This is a false narrative as it does not consider Russia's security concerns, which have precipitated this crisis. Historically, Russia has never attempted to dominate or conquer Europe. However, European powers have consistently tried to do so to Russia for the last 400 years.

A problem I see with this debate is that it is biased from both sides as almost all have totally bought into all the US propaganda.

From For to Undecided. I don't know if I actually feel any more informed after watching this, which may be a first. Very few of the arguments landed for me and the most powerful ones were already made more concisely in the synopsis on the webpage. I found Emma's arguments easiest to follow, which is ultimately what swayed me from For to Undecided but I was very much left wanting a more detailed explanation of what all these other measures would actually look like (e.g., deterrence). For example... aren't economic sanctions a type of isolation, which is in term a form of deterrence? The huge question I had coming in was whether it's more dangerous to back Putin into an isolated corner where he has little to lose and therefore no cares about watching the world burn or if he's more dangerous when we effectively enable his imperialistic behavior. That question probably isn't answerable because all that can really be done is speculation, but I do think it's the crux of the matters underpinning the motion. Michael and Radan made some decent points as well... but I did not click at all with Jonas. His mannerisms as well as the content of his arguments often felt insufferable to me which made it hard to fully focus on that side's case.

Both for and against the motion failed to make a compelling argument for the effectiveness during the war and to the long-term goal of the motion. The moral argument and the ability of Russia to absorb the short-term impact are easily established. They should bring forth arguments about the long-term effect, end goal, and the possibility of such a means to lead to said end.