In 1932-1933 the Russians starved over 7 million Ukranians, should the U.S. step in and protect the Ukranians in light of recent events?

2014-03-03T20:37:18-05:00

Does the U.S. have a responsibility to support democracy, even if it means a confrontation with Russia at this time? Would you deploy to protect the Ukranians?

Response by SGM Matthew Quick made Mar 3 at 2014 9:11 PM

2014-03-03T21:11:24-05:00

Of course...like it or not, it's our job to be the world's police force.

If not us, who?

Response by CWO3 Brent Kern made Mar 3 at 2014 9:11 PM

2014-03-03T21:11:32-05:00

I don't think we have the financial ability to support another full scale war at this point; we have a capable but weary force with a worn out fleet of vehicles and equipment. I think we need to introvert as a nation and do a little internal repair before we jump off into another potential long war.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 3 at 2014 9:14 PM

2014-03-03T21:14:58-05:00

With what assets should we "assisting" the Ukrainians, sir?

Don't get me wrong, I think tyranny anywhere should be squashed. However, our own forces are being slashed, and we simply do not have the capability to launch such a mission, at least not for long.

Even inserting a QRF force (82nd or 101st) means entry into a denied area, and then establishing and protecting a logistics tail for that operation.

Forgetting the logistics, we (our leadership) would have to establish a mission with clear, achievable, measurable goals. Then they would have to decide how far they are willing to go to achieve the mission. A defensive action? Or perhaps a slugfest with Russia? What would we gain aside from the "moral high ground?" That and $0.35 will get you a 3 minute phone call.

We are still in Afghanistan, where most of our real combat power is. We have a long logistics tail there. Seeing as our leadership is struggling to hold the line in Afghanistan, can we afford, in money, equipment, and lives, to open a second front, which would likely be a can of worms (at best)?

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 4 at 2014 7:21 AM

2014-03-04T07:21:58-05:00

Sir, I say no. According to the USDA.

Very low food security—In these food-insecure households, normal eating patterns of one or more household members were disrupted and food intake was reduced at times during the year because they had insufficient money or other resources for food.

5.7 percent (7.0 million) of U.S. households had very low food security at some time during 2012

I spent hours trying to get statistics on the US. Couldn't find as much as you would think and then even when you do we apply a fancy word to it. Food security; so you mean starving, hungry, and malnutrition. I for one am tired of sending our money, people and resources to other places when we have people who need the same things here. We have hungry Americans, we have homeless Americans, we have jobless Americans, we need to be taking care of Americans. The rest of the world is going to use the United States until we have nothing left to offer and then leave us to rot.

I am all for helping and supporting but you have to take care of your own first. I will feed every child in my neighborhood but not until after my wife and kids have got a plate to eat. There is nothing wrong with taking care of your own before lending a hand to others. We as Americans are suffering just as bad as others are. The difference is none of those countries are sending reporters to our poverty and violence ridden places to get a heart wrenching story.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/key-statistics-graphics.aspx

USDA ERS - Food Security in the U.S.: Key Statistics & Graphics

You are here: Home /
Topics /
Food & Nutrition Assistance /
Food Security in the U.S. /
Key Statistics & Graphics

Response by SGT Ryan Siefert made Mar 5 at 2014 12:21 PM

2014-03-05T12:21:14-05:00

I do not agree with the initial question because it's loaded. My answer, however, is no.

While it could be argued that the US has a responsibility to support democracy, the question doesn't take into account Ukraine's political issues in the past few years, such as the near 50/50 split in its vote an the fact that their last leader was impeached for corruption. They're exercising democracy, but sometimes chaos happens.

It also doesn't take into account Russia's national interests, like protecting its pipelines and port facilities in Crimea in a country that could devolve into civil war. They did the same thing with their port in Syria. There is also the ethnic issues between the Ukrainians and Russians and all of the other sub-branches that are there. Some want the Russians to help maintain order.

America has no real national interests with Ukraine. The only reason it's at the top of the headlines (IMHO) is because of the political pissing contest politicians are drumming up between our president and their prime minister. At best, and if it actually is serious, Europe should handle it.

If we need to focus our attention somewhere, it would be better focused on Venezuela, a place where we definitely have national interests and is experiencing a brutal crackdown.

Response by SFC Robert Trodahl made Mar 6 at 2014 2:18 PM

2014-03-06T14:18:02-05:00

I believe if any US troops would be utilized it would be a token force, with a heavy call on NATO to show some strength. I don't think he really wants to tangle with the Russian military at this time.

Response by SSG Gerhard S. made Apr 19 at 2014 2:55 PM

2014-04-19T14:55:46-04:00

Perhaps we should have stepped in due to the treaty we signed with Ukraine that we would protect them if they would surrender their Nuclear armaments.  They DID surrender their Armaments leaving them vulnerable to action from the East, and we DID leave them hanging out to dry.  That being said, I believe it's too late to step in regarding Crimea as they already held our gold standard of liberty... a vote.  It is the same standard by which many of our politicians justify some of our incursions, which makes intervention (with Crimea in particular) troublesomely hypocritical.  I believe the rest of Ukraine can be saved from the same fate, but only if our politicians act decisively, and boldly.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made May 11 at 2014 3:57 PM

2014-05-11T15:57:30-04:00

This post is inaccurate. In 1932-1933 the Holomodir did occur, however it was not the Russians. It was the Soviet Union, and the Ukrainian SSR. In 1932-1933 the most powerful man in the Soviet Union was Joseph Stalin (Yusif Dugashvili) who was a Georgian. Ukraine is a multi-ethnic and multi-national state. Deploying US Forces to Ukraine would have very mixed reactions from the population and possibly galvanize resistance from separatists. The current government has questionable legitimacy and broad support from only one part of the country. It is not our business, this is between Russia and Ukraine. It is not worth it to exhaust our resources on Ukraine.