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

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

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.

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
39,805
33,423
136
Is Russia making progress I'm not hearing about? Seems like every time they "occupy" a city, which hasn't been more than a handful of times since this started, they are killed, captured and ejected within 24 hours. Ukraine has more weapons now than when they started. Russian troops are out of food and abandoning this war in droves. Thousands of protesters have been arrested in Russia. They are moving to cut off all outside internet access and institute martial law this week. Their economy is obliterated. People are fleeing their country by the thousands.

Why the fuck are people pushing so hard to escalate when the war is already essentially over in everyone's head except for Putin's? I heard the Isreali PM went to talk some sense into Putin. Was there any news about how that went?
I guess you didn't see what happened earlier today. When Putin ceases fire and pulls out of Ukraine talk of escalation can cease.
 

Leeea

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2020
3,799
5,566
136
Is Russia making progress I'm not hearing about?
Unable to effectively engage Ukrainian military assets, Russian has directed its weapons against civilian population centers and civilian evacuation routes.


‘A family died… in front of my eyes’: Civilians killed as Russian military strike hits evacuation route in Kyiv suburb






 
Last edited:

Leeea

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2020
3,799
5,566
136
I say LETS DO THIS.

American vs Russian NUKES! :eek:
It is not going to happen.


It would be a humanitarian disaster for NATO. The layers of missile defenses will not stop them all.

It would be a complete extermination of Russia. Russia has no missile defenses.


Russia knows this, and that is why this is not going to happen.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
37,610
33,330
136
I guess you didn't see what happened earlier today. When Putin ceases fire and pulls out of Ukraine talk of escalation can cease.
No, I heard they were not honoring their commitment to allow evacuation corridors. I don't think anyone should be surprised about that.
 

Mai72

Lifer
Sep 12, 2012
11,562
1,742
126
It is not going to happen.


It would be a humanitarian disaster for NATO. The layers of missile defenses will not stop them all.

It would be a complete extermination of Russia. Russia has no missile defenses.


Russia knows this, and that is why this is not going to happen.

And we wouldn't suffer as well? We would get hit by their nukes. Its true, that we would be able to deflect some of their nukes but not all. That isn't counting all the dummy nukes that Russia would throw at us. We should never act arrogantly like we would get out of this unscathed. We would have difficulty as well. We would have cities obliterated. Tens of millions of Americans killed. Russia would bear the brunt of a nuclear attack though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo and Pohemi

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
26,723
16,014
136
You suited up and ready to go to war?
Yes, cause unless you’re active duty, you dont get a say on that particular spectrum of foreign policy. Jesus christ, I mean, here I am advocating against racism… AND I AM WHITE? What am I thinking. My mind must be well and proper gone… Thanks for setting me straight with your superior reasoning skillz.

Where the fuck did I say he should suit up and go to Ukraine? PLEASE spell out your our deduction here, step by step.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
39,805
33,423
136
The US waited to enter WW2. Was that the right move? If we had entered earlier would thousands of lives had been saved?

Are we repeating the same mistake again?
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
30,213
31,220
136
The US waited to enter WW2. Was that the right move? If we had entered earlier would thousands of lives had been saved?

Are we repeating the same mistake again?

Given the state of the US military in 1939, 40, and 41. I don't think an earlier entrance into the war in Europe would have made a significant difference. The US really needed the increases in production and start of building the framework for training a much larger military that happened before Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt also correctly identified the American public wasn't ready to enter war.

Also neither side in WW2 had weapons that could devastate the other side in 30 minutes. Given the lack of rational decision making on Putin's part to this point expanding the conflict by direct involvement in combat of NATO forces is still a bad idea.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pens1566

Pens1566

Lifer
Oct 11, 2005
14,007
11,715
136
The US waited to enter WW2. Was that the right move? If we had entered earlier would thousands of lives had been saved?

Are we repeating the same mistake again?

Yes, it was. We weren't prepared for it prior to Pearl. And as bad as attacking/invading a heavily fortified Nazi Europe was, it would have been worse to join in on an ongoing retreat ... which likely would have zero impact on the already ongoing atrocities.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cytg111

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
26,723
16,014
136
The US waited to enter WW2. Was that the right move? If we had entered earlier would thousands of lives had been saved?

Are we repeating the same mistake again?
The optics on the world stage of US getting in again… Europe should stand the fuck up and get in that air space… and boots on the ground. I am disgusted by European leadership dragging their feet.
This is it bitches, how can we be so blind.
 

NostaSeronx

Diamond Member
Sep 18, 2011
3,815
1,294
136
Basically the waiting game;

Scenario A:
Russia topples itself, eurosceptic via old government to europhile via new government.
-- Not sure how long this can be kept before old government stooges take the government again.

Scenario B:
Russia bunkers down, Cold War 2.0, basically uninvadable as Russia government got its act together. With Russian population support for Supreme Soviet State 2.0 by any means necessary.
-- Most Russians want the USSR back do to propaganda forced fed to them. This would last a long time.

However, a swift invasion into Russia with a swift exit would send the message: "You are the baddies"
 
Last edited:

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,978
31,534
146
Basically the waiting game;

Scenario A:
Russia topples itself, eurosceptic via old government to europhile via new government.
-- Not sure how long this can be kept before old government stooges take the government again.

Scenario B:
Russia bunkers down, Cold War 2.0, basically uninvadable as Russia government got its act together. With Russian population support for Supreme Soviet State 2.0 by any means necessary.
-- Most Russians want the USSR back do to propaganda forced fed to them. This would last a long time.

However, a swift invasion into Russia with a swift exit would send the message: "You are the baddies"

I don't think it's most, but there sure are a lot of them. Problem is, most of these generally much older Russians don't know anything else. And it goes back generations, through the Czarist period. Russian people have really only known subjugation and autocracy. It's probably the longest-running despotic country in the world.

There are, of course, a very significant number of pro-democracy, young, progressive people that want to see Putin and his mafia cretins gone, and Russia joining a free and prosperous world. A lot of them consider themselves part of Europe, and they should be. It's hard to see this because their primary platforms of information get arrested and silenced, or simply murdered.

They can't speak or gather freely, which is the primary reason you wrongfully think that they aren't a significant, future version of Russia.
 

NostaSeronx

Diamond Member
Sep 18, 2011
3,815
1,294
136
They can't speak or gather freely, which is the primary reason you wrongfully think that they aren't a significant, future version of Russia.
I would assume youth factors in Scenario A, and not in Scenario B. In which Scenario B there is the correctional facilities expansion and correctional conscription armies for the disobedient. Again Supreme Soviet State 2.0/Bigger North Korea, no capability of toppling the government. Unless, ruthless action is committed to topple it by foreign actors.

Basically, they topple themselves or down the road some U.N./NATO affiliated action topples it for them.

Russian Victory in Ukraine is the worst outcome. Especially if there is inaction after the deed within Russia. Bolstering the push to go Scenario B. They would only need to gaslight the youth, "we lost so many troops because of you!"
 
Last edited:

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
15,142
10,043
136
The US waited to enter WW2. Was that the right move? If we had entered earlier would thousands of lives had been saved?

Are we repeating the same mistake again?


Reminds me of a joke from the '80s. The US, having been late for the last two world wars, is determined to be early for the next one.

I just don't think it's as easy as some claim to 'learn from history'. What I see in history is that attempting to learn from it never works out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,725
17,373
136
I think if major human rights violations are happening then we have an obligation, as does the rest of the world, to stop it from happening further. In the meantime, we need to be helping ukraine in any other way AND fighting against putins propaganda.
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
33,570
13,247
136
I think if major human rights violations are happening then we have an obligation, as does the rest of the world, to stop it from happening further. In the meantime, we need to be helping ukraine in any other way AND fighting against putins propaganda.
I don't disagree, but that also sets us up to be world police (TM). We need international support and cooperation on these sorts of things. Otherwise we will get dragged into everything.

we should also be consistent about where and how we intervene. The difference in support, both here and abroad, for Ukraine and its refugees compared to say...Syria and its refugees, is marked
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo and pmv

sportage

Lifer
Feb 1, 2008
11,492
3,163
136
I say LETS DO THIS.

American vs Russian NUKES! :eek:

Every American under 60 would piss their pants should a nuke take out even one cell phone tower, yet alone all of them. Think of it, WW3 and no phone, no electricity, no TikTok, no Facebook, NO INTERENT, no gas, no banks, no money, NO DRUGS, no pants, and no other options. And THAT is on the plus side.

But lets face it, it would be kinda of interesting to watch WW3, from a distance, on CNN, in the comfort of our living room because most people believe that is how it would play out. On TV, with commercials, while we munch on popcorn.
 

Lezunto

Golden Member
Oct 24, 2020
1,070
968
106
I still say no.

The U.S. is going to need its military to defend Taiwan whenever China makes it move to invade the island, which has a democratically elected government.

China might also decide to avenge the "Rape of Nanking" and other WWII atrocities committed by Japan. The U.S. is going to need its Pacific Fleet for both possible conflicts.

And finally, the U.S. appears as committed to destroying the nuclear dreams of Iran as it swore to do with Iraq. Even though Iraq never possessed nuclear weapons.

A war with Iran may entail a massive occupation of the country.
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
33,570
13,247
136
I still say no.

The U.S. is going to need its military to defend Taiwan whenever China makes it move to invade the island, which has a democratically elected government.

China might also decide to avenge the "Rape of Nanking" and other WWII atrocities committed by Japan. The U.S. is going to need its Pacific Fleet for both possible conflicts.

And finally, the U.S. appears as committed to destroying the nuclear dreams of Iran as it swore to do with Iraq. Even though Iraq never possessed nuclear weapons.

A war with Iran may entail a massive occupation of the country.
A war with Iran would be stupid, especially when they're interested in a nuclear deal again.
 

bguile

Senior member
Nov 30, 2011
529
51
91
No USA should not commit forces directly. Just supply arms/aid/intel, and keep pressure on getting sanctions in place for now.

Would really rather see other major Europeans nations commit forces, but they won't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo and dank69

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
36,316
10,630
136
Ukraine is not NATO so we should only stick with our obligations to NATO countries. And getting involved with no-fly is also none of our business nor in our interest.

3 million+ refugees into NATO is our business.
Millions at risk of dying from being besieged with little to no food and water.
And it will only get worse by the day.

This is genocide in Europe. It is our business.

Our satisfaction?
Glad you're not in charge.

And these past two weeks since the topic started, you feel better sitting back and watching Ukrainians die?
The difference between us is that I do not. It sickens me. We have the power to end it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
30,213
31,220
136
3 million+ refugees into NATO is our business.
Millions at risk of dying from being besieged with little to no food and water.
And it will only get worse by the day.

This is genocide in Europe. It is our business.



And these past two weeks since the topic started, you feel better sitting back and watching Ukrainians die?
The difference between us is that I do not. It sickens me. We have the power to end it.
Or expand it very broadly.
 

skyking

Lifer
Nov 21, 2001
22,829
6,001
146
3 million+ refugees into NATO is our business.
Millions at risk of dying from being besieged with little to no food and water.
And it will only get worse by the day.

This is genocide in Europe. It is our business.



And these past two weeks since the topic started, you feel better sitting back and watching Ukrainians die?
The difference between us is that I do not. It sickens me. We have the power to end it.
It's the wrong course. Turning Eastern Europe into a nuclear wasteland will kill hundreds of millions more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo