• 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
Totally agree Carinal... no one should send troops in to another sovereign country unless asked by their government, or the government has become completely illegitimate through mass murder or other crimes against humanity, and even then interference is iffy at best.

Besides russia seems to be taking action similar to Nazi Germany right before WW2 officially started with france and britten entering the fight. Taking up first thsoe places that were "Ethnically" and "historically" german, in this case russian, and then expanding on that each time saying " we will stop after this" and then ignoring any peace treaty or agreement afterwords. I hope the world has learned Appeasement never works. First Georgia, now Ukraine.
 
Totally agree Carinal... no one should send troops in to another sovereign country unless asked by their government, or the government has become completely illegitimate through mass murder or other crimes against humanity, and even then interference is iffy at best.

Besides russia seems to be taking action similar to Nazi Germany right before WW2 officially started with france and britten entering the fight. Taking up first thsoe places that were "Ethnically" and "historically" german, in this case russian, and then expanding on that each time saying " we will stop after this" and then ignoring any peace treaty or agreement afterwords. I hope the world has learned Appeasement never works. First Georgia, now Ukraine.

Poor analogy. NATO, nuclear weapons and mutually assured destruction exist as much now as they did at any time during the Cold War. If those things existed in 1939 there wouldn't have been a WWII.

Why do you think Russia went nuts over the previous Soviet bloc nations that joined NATO?
 
Last edited:
I hope not because if we do it will have to be a NATO undertaking and thats gonna involved a lot of talks before that even happens. Also, I dont think it will happen because it seems to me Obama is pretty timid as far as this crisis has gone so far- and he's the only one with enough influence to cobble together a coalition to get this through politically.

Also, unless the Ukrainian military fragments along ethnic lines like Yugoslavia did I think the most they will be asking for is shipments of ammo and money- a united Ukrainian military can bloody the Russians if they have the will to do it.
 
I hope not because if we do it will have to be a NATO undertaking and thats gonna involved a lot of talks before that even happens. Also, I dont think it will happen because it seems to me Obama is pretty timid as far as this crisis has gone so far- and he's the only one with enough influence to cobble together a coalition to get this through politically.

Also, unless the Ukrainian military fragments along ethnic lines like Yugoslavia did I think the most they will be asking for is shipments of ammo and money- a united Ukrainian military can bloody the Russians if they have the will to do it.

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.
 
Last edited:
Poor analogy. NATO, nuclear weapons and mutually assured destruction exist as much now as they did at any time during the Cold War. If those things existed in 1939 there wouldn't have been a WWII.

Why do you think Russia went nuts over the previous Soviet bloc nations that joined NATO?

With the exception of a complete Mutually Assured Destruction, and a FORMAL Nato, and FORMAL UN, we did have international groups in place such as the League of nations the predecessor to the UN, and it was believed that if another world war happened that due to technology it would last so long that most of the worlds population would be destroyed and / or starve afterwords.... Though this didn't happen exactly a large portion of the world did end up dead, and / or starving after ww2. So at the time there was a form of MAD just not so immediate. as for NATO, there were treaties that united the USA, Britain, France among others that said that if germany became aggressive again they would immediately put it down for fear of a second Great War. these treaties were ignored in favor of Appeasement which became FORMAL policy in all three countries until germany got to close to home. no one wanted to go through it again, and fear stopped them from kicking it in the but early.

Pre ww2 is a perfect analogy for what is happening, except the UE and NATO might actually do something other then sit on their asses.... Maybe.
 
With the exception of a complete Mutually Assured Destruction,

No! No "exception." You cannot remove mutually assured nuclear destruction from the equation!

and a FORMAL Nato, and FORMAL UN, we did have international groups in place such as the League of nations the predecessor to the UN, and it was believed that if another world war happened that due to technology it would last so long that most of the worlds population would be destroyed and / or starve afterwords.... Though this didn't happen exactly a large portion of the world did end up dead, and / or starving after ww2. So at the time there was a form of MAD just not so immediate. as for NATO, there were treaties that united the USA, Britain, France among others that said that if germany became aggressive again they would immediately put it down for fear of a second Great War. these treaties were ignored in favor of Appeasement which became FORMAL policy in all three countries until germany got to close to home. no one wanted to go through it again, and fear stopped them from kicking it in the but early.

Complete apples and oranges. NATO is an armed-to-the-teeth organization specifically tasked with the objective of stopping further Soviet incursions. There was no such military pre-WWII created for the purpose of stopping German transgressions.

Pre ww2 is a perfect analogy for what is happening, except the UE and NATO might actually do something other then sit on their asses.... Maybe.
 
Poor analogy. NATO, nuclear weapons and mutually assured destruction exist as much now as they did at any time during the Cold War. If those things existed in 1939 there wouldn't have been a WWII.

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.
 
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.

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.
 
No! No "exception." You cannot remove mutually assured nuclear destruction from the equation!



Complete apples and oranges. NATO is an armed-to-the-teeth organization specifically tasked with the objective of stopping further Soviet incursions. There was no such military pre-WWII created for the purpose of stopping German transgressions.

I apologize for my extremely poorly written response. i had just woken up and my mind was not as sharp as it could have been ha!

Regardless, while MAD was not formalized in a given doctrine, it was recognized and widely believed that another world war would lead to the destruction of the human race. not immediately and neatly as MAD would either, people would die from starvation as much as they would from the fighting. Trench warfare given higher levels of technology would have lead to the endless meat grinder that WW1 had turned into for a number of years, but with higher tech it would have been unbreakable. that was what people were so afraid of, and that is why Appeasement was a perfect political alternative to actually honoring the treaties that were the predecessors to the agreements that lead to NATO. the proto-Nato was useless because it didn't have the political backing it needed when the time came to destroy the now aggressive germany before it became unstoppable.

Then there is the league of nations... that was just... that was just terrible. it literally did nothing before it got disbanded.
 
Despite all rhetoric, Russia is not a backwards dictatorship. It's their business.
 
If Russia gets involved to try and support a Kremlin government then the US, UN and NATO need to get involved to stop them. Ukraine needs to work out the situation, but Russia should be stopped from using their military to try and force the outcome that they want.
 
The bigger question is about the Crimea itself. It has a majority Russian population and the only reason it ended up in Ukranian hands is because of bizarre sentimentality from Krushchev and because Yeltsin was asleep at the wheel in '92. I wouldn't actually have a problem with the Crimea becoming part of the Federation, the bigger issue is setting precedents for violent expansionism. The situation could be resolved by trading the peninsula in a legitimate transfer of power for say a 30 year sweetheart natural gas deal.
 
The bigger question is about the Crimea itself. It has a majority Russian population and the only reason it ended up in Ukranian hands is because of bizarre sentimentality from Krushchev and because Yeltsin was asleep at the wheel in '92. I wouldn't actually have a problem with the Crimea becoming part of the Federation, the bigger issue is setting precedents for violent expansionism. The situation could be resolved by trading the peninsula in a legitimate transfer of power for say a 30 year sweetheart natural gas deal.

You don't get it do you?

It's not just Crimea. The Russian army is going to enter all of ukraine from the eastern border. You won't just see Crimea become part of Russian federation, you might just see 1/3rd of Ukraine get annexed too.

Ofc, there's nothing anyone can do. There isn't. If the west sends troops in there, it's going to be catastrophic.
 
No one should send troops. And as I said in the other thread, this one needs to be addressed by the EU, not us.
 
You don't get it do you?

It's not just Crimea. The Russian army is going to enter all of ukraine from the eastern border. You won't just see Crimea become part of Russian federation, you might just see 1/3rd of Ukraine get annexed too.

Ofc, there's nothing anyone can do. There isn't. If the west sends troops in there, it's going to be catastrophic.

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.
 
And this...is why certain ex-Soviet blocs joined NATO when they had the chance.

Ah, I wasn't sure what you meant by this (and your previous comments about NATO) at first. Thanks for clarifying.

To think we'd allow Russia to invade countries we are bound by treaty to defend is irrational.

Yeah, I imagine Russia was upset when the Baltic States joined NATO. I think, however, that we came dangerously close to abandoning our allies when we barely squeaked in protest at the Russian invasion of Georgia.
 
Despite all rhetoric, Russia is not a backwards dictatorship. It's their business.

Russia is a repressive despotism that's at odds with our interests. We cannot allow them to dictate the future of a European country that's close to becoming a member of the EU and NATO, and we cannot abandon the idea of territorial integrity if they try to break away Crimea.
 
Russia is a repressive despotism that's at odds with our interests. We cannot allow them to dictate the future of a European country that's close to becoming a member of the EU and NATO, and we cannot abandon the idea of territorial integrity if they try to break away Crimea.

I think you're over-reaching and considering wasting resources on something that is not so bad and has very little upside. Russia is not going to start slaughtering Ukrainians, institute dictatorship or otherwise lose their minds over this. Under Russia, Ukraine will be no worse off than Venezuela. Not a regional crisis and not our business.
 
I think you're over-reaching and considering wasting resources on something that is not so bad and has very little upside.
I don't think any military forces should be deployed at this stage (other than Ukraine's, obviously), especially not in Crimea. If it goes beyond what has happened now, diplomatic and economic pressure should be placed on Russia by EU and NATO countries. If it becomes a conflict, it would be beneficial to deploy Eurocorps to parts of Ukraine in order to prevent an all-out invasion or bombing campaign by Russia.
Russia is not going to start slaughtering Ukrainians, institute dictatorship or otherwise lose their minds over this. Under Russia, Ukraine will be no worse off than Venezuela. Not a regional crisis and not our business.

This has been a strategy of Russia since before Putin came to power. If a former Soviet republic tries to leave the Russian sphere and pursue its own interests, Moscow uses overt military force to punish them and intimidate others, and perhaps grab some of their territory.
 
Last edited:
nobody should send troops, especially not the Russians but if they do, it is in their back yard and we cannot risk going to war over the Crimea.
 
Back
Top Bottom