• 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!

If the Ukrainians were to take up arms and fight...

If the Ukrainians were to take up arms and fight

  • I would change my mind.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I would reconsider.

    Votes: 1 4.5%
  • I would remain steadfast in my current position.

    Votes: 18 81.8%
  • Other

    Votes: 3 13.6%

  • Total voters
    22
  • Poll closed .

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,576
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Just for the sake of conversation...

If the Ukrainians were to take up arms and fight, and it became a literal battle between the Ukrainians and the Russians, how would that affect your opinion regarding military involvement (by the US)?

Would you be willing to reconsider, or would you remain steadfast?
 
Just for the sake of conversation...

If the Ukrainians were to take up arms and fight, and it became a literal battle between the Ukrainians and the Russians, how would that affect your opinion regarding military involvement (by the US)?

Would you be willing to reconsider, or would you remain steadfast?

Steadfast. It's right in their backyard, for God's sake. Would anyone want to go toe to toe with the Russian military over this? You'd have to be crazy.
 
Just for the sake of conversation...

If the Ukrainians were to take up arms and fight, and it became a literal battle between the Ukrainians and the Russians, how would that affect your opinion regarding military involvement (by the US)?

Would you be willing to reconsider, or would you remain steadfast?

My position is that it is none of our business and we should stay the **** out of it.It will not change regardless if the Ukrainians do or do not take up arms. No Ukrainian or Russian is worth American lives and tax dollars.
 
Last edited:
Just for the sake of conversation...

If the Ukrainians were to take up arms and fight, and it became a literal battle between the Ukrainians and the Russians, how would that affect your opinion regarding military involvement (by the US)?

Would you be willing to reconsider, or would you remain steadfast?

Why the heck should America get involved?

Support an illegal government that came to power through a coup against Russia in battle?

How on Earth could this possibly in ANY remote way benefit the United States?

The question is rhetorical as the answer is ridiculously obvious...it wouldn't.
 
Just for the sake of conversation...

If the Ukrainians were to take up arms and fight, and it became a literal battle between the Ukrainians and the Russians, how would that affect your opinion regarding military involvement (by the US)?

Would you be willing to reconsider, or would you remain steadfast?

I don't think anyone is ready for more military conflict. It seems Ukraine is on it's own for now.

However, as was proven effective in the past, the West should seek to curtail the blind ambitions of Putin through economic means. Such an effort ended the USSR, and a much weaker and less viable Russia would be an even easier target.
 
Why the heck should America get involved?

Support an illegal government that came to power through a coup against Russia in battle?

How on Earth could this possibly in ANY remote way benefit the United States?

The question is rhetorical as the answer is ridiculously obvious...it wouldn't.

images



Steadfast. It's right in their backyard, for God's sake. Would anyone want to go toe to toe with the Russian military over this? You'd have to be crazy.

Nobody will go toe to toe iwth the Russians because there will be no war. Nobody will declare war.

Just for the sake of conversation...

If the Ukrainians were to take up arms and fight, and it became a literal battle between the Ukrainians and the Russians, how would that affect your opinion regarding military involvement (by the US)?

Would you be willing to reconsider, or would you remain steadfast?

Ukraine won't declare war.

This is an absurd topic.
 
I would want us to pour shoulderable surface to air missiles, anti-mechanization missiles and rockets, a short number of high altitude surface to air portable missiles, a steady flow of fuel, food and munitions, night vision equipment and piles of 50 caliber sniper rifles.

I would also put USA troops in bordering countries to limit the Russian military advancing beyond the Ukraine, plus provide all intelligence and logistical support and hospital services, and would supply civilian refugee camps in the bordering country so the Ukraine military would not be saddled with having to defend their families.

My goal would make this fight as costing to Russia as possible. But I would not put USA troops up directly against Russian troops. If Russia were to come across the border at USA troops, then it would be Russia going to war against the USA.
 
images





Nobody will go toe to toe iwth the Russians because there will be no war. Nobody will declare war.



Ukraine won't declare war.

This is an absurd topic.

You don't have to play the what-if game if you don't want to.:roll:
 
I would want us to pour shoulderable surface to air missiles, anti-mechanization missiles and rockets, a short number of high altitude surface to air portable missiles, a steady flow of fuel, food and munitions, night vision equipment and piles of 50 caliber sniper rifles.

I would also put USA troops in bordering countries to limit the Russian military advancing beyond the Ukraine, plus provide all intelligence and logistical support and hospital services, and would supply civilian refugee camps in the bordering country so the Ukraine military would not be saddled with having to defend their families.

My goal would make this fight as costing to Russia as possible. But I would not put USA troops up directly against Russian troops. If Russia were to come across the border at USA troops, then it would be Russia going to war against the USA.
If we're willing to do that, why not put US troops in (what remains of) Ukraine right now?
 
I may not fully understand what the arrangement is here.

Did we not ask the Ukraine to give up their nuclear weapons in exchange for our security guarantees? If so, don't we have an obligation, whether we like it or not?

Won't our decision affect the treaties that have kept a number of countries out of the nuclear weapons business? If Ukraine had kept their nukes, I think Russia would not have been so bold. Now, who won't want nukes as a defensive measure? Obviously, the US treaties mean nothing.

So, sure, it won't exactly benefit us to join in but won't it cost us dearly in the lng term?

If I misunderstand, just explain it to me, don't "yell" at me.
 
"Declaring" war is so early 20th century. Do try to keep up with the times.

Well... people say eastern europe is 50 years behind the west so we're still in the clear.
 
I would want us to pour shoulderable surface to air missiles, anti-mechanization missiles and rockets, a short number of high altitude surface to air portable missiles, a steady flow of fuel, food and munitions, night vision equipment and piles of 50 caliber sniper rifles.

I would also put USA troops in bordering countries to limit the Russian military advancing beyond the Ukraine, plus provide all intelligence and logistical support and hospital services, and would supply civilian refugee camps in the bordering country so the Ukraine military would not be saddled with having to defend their families.

My goal would make this fight as costing to Russia as possible. But I would not put USA troops up directly against Russian troops. If Russia were to come across the border at USA troops, then it would be Russia going to war against the USA.


So your solution is provoke Russia but you do not want American troops directly against Russian troops? Thats like sending in someone to call one of the meanest bikers the worst name possible and expecting to not get punched or worse.
 

It is you who does not know what it means.

coup d'état
'n, pl coups d'état (ˈkuːz deɪˈtɑː; French ku deta)
1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a sudden violent or illegal seizure of government'

coup d'etat - definition of coup d'etat by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Show me where in the Ukrainian constitution that it allows for a coup d'état that overthrows a legally voted government to decide who should govern?

The answer is...you cannot.

Then, by Ukrainian law, it is illegal.
 
Last edited:
I don't think anyone is ready for more military conflict. It seems Ukraine is on it's own for now.

However, as was proven effective in the past, the West should seek to curtail the blind ambitions of Putin through economic means. Such an effort ended the USSR, and a much weaker and less viable Russia would be an even easier target.

Actually I think many in the EU might take up arms if they feared that those vital pipelines running through Ukraine were going to be interrupted for any reason, but I think they'd take up arms against the Ukrainians as well if they thought they were the cause of the interruption.
 
I may not fully understand what the arrangement is here.

Did we not ask the Ukraine to give up their nuclear weapons in exchange for our security guarantees? If so, don't we have an obligation, whether we like it or not?

Won't our decision affect the treaties that have kept a number of countries out of the nuclear weapons business? If Ukraine had kept their nukes, I think Russia would not have been so bold. Now, who won't want nukes as a defensive measure? Obviously, the US treaties mean nothing.

So, sure, it won't exactly benefit us to join in but won't it cost us dearly in the lng term?

If I misunderstand, just explain it to me, don't "yell" at me.

Well color me confused. If we forced them to give up their nukes, and promised to protect them, then why were Russian troops and Russian ships and Russian stations in Crimea????? This makes no sense. Seems the facts on the ground already belie any previous treaty, because to my knowledge except for legislators stirring up the protesters we had no boots on that ground or in Ukraine mainland.
 
I doubt Ukraine will ever declare war on Russia.

Assume they will do. It would be so stupid for US to go to war with Russia just for Crimea piece.
 
Actually I think many in the EU might take up arms if they feared that those vital pipelines running through Ukraine were going to be interrupted for any reason, but I think they'd take up arms against the Ukrainians as well if they thought they were the cause of the interruption.

You may be correct. If interrupted, I'm sure Putin would try to make it look like Ukraine was a fault, even though the flow is controlled by Russia. It seems to me the death of others is not something Putin cares anything about.

On the other hand, the resurrection of the USSR will likely encourage most to make the sacrifice needed to stop it.
 
Well color me confused. If we forced them to give up their nukes, and promised to protect them, then why were Russian troops and Russian ships and Russian stations in Crimea????? This makes no sense. Seems the facts on the ground already belie any previous treaty, because to my knowledge except for legislators stirring up the protesters we had no boots on that ground or in Ukraine mainland.

When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the newly independent Ukraine had on its territory what was the third largest strategic nuclear weapons arsenal in the world. It was larger than those of Britain, France, and China combined. On June 1, 1996 Ukraine became a non-nuclear nation when it sent the last of its 1,900 strategic nuclear warheads to Russia for dismantling.[1] The first shipment of nuclear weapons from Ukraine to Russia (by train) was in March 1994.[2] In return for giving up its nuclear weapons, Ukraine, the United States of America, Russia, and the United Kingdom signed the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, pledging to respect Ukraine territorial integrity, a pledge that was arguably broken by Russia's 2014 invasion of Crimea.[3] However, there is a dispute whether Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances is anything more than a general statement of intent, lacking the rigor of an international treaty and accompanying ratification procedure.

Using your logic, any country we have one soldier in loses their treaty rights with anyone else. Is that how it works?
 
Using your logic, any country we have one soldier in loses their treaty rights with anyone else. Is that how it works?

"One soldier"??? Come on now, you aren't usually prone to such foolish exaggerations. Nor did I present such a foolish exaggeration.
 
You may be correct. If interrupted, I'm sure Putin would try to make it look like Ukraine was a fault, even though the flow is controlled by Russia. It seems to me the death of others is not something Putin cares anything about.

On the other hand, the resurrection of the USSR will likely encourage most to make the sacrifice needed to stop it.

Oh please, neither does the West or the USA, how many innocent people die because of the sanctions we've put against other countries? Please let's not let patriotism get in the way of reality.
 
Oh please, neither does the West or the USA, how many innocent people die because of the sanctions we've put against other countries? Please let's not let patriotism get in the way of reality.

:lamo

I'm not so sure you understand what reality is. Do you think the EU is going to let Putin re-take Eastern Europe because they are connected to his natural gas pipelines?
 
:lamo

I'm not so sure you understand what reality is. Do you think the EU is going to let Putin re-take Eastern Europe because they are connected to his natural gas pipelines?

No, I already said I don't think they will let Putin. I also don't think they'd think twice about taking on Ukraine themselves if they perceived Ukraine as an obstacle to gas and oil flows.
 
"One soldier"??? Come on now, you aren't usually prone to such foolish exaggerations. Nor did I present such a foolish exaggeration.

OK, 100,000 soldiers. Why don't you answer my original question instead of making me the problem.
 
No, I already said I don't think they will let Putin. I also don't think they'd think twice about taking on Ukraine themselves if they perceived Ukraine as an obstacle to gas and oil flows.

So you don't think they would let Putin resurrect the USSR, but you think they will attack Ukraine if Putin turns off the gas should Ukraine try to stop him from taking over?

The logic escapes me.
 
Back
Top Bottom