FIRST ARGUMENT IN FAVOR
Russia has violated the central principle of the UN Charter and international law that says that nations should not invade other nations. The US and other countries have a duty to protect nations that are attacked. If we let Russia get away with this the whole international order will be at risk. When nations failed to stop Hitler’s invasion of Poland, it only encouraged him to go further. Clearly, the US, together with other nations, should uphold international law and help Ukraine.

FIRST ARGUMENT AGAINST
The US being involved in Ukraine is unnecessary, and risky, especially since Russia and the US have nuclear weapons. Russia has already reminded the world that it has nuclear weapons and implied it might use them before accepting defeat in Ukraine. Things could easily escalate. If the US aiding Ukraine increases the risk of nuclear war by even a small fraction, then it is not worth the US being involved in Ukraine.

SECOND ARGUMENT IN FAVOR
It is important for US security, not just Europe’s, for Russia not to gain territory in Europe. If they are able to take over Ukraine, this will strengthen and embolden them. If they attack a NATO member that the US is committed to defending, like the Baltic states, it could easily lead the US into an all-out war with Russia that is likely to go nuclear.

SECOND ARGUMENT AGAINST
The US does not need to be involved in every global problem. This war is a European problem, and they should be responsible for dealing with it. The major nations in Europe – like the U.K., Germany, and France – have advanced militaries that are providing support to Ukraine and can provide more. Furthermore, the idea that any time a nation attacks another one, the international order is going to collapse, is unnecessarily alarmist.

Accordion Sample Description

Accordion Sample Description

FIRST ARGUMENT IN FAVOR
Before World War II, nations frequently went to war with others in an effort to gain new territory. Since World War II this has occurred very rarely. This is in large part because countries have agreed that countries should not invade each other and that countries should join together to prevent any country from invading another. This is no time to abandon this principle that has been so important for preserving peace and security among world powers. If the countries of the world were to fall back into trying to invade each other it would lead countries to build up their militaries and would destabilize the world economy. It would likely lead more countries to try to get nuclear weapons which could lead to extraordinary destruction. It is clearly in the U.S. interest to promote and support the principle of collective security.

FIRST ARGUMENT AGAINST
The whole idea that the U.S. should play a role in helping defend countries from aggression might have made sense during the Cold War when the Soviet Union was a big threat and we wanted to make sure that no country would come into their orbit. But now, Russia is not a major threat and even China poses a limited threat to our vital interests. So, we should not feel that it is important for the U.S. to try to uphold the principle of collective security for the world. We cannot have confidence that other countries will be there to join us when the going gets rough. But other countries are always expecting the U.S. to step in. Too many countries have gotten lax thinking that they can count on the U.S. to defend them.

SECOND ARGUMENT IN FAVOR
The U.S. has been a key leader in upholding the principle of collective security and if it were to be perceived as backing away from this role, other countries would disengage too. Some nations would be likely to draw closer to Russia and China for protection. Potential aggressors would be emboldened, and the world would become less stable and much more dangerous. The principle of collective security has been effective in preventing major wars for more than 70 years. It has served U.S. interests by creating a more stable world that furthers economic development which has served U.S. interests. This is no time to abandon the principle of collective security and let the world drift back into a kind of jungle rule where countries throw around their military might to try to get advantages over each other.

SECOND ARGUMENT AGAINST
The fact is, nations will always try to use their military might to get advantages. It is unrealistic to think that this will change. What has happened over the last few decades is that the U.S. has been so powerful that it has been able to keep other countries in line, at least to some extent. But the U.S. can’t keep playing this role. The U.S. has plenty of its own problems to worry about. Basically, we should do what makes sense in terms of our own interests at any particular moment and let other countries look out for themselves.

FIRST ARGUMENT IN FAVOR
While Russia is not as powerful as it was during the Cold War years, it still poses a major threat to the U.S., to its allies in Europe, and to other areas of the world as well. Russian president Vladimir Putin openly expresses regret that the Soviet Union ended and clearly has ambitions to expand Russian power. Russia has a major nuclear arsenal of over 6,000 weapons as well as major conventional military forces. Russia has occupied or invaded Ukraine on many occasions, most recently in 2022. It has also threatened Georgia. It is simply unacceptable for Russia to come to dominate Europe as it seems to want to do or to expand its power in other areas of the world as well. European countries have 1.7 million troops stationed in Europe and it’s very much in the U.S. interest to have those troops committed to the shared goal of containing Russia.

FIRST ARGUMENT AGAINST
Why exactly does the U.S. have to make this expensive commitment to defend Europe? The only real possible threat is from Russia and the idea that Russia might invade Europe is far-fetched and simply out of date. Russia has stated that it invaded Ukraine in part because it felt threatened by NATO trying to expand closer to Russia. Furthermore, Europe is far wealthier than Russia and already spends more than twice as much on its military than Russia. Why exactly do they need us? Remember, we are promising to be ready to go to war with Russia--which could well end up escalating to an all-out nuclear war--if any NATO member gets into conflict with Russia. Would we be ready to go to war over some little NATO country like Lithuania? If not, then we have no business being in this outdated alliance.

SECOND ARGUMENT IN FAVOR
Having U.S. and European countries tied closely together in a common bond is critical and NATO is an important means to that end. They are our primary partners in upholding principles of freedom and democracy in the world. We have a shared interest in maintaining an open trading system in the world as well as the one trillion dollars-worth of trade with Europe. Besides protecting Europe, NATO members participate in other military efforts that are important to the U.S., such as the operation in Afghanistan. Having our militaries highly integrated through the NATO structure makes such joint action more feasible and effective. NATO is not a burden on the U.S.--rather it is a partnership that allows us to share the effort to keep the world safe and prosperous.

SECOND ARGUMENT AGAINST
The ties between Europe and the U.S. are strong and multifaceted due to our shared values and interests. We can pursue those values and interests in many ways. We do not need to have a military alliance for that purpose. Having a military alliance that is clearly targeted at Russia is provocative. The fact that NATO keeps expanding by bringing in more and more countries that used to be allied with Russia, drawing closer to the Russian border, is destabilizing. Russia perceives it as a threat and as violating the understanding between the U.S. and Russia that occurred at the end of the Cold War. This sense of threat is a key reason that Putin and his aggressive stance have been elevated in Russia. If we were to phase out NATO, relations with Russia would likely improve and whatever threat is there would diminish.