Jump to content

Do you think the US military should protect Ukraine?


Poll - Do you think the US military should protect Ukraine?  

181 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you want the US involved militarily in the conflict in Ukraine?

    • Yes - we should send troops to fight alongside Ukrainian forces
    • Yes - we should be providing air support to target Russian positions
    • Yes - we should be providing weapons and have special Ops units on the ground assisting Ukrainian forces
    • Hell no


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

After 20 years of fighting foreign wars I think the public's appetite is satisfied for a while. 

counterpoint: we're morons with the attention span/memory of fruit flies.

I'd be willing to bet the appetite for war is higher than you think amongst the general population, and that our appetite will go up pretty quickly after 24/7 videos/reports of death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Smax said:

At minimum enforce a no fly zone over Ukraine, preferred total air superiority and CAS. Anyone mentioning nukes is an imbecile, Russia nor the US will use them.

you're willing to have russian missiles firing at US fighter jets?

let me be clear, the word you are looking for there is 'war'.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Smax said:

At minimum enforce a no fly zone over Ukraine, preferred total air superiority and CAS. Anyone mentioning nukes is an imbecile, Russia nor the US will use them.

You’re betting that a guy that was/is crazy enough to use nerve agents and radiation poisoning on people that had “offended” him, and that carried out those attacks in broad daylight on foreign soils, isn’t going to go nuclear if and when he feels legitimately threatened?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's too late now, but I would not have been opposed to putting a small tripwire force in Ukraine after Crimea. We could theoretically launch some precision strikes on Belarus, but Russia stationed troops there way in advance and we didn't press them on it like they would us.

I'm all for automatic and immediate inclusion of Finland and Sweden, though. The time for Russia dictating NATO membership is over. It was over the moment they moved away from diplomacy by invading Ukraine. All of Europe needs and deserves NATO protection from Russian aggression.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pour in resources and weapons and help with training, etc. etc. but not sure I want our troops in there.  Need to get tougher with sanctions.  Every event in Russia needs to get cancelled... any Russian sponsorship deals like Gazprom, Uralkali, etc. etc.  needs to be pulled... make them despised.  Those are all vanity projects for Putin... he loves mugging it up in front of the camera at F1 and international events.  Deprive them of all of it.

 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's too late now, but I would not have been opposed to putting a small tripwire force in Ukraine after Crimea. We could theoretically launch some precision strikes on Belarus, but Russia stationed troops there way in advance and we didn't press them on it like they would us.

I'm all for automatic and immediate inclusion of Finland and Sweden, though. The time for Russia dictating NATO membership is over. It was over the moment they moved away from diplomacy by invading Ukraine. All of Europe needs and deserves NATO protection from Russian aggression.
Serious question, why aren't Sweden and Finland already in NATO? If their National Security was important to them wouldn't they already have joined? Adding them now just gives NATO(mostly us) another mouth to feed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Serious question, why aren't Sweden and Finland already in NATO? If their National Security was important to them wouldn't they already have joined? Adding them now just gives NATO(mostly us) another mouth to feed.
They weren't overly worried until now. I might have my facts mixed, but Finland was only floating the idea before and Sweden had never really inquired into it, that I can remember, until this invasion. But, again, I'm not able to double check that, right now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't read clearly enough - said "Hell no" but would be wiling to be persuaded to send aid/advisors.  Still, the main thing is no way, period, send bodies - it's a waste.

If Vlad attacks NATO, hell, I'll go over and fight.  Absolutely then send e'erybody.

Edit:  I'm obviously way too old for the military, but they can strap me to a Javelin and I'll have the time of my life going out.  Either that or take care of Ukrainian women while their men are away fighting.

Edited by phdhorn
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My option wasn't included. I want our geeks doing Magical Geek Stuff remotely all up and down Russia, Ukraine, and inside whatever electronic brains Russian gear has. I want small missiles mis-firing, engines not firing, toilets flushing backwards. I want holographic images of Cossack ghosts rising from tombs and flying screaming through supply depots. I want sub-sonic soundtracks of vampire voices rocking troops to sleep. Or better yet, no sleep. The front line Russians probably haven't slept for 72 hours now, let's try for 720.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, USNALonghorn said:

No. We’re not world police. Europe needs to grow the fuck up.

We either do, or do not, shape the world how we want it. There is no European military response that doesn't include the US. Are we ok with a dictator that is hellbent on expanding his territory?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

We either do, or do not, shape the world how we want it. There is no European military response that doesn't include the US. Are we ok with a dictator that is hellbent on expanding his territory?

We were okay with Saddam until we decided that he has WMDs and that Iraqis want democracy.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

you're willing to have russian missiles firing at US fighter jets?

let me be clear, the word you are looking for there is 'war'.

yes, that is what they the pilots signed up for, the stealth, ecm and jamming of the F22's and F35's and their accompanying aircraft either works or it doesn't

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Herbie Hancock said:

You’re betting that a guy that was/is crazy enough to use nerve agents and radiation poisoning on people that had “offended” him, and that carried out those attacks in broad daylight on foreign soils, isn’t going to go nuclear if and when he feels legitimately threatened?

 

 

Yes absolutely

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i went ahead and put my vote.

i think we should destroy the russian army with overwhelming offensive firepower from air and sea.

evaporate every position they have while they're still in columns out in the open.

russia, under putin, represents a grave threat to world stability. it's no longer acceptable for him to remain in power. destroy his ability to wage war and bring sanctions so severe it effectively removes russia from the global economy. then let one of his friends finish him off. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Voted hell no but wish there was another option for financial/weapon support but no boots on the ground. As much as I'm loving the Ukrainians right now they were not part of NATO. We need to make the current conflict as painful to Putin right now and work to discredit him for every atrocity committed. If he drops one round on any NATO country then it's lit and time to skullfuck that asshole.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Hate said:


Absolutely do not want any boots on the ground or planes in the air over Ukraine. I would support providing them any aid we can though.

 

This plus all possible economic sanctions against Russia/Putin/oligarchs. Yes, even if that means gas prices go up here.

 

edit to add: What I'm not sure about is cyber warfare. Do we use the cyber against Putin? If so, how bigly?

 

Edited by High Plains Drifter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

counterpoint: we're morons with the attention span/memory of fruit flies.

I'd be willing to bet the appetite for war is higher than you think amongst the general population, and that our appetite will go up pretty quickly after 24/7 videos/reports of death.

How much are people willing to sacrifice outside of posting a Ukrainian flag on their social media? If it affects say fuel costs at home ppl will quickly turn against intervention/sanctions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't read clearly enough - said "Hell no" but would be wiling to be persuaded to send aid/advisors.  Still, the main thing is no way, period, send bodies - it's a waste.

If Vlad attacks NATO, hell, I'll go over and fight.  Absolutely then send e'erybody.

Edit:  I'm obviously way too old for the military, but they can strap me to a Javelin and I'll have the time of my life going out.  Either that or take care of Ukrainian women while their men are away fighting.
ccd3136688086772fba40ccdcabc4330.jpg
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Caponata said:

How much are people willing to sacrifice outside of posting a Ukrainian flag on their social media? If it affects say fuel costs at home ppl will quickly turn against intervention/sanctions.

i think the opposite happens...thus wag the dog. if shit sucks at home, go fight somebody and get everybody all toby keith'd up.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard a lot about the 1994 de-nuclearization agreement that the USA et al signed when Ukraine gave up their nukes.  I searched around and found the text of the agreement posted here (it's probably posted elsewhere too, but I didn't bother searching for multiple copies of it):

https://web.archive.org/web/20170312052208/http://www.cfr.org/nonproliferation-arms-control-and-disarmament/budapest-memorandums-security-assurances-1994/p32484

I was surprised to see that the extent of the security assurances in the event that Ukraine were attacked was simply to "seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine".  We don't have any obligation to engage our military in defense of Ukraine.

Engaging our military in Ukraine would be an escalation and the downstream consequences could be {Egon]bad[/Egon].  I don't think we should be engaging our military in Ukraine.  But we should be leading the charge amongst the civilized world in treating Russia as a pariah.  No pussy footing around with sanctions.  Full teeth.  Any and every legal rock overturned to seize Russian assets held in foreign lands. Full travel restrictions.  Russian passports no good anywhere.  Remove Russia from any position of power within the UN and similar NGOs.

It wouldn't upset me if certain pipelines (NS1 et al) eminating from Russia starting having severe maintenance issues outside of Russian territory to where they couldn't deliver energy to Europe.  Europe would suffer, but they need to pay the price to kill the beast.  Fuck 'em (Russia).

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
This plus all possible economic sanctions against Russia/Putin/oligarchs. Yes, even if that means gas prices go up here.
 
edit to add: What I'm not sure about is cyber warfare. Do we use the cyber against Putin? If so, how bigly?
 
How much are people willing to sacrifice outside of posting a Ukrainian flag on their social media? If it affects say fuel costs at home ppl will quickly turn against intervention/sanctions.
There is domestic oil and the shithead in Venezuela.

Russia producers nearly tripled shipments of oil to the United States in 2021 – in 2020, the United States imported from Russia on average 76,000 barrels per day (bpd), while in 2021, that figure rose to 209,000 bpd, according to data from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the U.S. Department of Energy.

The rise in imports is linked to a great extent to a shortage of sulphurous crude (with a sulphur content higher than 0.5 %) caused by sanctions imposed on the Venezuelan company PDVSA, under which oil shipments from Venezuela to the United States declined from 506,000 bpd to 82,000 bpd in 2019. And to zero in 2020-2021.

https://globalenergyprize.org/en/2022/02/22/u-s-nearly-tripled-imports-of-russian-oil-in-2021/
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Smax said:

At minimum enforce a no fly zone over Ukraine, preferred total air superiority and CAS. Anyone mentioning nukes is an imbecile, Russia nor the US will use them.

This is where I am at. We could own the sky with ease, and Russia knows that. I think just parking a couple hundred fighters over there would have shut this entire shit down from the beginning. That wouldn’t have been a terribly tough ask. 
I would have also voted for #3 but prefer planes in sky to any boots on the ground as I think it’s a safer play for us, and has us less involved and easier to disengage from once the fighting is done. Hell- we wouldn’t even have had to put an American in country- right?  Carrier group and or NATO base would have been close enough I think. Our guys could sleep in their own bunks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, dimyh said:

Voted hell no but wish there was another option for financial/weapon support but no boots on the ground. As much as I'm loving the Ukrainians right now they were not part of NATO. We need to make the current conflict as painful to Putin right now and work to discredit him for every atrocity committed. If he drops one round on any NATO country then it's lit and time to skullfuck that asshole.

This is me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

We either do, or do not, shape the world how we want it. There is no European military response that doesn't include the US. Are we ok with a dictator that is hellbent on expanding his territory?

This is so so so right. Everyone who says that I just want to shake and and ask “Who do you want to do it then?  China?  Russia?  Iran?”  Because we sure as shit can’t have a worlds devoid someone willing to lay the smack down or there is total and complete anarchy. And we’ve conclusively proven through all of civilization that anarchy means one country will try to take over and kill another country. 
We’ve had more prosperity than at any other period in time in the world ever with the US as the worlds policeman, and we’ve done better than anyone else in the world while being that leader. It’s crazy to me to hear people say “fuck it- it’s not worth it- let someone else die”

if you want to argue we should only defend our strategic interests I have no problem with that. It’s just I don’t see a world where freedom and territorial integrity for an ally that’s chosen democracy and is doing everything they can to integrate to the west isn’t in our strategic interests. YMMV. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Herbie Hancock said:

Why do you believe that?

 

He's ex KGB, he knows how it plays it out. If nukes enter a conflict between russia and the US he knows that is the end of humanity. There is no surviving, hes not some crazed religious zealot eager to meet his maker.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, maninblack said:

My answer is no. That being said the 82nd left yesterday and teams from my old unit are prepared to go in immediately. 

I’m not sure who he’s attached to now, but my good friend is a doc and was with the 173rd before being re-assigned to JBSA last summer after his wife committed suicide. The week of thanksgiving he had to take his 6 and 11 year old daughters to stay with family in Tennessee in the middle of the night because he was told he’s shipping out in 48 hours or less. He’s been at Illesheim ever since. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, dimyh said:

Voted hell no but wish there was another option for financial/weapon support but no boots on the ground. As much as I'm loving the Ukrainians right now they were not part of NATO. We need to make the current conflict as painful to Putin right now and work to discredit him for every atrocity committed. If he drops one round on any NATO country then it's lit and time to skullfuck that asshole.

This is me right here. Support with equipment and weapons. But too much at risk putting our troops on the ground.

I would note to everyone pointing out Ukraine not being in NATO, we did them and Georgia no favors when we talked about admitting them to NATO in 2008 and then sat on our thumbs. Georgia was invaded months later and now Ukraine. 

Edited by Captain Ron
Link for the history refresher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Captain Ron said:

This is me right here. Support with equipment and weapons. But too much at risk putting our troops on the ground.

I would note to everyone pointing out Ukraine not being in NATO, we did them and Georgia no favors when we talked about admitting them to NATO in 2008 and then sat on our thumbs. Georgia was invaded months later and now Ukraine. 

Yep. The only reason we they aren’t in NATO isn’t because they didn’t want in. 
I have a soft spot in my heart for all the Eastern European countries that struggled under communism and so desperately want out of Russias shower of influence. 
This isn’t us going into the Middle East or Asia and taking alien cultures and trying to Americanize them which pretty clearly doesn’t work. These are people that desperately want to be like us/want what we have and are willing to die to try to make sure they have it and aren’t subject to the jack boot of the Russian thug. 
I can’t not be in favor of giving people there freedom for it when they are begging for it and willing to die for it. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

This plus all possible economic sanctions against Russia/Putin/oligarchs. Yes, even if that means gas prices go up here.

Big problem for many Americans if gas prices go up.

Bigger problem for all Americans is the dishonesty from politicians on why gas/anything prices go up.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...