Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

America's Role in the Ukraine/Russia Issue

MyDinosaurHands
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2014 6:14:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I would like to ask something specific about our role, and that is, what should America do if Russia and Ukraine declare war on each other?
We've been pro-Ukraine with our sanctions, as has the rest of the world. Or take it broader, should all the first world countries who've been agreeing to sanctions join America in a hardcore dogpile on Russia's forces in Ukraine (assuming war has been declared)?

I do not have a solid opinion on this currently, but right now I lean towards America keeping out of this violence-wise. While it would suck for us to stand by and let Russia sweep over Ukraine, there could potentially be bigger consequences if we militarily oppose Russia.

I do realize that there is some middle ground to consider here, but I have trouble finding that middle ground because I don't know how much we have to push Putin back until he stops (if he ever would).

I'd love to hear your opinions, so I can better solidify mine.
Guess what I used to type this..

Careful! Don't laugh too hard.
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2014 6:22:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/24/2014 6:14:56 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
I would like to ask something specific about our role, and that is, what should America do if Russia and Ukraine declare war on each other?
We've been pro-Ukraine with our sanctions, as has the rest of the world. Or take it broader, should all the first world countries who've been agreeing to sanctions join America in a hardcore dogpile on Russia's forces in Ukraine (assuming war has been declared)?

I do not have a solid opinion on this currently, but right now I lean towards America keeping out of this violence-wise. While it would suck for us to stand by and let Russia sweep over Ukraine, there could potentially be bigger consequences if we militarily oppose Russia.

I do realize that there is some middle ground to consider here, but I have trouble finding that middle ground because I don't know how much we have to push Putin back until he stops (if he ever would).

I'd love to hear your opinions, so I can better solidify mine.

Its not entirely likely. Russia's GDP growth is expected to fall 5%, and that's not even with the new sanctions coming this week. They don't have the current funds for a war. If it were to happen though, then I would reccomend a naval, air, and trade war. NATO has complete supremacy in this area.

The question always comes down to nukes though.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
MyDinosaurHands
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2014 6:25:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/24/2014 6:22:24 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/24/2014 6:14:56 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
I would like to ask something specific about our role, and that is, what should America do if Russia and Ukraine declare war on each other?
We've been pro-Ukraine with our sanctions, as has the rest of the world. Or take it broader, should all the first world countries who've been agreeing to sanctions join America in a hardcore dogpile on Russia's forces in Ukraine (assuming war has been declared)?

I do not have a solid opinion on this currently, but right now I lean towards America keeping out of this violence-wise. While it would suck for us to stand by and let Russia sweep over Ukraine, there could potentially be bigger consequences if we militarily oppose Russia.

I do realize that there is some middle ground to consider here, but I have trouble finding that middle ground because I don't know how much we have to push Putin back until he stops (if he ever would).

I'd love to hear your opinions, so I can better solidify mine.

Its not entirely likely. Russia's GDP growth is expected to fall 5%, and that's not even with the new sanctions coming this week. They don't have the current funds for a war. If it were to happen though, then I would reccomend a naval, air, and trade war. NATO has complete supremacy in this area.

The question always comes down to nukes though.

Yeah the nukes is what I think when I worry about the worst scenario with military opposition. I'd much prefer to let Ukraine fend for itself if it meant staving off a nuclear war.

If we had to do it I'd agree with you. No boots on the ground. Let's just blast Russian troops with our drones.
Guess what I used to type this..

Careful! Don't laugh too hard.
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2014 6:27:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/24/2014 6:25:35 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
At 4/24/2014 6:22:24 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/24/2014 6:14:56 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
I would like to ask something specific about our role, and that is, what should America do if Russia and Ukraine declare war on each other?
We've been pro-Ukraine with our sanctions, as has the rest of the world. Or take it broader, should all the first world countries who've been agreeing to sanctions join America in a hardcore dogpile on Russia's forces in Ukraine (assuming war has been declared)?

I do not have a solid opinion on this currently, but right now I lean towards America keeping out of this violence-wise. While it would suck for us to stand by and let Russia sweep over Ukraine, there could potentially be bigger consequences if we militarily oppose Russia.

I do realize that there is some middle ground to consider here, but I have trouble finding that middle ground because I don't know how much we have to push Putin back until he stops (if he ever would).

I'd love to hear your opinions, so I can better solidify mine.

Its not entirely likely. Russia's GDP growth is expected to fall 5%, and that's not even with the new sanctions coming this week. They don't have the current funds for a war. If it were to happen though, then I would reccomend a naval, air, and trade war. NATO has complete supremacy in this area.

The question always comes down to nukes though.

Yeah the nukes is what I think when I worry about the worst scenario with military opposition. I'd much prefer to let Ukraine fend for itself if it meant staving off a nuclear war.

If we had to do it I'd agree with you. No boots on the ground. Let's just blast Russian troops with our drones.

The problem with letting Ukraine fend for itself, is it brings up evident problems in how we defend the sovereignty of nations. What we do here will set an example for the future.

Backing down, will produce generations of people calling NATO weak. But yeah, Russia has no chance in a naval or air war.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
MyDinosaurHands
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2014 6:29:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/24/2014 6:27:23 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/24/2014 6:25:35 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
At 4/24/2014 6:22:24 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/24/2014 6:14:56 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
I would like to ask something specific about our role, and that is, what should America do if Russia and Ukraine declare war on each other?
We've been pro-Ukraine with our sanctions, as has the rest of the world. Or take it broader, should all the first world countries who've been agreeing to sanctions join America in a hardcore dogpile on Russia's forces in Ukraine (assuming war has been declared)?

I do not have a solid opinion on this currently, but right now I lean towards America keeping out of this violence-wise. While it would suck for us to stand by and let Russia sweep over Ukraine, there could potentially be bigger consequences if we militarily oppose Russia.

I do realize that there is some middle ground to consider here, but I have trouble finding that middle ground because I don't know how much we have to push Putin back until he stops (if he ever would).

I'd love to hear your opinions, so I can better solidify mine.

Its not entirely likely. Russia's GDP growth is expected to fall 5%, and that's not even with the new sanctions coming this week. They don't have the current funds for a war. If it were to happen though, then I would reccomend a naval, air, and trade war. NATO has complete supremacy in this area.

The question always comes down to nukes though.

Yeah the nukes is what I think when I worry about the worst scenario with military opposition. I'd much prefer to let Ukraine fend for itself if it meant staving off a nuclear war.

If we had to do it I'd agree with you. No boots on the ground. Let's just blast Russian troops with our drones.

The problem with letting Ukraine fend for itself, is it brings up evident problems in how we defend the sovereignty of nations. What we do here will set an example for the future.

Backing down, will produce generations of people calling NATO weak. But yeah, Russia has no chance in a naval or air war.

Isn't it likely that if we did engage with Russia, we would keep nukes out of it? I mean, it seems like nobody would win with nukes. Even Putin should recognize that.
Guess what I used to type this..

Careful! Don't laugh too hard.
Malinda
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 9:51:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Unfortunately, there is something in Russia defensive strategy about using nuclear weapons against non-nuclear threats or military actions. So fighting with Russia without nukes doesn't seem possible to me.
SemperVI
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 4:49:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/24/2014 6:14:56 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
I would like to ask something specific about our role, and that is, what should America do if Russia and Ukraine declare war on each other?
We've been pro-Ukraine with our sanctions, as has the rest of the world. Or take it broader, should all the first world countries who've been agreeing to sanctions join America in a hardcore dogpile on Russia's forces in Ukraine (assuming war has been declared)?

I do not have a solid opinion on this currently, but right now I lean towards America keeping out of this violence-wise. While it would suck for us to stand by and let Russia sweep over Ukraine, there could potentially be bigger consequences if we militarily oppose Russia.

I do realize that there is some middle ground to consider here, but I have trouble finding that middle ground because I don't know how much we have to push Putin back until he stops (if he ever would).

I'd love to hear your opinions, so I can better solidify mine.

Nothing.... Absolutely nothing... It's a European problem. As a US citizen, I am tired of sticking our nose in other peoples problems. Why must we be the keepers of peace. Besides, we are not very good at it anyway. Our foreign policies are making matters worse today more than ever. Don't threaten, don't draw imaginary red lines, don't talk tough. Our President and Secretary of State need to just sit down and shut up. Let Europe deal with Europe.
Nebelous
Posts: 58
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 7:03:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
We've already witnessed that allowing a superpower to make land grabs ends in war. So once Ukraine is absorbed and Russia wants Poland(hypothetical) what are we gonna say? Don't take Poland because that's one country too many? The United States is championed as the protector of freedom and sovereignty, so to allow this would be hypocritical. If Russia wants war they'll get war; it doesn't matter if the U.S. intervenes or not.
SemperVI
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 7:22:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 7:03:26 PM, Nebelous wrote:
We've already witnessed that allowing a superpower to make land grabs ends in war. So once Ukraine is absorbed and Russia wants Poland(hypothetical) what are we gonna say? Don't take Poland because that's one country too many? The United States is championed as the protector of freedom and sovereignty, so to allow this would be hypocritical. If Russia wants war they'll get war; it doesn't matter if the U.S. intervenes or not.

Nothing (hypothetically). The US should not involve itself with European problems. Let them work their problems out. The world is tired of US influence and the US is tired of influencing the world.
Nebelous
Posts: 58
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 7:24:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 7:22:45 PM, SemperVI wrote:
At 5/1/2014 7:03:26 PM, Nebelous wrote:
We've already witnessed that allowing a superpower to make land grabs ends in war. So once Ukraine is absorbed and Russia wants Poland(hypothetical) what are we gonna say? Don't take Poland because that's one country too many? The United States is championed as the protector of freedom and sovereignty, so to allow this would be hypocritical. If Russia wants war they'll get war; it doesn't matter if the U.S. intervenes or not.

Nothing (hypothetically). The US should not involve itself with European problems. Let them work their problems out. The world is tired of US influence and the US is tired of influencing the world.

The 20th century called and they want their outdated ideology back.
SemperVI
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 7:38:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 7:24:52 PM, Nebelous wrote:
At 5/1/2014 7:22:45 PM, SemperVI wrote:
At 5/1/2014 7:03:26 PM, Nebelous wrote:
We've already witnessed that allowing a superpower to make land grabs ends in war. So once Ukraine is absorbed and Russia wants Poland(hypothetical) what are we gonna say? Don't take Poland because that's one country too many? The United States is championed as the protector of freedom and sovereignty, so to allow this would be hypocritical. If Russia wants war they'll get war; it doesn't matter if the U.S. intervenes or not.

Nothing (hypothetically). The US should not involve itself with European problems. Let them work their problems out. The world is tired of US influence and the US is tired of influencing the world.

The 20th century called and they want their outdated ideology back.

Okay, I will entertain you for a moment. What exactly do you think the US could do? The US could not fight another war if it wanted to. We are broke. The US is on the verge of bankruptcy. We can't even afford to refuel our aircraft carriers. Why do you think we no longer have a space program? Our national debt is $17,511,203,008,226.40 (that is 17 trillion) and is increasing 2.5 billion everyday. Do you honestly think we are in a position to fight yet another war. Give me a break. Of course not - and Russia knows this. It would be the end of the United States.

In the 20th century, we did help Europe with their problems - WW1 and WW2! Who has the outdated ideology!
Nebelous
Posts: 58
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 7:55:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Okay that makes sense.....You ain't got the money let injustice happen. Do you think the people in the Ukraine aren't human beings or something? They aren't entitled to a life free from tyranny if they wish so? They've voiced their opinion and they said screw Russia. It's in our best interest to protect them. We're not living on some different planet where things happening in Europe don't affect us.

Yes we can fight another war. Who will be Russia's allies in this war? And on the U.S.'s side everybody else. We have friends, Russia has enemies. The Russian economy is also in recession and they can't afford to not have a war, they need this. So they're gonna get it one way or the other. Are we supposed to just step aside?

During the 20th century the first two world wars the majority of the U.S. said stay out of war until they realized that the oceans aren't that big and planes can fly fast and far. We're not alone on this planet.
SemperVI
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 8:25:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 7:55:18 PM, Nebelous wrote:
Okay that makes sense.....You ain't got the money let injustice happen. Do you think the people in the Ukraine aren't human beings or something? They aren't entitled to a life free from tyranny if they wish so? They've voiced their opinion and they said screw Russia. It's in our best interest to protect them. We're not living on some different planet where things happening in Europe don't affect us.

Uhhhh, its the Ukrainians themselves who are flying a Russian flag. It is the Uki's who are seizing control of the government buildings. It is the Uki military who has switched sides. Why should we fight a war they are not willing to fight. We did this already in Vietnam.


Yes we can fight another war. Who will be Russia's allies in this war? And on the U.S.'s side everybody else. We have friends, Russia has enemies. The Russian economy is also in recession and they can't afford to not have a war, they need this. So they're gonna get it one way or the other. Are we supposed to just step aside?

During the 20th century the first two world wars the majority of the U.S. said stay out of war until they realized that the oceans aren't that big and planes can fly fast and far. We're not alone on this planet.

No, we went into war head first in WW1 which caused the US to become "Isolationists" until Japan attacked us forcing us into WW2. It is not our problem Nebelous, why would you want to make it our problem. I served in the US military, I have fought a war for this country. My father fought two wars for this country and my son is fighting a war for this country. What have you done? If your so eager to get into this fight, go to the Ukraine, pick up a rifle and start fighting.
Nebelous
Posts: 58
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 8:32:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
First paragraph is nonsense. We know for a fact that the Ukrainians aren't the ones doing that, countless journalists have exposed what the "pro-Russian" population are. To believe that they want to be ruled by Russia is preposterous.

Good for you for being in the military, I mean that. Something I've been thinking about honestly even though I'm not inclined to violence. But I've also heard that tired line of, "Go there if you love it so much." and it's a pitiful response. I've already explained why it is our problem so I guess our conversation ends here. Good day.
SemperVI
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 8:37:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 8:32:35 PM, Nebelous wrote:
First paragraph is nonsense. We know for a fact that the Ukrainians aren't the ones doing that, countless journalists have exposed what the "pro-Russian" population are. To believe that they want to be ruled by Russia is preposterous.

Good for you for being in the military, I mean that. Something I've been thinking about honestly even though I'm not inclined to violence. But I've also heard that tired line of, "Go there if you love it so much." and it's a pitiful response. I've already explained why it is our problem so I guess our conversation ends here. Good day.

So at best its a civil war then....

Your not inclined to violence..... but you have no problem sending my son to fight in your stead. Pitiful you say? Take a good look in the mirror
Lt.Harris
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2014 2:41:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
To start, I think a lot of people have no idea about how nukes would be used. A nuclear war over Ukraine or pretty much anything wouldn't happen. Putin openly acknowledges that he (and Obama) know what would happen if a nuclear war was to be started. A nuclear war wouldn't be started. Even if there was a world war, nukes probably wouldn't be used unless absolutely necessary.

*If America doesn't help, who will? Nobody but America can stand up to Russia without fear of extreme retaliation. Russia can't even hope to match America in a war and Putin knows it. If America does nothing, we are telling the world that little countries can be invaded and we won't do anything about it. This is definitely not how we need to appear to the world. We need to let the world know that when you 1. Disobey us 2. Break sanctions 3. Invade little countries that you will be challenged by the US. Seeing as how nobody can match the US, respect, fear, and power are all on our side.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2014 2:11:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/24/2014 6:29:48 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
At 4/24/2014 6:27:23 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/24/2014 6:25:35 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
At 4/24/2014 6:22:24 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/24/2014 6:14:56 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
I would like to ask something specific about our role, and that is, what should America do if Russia and Ukraine declare war on each other?
We've been pro-Ukraine with our sanctions, as has the rest of the world. Or take it broader, should all the first world countries who've been agreeing to sanctions join America in a hardcore dogpile on Russia's forces in Ukraine (assuming war has been declared)?

I do not have a solid opinion on this currently, but right now I lean towards America keeping out of this violence-wise. While it would suck for us to stand by and let Russia sweep over Ukraine, there could potentially be bigger consequences if we militarily oppose Russia.

I do realize that there is some middle ground to consider here, but I have trouble finding that middle ground because I don't know how much we have to push Putin back until he stops (if he ever would).

I'd love to hear your opinions, so I can better solidify mine.

Its not entirely likely. Russia's GDP growth is expected to fall 5%, and that's not even with the new sanctions coming this week. They don't have the current funds for a war. If it were to happen though, then I would reccomend a naval, air, and trade war. NATO has complete supremacy in this area.

The question always comes down to nukes though.

Yeah the nukes is what I think when I worry about the worst scenario with military opposition. I'd much prefer to let Ukraine fend for itself if it meant staving off a nuclear war.

If we had to do it I'd agree with you. No boots on the ground. Let's just blast Russian troops with our drones.

The problem with letting Ukraine fend for itself, is it brings up evident problems in how we defend the sovereignty of nations. What we do here will set an example for the future.

Backing down, will produce generations of people calling NATO weak. But yeah, Russia has no chance in a naval or air war.

Isn't it likely that if we did engage with Russia, we would keep nukes out of it? I mean, it seems like nobody would win with nukes. Even Putin should recognize that.

This is why we've never warred with Russia in any direct manner, because the underlined is indeed the primary consideration. There has never been a war between nuclear powers.

Given your observations as to how a conventional war would go, you then have to recall why nations like Iran and North Korea want nuclear weapons...because that's what they'd default to if a war ever went sour for them, and they possessed nukes.

---

Anyway, my own opinion on the OP is pretty much cemented around an argument that what's occurring in the Ukraine today is the result of our inability to aggressively expand our sphere of influence following the collapse of the USSR. I read this opinion piece yesterday and it echoed my own sentiments on this issue ever since I knew about it:

It is generally accepted that the EU (in a mode splendidly described by one commentator as of "impotent megalomania") precipitated matters by blundering into the most sensitive part of Russia's backyard without seriously asking itself how it might react. This was not an isolated error but the culmination of 20 years of the west simply not taking Russia seriously, most notably with the Kosovo war and the expansion of Nato. When Russia did react in the (legally indefensible, but historically understandable) form of annexing Crimea and destabilising east Ukraine, the western view then swung 180 degrees to focusing on the need to "contain" a revanchist Russia intent on rebuilding the Soviet Union.

In the absence of any willingness among western publics to fight for the independence of Simferopol, the only weapon available was sanctions. These allowed western leaders to claim they were "doing something", but in fact cruelly exposed their unwillingness to take real economic pain on Ukraine's behalf. They have also become something of a badge of patriotic pride for those Russians targeted by them " of the six uses of sanctions by the west against the USSR/Russia since the second world war none have worked.

Happily, we now seem to be waking up to the reality that we are dealing not with a revanchist Russia, but with a coldly calculating one " a Russia that is neither patsy nor praying mantis. They don't want to fight a war or take on the economic burden of rebuilding eastern Ukraine, but they do have a minimal list of requirements " Ukrainian neutrality, more autonomy for Russian speakers " which have to be met before they will back off.


http://www.theguardian.com...
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2014 2:20:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/15/2014 2:41:04 PM, Lt.Harris wrote:
To start, I think a lot of people have no idea about how nukes would be used. A nuclear war over Ukraine or pretty much anything wouldn't happen. Putin openly acknowledges that he (and Obama) know what would happen if a nuclear war was to be started. A nuclear war wouldn't be started. Even if there was a world war, nukes probably wouldn't be used unless absolutely necessary.

*If America doesn't help, who will? Nobody but America can stand up to Russia without fear of extreme retaliation. Russia can't even hope to match America in a war and Putin knows it. If America does nothing, we are telling the world that little countries can be invaded and we won't do anything about it. This is definitely not how we need to appear to the world. We need to let the world know that when you 1. Disobey us 2. Break sanctions 3. Invade little countries that you will be challenged by the US. Seeing as how nobody can match the US, respect, fear, and power are all on our side.

The underlined is exactly what will happen and it is the best possible outcome of an extremely bad situation.

Many "small countries" have security agreements in the US that would put it under the protection of its nuclear umbrella. The Ukraine did not have such an agreement, and any other country that does not will be susceptible to aggression.

Then you also have to take the flip-side of aggression, that perhaps Russia is just taking a page out of our own recent history of waging wars with zero global support, and that perhaps Russian action here is just them parroting own unilateral actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

On your commentary on nuclear weapons, I would surmise that you don't know how they work. You say that Russia can't hope to match the US militarily, and conveniently leave out MAD out of your analysis.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Lt.Harris
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2014 9:13:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/18/2014 2:20:25 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/15/2014 2:41:04 PM, Lt.Harris wrote:
To start, I think a lot of people have no idea about how nukes would be used. A nuclear war over Ukraine or pretty much anything wouldn't happen. Putin openly acknowledges that he (and Obama) know what would happen if a nuclear war was to be started. A nuclear war wouldn't be started. Even if there was a world war, nukes probably wouldn't be used unless absolutely necessary.

*If America doesn't help, who will? Nobody but America can stand up to Russia without fear of extreme retaliation. Russia can't even hope to match America in a war and Putin knows it. If America does nothing, we are telling the world that little countries can be invaded and we won't do anything about it. This is definitely not how we need to appear to the world. We need to let the world know that when you 1. Disobey us 2. Break sanctions 3. Invade little countries that you will be challenged by the US. Seeing as how nobody can match the US, respect, fear, and power are all on our side.

The underlined is exactly what will happen and it is the best possible outcome of an extremely bad situation.

Many "small countries" have security agreements in the US that would put it under the protection of its nuclear umbrella. The Ukraine did not have such an agreement, and any other country that does not will be susceptible to aggression.

Then you also have to take the flip-side of aggression, that perhaps Russia is just taking a page out of our own recent history of waging wars with zero global support, and that perhaps Russian action here is just them parroting own unilateral actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

On your commentary on nuclear weapons, I would surmise that you don't know how they work. You say that Russia can't hope to match the US militarily, and conveniently leave out MAD out of your analysis.

But MAD is the entire reason for my last statement. Neither countries want destruction when they KNOW that they will receive just as much punishment as they receive. If America does nothing with countries without a treaty, we are almost become just as bad as the people we talk about. We shouldn't have to have a treaty for us to recognize the potential "resolution" that other countries will make from us not doing anything. Obama already told Putin that there would be consequences for his actions. If America does nothing, than not only will the world think that we won't help little countries, they will start to ignore out threats because they don't think we will follow through. This is especially dangerous for unstable countries who we already have problems with.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2014 9:41:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/18/2014 9:13:35 AM, Lt.Harris wrote:
At 5/18/2014 2:20:25 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/15/2014 2:41:04 PM, Lt.Harris wrote:
To start, I think a lot of people have no idea about how nukes would be used. A nuclear war over Ukraine or pretty much anything wouldn't happen. Putin openly acknowledges that he (and Obama) know what would happen if a nuclear war was to be started. A nuclear war wouldn't be started. Even if there was a world war, nukes probably wouldn't be used unless absolutely necessary.

*If America doesn't help, who will? Nobody but America can stand up to Russia without fear of extreme retaliation. Russia can't even hope to match America in a war and Putin knows it. If America does nothing, we are telling the world that little countries can be invaded and we won't do anything about it. This is definitely not how we need to appear to the world. We need to let the world know that when you 1. Disobey us 2. Break sanctions 3. Invade little countries that you will be challenged by the US. Seeing as how nobody can match the US, respect, fear, and power are all on our side.

The underlined is exactly what will happen and it is the best possible outcome of an extremely bad situation.

Many "small countries" have security agreements in the US that would put it under the protection of its nuclear umbrella. The Ukraine did not have such an agreement, and any other country that does not will be susceptible to aggression.

Then you also have to take the flip-side of aggression, that perhaps Russia is just taking a page out of our own recent history of waging wars with zero global support, and that perhaps Russian action here is just them parroting own unilateral actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

On your commentary on nuclear weapons, I would surmise that you don't know how they work. You say that Russia can't hope to match the US militarily, and conveniently leave out MAD out of your analysis.

But MAD is the entire reason for my last statement. Neither countries want destruction when they KNOW that they will receive just as much punishment as they receive. If America does nothing with countries without a treaty, we are almost become just as bad as the people we talk about. We shouldn't have to have a treaty for us to recognize the potential "resolution" that other countries will make from us not doing anything. Obama already told Putin that there would be consequences for his actions. If America does nothing, than not only will the world think that we won't help little countries, they will start to ignore out threats because they don't think we will follow through. This is especially dangerous for unstable countries who we already have problems with.

War is existential. Modern warfare has proven to be anything but limited. Any war between nuclear powers will involve nuclear weapons. You do not build nukes without the intent of using them, as you seem to suggest in your statements.

There has never been a war between nuclear powers, and I don't see anyone picking a fight with Russia over something as relatively minor as the Ukraine.

On the underlined, here you run the risk of being an idealist. Ideally speaking, there shouldn't be any governments and we should all sing kumbaya together. There should be no hunger, no conflict, and no need for laws because no one would break them. Keep using the word "should," and anything will seem possible, even if it is not.

IMHO America shouldn't help anyone that didn't ask for it. Without a security agreement, we are not only not obligated to help the Ukraine, but our presence would not be welcome to begin with. If it was, there would be a treaty in place to stipulate what we would do there and how we would do it, as it is in other countries that welcome our presence.

On ignoring our threats, I'm fairly certain the world learned the opposite lesson in the Iraq War. As it is, we're not threatening anyone this time around, so there's no reason to think that the world would somehow lose respect for American sabre-rattling, unless of course we continue to sabre-rattle over something as ridiculous as nuclear war with Russia, which any war involving us and Russia would invariably become once it became evident that one side of the conflict (and I agree with you it would be Russia) was losing.

After all, what do they have to lose at that point? Unconditional surrender, destruction of their way of life, state, culture, and society, or mete out the same punishment to their enemies? In such a calculus, Russia would have no choice BUT to engage in nuclear conflict, so as to prove to the world that no one fvcks with Russia. We would do the same...indeed that is why we maintain our own arsenal.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2014 9:55:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/18/2014 9:41:11 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/18/2014 9:13:35 AM, Lt.Harris wrote:
At 5/18/2014 2:20:25 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/15/2014 2:41:04 PM, Lt.Harris wrote:
To start, I think a lot of people have no idea about how nukes would be used. A nuclear war over Ukraine or pretty much anything wouldn't happen. Putin openly acknowledges that he (and Obama) know what would happen if a nuclear war was to be started. A nuclear war wouldn't be started. Even if there was a world war, nukes probably wouldn't be used unless absolutely necessary.

*If America doesn't help, who will? Nobody but America can stand up to Russia without fear of extreme retaliation. Russia can't even hope to match America in a war and Putin knows it. If America does nothing, we are telling the world that little countries can be invaded and we won't do anything about it. This is definitely not how we need to appear to the world. We need to let the world know that when you 1. Disobey us 2. Break sanctions 3. Invade little countries that you will be challenged by the US. Seeing as how nobody can match the US, respect, fear, and power are all on our side.

The underlined is exactly what will happen and it is the best possible outcome of an extremely bad situation.

Many "small countries" have security agreements in the US that would put it under the protection of its nuclear umbrella. The Ukraine did not have such an agreement, and any other country that does not will be susceptible to aggression.

Then you also have to take the flip-side of aggression, that perhaps Russia is just taking a page out of our own recent history of waging wars with zero global support, and that perhaps Russian action here is just them parroting own unilateral actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

On your commentary on nuclear weapons, I would surmise that you don't know how they work. You say that Russia can't hope to match the US militarily, and conveniently leave out MAD out of your analysis.

But MAD is the entire reason for my last statement. Neither countries want destruction when they KNOW that they will receive just as much punishment as they receive. If America does nothing with countries without a treaty, we are almost become just as bad as the people we talk about. We shouldn't have to have a treaty for us to recognize the potential "resolution" that other countries will make from us not doing anything. Obama already told Putin that there would be consequences for his actions. If America does nothing, than not only will the world think that we won't help little countries, they will start to ignore out threats because they don't think we will follow through. This is especially dangerous for unstable countries who we already have problems with.

War is existential. Modern warfare has proven to be anything but limited. Any war between nuclear powers will involve nuclear weapons. You do not build nukes without the intent of using them, as you seem to suggest in your statements.

There has never been a war between nuclear powers, and I don't see anyone picking a fight with Russia over something as relatively minor as the Ukraine.

On the underlined, here you run the risk of being an idealist. Ideally speaking, there shouldn't be any governments and we should all sing kumbaya together. There should be no hunger, no conflict, and no need for laws because no one would break them. Keep using the word "should," and anything will seem possible, even if it is not.

IMHO America shouldn't help anyone that didn't ask for it. Without a security agreement, we are not only not obligated to help the Ukraine, but our presence would not be welcome to begin with. If it was, there would be a treaty in place to stipulate what we would do there and how we would do it, as it is in other countries that welcome our presence.

I note the irony in my own statements, lol. Regardless, I'd like to say that I have a reasonable basis for my advocacy. I don't understand the reasoning behind your advocacy.

Obama's consequences are simply not going to involve war with Russia. I don't think war is a solution to this problem, and there's nothing that would suggest that America would be inconsistent if we left a military solution off the table on this specific matter.

On ignoring our threats, I'm fairly certain the world learned the opposite lesson in the Iraq War. As it is, we're not threatening anyone this time around, so there's no reason to think that the world would somehow lose respect for American sabre-rattling, unless of course we continue to sabre-rattle over something as ridiculous as nuclear war with Russia, which any war involving us and Russia would invariably become once it became evident that one side of the conflict (and I agree with you it would be Russia) was losing.

After all, what do they have to lose at that point? Unconditional surrender, destruction of their way of life, state, culture, and society, or mete out the same punishment to their enemies? In such a calculus, Russia would have no choice BUT to engage in nuclear conflict, so as to prove to the world that no one fvcks with Russia. We would do the same...indeed that is why we maintain our own arsenal.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 5:14:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/24/2014 6:14:56 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
I would like to ask something specific about our role, and that is, what should America do if Russia and Ukraine declare war on each other?

Make every effort to mediate peace immediately through the use of hard and soft methods. I'm all for diplomacy where it can work, but I think that if Ukraine and Russia went to war, that the US should immediately start moving troops and munitions to NATO allies in Western Europe. Iranian-level sanctions should precede that move, though, and the US should take immediate measures to cultivate natural gas reserves in central Europe to offset the natural gas crisis that would emanate throughout Central and Western Europe should such a move become necessary. That should begin by immediately retaking Crimea, with the implication that if Putin continues to act like a Czar, the US will economically, politically and militarily isolate it from the world by severely sanctioning any country that trades with Russia after a six month grace period to ensure compliance and facilitate energy market stabilization to the extent that it would be possible.
Tsar of DDO
EnlightenedMadman
Posts: 44
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2014 2:34:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/24/2014 6:14:56 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
I would like to ask something specific about our role, and that is, what should America do if Russia and Ukraine declare war on each other?
We've been pro-Ukraine with our sanctions, as has the rest of the world. Or take it broader, should all the first world countries who've been agreeing to sanctions join America in a hardcore dogpile on Russia's forces in Ukraine (assuming war has been declared)?

I do not have a solid opinion on this currently, but right now I lean towards America keeping out of this violence-wise. While it would suck for us to stand by and let Russia sweep over Ukraine, there could potentially be bigger consequences if we militarily oppose Russia.

I do realize that there is some middle ground to consider here, but I have trouble finding that middle ground because I don't know how much we have to push Putin back until he stops (if he ever would).

I'd love to hear your opinions, so I can better solidify mine.

It would basically be Vietnam all over again, except that we'd be able to declare open war on each other, civilian or soldier. It's not our battle right now; however, the future may yield more options.

And there's also the fact that both sides will have nuclear weapons.
Check it out! Envisage and I debate Young Earth Creationism.
http://www.debate.org...