US has no good options in Ukraine

[Anonymous]

The problem with NATO is our members do not spend any money on their military. So they are like the tag alongs areound the big kid on the playground.
Germany’s brilliant idea to shut off nukes and bank on Russia to forever pump your gas was probably the worst of it all.

Russia just reminded Europe that there are still ducks in the world who like to stir stuff up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The problem with NATO is our members do not spend any money on their military. So they are like the tag alongs areound the big kid on the playground.
Germany’s brilliant idea to shut off nukes and bank on Russia to forever pump your gas was probably the worst of it all.

Russia just reminded Europe that there are still ducks in the world who like to stir stuff up.

Angela Merkel made a terrible mistake. But the new German administration is now spending more than the required 2% on defense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Can we just leave the planes somewhere and let the Ukrainian pilots “steal” them from us?

It's an old trick. It comes down to logistics, and the window of time is getting shorter and shorter, since Russia expects this and has started to attack western Ukraine in consequence, airfields in particular.
Of course, we don't know whether planes haven't already changed hands... I really really hope they have!

The number of MiGs poland has offered won’t change much. The Russian engines are notorious maintenance hogs and it’s not like anyone in Ukraine or the west has those sitting around. Airfields in Ukraine are limited and runways are all being cratered to prevent use. Then you need to think about compatible munitions. Then you need to think of C2 and modern jet fighters don’t have an exceptional loiter time (the more you strap underneath the less fuel you can carry) so you have to consider aerial refueling which Ukraine also lacks. Give them the MiGs but without the IADS to protect the bases and the logistics tail to go along with it, they’ll all be shot down or grounded in a week.
A better option would be dedicated ground attack aircraft like Su-22s, Su-25s, or Mi-24s. These are much more durable, can operate under more austere conditions, and can fly low and slow to avoid Russian IADS. However at some point without regular maintenance they too become hanger queens and you still have to consider munitions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Can we just leave the planes somewhere and let the Ukrainian pilots “steal” them from us?

It's an old trick. It comes down to logistics, and the window of time is getting shorter and shorter, since Russia expects this and has started to attack western Ukraine in consequence, airfields in particular.
Of course, we don't know whether planes haven't already changed hands... I really really hope they have!

The number of MiGs poland has offered won’t change much. The Russian engines are notorious maintenance hogs and it’s not like anyone in Ukraine or the west has those sitting around. Airfields in Ukraine are limited and runways are all being cratered to prevent use. Then you need to think about compatible munitions. Then you need to think of C2 and modern jet fighters don’t have an exceptional loiter time (the more you strap underneath the less fuel you can carry) so you have to consider aerial refueling which Ukraine also lacks. Give them the MiGs but without the IADS to protect the bases and the logistics tail to go along with it, they’ll all be shot down or grounded in a week.
A better option would be dedicated ground attack aircraft like Su-22s, Su-25s, or Mi-24s. These are much more durable, can operate under more austere conditions, and can fly low and slow to avoid Russian IADS. However at some point without regular maintenance they too become hanger queens and you still have to consider munitions.

Right. Well, who knows whether these have changed hands in recent days too. Whatever Ukraine needs short of NATO countries intervening directly.

[Anonymous]

According to the BBC, Ukraine warned Belarus that Russian planes had taken off from a base they control near Kyev to ***shoot at a Belarus location*** near the border in an attempt to provoke Belarus into joining the war.

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-europe-60685883/page/3

[Anonymous]

Also consider air power is no silver bullet. Our own wars over the last twenty years where we enjoyed entirely permissible air supremacy have proved this. We still lost.
Flip it around though. The Russians have total air supremacy and are getting bogged down. They themselves will get to a point perhaps of diminishing returns on the battlefield with regards to air power; the difference in capability may in the end not prove at all decisive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also consider air power is no silver bullet. Our own wars over the last twenty years where we enjoyed entirely permissible air supremacy have proved this. We still lost.
Flip it around though. The Russians have total air supremacy and are getting bogged down. They themselves will get to a point perhaps of diminishing returns on the battlefield with regards to air power; the difference in capability may in the end not prove at all decisive.

But when it comes to your own family stuck in Mariupol, you'd be desperate for jets to regain control of the skies to drop some critical first necessities like medication, surgical kits, rehydration salts, and rations.

The cold calculus of war is that Ukraine can rebuff Russia and perhaps persuade it that the invasion isn't worth it, despite fighter jets, but at what horrific human cost?

This is why Zelensky made such repeated, public appeals. His people are dying from thirst, cold exposure, lack of meds and wounds.

[Anonymous]

Putin will be tempted to sabotage a nuclear research or nuclear plant facility, especially if he decides to have his army retreat. Unlivable Ukraine, and radioactive neighbors to the west (depending on which location in Ukraine) without the crushing immorality of a nuclear bomb, will seem to be a fitting parting blow to save face.

I'm sure the experts are discussing it as we speak, but what are NATO's plans for when a nuclear plant leaks radioactivity in significant quantities?

[Anonymous]

^ particularly as Russian forces control two nuclear facilities, and have targeted a research university with a nuclear lab.

[Anonymous]

Putin will be tempted to sabotage a nuclear research or nuclear plant facility, especially if he decides to have his army retreat. Unlivable Ukraine, and radioactive neighbors to the west (depending on which location in Ukraine) without the crushing immorality of a nuclear bomb, will seem to be a fitting parting blow to save face.

I'm sure the experts are discussing it as we speak, but what are NATO's plans for when a nuclear plant leaks radioactivity in significant quantities?

Don't the prevailing winds generally blow to the east? Sounds like he would be sabotaging himself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also consider air power is no silver bullet. Our own wars over the last twenty years where we enjoyed entirely permissible air supremacy have proved this. We still lost.
Flip it around though. The Russians have total air supremacy and are getting bogged down. They themselves will get to a point perhaps of diminishing returns on the battlefield with regards to air power; the difference in capability may in the end not prove at all decisive.

But when it comes to your own family stuck in Mariupol, you'd be desperate for jets to regain control of the skies to drop some critical first necessities like medication, surgical kits, rehydration salts, and rations.

The cold calculus of war is that Ukraine can rebuff Russia and perhaps persuade it that the invasion isn't worth it, despite fighter jets, but at what horrific human cost?

This is why Zelensky made such repeated, public appeals. His people are dying from thirst, cold exposure, lack of meds and wounds.

A squadron of older model MiG-29s won’t make a whit of difference. They’ll be dead the first couple of days or bombed out on the airfield. You can’t drop humanitarian supplies from a fighter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Putin will be tempted to sabotage a nuclear research or nuclear plant facility, especially if he decides to have his army retreat. Unlivable Ukraine, and radioactive neighbors to the west (depending on which location in Ukraine) without the crushing immorality of a nuclear bomb, will seem to be a fitting parting blow to save face.

I'm sure the experts are discussing it as we speak, but what are NATO's plans for when a nuclear plant leaks radioactivity in significant quantities?

Don't the prevailing winds generally blow to the east? Sounds like he would be sabotaging himself.

It depends on where in Ukraine. The Chernobyl radioactive cloud went all the way to the Atlantic. I know, I was there. Most of the heavy material fell close by, and large portion of arable land in Belarus are contaminated, but further away, rain dictated where the lighter elements fell into the ground.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also consider air power is no silver bullet. Our own wars over the last twenty years where we enjoyed entirely permissible air supremacy have proved this. We still lost.
Flip it around though. The Russians have total air supremacy and are getting bogged down. They themselves will get to a point perhaps of diminishing returns on the battlefield with regards to air power; the difference in capability may in the end not prove at all decisive.

But when it comes to your own family stuck in Mariupol, you'd be desperate for jets to regain control of the skies to drop some critical first necessities like medication, surgical kits, rehydration salts, and rations.

The cold calculus of war is that Ukraine can rebuff Russia and perhaps persuade it that the invasion isn't worth it, despite fighter jets, but at what horrific human cost?

This is why Zelensky made such repeated, public appeals. His people are dying from thirst, cold exposure, lack of meds and wounds.

A squadron of older model MiG-29s won’t make a whit of difference. They’ll be dead the first couple of days or bombed out on the airfield. You can’t drop humanitarian supplies from a fighter.

Duh. The goal is to clear the skies then drop in supplies.

[Anonymous]

Oh, lord! Just what Europe needs, Germany with an army...again!
How long before good buddies start splitting Poland again?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh, lord! Just what Europe needs, Germany with an army...again!
How long before good buddies start splitting Poland again?

When Germany surrendered in WW2 it was proposed (and agreed according to some accounts) that Germany would fight with the US against the Russians.

Eisenhower shot it down but there is something hardwired for Germans and Russians to fight. Imagine that, after losing WW2, Germans were still willing to go east to finish the job.