afghanistan. In December 2000, Moscow joined Washington in supporting United Nations sanctions against the Taliban and later appealed for sanctions against Pakistan for aiding the Taliban. After the attacks on the United States, Putin went so far as to suggest he had been expecting a massive terrorist strike—it had only been a matter of time. The events of September 11 were a shock, but not a surprise. Putin's support for Bush was consistent with his efforts to draw world attention to the terrorist threat. This is a regime that -- even with its many very real, even gross flaws -- is the most open and liberal in the country's history. The press is free from government censorship. The opposition, no matter how radical, can publish and campaign for office. Free and fiercely competitive multi-candidate elections are the norm at both the local and national levels. After 1,000 years of authoritarianism and totalitarianism, Russia is radically decentralized, yet whole, with political power dispersed both geographically among the regions and among diverse centers of power on the national level. No party (much less person, even the president) can dominate and mold Russian national politics at will. A longer and broader view yields different observations. There is a great deal in today's Russia that, to the citizen of a mature liberal democracy, appears flawed or even appalling. Yet the progress is undeniable and enormous. Russians, US working together to protect nuclear material Corera in 2005 Corera, Gordon. [Security Correspondent]. "Loose nukes' fear spurs US-Russia action." January 5, 2005. BBC News.http://news.bbc.co.uk.... Accessed January 10, 2008. Meeting in London on 4 January were the two top officials involved in the US-Russian efforts - US Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham and Director of the Russian Federal Atomy Energy Agency Aleksandr Rumyantsev. They told the BBC news website that they were accelerating their protection programme and expanding the scope of co-operation between their two countries to try to ensure that no nuclear material could fall into the wrong hands. If there is a looming threat, it is not one of confrontation but of lost opportunities and a waste of time. It is one of our drifting further apart before we resume cooperation on a whole range of international issues on mutually agreed terms. The ultimate source of optimism is the fact that all nations are natural allies in the face of global threats and challenges such as terrorism, poverty and climate change. What is totally unacceptable are attempts to imply that Russia is to blame for our partners' difficulties. We have been through tough times ourselves, but rational people have always blamed fate rather than foreign governments for the absolute folly of our own ruling elite. Russia is not underestimating the nuclear threat from Iran Blackwill in 2008 Blackwill, Robert D. [Former deputy national security advisor for strategic planning]. "The three Rs: Rivalry, Russia and 'Ran". January 11, 2008. Asia Times. http://www.atimes.com.... Accessed January 10, 2008. Nevertheless, the Kremlin agrees that a nuclear Tehran would be a real danger. After meeting with Sarkozy, Putin conceded that not only is a nuclear-armed Iran not in Russia's interest, but opined that it would pose a greater threat to Russian national security than to European or US vital national interests. So it is up to the West to convince Russia that, regarding Iranian nuclear ambitions, Moscow's long-term equities are best served by comprehensive and full-fledged cooperation with the West. But we only have a chance of doing that if we substantially narrow our policy differences with Russia on many of these other matters. Garamone in 2007 Garamone, Jim. "US, Russia Not Headed for New Cold War, Gates Says." October 24,2007. American Forces Press Service. http://www.defenselink.mil.... Accessed January 10, 2008. The US relationship with Russia is not in danger of becoming a new Cold War, Gates said. During the heyday of the Soviet Union, the United States was in the midst of an ideological war with communism. The Cold War took place in a different world, the secretary said, and while some of Russian President Vladimir Putin's rhetoric has been strong, Russia still is cooperating with the E.U.