[WAR] Debate

[ray_quazaa]

So first off: http://www.politicalcompass.org/prin...3.38&soc=-5.59

(Aside, the questions were confusing and too binary for my taste. I estimate that I'm probably a little bit closer to the right on economics than it estimated)

It is pretty much undeniable that Ukraine's sovereignty was violated with Russia's taking of Crimea. But oddly though, a violation of the treaty does not provide a basis for war action by the United States.

Case and point: The Russian Federation already violated the Budapest Memorandum many times with economic coercion. This is in violation of Article 3:

3. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.

(emphasis mine)

Russia has, numerous times, used it's position as a (natural) gas provider and Ukraine's position as a gas transit provider to exert political and economic concessions from Ukraine. By creating a natural dependence and then removing such economic favors, Russia has created a situation where it can dictate marcoeconomic pain onto the Ukrainian government. One could relate this to a drug dealer-drug addict type of relationship, where the drug dealer has incentive and ability to cause addiction. Russia-Ukraine goes one step further in that Ukrainian industry was USSR industry, which it inherited, not by choice.

After the gas debacle of 2005 - 2006, the United States and the United Kingdom did not respond. A clear violation of Ukrainian's economic sovereignty was violated.

The example is not to necessarily show that the US should not go into, but is to show why the US is not obligated to attack Russia.

Given the choice of response, the use of sanctions is probably the best response. Using military force to exert a deal would only serve to reduce the Russian Federation into a state of chaos, without a central government. That alone could create a situation where the A) the loss of life is much greater, or B) a new state could deny it's inheritance of the former treaty and charge market rate. This doesn't include potential other scenarios, such as socio-economic losses for Russian and eastern European people.

Proportional action should be considered, and as a signatory to the Budapest Memorandum, a equally proportional attack on Russia... doesn't really exist. No military action by the US could be considered 'proportional,' as allowed under international law. Furthermore, it would not necessarily be right for the US to act in such a way that would cause civilian casualties (which barely any occurred in Crimea).

The proportional reaction to the taking would be Ukraine to reassert control over Crimea in the opening days of the attack with a swift rise in military forces and prevention of Russia from reinforcement. Both would have been allowed under the Memorandum. Obviously, with Ukraine in disarray, Russia took the opportunity to act before Ukraine could reestablish itself.

In conclusion, the ability for the US to enforce agreements signed by other nations is not limited to only military action. It never has been. The US is attempting to enforce agreements through economic 'assaults' on Russia, which serve to protect civilian lives and prevent a collapse of governments. Both in the end, save lives. War, especially by two large, powerful, states, would be disproportional to the actions in Crimea, especially with the geopolitical consequences of such actions.

@HKim -> Lets see what you do