• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who should send troops in Ukraine?

Who should send troops in Ukraine?

  • NATO

    Votes: 9 17.0%

  • UN

    Votes: 3 5.7%

  • EU

    Votes: 5 9.4%

  • USA

    Votes: 5 9.4%

  • Russia

    Votes: 8 15.1%

  • Ukraine

    Votes: 7 13.2%

  • Nobody

    Votes: 25 47.2%

  • Santa / Ded Moroz

    Votes: 3 5.7%

  • Other

    Votes: 3 5.7%

  • None of my business

    Votes: 11 20.8%
  • Total voters
    53
MadLib said:
Appeasement and the threat of aggression to international stability exist as much today as they did during World War II. If they didn't exist in 1939 there also wouldn't have been a WWII.

That being said, this should be a primarily European Union responsibility, seeing as Ukraine is in their own backyard and that the revolution was pro-EU. We should aid them, especially if Russia backs a separatist movement in Crimea, but we should only send in troops (through NATO) if Russia makes incursions beyond Crimea.
Click to expand...

We should stay out of it, this is Russia's "backyard" and Russia will do what they feel is in their best interest without any opposition. Sure the EU will publicly voice their disapproval, but privately they will be calling Putin on the phone and saying, "please don't turn off our gas Mr. Putin", so there isn't too much hope for that changing the equation.

Here is the thing: Putin still respects the United States and our militarily and economic power. Why wouldn't he? He is a pretty intelligent and cautious man. However what Putin does not respect is our current administration. Just look how stupidly Obama and Kerry dealt with Assad in Syria, so why would Putin for one second believe that this administration could show leadership effective enough to solidify support with the EU to deter Russia from what they believe are in their interests in the Ukraine?

This is Russia's game, not ours. Our president never even checked in when it comes to international strategy. Putin has a clear hand to move any chess piece he wants, and if he is as smart as I think he is, he will be moving more before the chance of a power change in Washington occurs.

This is what happens when you send a community organizer to do a man's job.
 
Give peace a chance.
 
Lets see, NATO, only has a few members that has troops that actually know which end of a gun the bullet comes out of, disorganized idiots, 16+ Different people involved with every decision and you couldn't exclude the surrender monkeys.

UN, ok, Russia has veto power, and outside of a few countries, they would make the majority of NATO look like well trained elites and the French would still be handing out white flags to everyone.

EU, right. Brits are the only ones with enough troops who actually know what they are doing to be of any good, although not enough to stand up to Russia alone and yet again, there is the issue of which side the French will actually be on.

USA, good luck there. We are cutting troops and equipment, cutting troops pay/benefits which is really going to up their morale. We have very little if any military leadership that knows more about war than about kissing ass and sucking DNC dick. We have a pro-socialist, wanna-be-dictator cowardly ***** as a president.

Russia, they are sending more there with little chance of anyone but some Ukrainians standing against them.

Santa, even though fictional, still more likely to provide any useful help than Obama can/will.
 
We need to leave those people alone. If Russia wants to help suppress the illegal coup d'état, with the agreement of the legitimate leader of the Ukraine, there actions are justified and they should not be obstructed.
 
Sadly I think we're going to make idiots out of ourselves before we but out. (deja vu anyone?)
 
Morality Games said:
Ideally NATO would with European countries leading the charge. Russia's perpetual disregard for territorial sovereignty pretty much destroys the point of having any system of dialogue.
Click to expand...

Because America and Europe have never infringed on anyone's sovereignty. Ever.

Anyone who disagrees is a Communist. And they hate America. And they're fat.
 
Paleocon said:
Because America and Europe have never infringed on anyone's sovereignty. Ever.

Anyone who disagrees is a Communist. And they hate America. And they're fat.
Click to expand...

I'd have to weigh specific cases. Saddam's Iraq attacked Kuwait and used chemical weapons, which threatened to send the entire Middle East into chaos and create an international energy crisis. Iran's nationalization of British-Persian Petroleum is a tricky issue where all parties challenged each other with extreme power grabs.
 
While there are, of course, American interests in having Ukraine more in the Western sphere of influence than the Russian, I'm more inclined to let the EU deal with this. Europe in general has been very vocal about the "barbarism" of the US in its military ventures, while at the same time benefiting from it. Perhaps, just this once, it'd be fun to see them have to deal with something using military force, simply so that they recall that it's necessary from time to time.

So who "should"? Well, whoever finds it in their interests to do so, and find that in their analysis the expected reward surpassed the expected risk. That's just simple neorealism. But "should" the US get involved. For long game purposes, no. Remind Europe that the US isn't necessarily beholden to it, and that it must be ready to do that which it villifies the US for.

Could be fun.
 
Cardinal said:
See, that's the problem with waging wars against vastly inferior militaries for the last forty years: people have gotten to thinking wars are really easy and that the worst we'll have to encounter is guerrilla fighting after the three day post-bombing high. Only an increasingly aging generation can remember a time when we faced off against a worthy adversary.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. We in the West like our wars short, clinical and incurring no casualties on our sides, this attitude has worked brilliantly against unsophisticated 3rd world countries but now that we have the prospect of going up against a real enemy we turn chicken, and rightfully so- what Russia is doing has no direct threat against us and so this global policeman attitude has got to stop. We are like the big kid beating up all the little kids and telling everybody what to do but when faced by another big kid we turn tail.
 
PoS said:
Absolutely. We in the West like our wars short, clinical and incurring no casualties on our sides, this attitude has worked brilliantly against unsophisticated 3rd world countries but now that we have the prospect of going up against a real enemy we turn chicken, and rightfully so- what Russia is doing has no direct threat against us and so this global policeman attitude has got to stop. We are like the big kid beating up all the little kids and telling everybody what to do but when faced by another big kid we turn tail.
Click to expand...

The problem with this viewpoint is you're looking at war like some cosmic test of manhood. It's just risk v reward (or should be, sometimes leaders can fall into the problem that you just exhibited). Of course when the risk is lesser, the rewards don't need to be as great, and action is more likely to occur. When the risk is greater, the rewards need to be greater, and thus action is less likely to occur.

It's not about nation-states being "tough" or being "******s" lol. It should be viewed through a rational analytic process. Not through analogies about recess.
 
Paleocon said:
Because America and Europe have never infringed on anyone's sovereignty. Ever.

Anyone who disagrees is a Communist. And they hate America. And they're fat.
Click to expand...

PoS said:
Absolutely. We in the West like our wars short, clinical and incurring no casualties on our sides, this attitude has worked brilliantly against unsophisticated 3rd world countries but now that we have the prospect of going up against a real enemy we turn chicken, and rightfully so- what Russia is doing has no direct threat against us and so this global policeman attitude has got to stop. We are like the big kid beating up all the little kids and telling everybody what to do but when faced by another big kid we turn tail.
Click to expand...

It's more like a bunch of little kids are ganging up on each other and the United States beats them up until they stop. For some reason the role regional rivalries play in spurring conflict get lost in the narrative of USA WANTS OIL (so do the rest of us, that's why we're allies and economic partners).
 
OldWorldOrder said:
The problem with this viewpoint is you're looking at war like some cosmic test of manhood. It's just risk v reward (or should be, sometimes leaders can fall into the problem that you just exhibited). Of course when the risk is lesser, the rewards don't need to be as great, and action is more likely to occur. When the risk is greater, the rewards need to be greater, and thus action is less likely to occur.

It's not about nation-states being "tough" or being "******s" lol. It should be viewed through a rational analytic process. Not through analogies about recess.
Click to expand...
I think you misunderstood me, its not about being the toughest kid on the block, every nation is always looking out for their own interests and in Russia's case it views its neighboring countries as satellites in order to protect itself against all enemies real and imagined. The US on the other hand, is torn between trying to promote its brand of liberal democracy and trying to maintain the status quo as well as attacking its own enemies real and imagined- but only if it can be done without too much effort- Ukraine however will be quite a bit of effort so thats why I dont believe the US and NATO will do anything.
 
Morality Games said:
It's more like a bunch of little kids are ganging up on each other and the United States beats them up until they stop.
Click to expand...

Except for the times where we encourage the bullies.
 
Paleocon said:
Except for the times where we encourage the bullies.
Click to expand...

That's not in the cards... we have little to no credibility. Any line in the sand would be laughed at, so there's literally nothing we can do other than try to gather support for Russia's isolation and Cold War II.
 
Crimea...the Russians are already there.

The Ukraine...no one.
 
Cardinal said:
And this...is why certain ex-Soviet blocs joined NATO when they had the chance. To think we'd allow Russia to invade countries we are bound by treaty to defend is irrational.
Click to expand...

We are not bound by treaty to militarily defend Ukraine.
 
Dezaad said:
We are not bound by treaty to militarily defend Ukraine.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know, that's why I mentioned that they're not a member of NATO.
 
Cardinal said:
Yes, I know, that's why I mentioned that they're not a member of NATO.
Click to expand...

Ok, reviewed all your posts together, my bad. Our views are almost identical on this matter.
 
rathi said:
You have absolutely no idea what the Russian plan is. The possibility exists of course, but right now we are operating without information. In the 2008 war with Georgia, the Russians did not occupy any additional land beyond Ossetia and Abkhazia.
Click to expand...

The fact that russia has not left South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and has for all intents and purposes annexed the two small sections of land that by all rights belongs to Georgia, shows their expansionist tendencies. Not to mention the brutal way that the campaign was handled by Russian generals in the first place. It is rumored that rape and murder of civilians was tolerated if not encouraged by the upper echelons of the russian military to teach the Georgians a lesson. The whole dam thing happened because the Georgians wanted to build an oil pipeline into the rest of Europe and challenge russia. the whole "Georgians are opressing the ossetia and Abkhazia people" was just the excuse.

Believe me the russians want their territories back and they will get it if not stopped. this will turn into another pre ww2 if the world doesn't do something about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom