Alexa Thein source 1

Espinas, Gary D. "UKRAINE'S DEFENSE ENGAGEMENT WITH THE UNITED STATES."                                                   Journal of International Affairs 11th ser. 63.2 (2010): 53-63. Web. 1 Mar. 2015.

The first question I want to look into with my topic is what Ukraine means to America and why it would be necessary for the United States to get involved. This will help me to start to see the different sides of my overarching question, if the United States should get involved in the Ukrainian crisis.

This article talked about a plethora of different things, ranging from why Ukraine is important in general, to Americas current policy regarding places like Ukraine. The stance of this article is that the United states should get involved and continue to help Ukraine on their path to democracy. This is in interest of spreading democracy and maintaining the ties that Ukraine has with Europe. This article is five years old, so I had to keep that in mind while reading it, but the overarching ideas still apply to the situation Ukraine has today. It was pointed out in the article that Ukraine is seen as sort of a pathway between Europe and Asia so keeping a democratic regime there is very important to the overall spread of democracy, and Ukraine serves as a way to transport things between Asia and Europe. On a trip to Ukraine in 2008, Vice President Biden stated that he supported Ukraine's choice to be able to chose the fate of their country, and this statement could easily apply to the crisis in Crimea right now. From this article, I can gather that the United States stands behind Ukraine in theory, but we have yet to get involved beyond that. 
Your summary is good but is it possible to be just a bit more specific?  For instance, what would be the purpose of spreading democracy?  This gets confusing when you cite Biden claiming that the country should be able to choose its own fate (what if they opt against democracy?).  The reasoning behind this article remains a little unclear to me.  What's the "so what?" of this argument?


I really liked this article because it gave some good background information that I hadn't thought about or seen yet. It was helpful for me to be able to read about why Ukraine is important to the United States. It was also good to see what the opinions were about Ukraine five years ago, before the current crisis developed.

My next step will be to try and find the other side, reasons for why the United States should not get involved in the Ukrainian crisis. This will help for me to see both sides to the big issue, and then I can start to narrow down my topic.

Your exploration paragraphs need much more detail.  I'm not sure what this article helped you to think about, to critically assess, to explore.  Are there any ideas we could question here?  (Perhaps the fact that democracy almost seems like a mere vehicle for the transportation of global capitalism between Asia and Europe.)  Where would you agree and where would you disagree with the author?  Why?  At the moment it seems like you simply accept the claims at face value but I imagine there is room to critically consider the validity behind those claims.  And the same goes for the final paragraph.  Think critically about what you have gained from the article, the answer you currently have to your question, and what the article tells you about keeping your topic in stasis (i.e. what are the right questions to be asking in light of the information you now have?).