critical thinking evaluation paper- genesis cordero
docx
School
Valencia College *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
2041
Subject
Political Science
Date
Dec 6, 2023
Type
docx
Pages
7
Uploaded by LieutenantGerbilPerson973
Cordero
Critical Evaluation Research Paper: Has Biden Done Enough?
Section A
The Washington Post’s main point in “Opinion Biden has done a lot for Ukraine. But Not
enough” is simply written in the title; pointing out the Biden has in fact helped Ukraine but has
also left them vulnerable and defenseless countless times more than has assisted.
Section B
The author argues that Biden has delayed weapon aid and has also avoided confrontation with
Vladimir Putin while also failing to successfully encourage others into an allyship with Ukraine.
Section C
The author assumes that:
Biden has not done enough as he could to assist Kyiv.
Ukraine is weak, as war is not even close to being over OR achievable.
the only reason Mr. Putin is standing strong on his Warly decisions is because Trump will soon
come back to office to cut Ukraine aid.
The U.S arms shipments have been “substantial” while Balking Ukraine's requests for aid.
Section D
Cordero
The Washington Post argues that Ukraine's warly victory has been delayed due to Biden's
inconsistencies, leaving Ukraine vulnerable and defenseless. While insinuating that the current
president should have done more to help Ukraine, the Washington Post also acknowledges that
his predecessors made mistakes that set the country back. The article then concludes by stating
that Biden's actions have hindered Ukraine's ability to achieve a speedy victory. The author
suggests that Biden should have taken a more aggressive stance in order to speed up the war's
resolution. They also suggest that Biden should have taken a stronger stance earlier on in the war.
Ultimately, the article suggests that Biden's lack of decisiveness has hindered Ukraine's ability to
gain a swift victory. Though The Washington Post makes a compelling argument, I believe there
is an incredible lack of statistical proof. The author does not provide any data to back up their
claims, which makes it difficult to believe that Biden's lack of decisiveness has had a major
impact on the speed of the war's resolution. Furthermore, the author fails to take into account the
many other factors that may have affected the outcome of the war, such as Russia's military
might or Ukraine's political divisions.
I think the author points out many valid assumptions based on news and previous
outcomes but fails to consider the long-term implications of this war, such as the potential
consequences for the region and the world. For instance, the author fails to mention the potential
economic and social costs of the war to civilians, or the long-term effects of the war on the
region's geopolitical stability. Based on my analysis of the article, the author seems to believe
that it's as simple as Biden commanding troops and sending weapons for Ukraine to be
victorious; which sounds incredibly ignorant to me. In my opinion, the issue shouldn't be about
Biden providing protection to Ukraine (or lack thereof), but instead the matter in question should
be 'why isn't the U.S. retaliating towards Russia?'. It's evidently clear that Russia's president
Cordero
Vladimir Putin has no problem being the bully. The best way to solutionize is to cut the problem
at the root; Putin is the root. According to my research, others think the same: "Under the
dictatorial leadership of Vladimir Putin, Russia has bullied its neighbors, pursued territorial land
grabs, violated human rights, and threatened to upset long-stable relations in Europe. The United
States has been far too lenient toward Russia, emboldening Putin's defiance of 21st-century
norms. Only a more aggressive and punitive stance toward Russia will bring the country back in
line with international law." (U.S.-Russia). I believe the author just wants someone to blame
simply because the issue has not been solved. With no proof in hand, I disagree with the
Washington Post. There's only so much Biden can do under his own authority before he runs out
of options considering he's not the only one who holds power. The Washington Post has
acknowledged that while the President holds executive orders, the Oval office and Pentagon hold
similar weights in power; deciding to deny the weapon requests for Ukraine. So why is the
Washington Post assuming responsibility solely on Biden? I believe the president should not be
held responsible for someone else's war especially when Biden has aided more than a few times;
proving valid allyship.
Putin's oppressive ruling has become transparent, proving he has no problem being
known as the antagonist. From what I've read, Putin makes it seem as if he enjoys it considering
he either always starts the war or finishes it; most of the time being both. Because of this, the
author assumes the only reason Mr. Putin is standing strong on his Warly decisions is because
Trump will soon come back to office to cut Ukraine aid, so Putin is taking advantage of this
temporary lull in power to further his own agenda. However, Trump coming back to office might
not be the case after all considering he was impeached twice. One article stated "The president,
by soliciting foreign help in smearing the reputation of a political rival [from Russia], had
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Cordero
egregiously abused the powers of his office. Republicans defended his actions as an appropriate
use of presidential power to pressure Ukraine to crack down on corruption... the House approved
articles accusing President Trump of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress... One article
stated, President Trump "has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national security and
the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible
with self-governance and the rule of law. President Trump thus warrants impeachment and trial,
removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, trust, or profit
under the United States" (impeachment). Trump and Putin appear to have multiple traits in
common, one being that they both do not consider democracy when making political decisions.
Trump and Putin both prioritize personal gain over the interests of their countries. They both
have authoritarian leadership styles, and both have been accused of using their positions to line
their pockets or gain political favors. Trump has even been accused of colluding with Russia in
order to win the election. I personally would not believe it to be a smart idea to let Trump back
into office as it would assist in the deaths of many more civilians than have already perished.
I find it irresponsible to blame Biden for a war he did not start. Furthermore, it is wrong
to assume that Biden can single-handedly solve a war that has lasted decades, which is what
makes it difficult for me to stand with the Washington Post. Biden should be given the
opportunity to do his job without undue criticism. There are many risks for the U.S. president to
stand in the middle of the war, especially when the U.S. is in favor of the oppressed. Publicists
from the N.Y. Times have chimed in, saying "the United States would remain involved in the
conflict, but division would deepen. Our forecasts indicate that weariness with this conflict,
weariness with the absolutely absurd sponsorship of the Kyiv regime will grow in various
countries, among them the United States" (Rauhala). I truly believe Biden is out-doing himself
Cordero
considering the fact that there is a lot at stake here. As the main speaker for the country, he has a
lot of pressure on his hands and the government isn't as transparent as people think. There's a lot
going on behind the scenes like threats that could diminish the country's resources, threats that
could put a huge hole in our economy. Yet Biden has continued to voice his support.
The Washington Post assumes Ukraine is weak, as war is not even close to being over OR
achievable. Ukraine has fought back, however, and has no intention of giving up. The country is
determined to remain independent and refuses to give in to threats. Biden is unwavering in his
support of this nation, and his stance is an important one. I do agree with that considering
Ukraine has a big lack of resources. With the United States aiding Ukraine with weapons, it's
adding impulsivity to warfare which is reckless. opponents of Biden's stance argue that the
United States should not get involved in another country's war. They point to the fact that the
U.S. has its own problems to deal with, and that getting involved in another war would be a
distraction: "Incorporating artificial intelligence, cyberattacks, and other disruptive technology
into warfare is reckless. The United States and its allies should work to ban such tactics from the
battlefield, not escalate a global arms race" (Nato). I agree with the opposition on one thing:
adding fuel to the fire will not end the war but instead continue it. I believe the Washington Post
has come up with a false claim; Biden has been doing a lot more than what concerns him. Biden
has been actively working with allies to put pressure on Russia and negotiate a ceasefire. He has
also imposed severe economic sanctions on Russia, as well as sending military equipment to help
Ukraine.
Section E
Should Biden interecede more aggressivley for a war he did not begin?
Should the U.S. even be vouching for Ukraine?
Cordero
What would be a good way to put an end to a war as daranged as the one between
Ukraine and Russia?
Is there a possibility the war can end peacefully? How?
When (if even) will Russia begin to tire out and withdraw?
Do you think its Bidens fault the war has continued this long?
Works Cited
“Impeachment.” Issues & Controversies, Infobase, 16 Feb. 2021,
icof.infobase.com/articles/QXJ0aWNsZVRleHQ6MTY1MjM=?aid=95568. Accessed 5 Nov.
2023.
“NATO and Emerging Technologies.” Issues & Controversies, Infobase, 27 July
2022, icof.infobase.com/articles/QXJ0aWNsZVRleHQ6MjM2OTE=?aid=95568. Accessed 5
Nov. 2023.
Rauhala, Emily, et al. "As U.S. support for Ukraine wobbles, E.U. takes up membership
question." Washington Post, 5 Oct. 2023, p. NA. Gale Academic OneFile,
link.gale.com/apps/doc/A767851111/AONE?u=lincclin_vcc&sid=bookmark-
AONE&xid=d3742883. Accessed 5 Nov. 2023.
“U.S.-Russia Policy.” Issues & Controversies, Infobase, 4 May 2023,
icof.infobase.com/articles/QXJ0aWNsZVRleHQ6MjMzNjQ=?aid=95568. Accessed 4 Nov.
2023.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Cordero