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

[K1052]

The USAF would never deploy the A-10 in an environment where they do not have air superiority and suppression of enemy anti-air units.

Correct.

Though based on TB2s striking the supply train with near impunity I have some real questions about Russian air defense capability/decision making. You can't just hand over the keys to a mobile SAM launcher to a bunch of kids who were conscripted a couple months ago and expect everything to work out.

 

[DarthKyrie]

Tank busting isn't as important as it once was. Would have been fun to see them scream over W Germany and melt tanks though ... until like 30mins later when it wouldn't matter anymore.

And I'm a fan, btw. Have been since I first saw them flying over Tucson out of Davis Monthan when I was a kid.

The A-10 still has a place in destroying convoys and for close air support for ground troops in an assortment of battlefield conditions. It isn't just good for tank-busting like many people seem to think. The Army would have a fit and reform their airwing with the A-10 as the centerpiece if the Air Force ever decides to scrap it. The A-10 is a much more capable weapons platform than any other close air support fighter in history and other countries would love to have it, we have refused to sell any even our to allies.

 

[skyking]

No to US troops. That was my vote and it looks to be the proper choice, they have modeled direct US involvement in eastern European conflicts for 70 years now, and it rarely ends well in those models. The Ukrainians have been proven willing and capable of fighting their own war, given the tools. Keep giving them the tools and kicking the legs out of Russia's economy and it will end soon.
I think the Ukrainians will prevail and that is important that they do so, control their own destiny.

A-10?
Drones are the thing now. Piloted aircraft can't pull G's or carry payload like a drone, and your highly trained pilot does not need to hang his ass out there to get the work done.

 

[Viper1j]

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.

I'm in no hurry to glow-in-the-dark, and I still have 19 days before the financing on my yacht goes through.

 

[kage69]

initial operational capability is planned for 2023. Low rate production contract was issued late last year.

Bah!

I'd say all the procurement plans need an overhaul now. Get on it DoD.

 

[kage69]

I wish we had some kind of cargo drone, super sonic and stealthy, that could decelerate and pitch a few pallets of gear, then bug out at tree top. Fly them over Kyiv and drop critical ammo and food, risk no pilot and crew. Launch them in swarms of 50, throw in some decoys.

 

[BarkingGhostar]

I think it would be more economic to pay someone to go do it for us. For instance, for every illegal, or potential illegal alien eyeing the USA we pay them $10K each, give them weapons and air drop them by FedEx/UPS/DHL into Ukraine and tell them to shoot them Russian Nazis. If they win AND survive, we give them citizenship. Hmm, maybe offer this to some of those trying to get their student loan debt cancelled, too.

 

[HomerJS]

If we gave the Ukrainians some drones they could wipe out that convoy. I guess to complicated a weapons system.

Are stingers programmable with coordinates?

 

[mikeymikec]

Before the news started coming in about how incompetent the Russian forces appear to be, I thought the invasion of Ukraine was going to be the first invasion of many types and sorts in quick succession, and based on that believe my opinion was that US/UK/EU should have shown a united front against Russia, and IMO Russia would have backed down.

As it looks like Ukraine might be able to repel Russia themselves (with equipment support/supplies), I currently feel that the current position US/UK/EU has taken seems to be working out fine.

I'm still flabbergasted by the incompetence of the invading force and I keep worrying that maybe this is a feint of sorts, but if it was, it would be an extremely expensive feint judging by just about every metric I can think of. The payoff would have to be catastrophic for Russia's enemies.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

I'm still flabbergasted by the incompetence of the invading force and I keep worrying that maybe this is a feint of sorts, but if it was, it would be an extremely expensive feint judging by just about every metric I can think of. The payoff would have to be catastrophic for Russia's enemies.

I keep thinking this too...that they have only sent in the cannon fodder at first. But it doesn't make sense. Like you said, it is expensive, and Russia is getting financially wrecked by sanctions....each day they extend this war probably costs in the 10s of billions of dollars. And it has given the Ukrainians time to organize their defense, arm their population, and conscript their men. You kind of want to send in your best dudes before the enemy is battle hardened and ready for you.

The only thing that makes sense is that Putin's yes-men were too afraid to tell him the truth about their military strength and capabilities and were hoping that it might just work out anyway.

 

[Brainonska511]

I keep thinking this too...that they have only sent in the cannon fodder at first. But it doesn't make sense. Like you said, it is expensive, and Russia is getting financially wrecked by sanctions....each day they extend this war probably costs in the 10s of billions of dollars. And it has given the Ukrainians time to organize their defense, arm their population, and conscript their men. You kind of want to send in your best dudes before the enemy is battle hardened and ready for you.

The only thing that makes sense is that Putin's yes-men were too afraid to tell him the truth about their military strength and capabilities and were hoping that it might just work out anyway.

File footage of Russian military command:

 

[Pohemi]

"Kif...inform the men." lol

I voted continuing economic sanctions, supplying equipment/food/medicine/weapons/etc, and attempted diplomacy. I think direct involvement by the US (or NATO) would be an excuse or pretense for escalation by Putin. It might be what he's hoping for, or he might be counting on his threat of nuclear response to keep everyone else at bay.

I don't think we should be sending our own troops or craft to Ukraine. Continue the support, supplies, and sanctions. If they haven't exhausted EVERY avenue on those fronts, do so. Like Biden leaving the big energy exports alone and the ability for Russia to continue selling their supplies and being paid for it. Stop pussy-footing it. Go ALL-OUT. Of course it will affect petro and energy prices in the US and rest of the world, but that is already happening.

Choke Putin hard enough figuratively, and perhaps one of his own will do it literally.

 

[K1052]

I'm still flabbergasted by the incompetence of the invading force and I keep worrying that maybe this is a feint of sorts, but if it was, it would be an extremely expensive feint judging by just about every metric I can think of. The payoff would have to be catastrophic for Russia's enemies.

No, they've fucked up real good especially on the Kyiv thrust from the north. The losses of armor and equipment are simply insane. Ukrainians seem to be doing a good job of really messing up the rear there.

 

[uclaLabrat]

No, they've fucked up real good especially on the Kyiv thrust from the north. The losses of armor and equipment are simply insane. Ukrainians seem to be doing a good job of really messing up the rear there.

Given theyre roadbound due to mud currently are they going to have any roads left capable of supporting an advance? They formed their own roadblocks.

 

[brycejones]

Given theyre roadbound due to mud currently are they going to have any roads left capable of supporting an advance? They formed their own roadblocks.

The timing of this invasion is just horrible. Russian's know their own terrain and when it's suitable for combat.

 

[K1052]

Given theyre roadbound due to mud currently are they going to have any roads left capable of supporting an advance? They formed their own roadblocks.

They are conveniently funneled down a narrow corridor to Kyiv. Easy to find for Ukrainian drone operators and squads to ambush. Strikes slow everything down and there is some evidence the Ukrainians have located the close in staging areas and are making a sizable mess there with drones.

 

[uclaLabrat]

Holy shit Ukraine just declared that citizens don't need to declare captured Russian equipment as income on their tax returns 😂😂😂

 

[cytg111]

I think the US should stay out of it in terms of boots on the ground. I do think a coalition of European troops should go on a "peacekeeping mission" and help the people of Ukraine out... Backed by US intelligence.
I think its some fucked up shit its not a thing already. Shame Shame Shame.

 

[Pens1566]

I think the US should stay out of it in terms of boots on the ground. I do think a coalition of European troops should go on a "peacekeeping mission" and help the people of Ukraine out... Backed by US intelligence.
I think its some fucked up shit its not a thing already. Shame Shame Shame.

From which countries? Can't be any NATO members which leaves ... Switzerland/Austria/Boznia/Herzegovina. And they're not gonna make a difference either way.

 

[cytg111]

From which countries? Can't be any NATO members which leaves ... Switzerland/Austria/Boznia/Herzegovina. And they're not gonna make a difference either way.

Why cant it be from NATO countries?

 

[HomerJS]

Why cant it be from NATO countries?

Because we are part of NATO and Article 5

 

[MrPickins]

Why cant it be from NATO countries?

At this point I'm halfway convinced you're trolling...

 

[Pens1566]

Why cant it be from NATO countries?

This can't be a serious question.

 

[cytg111]

Ehm… No dead serious? Defensive alliance… So… If I go to another country and wage war there… what business is that of NATO? Yes I know of the article, but its not 5 is it? Surely the rest can be bent

 

[cytg111]

Ehm… No dead serious? Defensive alliance… So… If I go to another country and wage war there… what business is that of NATO? Yes I know of the article, but its not 5 is it? Surely the rest can be bent

Either I got this dead wrong or you lot gonna owe me some fake internet points in a minute