Jack Blog 2

Since the beginning of 2020 the United States has been in a complete disarray. The coronavirus, race riots, and political divisions have crippled this country in the last few years. Now as a global crisis unfolds we now find ourselves at a crossroads, to intervene in the Russo-Ukraine war or to take a isolationist stance on the matter. Although Ukraine is requesting support, I do not believe it is our place to intervene and I do not believe the issue is worth starting a third World War over. The biggest reason we should not engage is that President Putin is virtually threatening a nuclear war. Although Putin did not outright say he would launch nukes, he threatened the west with “consequences greater than any you have faced in history” if the Ukrainian invasion is interfered with. According to the New York Post, research suggests it would only take between ten and one hundred nuclear warheads to effectively destroy the environment. With their being around 15,000 nuclear bombs in existance and the fact that the  US and Russia have 90% of them means a nuclear war between the superpowers would destroy humanity. The second reason the US should stay out of Ukraine is because it is really not our place to determine what happens in eastern Europe. Instead of immediately choosing a side this conflict should be looked at from both points of view. The fact that Ukraine is a slavic nation that was a part of the Soviet Union until 1991 makes it very clear why the Russians want this land back. If the United States was broken up, and Florida became its own country, I would strongly advocate for taking it back if thirty years later I was in the position to do so. Although I do not support the invasion of Ukraine, I believe that Putin's reasoning to do so is very rational for them and it is in the Russians best interest. Countries must act in their best interest and sometimes that means stepping on others' heads. Every superpower in today's society is guilty of this. For the United States, it is in our best interest to stay out of this conflict for the time being. Another major reason the United States should not get involved is that direct intervention will drive up the cost of oil/gas and hurt everyday American citizens who will pay more for gas and to heat their homes. A solution to this problem could accomplish two things at once, restarting the Keystone Pipeline and ramping up domestic oil production would help everyday Americans by reducing the cost of oil/gas and would reduce Russia's energy revenues. Economic policies like these as well as sanctions however is the furthest we should take it in terms of combating Russia in this conflict. Although it is unfortunate a sovereign nation is being invaded, there is not much the world could do without catastrophic repercussions. If Russia keeps going and attacks a NATO ally then we must act. I believe Putin will not go any further because this invasion is extremely calculated and doing so would not be a smart move. As long as Russia does not attack the US or the NATO allies, the US should not poke the bear. 


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Blog 4

                                                                        Paris climate accords The Paris Agreement, which required the United States to substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions, was a horrible deal for American taxpayers, energy corporations, and every single American who relies on inexpensive, reliable energy. It was also not ideal for any of the countries involved, therefore Trump made the correct decision by pulling out of it. The first reason it was a bad deal was its economic impact it would have on the United States. If the Obama administration's Paris energy restrictions were implemented, they result in the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, harm to American industry, and a loss of $2.5 trillion in GDP by 2035. The United States was also paying ...
Read more

Diplomatic Risk: Global Powers and the Shortcomings of Realism

Jack Cahalane Professor Shirk POLS 170 May 4, 2022 Diplomatic Risk For our last week of classes, our class played Diplomatic Risk in order to visualize International Relations firsthand. From my point of view, I perceived that the game portrayed the historical or future hypothetical interactions of major powers in the world through the lens of conflict. In turn, I believe that it can be argued that the Diplomatic Risk simulation played in class (at least how it was played in our class simulation without extensive bargaining or diplomatic incentives other than to go to war) relates to the idea of the international relations school of Realism. As a result of the simplified nature of Diplomatic Risk, I believe this notion coincides with the shortcomings of Realism: the simplicity and perception which ignores incentives which do not promote morality or coalition building.      The game was prepared using a world map board from the actual game of Risk and consisted of five ...
Read more

The Unintended Consequences of NGOs

  Cassie Lawler International Politics: POLS 170-03 Professor Shirk Due: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 Blog Post #4 The Unintended Consequences of NGOs Non-governmental organizations are non-profit that operate outside of the government, are independently organized and run to further a political motive, whether that motive be in the realm of humanitarianism, labor protections, or environmental, among many other things. Although the overwhelming majority of the time, these entities are well-meaning with aspirations to pick up where the government leaves off and serve a purpose for the greater good, they are typically not as advantageous for those they seek to help as they intend. The major caveat among NGOs in modern society is that they reap unintended consequences upon creation at whatever community, national, or international level they require mainly due to the fact that they crowd out government services and impede the existing and future efforts for the cause. Unfortunately, this ...
Read more