The Instigator
Pang4289
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
SamBuck
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Should The U.S go to war in Ukraine

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/25/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 822 times Debate No: 49887
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

Pang4289

Pro

We need to stop Putin. Its like Hitler with the appeasement. Taking over Crimea will just make Russia want more.
SamBuck

Con

I believe that going to war with Russia would be a waste of time, money, effort, and resources, which could be better used elsewhere. I believe that it is not America's place to try and resolve a conflict which has nothing to do with us, and although I agree the invasion of Ukraine was a geopolitical catastrophe, I don't think we should not try to fight a near pointless war.

Best of luck to my opponent!
Debate Round No. 1
Pang4289

Pro

We are the leaders of the free world. It is our duty to defend the rights of the person and help people in need. Although I agree about the loss of resources, I don't think that we would need to engage in such a big war. We could just send a very small number of troops and lots of supplies, and try to get Russia involved in some type of Guerrilla Vietnam type war.The soviets supplied the Vietcong with supplys and tanks and such, but didn't get directly involved. We could train the native Ukrainians to be able to resist by using hit and run tactics. A big war wouldn't be necessary.
SamBuck

Con

Ah, a fight by proxy would definitely be a good strategy, except for the fact that the natives would not be willing to fight. A recent census reveals that over 50% of the population within the Crimea is actually pro-Russian! (Meaning that they want their region to be ruled by Russia.) For those people in the Crimea who would want to fight, it would be hard to stage guerrilla warfare amongst a populous which is ready to rat them out at the first sign of suspicious activity. This also lends most of the morality side of the debate to the US not interfering. I agree that we Americans are leaders of the free world, but if we are truly representing freedom, then why would we prevent the population of the Crimea from deciding which nation they want to side with? Would we really be doing justice, when under the terms of democracy (which America very much favors) the side of the population which wants to be with Russia wins?
Debate Round No. 2
Pang4289

Pro

That is a very good point. But, if you had to vote wether or not your home would be annexed to another country, you might vote differently because of the military threat. There is a Russian occupation force in Ukraine. Would the people vote differently if there were not tanks in their yard and solders on the front steps? There was a political cartoon in a magazine I read called the economist, and it showed my point. It had a picture of Putin in a tank, that was pointed at the Ukrainian people. Putin is taking over a small peace of land with little value for one thing. He wants to unite Russia. And the most basic way to unite people is through war. Putin claims to be taking over crimea to protect the ethnic Russians there. But I don't believe they were ever in any danger. I think Putin is using this war as some kind of military campaign add, which is just wrong. You had very good point though.
SamBuck

Con

Okay. I should have been a bit more clear about the census affair. There were censuses taken before the invasion as well, and these also confirmed that over 50% of Ukrainians living in the Crimea were pro-Russian before any sort of invasion or military occupation. Also, why would a military occupation change anyone's vote on the census in the first place? It's not as if Putin is going to order a mass genocide of the citizens who support Ukraine anytime soon, because the one thing Russia wants to avoid is a war with other superpowers, and we would be forced to wage war on Putin if anything like this started to occur. It also wouldn't exactly give Russia a PR boost either.

Also, I don't think the only reason that Putin is taking the Crimea is just to unite Russia. I believe that his main reasons are:

#1: The Crimea has been the main base for all of Russia's naval military forces for decades now. It would be much more convenient for this land to be an actual Russian province.

#2: This invasion also makes a geopolitical statement to the rest of the world, which says "Russia is back in business!". The rest of the world is now seeing how Russia is back on the rise to becoming the superpower it once was.

#3: This invasion makes an even bigger statement to other small nations to the west of Russia, which gives them the indication that this could happen to them unless they stay in line. However, it would be hypocritical for our leaders to call Russia out on this one, because we have been doing the same thing for a long time. Take an example of Grenada. The leaders of this small nation were doing things we didn't approve of, so we crushed their military underfoot, and sent a message out to the rest of the world saying, "Don't mess with us or we'll come after you too."

However, we are getting off topic. This is a debate about if we should or shouldn't try to take the Crimea back for Ukraine, not about what Putin's intentions are. Let us return to the original topic.
Debate Round No. 3
Pang4289

Pro

Although I agree with what you said about Granada, that military action was provoked. In fact, the Grenadian government bombed a American military base before the invasion! And even though Putin may not mindlessly murder all people who oppose him in Crimea, it would be very easy for him to take them out quietly without arousing the suspicion of anyone. Another reason that small military action in Crimea is justified is because is because of the cold war. Did the united states wait out 50 years in a stale mate with the soviet union so that there Russian descendants could take over the land they once lost? If the west and Europe do nothing but enact sanctions, then Russia might perceive a sense of weakness in the military and political forces of the EU and the US. They might be emboldened to take more territory or do something forbidden in international law, like build more nuclear weapons! My point being, even though we american may not be affected directly, Russia will be emboldened. If we do nothing when they take over part of Europe, very close to some of our allies, then they might feel free to take a little more land or resources. We need to act, even if we just blockade their harbor or send weapons to the Ukrainian troops outside Crimea. What you don't do as the leader of a country, is completely unprovoked take over someone else s country. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, we crushed them. I don't see that it makes much of a difference that Russia is big and powerful. They did do something exactly like what Iraq did. Just because we cant completely crush their army doesn't mean we shouldn't get involved. If we don't act now, we may never act.
SamBuck

Con

SamBuck forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Pang4289

Pro

Pang4289 forfeited this round.
SamBuck

Con

SamBuck forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by ImNotTheOrdinaryType 3 years ago
ImNotTheOrdinaryType
America needs to stop being the world's police.
Posted by 1ReconMarine 3 years ago
1ReconMarine
The US should not become involved in the Ukraine....
We can Recommend Sanctions along with the NATO and UN members, in warning Russia against Military Action...
The US needs to start Drilling again, and Undercut Russian Oil and Nat Gas to the EU...
That method would cripple the Russian Hold over the EU and cause the Russian Economy to Suffer...putting a Halt to Putin's aggression
No votes have been placed for this debate.