• 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's should stand upto to Russia?`

Who should stand up to Russia?

  • US

    Votes: 3 12.0%
  • EU

    Votes: 6 24.0%
  • UKRAINE

    Votes: 2 8.0%
  • RUSSIA ARE NOT THE BAD GUYS

    Votes: 1 4.0%
  • STAY OUT OF IT

    Votes: 13 52.0%

  • Total voters
    25

Higgins86

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2011
Messages
18,100
Reaction score
10,108
Location
England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
So I'm working my night shift, I'm a little bored lol and I was reading through some of the threads regarding Ukraine. What struck me was the range of opinions in regards to who should respond and how we should respond. Got me thinking and I wondered what the forum thought about this issue?
The Ukraine crisis has been ongoing for a few months now, has put the region on the verge of war and most importantly has brought back an enemy who for the last few decades has been forgotten by the West. Obviously the region is very fragile and one wrong move could plunge the region into chaos that being said I do believe that someone has to stand up to Russian aggression because history has taught us that much. My question to you is who do you think should be the ones standing up to Russia?

1. USA the obvious choice for many reasons. Largest military, one of the worlds economic superpowers, has the most to lose from an economic/ social world breakdown, champion of freedom and of course the top dog on the playground who would rather not go back to the days of the Cold War. However many would argue that the US is weary of any kind of conflict whether it be militarily or diplomatic and many American voters would rather stay out of the conflict all together.

2. The EU who wanted to entice the Ukraine into the fold and in doing so pushed some parts of the country away and into the arms of Russia. Germany/France have worked hard to try and make the EU into a stable union with a shared currency and shared interests. You could make the argument that if the EU were to stand by and allow parts of the Ukraine to be absorbed so easily that they could lose many other members/ potential members because of the fear that the EU can not protect their borders. I reluctantly include the UK in this section because even if we are at odds with the EU politically I still think its in our interest to put Russia in its place and continue to build on progress that has been made in Europe since the end of the Cold war. However thus far the EU has not stood united and could struggle with any kind of " show of force" against Russia.

3. NATO who's reputation has been damaged by the complete lack of respect for the Budapest treaty and the continued Russian aggression in the region. Similar to the EU however NATO'S members might struggle to agree on the right course of actions and there is always the danger that any NATO engagement could rely too much on the US to carry the burden and might not have the support of the US in general.

4. The Ukraine itself, many would argue that its their territory and if they were to call Putin's bluff they could deter any more Russian involvement especially with vocal support from NATO. However for this to happen we would have to assure the Ukraine of our support which they might be skeptical of given our actions thus far and obviously they wouldn't last long standing alone.

5. No one should stand up to Russia because they are just protecting their borders and Russians speaking people from what they see as western aggression. So far most of the crisis has been blown out of proportion by the Western media who are eager to paint Russia as the "old enemy".

6. Do nothing and see how this plays out.
 
If you feel like another option should be added just bring it into the debate, don't cry about it in a post because I will hate you and you will forever be on my zombie world death list.


P.S if a mod can edit my poll to put NATO in I would appreciate it lol
 
NATO, under the auspices of a joint approval from the US and the EU after getting the Ukraine government to request assistance.

This has already started, with the US sending troops to Poland and other NATO countries for "training exercises."

NATO should put troops along the border with NATO countries and Ukraine, and then let Russia know that if they move any further into Ukraine, that NATO will move in to create a line of no further aggression.

Many here in the US are tired of war. We tend to forget that aggressors don't act on our timelines. Also, many here in the US, mostly on the left, use Nuclear Fear as an excuse to allow Russia to do anything they want. They tend to forget that it was one of their own, John F. Kennedy, that looked down the point of the nuclear missile threat and didn't blink.

Nor should we now. If we do, Russia will know that they can do whatever they want without any threat of retribution or being held to account for their actions by the world. This will lead eventually to war when Russia is entrenched in foreign countries that they annex by the gun, and then, at that point, there will be no options for Russia other than the unthinkable to defend their actions and aggression.

We are at a point that Russia can still back down while looking like they didn't to their own people. If we stand now, we can do so without firing a shot. If we wait, and Putin gives the order to take all of Ukraine, Estonia will be next, then the Balkans, then... well... by then it will be too late and WWIII will have already begun.
 
NATO, under the auspices of a joint approval from the US and the EU after getting the Ukraine government to request assistance.

This has already started, with the US sending troops to Poland and other NATO countries for "training exercises."

NATO should put troops along the border with NATO countries and Ukraine, and then let Russia know that if they move any further into Ukraine, that NATO will move in to create a line of no further aggression.

Many here in the US are tired of war. We tend to forget that aggressors don't act on our timelines. Also, many here in the US, mostly on the left, use Nuclear Fear as an excuse to allow Russia to do anything they want. They tend to forget that it was one of their own, John F. Kennedy, that looked down the point of the nuclear missile threat and didn't blink.

Nor should we now. If we do, Russia will know that they can do whatever they want without any threat of retribution or being held to account for their actions by the world. This will lead eventually to war when Russia is entrenched in foreign countries that they annex by the gun, and then, at that point, there will be no options for Russia other than the unthinkable to defend their actions and aggression.

We are at a point that Russia can still back down while looking like they didn't to their own people. If we stand now, we can do so without firing a shot. If we wait, and Putin gives the order to take all of Ukraine, Estonia will be next, then the Balkans, then... well... by then it will be too late and WWIII will have already begun.


Some good points. I personally don't think that WW3 will or even could break out from this crisis but I think given how much our global markets are connected a new cold war would be a disaster for everyone. That "new cold war" could easily happen as you pointed out as Putin could pounce on many surrounding nations especially Kazakhstan, Georgia and Moldova who are in my opinion particularly vulnerable. Personally it makes me sad that Europe once again has to look to the US for leadership but without it Nato doesn't function.
 
So I'm working my night shift, I'm a little bored lol and I was reading through some of the threads regarding Ukraine. What struck me was the range of opinions in regards to who should respond and how we should respond. Got me thinking and I wondered what the forum thought about this issue?
The Ukraine crisis has been ongoing for a few months now, has put the region on the verge of war and most importantly has brought back an enemy who for the last few decades has been forgotten by the West. Obviously the region is very fragile and one wrong move could plunge the region into chaos that being said I do believe that someone has to stand up to Russian aggression because history has taught us that much. My question to you is who do you think should be the ones standing up to Russia?

1. USA the obvious choice for many reasons. Largest military, one of the worlds economic superpowers, has the most to lose from an economic/ social world breakdown, champion of freedom and of course the top dog on the playground who would rather not go back to the days of the Cold War. However many would argue that the US is weary of any kind of conflict whether it be militarily or diplomatic and many American voters would rather stay out of the conflict all together.

2. The EU who wanted to entice the Ukraine into the fold and in doing so pushed some parts of the country away and into the arms of Russia. Germany/France have worked hard to try and make the EU into a stable union with a shared currency and shared interests. You could make the argument that if the EU were to stand by and allow parts of the Ukraine to be absorbed so easily that they could lose many other members/ potential members because of the fear that the EU can not protect their borders. I reluctantly include the UK in this section because even if we are at odds with the EU politically I still think its in our interest to put Russia in its place and continue to build on progress that has been made in Europe since the end of the Cold war. However thus far the EU has not stood united and could struggle with any kind of " show of force" against Russia.

3. NATO who's reputation has been damaged by the complete lack of respect for the Budapest treaty and the continued Russian aggression in the region. Similar to the EU however NATO'S members might struggle to agree on the right course of actions and there is always the danger that any NATO engagement could rely too much on the US to carry the burden and might not have the support of the US in general.

4. The Ukraine itself, many would argue that its their territory and if they were to call Putin's bluff they could deter any more Russian involvement especially with vocal support from NATO. However for this to happen we would have to assure the Ukraine of our support which they might be skeptical of given our actions thus far and obviously they wouldn't last long standing alone.

5. No one should stand up to Russia because they are just protecting their borders and Russians speaking people from what they see as western aggression. So far most of the crisis has been blown out of proportion by the Western media who are eager to paint Russia as the "old enemy".

6. Do nothing and see how this plays out.


We should stay out of it.You should ask yourself whose lives are more important. The life of your fellow countrymen or the lives of Ukrainians? You also ask is it worth digging ourselves further into debt to stop Russia from taking over Ukraine.
 
Beaudreaux is right, in my opinion. America is weary of war, and many believe our current president does not have the mettle or the international experience to take on a man like Putin, who has been a global top dog for decades. We are mired in Afghanistan and (now) to a lesser extent Iraq because of past poor choices. We see tens of thousands of our sons, our brothers, our sisters, our neighbors and friends, coming back from war changed, damaged, sometimes defeated by the trauma they've seen. We do not want any more of it.

Which is why we cannot afford to allow any part of Europe to fall to Russian aggression, which could trigger a domino-effect of Greater Russia chewing its way through the continent.

But... and it's a big one, the USA can not, should not, and will not take on Russia alone. Whether through NATO or military alliances with our European allies, the US should be part of the alliance, but should not lead it. Europe should and must take a leadership role in its own backyard, because Europe knows its own people, its own territory, and the political nuances surrounding them better than the US, for all its intelligence, could ever hope to. And Europeans will be more quickly devastated by the consequences of a widespread war than Americans, so if they are reluctant to act because they know what could lie ahead if the Russians aren't bluffing and are willing to sack the continent to get the territory they want, then I for one would allow them to make that choice, even if ends up being the wrong one.

Make no mistake, I'm more concerned about a "world war" now that I ever have been in my lifetime. It is not America's place, however, to lead the charge and run roughshod over half of Europe in order to personally belly-bump our old nemesis. If Europe wants our help, we should give it without reservation, and let them tell us what they need from us rather than us telling them what we are going to do.

Naive of me, perhaps, but it's what I think.
 
We should stay out of it.You should ask yourself whose lives are more important. The life of your fellow countrymen or the lives of Ukrainians? You also ask is it worth digging ourselves further into debt to stop Russia from taking over Ukraine.

Which I agree with and as someone like yourself who has served my country I understand the sacrifices that are made. However do you feel the luxuries we have enjoyed since the end of WW2 are because we have been willing to stand up to enemies that would happily drag the world into chaos? From defeating Hitler, Korea, the cold war, the Balkans etc have we not secured our own freedoms and lifestyle?
 
Which I agree with and as someone like yourself who has served my country I understand the sacrifices that are made. However do you feel the luxuries we have enjoyed since the end of WW2 are because we have been willing to stand up to enemies that would happily drag the world into chaos? From defeating Hitler, Korea, the cold war, the Balkans etc have we not secured our own freedoms and lifestyle?


Those wars have nothing to do with securing America's freedom. If we did not cut off trade with Japanese during a time of war we would have never gotten involved in WWII.If we did not deliberately sent a trade ship to get sunk by the Germans in WWI we would have never gotten involved.But scum in office wanted us involved in those wars, they are like the neocon pieces of **** today trying to get us into war with Syria and Russia.
 
Beaudreaux is right, in my opinion. America is weary of war, and many believe our current president does not have the mettle or the international experience to take on a man like Putin, who has been a global top dog for decades. We are mired in Afghanistan and (now) to a lesser extent Iraq because of past poor choices. We see tens of thousands of our sons, our brothers, our sisters, our neighbors and friends, coming back from war changed, damaged, sometimes defeated by the trauma they've seen. We do not want any more of it.

Which is why we cannot afford to allow any part of Europe to fall to Russian aggression, which could trigger a domino-effect of Greater Russia chewing its way through the continent.

But... and it's a big one, the USA can not, should not, and will not take on Russia alone. Whether through NATO or military alliances with our European allies, the US should be part of the alliance, but should not lead it. Europe should and must take a leadership role in its own backyard, because Europe knows its own people, its own territory, and the political nuances surrounding them better than the US, for all its intelligence, could ever hope to. And Europeans will be more quickly devastated by the consequences of a widespread war than Americans, so if they are reluctant to act because they know what could lie ahead if the Russians aren't bluffing and are willing to sack the continent to get the territory they want, then I for one would allow them to make that choice, even if ends up being the wrong one.

Make no mistake, I'm more concerned about a "world war" now that I ever have been in my lifetime. It is not America's place, however, to lead the charge and run roughshod over half of Europe in order to personally belly-bump our old nemesis. If Europe wants our help, we should give it without reservation, and let them tell us what they need from us rather than us telling them what we are going to do.

Naive of me, perhaps, but it's what I think.


I think that Americas place in the world right now is leading it and it has done since the start of the cold war where it was the only thing stopping Russia from running riot. However I agree that now is the time for someone else to step up and in my opinion that should be the EU ( Britain included). The force should itself should represent NATO and America should obviously be involved given its global power and position but it should be led by EU countries. If we want the EU to work and we want to deter Putin then the EU needs to show it will not be pushed around and that member states/ potential members states will be protected. The worse thing that can happen in my opinion is that the US deploy thousands of troops again and begin to heavily garrison bases in Germany etc. That will only make matters worse.
 
Those wars have nothing to do with securing America's freedom. If we did not cut off trade with Japanese during a time of war we would have never gotten involved in WWII.If we did not deliberately sent a trade ship to get sunk by the Germans in WWI we would have never gotten involved.But scum in office wanted us involved in those wars, they are like the neocon pieces of **** today trying to get us into war with Syria and Russia.

I have to disagree with you there. I think given the sheer scale of WW2 it was inevitable that America got involved and the soldiers who died in that war did so defending the US.
 
I think that Americas place in the world right now is leading it and it has done since the start of the cold war where it was the only thing stopping Russia from running riot. However I agree that now is the time for someone else to step up and in my opinion that should be the EU ( Britain included). The force should itself should represent NATO and America should obviously be involved given its global power and position but it should be led by EU countries. If we want the EU to work and we want to deter Putin then the EU needs to show it will not be pushed around and that member states/ potential members states will be protected. The worse thing that can happen in my opinion is that the US deploy thousands of troops again and begin to heavily garrison bases in Germany etc. That will only make matters worse.

I agree that it's up to the EU to take a stand. If the EU wants America to take the lead, then it should say so and we should all work together as allies. What I do not want is for some yokels in D.C. sitting around deciding how "they" are going to handle the Russian crisis without giving a second thought as to how their decisions will affect the Europeans and without doing something as simple as asking the Europeans what they need from us, if they do indeed believe they need anything at all.
 
I have to disagree with you there. I think given the sheer scale of WW2 it was inevitable that America got involved and the soldiers who died in that war did so defending the US.

We got involved in that war by provoking them into attacking us so that we can go oh look they attacked us first so we should do something.
 
I agree that it's up to the EU to take a stand. If the EU wants America to take the lead, then it should say so and we should all work together as allies. What I do not want is for some yokels in D.C. sitting around deciding how "they" are going to handle the Russian crisis without giving a second thought as to how their decisions will affect the Europeans and without doing something as simple as asking the Europeans what they need from us, if they do indeed believe they need anything at all.


Out of interest what kind of Russian provocation do you feel would warrant a full US response?
 
Last edited:
Beaudreaux is right, in my opinion. America is weary of war, and many believe our current president does not have the mettle or the international experience to take on a man like Putin, who has been a global top dog for decades. We are mired in Afghanistan and (now) to a lesser extent Iraq because of past poor choices. We see tens of thousands of our sons, our brothers, our sisters, our neighbors and friends, coming back from war changed, damaged, sometimes defeated by the trauma they've seen. We do not want any more of it.

Which is why we cannot afford to allow any part of Europe to fall to Russian aggression, which could trigger a domino-effect of Greater Russia chewing its way through the continent.

But... and it's a big one, the USA can not, should not, and will not take on Russia alone. Whether through NATO or military alliances with our European allies, the US should be part of the alliance, but should not lead it. Europe should and must take a leadership role in its own backyard, because Europe knows its own people, its own territory, and the political nuances surrounding them better than the US, for all its intelligence, could ever hope to. And Europeans will be more quickly devastated by the consequences of a widespread war than Americans, so if they are reluctant to act because they know what could lie ahead if the Russians aren't bluffing and are willing to sack the continent to get the territory they want, then I for one would allow them to make that choice, even if ends up being the wrong one.

Make no mistake, I'm more concerned about a "world war" now that I ever have been in my lifetime. It is not America's place, however, to lead the charge and run roughshod over half of Europe in order to personally belly-bump our old nemesis. If Europe wants our help, we should give it without reservation, and let them tell us what they need from us rather than us telling them what we are going to do.

Naive of me, perhaps, but it's what I think.

This is becoming a pivotable turning point as dicey as the Cuban missile crisis. Russia is like a hungry pitbull to get back it's super nation status, since losing the USSR confederation. They don't trust our government and are fighting for natural resources (gas-oil), so they can keep a stranglehold on the EU purchases.

What people may not realize is that any real confrontation with Russia could escalate out of proportion very quickly. It's going to take some nerves of steel to draw that line they can't cross, on gathering more land, and when to say, let them have it if they're going to go all out.
 
Out of interest what kind of Russian provocation do you feel you warrant a full US response?

You mean on its own, without considering how the Europeans would be affected? Only if Russia started raining nukes on western Europe, rendering them unable to effectively defend themselves. Otherwise, the EU must take the responsibility of deciding what should be done, who should do it, and how they (the Europeans) would be affected by it.

I told my husband ages ago, before Russia entered Crimea let alone annexed it, that was exactly what Russia was going to do. I also told him I thought Putin planned to take the eastern third of Ukraine, and put it under Russian control. That is exactly what Putin is setting up now, by putting in black ops to coordinated pro-Russian militias. What I do not yet have a handle on is what he plans to do after he has occupied eastern Ukraine. If he makes no further moves, my guess is that the EU will not want anything done to further destabilize the region and disrupt their own energy supply.

That being the case, the USA should stay out of it unless it's help is requested by an ally with which we have a binding defense treaty... which at the moment, is western Ukraine. That's a sticky wicket because the Kiev government is completely inept and inexperienced, without the expertise to know what it needs or what the repercussions might be. Make no mistake, the USA will be involved in the Russia-Ukraine situation because of that treaty, and Europe knows it. As to any further involvement of the USA in the region, my opinion is that there should be none unless the Europeans request it.
 
This is becoming a pivotable turning point as dicey as the Cuban missile crisis. Russia is like a hungry pitbull to get back it's super nation status, since losing the USSR confederation. They don't trust our government and are fighting for natural resources (gas-oil), so they can keep a stranglehold on the EU purchases.

What people may not realize is that any real confrontation with Russia could escalate out of proportion very quickly. It's going to take some nerves of steel to draw that line they can't cross, on gathering more land, and when to say, let them have it if they're going to go all out.


I still think it's a bluff from Putin and he is testing NATO's resolve. I think any show of actual strength in the region will be enough to put him back in his box.
 
I still think it's a bluff from Putin and he is testing NATO's resolve. I think any show of actual strength in the region will be enough to put him back in his box.

It is a bluff to a certain degree, that's why I said Obama will have to draw a line and say, cross it and it's game over. They won't respect any tit for tat nonsense, and let it go further than it should. Even a very limited nuke exchange will effectively rearrange civilization as we know it.
 
I agree that it's up to the EU to take a stand. If the EU wants America to take the lead, then it should say so and we should all work together as allies. What I do not want is for some yokels in D.C. sitting around deciding how "they" are going to handle the Russian crisis without giving a second thought as to how their decisions will affect the Europeans and without doing something as simple as asking the Europeans what they need from us, if they do indeed believe they need anything at all.

Absolutely right. The US is letting the EU make it an American problem and an American confrontation. That is irresponsible.
Having said that, it is true that the EU is responsible for the crisis, because the initiated the actions that have landed us here and because it is their neighborhood. But they are incapable and cannot handle the thing. But Obama has been no better, unless he wants to demonstrate here that it is necessary to install an international mechanism that to handle international security and r2p.
 
You mean on its own, without considering how the Europeans would be affected? Only if Russia started raining nukes on western Europe, rendering them unable to effectively defend themselves. Otherwise, the EU must take the responsibility of deciding what should be done, who should do it, and how they (the Europeans) would be affected by it.

I told my husband ages ago, before Russia entered Crimea let alone annexed it, that was exactly what Russia was going to do. I also told him I thought Putin planned to take the eastern third of Ukraine, and put it under Russian control. That is exactly what Putin is setting up now, by putting in black ops to coordinated pro-Russian militias. What I do not yet have a handle on is what he plans to do after he has occupied eastern Ukraine. If he makes no further moves, my guess is that the EU will not want anything done to further destabilize the region and disrupt their own energy supply.

That being the case, the USA should stay out of it unless it's help is requested by an ally with which we have a binding defense treaty... which at the moment, is western Ukraine. That's a sticky wicket because the Kiev government is completely inept and inexperienced, without the expertise to know what it needs or what the repercussions might be. Make no mistake, the USA will be involved in the Russia-Ukraine situation because of that treaty, and Europe knows it. As to any further involvement of the USA in the region, my opinion is that there should be none unless the Europeans request it.


and right now the EU is feeling around in the dark for answers. It has been interesting to me to watch my own governments reaction to the crisis which so far has been very muted, we seem to be waiting on Germany etc to make a move/ watching the US. We have enough clout to make Russia think twice but our government seems to be in a similar situation to the US where it isn't really sure on what course of action is appropriate given our relative distance from the Ukraine and so far lack of credible threat to our own interests.
 
and right now the EU is feeling around in the dark for answers. It has been interesting to me to watch my own governments reaction to the crisis which so far has been very muted, we seem to be waiting on Germany etc to make a move/ watching the US. We have enough clout to make Russia think twice but our government seems to be in a similar situation to the US where it isn't really sure on what course of action is appropriate given our relative distance from the Ukraine and so far lack of credible threat to our own interests.

The problem with waiting for Germany is that Germany is singularly poorly prepared to handle matters of inernational security. It has had no experience having abdicated responsibility and costs to others. Many of the myths that have evolved to justify this policy of free riding blick mist actions that international security that are poorly understood. Also the country has made itself dependent on Russian energy and is not an independent actor.

It is a tragedy that the EU would look there for decisions.
 
I agree that it's up to the EU to take a stand. If the EU wants America to take the lead, then it should say so and we should all work together as allies. What I do not want is for some yokels in D.C. sitting around deciding how "they" are going to handle the Russian crisis without giving a second thought as to how their decisions will affect the Europeans and without doing something as simple as asking the Europeans what they need from us, if they do indeed believe they need anything at all.

There really is no choice but for the EU to bite the bullet and enforce stiff sanctions on Russia. Trade, especially oil and gas sales are the blood of the new Russia. Starving Putin out will not take too long, but the EU nations will take an economic hit also. Given that they are just recovering from the 2008 financial crisis it is not easy to go back into another so quickly. That is the hold up here.
 
I was going to say USA, EU, and Ukraine. But that probably means NATO then, does it not?
 
Thought we were all citizens of the world. shouldnt the UN have a say in this?
 
I was going to say USA, EU, and Ukraine. But that probably means NATO then, does it not?

Yep and Nato was in my OP but forgot to put them in my poll lol
 
You should have made it multiple choice.
As it stands, EU + USA.
 
Back
Top Bottom