The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Should the US send troops to 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: 3/5/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 718 times Debate No: 71130
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




The US should send troops to Ukraine because the war is unfair and many innocent deaths could be prevented with American help.


Your reasoning is based on the morals of war, saying it is "unfair", when this is not evidence supporting your claim. War itself is unfair, people die, and others gain from others' losses. But that is not the topic of this debate.

"Many deaths could be prevented with American help". By this I am to believe you mean we would enter the war. However you have not included a crucial point: what would we do? In the Ukraine conflict, there are two sides: Ukraine and (at least part of) Russia. Who would we fight for? Why would our country go out of their way to enter a conflict which will only bring us death? Sure, we may save people's lives, but in the cost of our own. Unless you give more evidence to support your side, I am afraid I have to disagree with you.
Debate Round No. 1


Yes, it is true war itself is usually unfair but this particular situation is especially unbalanced. You can imagine Russia would have a much larger military force, considering it is much larger than Ukraine and overall a more powerful country.

Basically, all Putin wants is to control Ukraine, as it used to be a part of the Soviet Union. Ukraine got its independence back in 1991. In 1997 Russia made a treaty with independent Ukraine trading it energy in return for Russia using Ukraine's sea coast for the Russian navy. All was peaceful for a while, until Russia broke the treaty, sending in troops to take Ukraine ( a country of 45 million ) back by force. There is no explanation for this except the Putin got greedy and wants control over the country. You can imagine Ukraine is having a tough time fighting for their freedom, considering they are battling against the larger Russian army.

Ukraine has tried to make peace with Russia, but almost every time Putin has rejected the offers of peace. They have tried to make ceasefires, but the unsteady treaties have been broken by Russian troops about 44 times, resulting in numerous casualties. Since Ukraine has already gained independence from Russia, it is ridiculous Russia would make such a low blow and betray Ukraine's treaties when they already have so much. Putin is trying to gain back the Soviet Union's former glory. I think it is clear to see the absurd unfairness of the situation.

I know what you're probably thinking; How does this relate to America? Many American citizens and officials believe we should send in troops to held Ukraine keep it's independence. Ukraine being taken by Russia could affect America in many ways. If Putin gains control of Ukraine, do you think he will stop there? Many people fear Putin could go power crazy, and a similar Soviet Union scenario could happen, Where Russia tries to gain control and engage in war with other European countries. Putin was particularly mad that the Ukraine was considering to join NATO. NATO (North American Treaty Organization) binds America with many European countries, including Belgium, Norway, Poland, UK, etc. If they attack countries the US is in alliance with, it is very likely we would get pulled into fighting anyway.

Instead of waiting for this to happen, I think by sending in troops to Ukraine we could enforce their independence and help nip a potentially larger problem in the bud. Besides, the whole premise of the battle of Putin's greed. It simply isn't right he should try to take back a country that successfully seceded from the Soviet Union. I think this battle is warning us of things to come, and we shouldn't ignore it all together.

Sources- BBC, NATO.Int, ABC


First off, I'd like to congratulate you: those were sound arguments.

However sending in American troops to help Ukraine is still not a very intelligent idea. If we stay away and stand back, Ukraine may win their independence freely. Although this is a hypothetical conclusion, in which the odds are against it, this would give a big morale boost to all of Ukraine and any other territories that are against the odds. Look at the many wars in which the smaller country does extremely well (Sparta, Israel, American colonies, Vietnam, etc.). I'm not saying that they will, and I'm not saying that they won't. However there is a chance, and that chance is better than us entering a battle that is not ours to fight.

One thing I have a problem with is a political explosion. If we do enter the war (on the side of Ukraine as you have implied) then Russia could take it as an act of war. Russia is a powerful country, and us stepping in could not only destroy their trust in us (what little they have in us, anyway) and lead to a conflict in the later years, but it could turn into an all out World War. The U.S. and Russia are still giant superpowers, and if they collide, chaos and collateral damage will ensue. Countries will join sides and we will create a catastrophic depression on all sides, no matter the outcome. When all this could have been avoided by letting it alone.

I'm not saying we should do nothing, but sending out troops to Ukraine will cause problems for everybody. The U.S. has played "hero" enough times in which all they did was screw things up (the Middle-East). If another group of NATO or anyone we have relations with steps in first and they get attacked, we will have to back them up. But right now I believe waiting and patience is best. Rashly sending in our military with good intentions may just end up having a result that we either didn't anticipate or didn't desire.
Debate Round No. 2


Your argument mirrors the words of many Americans, and i'm glad you brought up this point. Many people think the US has gotten involved in problems we didn't need to ( Such as the Middle East) But, sending troops into the Middle East was mutually beneficial for both our countries in the long run. One great example is the PRT ( Provisional Reconstruction Team) members that were dropped into Afghanistan a few years ago. The PRT consists of military personnel, government agency officials, and diplomats that helped the shaky Afghan government recover from acts of terrorism. Their works helped to build new roads, schools, hospitals, and generally improved the government. In doing so, we gained many useful allies and turned local muslims against the terrorists trying to plague their minds. Afghan police joined our forces and helped us combat Al-Qaeda. I definitely would not call this a "screw up". Doing something similar in Ukraine's case could likely benefit us as well, though I realize we are not in war with Russia at the moment.

Still, should we just sit around while power-hungry Russia takes over European countries? It is very, very unlikely that Ukraine could combat Russia, a country with much more war experience. Instead of watching Russia take these countries, by joining in the fight now we could prevent the capture of other countries ( Which would make Russia even more powerful than before.) As i said before, since we are in alliance with many of these countries, it is highly likely we would get pulled into the war anyway. Why wait for it? You can see the number of small countries that did well as you mentioned are significantly smaller than countries who well...didn't.

Source- "Battle Heroes: Voices From Afghanistan." By Allan Zullo.


You made a great response in the first paragraph, however I feel your second paragraph seems as if it is lacking.

Although it may be true that it "all worked out in the end", that doesn't mean that bombing Afghanistan and sending our troops in to battle terrorists for revenge against 9/11 was just. The PRT was just a way to try and make it look as though we were not in any way at fault, and to be able to basically have another country at our disposal for later use. It's like getting a person fired from their job, and then giving them a completely different job, and expecting them to now be best friends. And who is to say that allies we gained only joined our side because of how we showed our power. The people are scared of us. We should be scared of us. But that is not what the topic is about.

Your second paragraph is sloppy. It just restates what you and I have already stated. I have already stated it is unlikely that Ukraine would win alone, but it is a possibility no matter how small the chance is. You have already stated that we would get "pulled into the war anyway", however we ourselves, as I stated in my last rebuttal, could cause the war. Many people have to understand the implication we make if we step into others' battles. We are a feared superpower. People may not take our entrance lightly. It is like sending a tank to combat a what, at the time, is a trespassing burglar (no mean to compare war and death to burglary, only to try and give a simile to show my perspective on the matter). Why wait? Because the greatest potential risk for not waiting outweighs the greatest risk of Russia getting one nation stronger to fight in an all out war (in my eyes).

But you put up a good debate. Whether I am correct or not, it was a pleasure to debate with you. Thank you for reading. :)
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.