Should the US commit forces to directly combat Russia in Ukraine?

Should the US directly commit forces to combat Russia in Ukraine?

  • No, the US should have no involvement at all.

  • No, the US should continue with weapons transfers and sancations

  • Yes, Air only

  • Yes, Air and ground combat forces

  • No, but I'm willing to volunteer to fight for Ukraine as a private citizen

  • Yes, we need to strike targets in Russia as well

  • Yes, and I'm willing to volunteer to fight for Ukraine as a private citizen


Results are only viewable after voting.

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
22,392
15,757
136
Now that we're 5 days into the battle for Ukraine and several people have advocated for more direct intervention in the conflict I felt it was time to see how popular this opinion was. Polling data from earlier in February was 33% for, 34% against. What's the mix here at Anandtech? Please take the time to explain your answer.


My personal opinion is that widening the war with our direct involvement in combat operations would be a dramatic escalation especially with so little of our combat power in a position to intervene quickly. I strongly support the economic sanctions that have been taken and the other steps being taken by governmental and non-governmental organizations to isolate Russia from the world. I also support sending weapons to Ukraine and working with our NATO partners to strengthen the eastern flank of NATO and fast track Finland's admission if they choose to do so.
 

gothuevos

Golden Member
Jul 28, 2010
1,115
804
136
Now that we're 5 days into the battle for Ukraine and several people have advocated for more direct intervention in the conflict I felt it was time to see how popular this opinion was. Polling data from earlier in February was 33% for, 34% against. What's the mix here at Anandtech? Please take the time to explain your answer.


My personal opinion is that widening the war with our direct involvement in combat operations would be a dramatic escalation especially with so little of our combat power in a position to intervene quickly. I strongly support the economic sanctions that have been taken and the other steps being taken by governmental and non-governmental organizations to isolate Russia from the world. I also support sending weapons to Ukraine and working with our NATO partners to strengthen the eastern flank of NATO and fast track Finland's admission if they choose to do so.
Agree with all except Finland. Now is not the time. We've already cratered Russia's economy. This would just be insult to injury, the entire situation is a powderkeg as is. Finland is in no danger. Fast tracking them into NATO only feeds into Russia's own security narrative.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RnR_au and Lezunto

Meghan54

Lifer
Oct 18, 2009
10,720
3,834
136
Agree with all except Finland. Now is not the time. We've already cratered Russia's economy. This would just be insult to injury, the entire situation is a powderkeg as is. Finland is in no danger. Fast tracking them into NATO only feeds into Russia's own security narrative.
So I guess Finland, et al, don’t have any security anxieties vis a vis Russia? Seriously?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

rommelrommel

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2002
3,531
1,358
146
Finland and Sweden should be admitted if they want.

I feel that it’s best to let Putin escalate this himself. If it turns into indiscriminate killing of civilians then we can reassess. There’s a reasonably good chance that someone in Russia “resolves” Putin in a direct manner.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
21,536
18,915
136
No to US Involvement beyond sending weapons and supplies, diplomatic pressure and sanctions.

I'd love to see Sweden and Finland both join NATO, but I can see if they want to hold off just now while things are so tense. Better to wait until after Russians are walking home from Kyiv en masse, or Putin dies of lead poisoning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fenixgoon

SmCaudata

Senior member
Oct 8, 2006
969
1,530
136
No to US Involvement beyond sending weapons and supplies, diplomatic pressure and sanctions.

I'd love to see Sweden and Finland both join NATO, but I can see if they want to hold off just now while things are so tense. Better to wait until after Russians are walking home from Kyiv en masse, or Putin dies of lead poisoning.
I too think that Putin is digging his own grave here. I'd not be surprised if one in his inner circle finally fixes the problem.


I personally think the international response should be every possible sanction and internevtion short of direct conflict. The response needs give the message that invading a soveirgn country/starting a war means your country will crumble under economic hardship. We can always go in later with humanitarian efforts after Putin is punted.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
31,111
4,577
126
My personal opinion is that widening the war with our direct involvement in combat operations would be a dramatic escalation especially with so little of our combat power in a position to intervene quickly. I strongly support the economic sanctions that have been taken and the other steps being taken by governmental and non-governmental organizations to isolate Russia from the world. I also support sending weapons to Ukraine and working with our NATO partners to strengthen the eastern flank of NATO and fast track Finland's admission if they choose to do so.
Thank you for laying it on the table, and in turn sponsoring a discussion.
  • Ukraine has successfully used Turkish Drones in contested air space, in the midst of Russian air defense...
  • And wiped out significant numbers of armor and troops.
There is no reason we cannot bring such weapons to the field, no need to paint an American flag onto them. They would "take off" from Ukrainian soil and slam right into the columns stuck on roads. Obliterating Russian units with plausible deniability. Just more Ukrainians doing their thing. Few people need to know. We just need to send in the firepower and the men to operate it. In and out.
  • Could it go south? Yes.
  • Is it worth it to save millions? I say it is.
Also, if Ukraine can give them so much trouble. Their conventional forces aren't shit. Not a lot to fear from those stuck on Ukrainian roads before we can mobilize a force large enough to obliterate everything they can send. The only calculation here is whether Russia sets off a nuclear strike. If they witness us conducting direct overt engagements, that might be too much for them to handle. Of course we should never conduct strikes on Russian soil. We should always communicate that their aggression and killing outside their borders is the issue, attacking their land is never on the table, and ceasefire can resume as soon as they return to Russia.
  • In the event that we are suspected, discovered, or decide to go completely overt...
    The terms of ceasefire (all they got to do is stop killing people) should be made loud and clear, repeatedly. Every Russian citizen and General should know the terms. We defend from attack.
  • If they refuse to cease their bloodlust, what chance did peace really have?
  • If they refuse to be challenged, except in nuclear winter. How much of the planet are you willing to sacrifice before you think it matters?
  • Is the entire world expendable, except for us? I cannot accept this.
We cannot allow the nuclear threat to evolve into blackmail. If it does, then why can we not do the same? Did they forget we also have nukes? Both opponents having MAD, those weapons are off the table. Conventional forces, in other countries, are fair game and we need to lay down the law to prevent other nations from being consumed by nuclear powers. Or everyone will rush to proliferation more than they already have. If we will not defend you, then every Tom, Dick, Harry, and Muhammed, is going to get their hands on a nuke. A world where that is needed would ALSO end in nuclear winter.

The core principle here is Brinkmanship. A belligerent must be engaged and hit on the nose when they want to cross boundaries and cause harm. This will always carry risks. But to sit by and do nothing while millions die is both morally wrong and the path to more nuclear weapons. There is no safety to be found in more humans, emotional and irrational apes, having weapons they cannot be trusted with. But if we act scared, shrink back in terror, and feed everyone else to the wolves, then the world will have a lot of sheep becoming wolves.

Add a dozen more nuclear nations to your risk calculations. And then realize, Russia / China are probably the least likely opponents to use them. It has to end before it begins. And maybe it is impossible to calm the world down and punch back so brutally against aggression as to avoid it. But I do not want to live in a world where we failed to even try.
 
  • Like
Reactions: repoman0 and Amused

sportage

Lifer
Feb 1, 2008
10,572
2,248
136
People, Americans, don't realize what direct US involvement would involve. We would be fighting against one of the largest military powers in the world and that would take commitment on the largest scale. America would have no choice but to reinstate the "draft", and that alone would cause havoc among Americans. Americans are not use to the idea of their sons and daughters being drafted to fight and possibly die in a war. Up until now, not including Vietnam, but up until now those Americans who join the military have done so voluntarily. Forcing the American youth to go into the military, and then to fight in a massive war would not go over well with America mothers and fathers, yet alone the America youth.

After the draft, then we would have the technology of war. It would not take long for troops on the ground to escalate into bombs in the air, and then bigger bombs leading to even more bigger bombs. With a war such as this, on this scale, eventually one side or the other would pull out the ultimate in weaponry, the nukes.

Then, you have to consider the cyber wars that would begin. Cyber wars like never experienced before. Cyber wars, where American cities would go dark, water supplies cut off, power grids brought to a halt, communications becoming nonexistent. Frankly, we have no idea of the havoc that Russia could impose upon American technology. We have no idea just how vulnerable our system would be because we have never been tested to the extent that the Soviets would test America.
We have no idea as to what could be shut down and to what extent. The entire US banking could be shut down, including the check-out registers in every shop and grocery store. Everything would become cash-only, and how can you get cash if the ATM's stop dispensing and the banks lost their connections to your account(s)???

Some examples, just off the top of my head concerning the casualties of war. We really do not know how bad a major war between major superpowers would become. And there is another unknown to add into the mix, what about China???
What might China do, or side with, or create an alliance with which would further harm the United States? What about North Korea? They have nukes too.

War between the superpowers would be as described in biblical scripture, regardless of your religious beliefs, but a war between the superpowers would be as so described. Millions dead, hundreds of millions dead, and nations wiped off the face of the earth.

War between the superpowers would take a lot of thinking thru before commitment. If and when it happens, it will not be a pretty sight. To make it even more clear on a personal basis, just imagine if your cell phone stopped working..... forever! And THAT would be the least of your problems....
 

Meghan54

Lifer
Oct 18, 2009
10,720
3,834
136
People, Americans, don't realize what direct US involvement would involve. We would be fighting against one of the largest military powers in the world and that would take commitment on the largest scale. America would have no choice but to reinstate the "draft", and that alone would cause havoc among Americans. Americans are not use to the idea of their sons and daughters being drafted to fight and possibly die in a war. Up until now, not including Vietnam, but up until now those Americans who join the military have done so voluntarily. Forcing the American youth to go into the military, and then to fight in a massive war would not go over well with America mothers and fathers, yet alone the America youth.

After the draft, then we would have the technology of war. It would not take long for troops on the ground to escalate into bombs in the air, and then bigger bombs leading to even more bigger bombs. With a war such as this, on this scale, eventually one side or the other would pull out the ultimate in weaponry, the nukes.

Then, you have to consider the cyber wars that would begin. Cyber wars like never experienced before. Cyber wars, where American cities would go dark, water supplies cut off, power grids brought to a halt, communications becoming nonexistent. Frankly, we have no idea of the havoc that Russia could impose upon American technology. We have no idea just how vulnerable our system would be because we have never been tested to the extent that the Soviets would test America.
We have no idea as to what could be shut down and to what extent. The entire US banking could be shut down, including the check-out registers in every shop and grocery store. Everything would become cash-only, and how can you get cash if the ATM's stop dispensing and the banks lost their connections to your account(s)???

Some examples, just off the top of my head concerning the casualties of war. We really do not know how bad a major war between major superpowers would become. And there is another unknown to add into the mix, what about China???
What might China do, or side with, or create an alliance with which would further harm the United States? What about North Korea? They have nukes too.

War between the superpowers would be as described in biblical scripture, regardless of your religious beliefs, but a war between the superpowers would be as so described. Millions dead, hundreds of millions dead, and nations wiped off the face of the earth.

War between the superpowers would take a lot of thinking thru before commitment. If and when it happens, it will not be a pretty sight. To make it even more clear on a personal basis, just imagine if your cell phone stopped working..... forever! And THAT would be the least of your problems....
OK Chicken Little…calm down and quit running in circles like your hair is on fire.

Sorry…I forgot. Your schtick is over-the-top panic.

Carry on with your self-induced panic…
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi420

Lost_in_the_HTTP

Diamond Member
Nov 17, 2019
6,669
3,844
106

Lost_in_the_HTTP

Diamond Member
Nov 17, 2019
6,669
3,844
106
People, Americans, don't realize what direct US involvement would involve. We would be fighting against one of the largest military powers in the world and that would take commitment on the largest scale. America would have no choice but to reinstate the "draft",
Afghanistan the 1980s version.
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
22,392
15,757
136

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
29,454
5,827
126

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
30,402
17,647
136
Not yet. Although we should provide any possible covert assistance so someone on the inside can take him out.

We also need to max out personal sanctions on his inner circle and all Russian banks

Maybe neighboring countries should take in Russian soldiers who want to defect. Sounds like for a lot, their hearts are not in it.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY