Poland to Immediately Handover Jets to US, to provide to Ukraine (1 Viewer)

[maxparrish]

Good news, Poland is handing over Migs to US promptly. It's asking the US provide them with used American jets of comparable ability (F-16s?). Great news...

Ukraine war: Poland offers all its MIG-29 fighter jets to US in plan to provide aircraft to Kyiv

Washington has been looking at a proposal under which Poland would supply Ukraine with Soviet-era fighters and in turn receive American F-16s to make up for their loss.

news.sky.com

 

[Lursa]

Good news, Poland is handing over Migs to US promptly. It's asking the US provide them with used American jets of comparable ability (F-16s?). Great news...

Ukraine war: Poland offers all its MIG-29 fighter jets to US in plan to provide aircraft to Kyiv

Washington has been looking at a proposal under which Poland would supply Ukraine with Soviet-era fighters and in turn receive American F-16s to make up for their loss.

news.sky.com

This was my immediate question from the article/post title. How can we avoid being accused of supplying Ukraine with the planes?

"He said that with Poland handing the jets to the US at their German base, it is like Poland saying to Russia "if you want an argument about this, have it with Washington, don't have it with us".​

Doesnt this implicate us, involve us in providing arms to Ukraine? Seems, yes. Which IMO we need to avoid. OTOH, then he said this:

"And he added: "The main thing is for Ukrainian pilots to find a safe way to take the aircraft into Ukraine.""​

Which is what I came up with too...maybe it's ok if they just park them at Rammstein and Ukraine pilots come and fly them out?

I dont know if that's enough 'hands-off' to keep Putin from accusing us of supplying them with the aircraft?

link

 

[jonny5]

Escalation is not great news. What happens when Russia escalates too?

 

[maxparrish]

This could be a real game changer. Assuming the MIGs and SU's are ready for action (and I believe they are) then it will replace all of Ukraine's air losses and then some. It eludes me on how the Ukrainians could keep air operations going, but apparently Russia hasn't done a good job on destroying airfields, or the remarkable ability of the MIG to operate off of minimally paved surface (e.g. highways) has kept them flying.

Now its time for the US and Nato to cease their hesitations and rachet down on the pressure:

Boot Russia out of the WTO.
Train Ukrainians on hawk or patriot missile batteries and ship these batteries to Ukraine.
Train, obtain, provide Ukrainians with MORE drones, and even cruise missiles.

It's also time they use Putin's game against him. Ask for US and NATO military volunteers, give them a leave of absence from US military, send them to Ukraine with the weapons systems they are familiar with.

Recruit mercenaries from Georgia, Kurds, and anyone else so inclined.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

Doesnt this implicate us, involve us in providing arms to Ukraine?

Yes.

Seems, yes. Which IMO we need to avoid.

Not only has that ship well sailed (we've provided Ukraine with hundreds of millions in arms since 2014), but if we aren't willing to create a no-fly zone (which would be a mistake IMO) the least we can do is give Ukraine the means to defend themselves.

 

[Rogue Valley]

Now to get them from Rammstein Air Base in Germany to western Ukraine.

Ukraine has an air base in their Western Operational Command at Kolomyla, which is about midway between Ivano-Frankivsk and Chernivtsi.

But how to defend the base against Russian attack jets and/or Iskander missiles fired from Kaliningrad?

Ukraine has a very nice Pelican mobile phased-array surveillance radar with a range of 250 miles.

But nothing like the US Patriot or Israel's Iron Dome. Igla and Stinger MANPADS, and S-300 systems (which Russia knows intimately).

 

[Nomad4Ever]

Escalation is not great news. What happens when Russia escalates too?

For reasons that should be apparent as we witness the...operation effectiveness...of Russia's armed forces in Ukraine, Russia does not want a direct conflict with NATO.

 

[jonny5]

For reasons that should be apparent as we witness the...operation effectiveness...of Russia's armed forces in Ukraine, Russia does not want a direct conflict with NATO.

Nor does NATO want a direct conflict with Russia. But this is getting pretty direct when they are aiding Russias enemies (as they see it). So the question remains. WHats next?

 

[Lursa]

Yes.

Not only has that ship well sailed (we've provided Ukraine with hundreds of millions in arms since 2014), but if we aren't willing to create a no-fly zone (which would be a mistake IMO)

I agree

the least we can do is give Ukraine the means to defend themselves.

Yes, but it can have similar implications as the above. Putin is just looking for excuses to justify his actions.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

But this is getting pretty direct when they are aiding Russias enemies (as they see it). So the question remains. WHats next?

Yes, but it can have similar implications as the above. Putin is just looking for excuses to justify his actions.

Well, Putin has three choices:

1 - start a another war he can't win against a vastly superior force
2 - eventually be forced to back out of Ukraine and blame unforeseen Western interference/meddling for Russia's humiliating tactical military retreat
3 - hit the reset button and hope the Russian empire is rebuilt in 1,000 years from the ashes of nuclear war

I find #2 to be the most likely as it is the only one that doesn't result in the destruction of Russia.

 

[jonny5]

Well, Putin has three choices:

1 - start a another war he can't win against a vastly superior force
2 - eventually be forced to back out of Ukraine and blame unforeseen Western interference/meddling for Russia's humiliating tactical military retreat
3 - hit the reset button and hope the Russian empire is rebuilt in 1,000 years from the ashes of nuclear war

I find #2 to be the most likely as it is the only one that doesn't result in the destruction of Russia.

And will sending fighter jets to kill russians and stop Putins goals be more or less likely to result in an even bigger war?

Im not necessarily against an inevitable war, but simply saying sending Jets or more arms is 'great news' when we are not at war sounds risky and half assed.

 

[Schrott]

Escalation is not great news. What happens when Russia escalates too?

With what ?

 

[maxparrish]

This was my immediate question from the article/post title. How can we avoid being accused of supplying Ukraine with the planes?

"He said that with Poland handing the jets to the US at their German base, it is like Poland saying to Russia "if you want an argument about this, have it with Washington, don't have it with us".​

Doesnt this implicate us, involve us in providing arms to Ukraine? Seems, yes. Which IMO we need to avoid. OTOH, then he said this:

"And he added: "The main thing is for Ukrainian pilots to find a safe way to take the aircraft into Ukraine.""​

Which is what I came up with too...maybe it's ok if they just park them at Rammstein and Ukraine pilots come and fly them out?

I dont know if that's enough 'hands-off' to keep Putin from accusing us of supplying them with the aircraft?

link

You and @jonny5 are not grasping the nuances .

First, the US and many nations already provide arms to Ukraine - that it's not "escalation", its a reality. In the cold war that is what all the powers did, supply client states with arms BUT not combat troops. In Vietnam, the Soviet Union and China were well aware that while they could ship the North Vietnamese whatever arms they wished, they could not send Soviet or Chinese troops to engage in combat with Americans...not without provoking an actual war between the powers.

Second, Ukraine is a sovereign state. This isn't an issue of three or four factions engaged in a civil war, with great powers providing troops to influence the outcome. This is a full war of aggression by one state against another sovereign state. "Escalation" is a meaningless term if one side is fighting to obtain full conquest and the other is fighting for its survival. These are not measured responses; the war is already 'all out'.

Remember that in principle this isn't any different than WWII. In 1940 the UK was not "escalating" the war, it was fighting for its survival. The US became the "arsenal of democracy", the country that would ship supplies and arms to keep the UK from losing. Same here.

Third, the planes can be shipped in by having Ukrainian pilots pick them up and deliver them. The Russians do not have the ability to seal off the Western and Southern borders, so most of them can be delivered.

Even Putin understands that he would be escalating have a direct military confrontation with western aircraft and western pilots...so do we. He might go nuke if NATO troops invade Ukraine, but he will have to live with anything less... including Ukrainians picking up and delivering what they now own.

 

[Lursa]

You and @jonny5 are not grasping the nuances .

First, the US and many nations already provide arms to Ukraine - that isn't "escalation", its a reality. In the cold war that is what all the powers did, supply client states with arms BUT not combat troops. In Vietnam, the Soviet Union and China were well aware that while they could ship the North Vietnamese whatever arms they wished, they could not send Soviet or Chinese troops to engage in combat with Americans...not without provoking an actual war between the powers.

Second, Ukraine is a sovereign state. This isn't an issue of three or four factions engaged in a civil war, with great powers providing troops to influence the outcome. This is a full war of aggression by one state against another sovereign state. "Escalation" is a meaningless term if one side is fighting to obtain full conquest and the other is fighting for its survival. These are not measured responses; the war is already 'all out'.

This isn't any different than WWII. In 1940 the UK was not "escalating" the war, it was fighting for its survival. The US became the "arsenal of democracy", the country that would ship supplies and arms to keep the UK from losing. Same here.

Third, the planes can be shipped in by having Ukrainian pilots pick them up and deliver them. The Russians do not have the ability to seal off the Western and Southern borders, so most of them can be delivered.

Even Putin understands that he would be escalating to threaten direct military confrontation with western aircraft and western pilots...so do we. He might go nuke if NATO troops invade Ukraine, but he will have to live with anything less.





, i

You started with incorrect assumptions. And you didnt actually answer anything. I asserted your 'third' in my post.

Who says Putin isnt looking for reasons to escalate? I also implied that in my last sentence.

It's like you wrote all that on auto-pilot.

 

[Schrott]

Now to get them from Rammstein Air Base in Germany to western Ukraine.

Ukraine has an air base in their Western Operational Command at Kolomyla, which is about midway between Ivano-Frankivsk and Chernivtsi.

But how to defend the base against Russian attack jets and/or Iskander missiles fired from Kaliningrad?

Ukraine has a very nice Pelican mobile phased-array surveillance radar with a range of 250 miles.

But nothing like the US Patriot or Israel's Iron Dome. Igla and Stinger MANPADS, and S-300 systems (which Russia knows intimately).

They will be dispersed on field airports. Mig 29 can handle rougher conditions.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

And will sending fighter jets to kill russians and stop Putins goals be more or less likely to result in an even bigger war?

Those fighter jets individually? It is hard to say. I don't think this will be the straw though.

I do however believe that as many countries as possible showing they are willing to materially support Ukraine however they can means this conflict is much less likely to result in a bigger war. For example, if it was JUST Poland supporting Ukraine, I find it likely that Russia would quickly engage in military action against Poland. But the fact that it is virtually all of Europe, all of North America, almost all of South/Central American, the vast majority of Africa and Oceania, and even decent amount of Asians countries supporting Ukraine...I find it increasingly unlikely that Russia decides to try and take on the majority of the rest of the world in an operation even their closest allies are barely willing to support them in.

 

[maxparrish]

You started with incorrect assumptions. And you didnt actually answer anything. I asserted your 'third' in my post.

Who says Putin isnt looking for reasons to escalate? I also implied that in my last sentence.

It's like you wrote all that on auto-pilot.

My assumptions may have been incorrect. However, I responded to the following:

How can we avoid being accused of supplying Ukraine with the planes?
"He said that with Poland handing the jets to the US at their German base, it is like Poland saying to Russia "if you want an argument about this, have it with Washington, don't have it with us".
Doesnt this implicate us, involve us in providing arms to Ukraine? Seems, yes. Which IMO we need to avoid...

In sum, my argument was (and still is)...so what? Why should we avoid being accused of the obvious? Of course, we, and all of NATO, are implicated, as we have been for months in giving a steady supply for other arms. The US and Nato have openly stated they are doing their best to supply arms. I bolded your statement that says that "we" need to avoid being implicated, in providing arms implying that if we can't avoid it, we shouldn't do it.

If that was your meaning, then for all the reasons I previously wrote to you, we need go ahead and give em what they need in whatever manner is most efficient and least risky... without fretting about being identified as the source.

If I misunderstood what you wrote, I am pleased to hear you explain your position again.

 

[Rogue Valley]

And will sending fighter jets to kill russians and stop Putins goals be more or less likely to result in an even bigger war?

Ukraine didn't start this war. If Russians get killed in Ukraine, it's because Putin sent them there to invade.

Im not necessarily against an inevitable war, but simply saying sending Jets or more arms is 'great news' when we are not at war sounds risky and half assed.

Russia sends weapons to Syria right?

Why then can't the US send arms to its allie Ukraine?

 

[Rogue Valley]

They will be dispersed on field airports. Mig 29 can handle rougher conditions.

Yes. I once saw a Ukrainian pilot land a MiG-29 on a one lane rural road surrounded by sunflower fields.

That said, the aircraft still need facilities where they can be fueled, re-armed, and mended if necessary.

 

[Lursa]

My assumptions may have been incorrect. However, I responded to the following:

How can we avoid being accused of supplying Ukraine with the planes?
"He said that with Poland handing the jets to the US at their German base, it is like Poland saying to Russia "if you want an argument about this, have it with Washington, don't have it with us".
Doesnt this implicate us, involve us in providing arms to Ukraine? Seems, yes. Which IMO we need to avoid...

In sum, my argument was (and still is)...so what? Why should we avoid being accused of the obvious? Of course, we, and all of NATO, are implicated, as we have been for months in giving a steady supply for other arms. The US and Nato have openly stated they are doing their best to supply arms. I bolded your statement that says that "we" need to avoid being implicated, in providing arms implying that if we can't avoid it, we shouldn't do it.

If that was your meaning, then for all the reasons I previously wrote to you, we need go ahead and give em what they need in whatever manner is most efficient and least risky... without fretting about being identified as the source.

If I misunderstood what you wrote, I am pleased to hear you explain your position again.

It appears we arrive at different conclusions. Mine should be clear from my post. If it's not, I'm fine with that too. I'm not looking for you to repeat yours.

 

[maxparrish]

And will sending fighter jets to kill russians and stop Putins goals be more or less likely to result in an even bigger war?

Im not necessarily against an inevitable war, but simply saying sending Jets or more arms is 'great news' when we are not at war sounds risky and half assed.

We are in a defacto war, every bit as much we were in a defacto war with Germany by providing lend lease and convoy protection on behalf of Great Britian in 1940 and 1941. And it's as much 'great news' as it was to hear that a convoy got through to a British port.

 

[Schrott]

Yes. I once saw a Ukrainian pilot land a MiG-29 on a one lane rural road surrounded by sunflower fields.

That said, the aircraft still need facilities where they can be fueled, re-armed, and mended if necessary.

by now they have dispersed their air force to field airports and have them all set up. The official airports all have been hit hard.

 

[maxparrish]

It appears we arrive at different conclusions. Mine should be clear from my post. If it's not, I'm fine with that too. I'm not looking for you to repeat yours.

Ok.

 

[KCook]

by now they have dispersed their air force to field airports and have them all set up. The official airports all have been hit hard.

Or . . . they could have a secret partner, like Romania?

 

[jonny5]

With what ?

Submarine launched missles at someone.