[eDebate] K Ground on Russia

Paul Johnson paulj567
Wed Apr 23 14:56:39 CDT 2008

first off, i'm down with what Lacy said to the extent
that it means "if the K wins some debates, its
probably relevant", and I feel like this is the case
on the Russia topic. I havent yet had the time to run
through the other topic papers, and I may not have the
time, but I don't think the Russia topic should live
or die because its "bad for the K". some might say it
should die because it is "good for the K". 

i dont really think "nuclearism" and "security" is all
you'd find on Russia. Although I'd hesitate to
denigrate either of these two options (if, after all,
you are into the nuclearism literature, you'd realize
that the topic's focus on a bastion of our Cold War
enemy construction and their nuclear weapons in the
21st century represents a more unique and interesting
link than the average nuclearism bear). I wont bother
with a similar explanation of the relevance of the
security K except to say well, plenty of people say we
should move beyond Russia, and this topic puts us back

In addition there are:

standard plan relevant critiques of democracy and
otherization- i mean, if we're talking about
cooperation <make russia like us> so that they are
more stable <democratic peace theory> so their economy
runs smoothly <cap>. 

interestingly, as putin centralizes the economy, you
have a space less conducive to a modern neo-liberal
style of capitalism. any plan advantages dealing with
government direction/putin as prime minister/democracy
are pretty awesome critique ground.

critiques of uniformity- plenty of folks in the
literature have the tendency to center Russia as the
locus of stability, paying no mention or lip service
to the former republics like Ukraine and Belarus.
fertile K ground.(yes, its a link of "omission", but
those still win debates)

Human rights- ummm Russia does a bunch of messed up
stuff to its citizens. i think there's plenty of fine
literature indicating we should shun/condition reforms
on HR/should critique their behavior.

The "Cold War Mindset" Kritik. Russia is no longer the
locus of stability for the world. The Cold War is
over. Why do we insist that its Russia as the linchpin
of stability? Despite the answer of poverty,
terrorism, African instability, financial crises, we
think that the one thing that will make the world
better is a solid Russia policy? This is some devil's
advocacy on my part, but well, I think this sounds
pretty good.

My snap judgment is that the K ground would also be
pretty great on a healthcare topic (we'd be more sick
of Foucault than we already are but that doesnt mean
the cards wouldn't be boss) and Latin America needs
little in the way of explanation (globalization rears
its nasty head). but I think "bad for K teams" isnt a
reason not to pick Russia. might be a reason not to
pick reparations, though.


Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

More information about the Mailman mailing list