• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Poland to Immediately Handover Jets to US, to provide to Ukraine

maxparrish said:
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.
Click to expand...

It WAS escalation. This is further escalation. Nuance is not a thing. We are either at war with Russia or we are not. We ARE at war. We are just increasing the scale. Is everyone prepared for that?
 
Nomad4Ever said:
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.
Click to expand...

And I think you are approaching it as if Putin is a rational actor. Which Im not sure he is.
 
jonny5 said:
And I think you are approaching it as if Putin is a rational actor. Which Im not sure he is.
Click to expand...
Then we might as well give Ukraine planes if he might irrationally attack NATO anyway.
 
maxparrish said:
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...

news.sky.com

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 news.sky.com
Click to expand...


Someone in Washington is balking.....

'Surprise move': U.S. stunned by Poland's fighter jet offer

Pentagon Accused of 'Tepid Fear' as Ukraine Fighter Jets Plan Collapses

"The Pentagon was accused of acting with "tepid fear" after it rejected Poland's offer to transfer its Russian-made fighter jets to a U.S. military base."

I'm failing to understand the qualitative distinction between Javelin's, Stinger's, and MiG-29 fighter jets.

They are all lethal and they all kill the Russian invaders.
 
Nomad4Ever said:
Then we might as well give Ukraine planes if he might irrationally attack NATO anyway.
Click to expand...

Sure, but then we should be prepared for him to escalate and move to WW3. So long as everyone is willing to accept the consequences.
 
jonny5 said:
Escalation is not great news. What happens when Russia escalates too?
Click to expand...
uh. Russia already escalated. they are slaughtering citizens in a similar neighboring country.

you okay if we do that to Canada?
 
Rogue Valley said:
Someone in Washington is balking.....

'Surprise move': U.S. stunned by Poland's fighter jet offer

Pentagon Accused of 'Tepid Fear' as Ukraine Fighter Jets Plan Collapses

"The Pentagon was accused of acting with "tepid fear" after it rejected Poland's offer to transfer its Russian-made fighter jets to a U.S. military base."

I'm failing to understand the qualitative distinction between Javelin's, Stinger's, and MiG-29 fighter jets.

They are all lethal and they all kill the Russian invaders.
Click to expand...

From the 'Tepid Fear' article:

The decision prompted criticism from Republican and Democrat lawmakers, who urged the Biden administration to reverse course.

"This is an utterly insane and unbelievable response from the Pentagon. The US Government must reverse course on this," Republican Rep. Adam Kinzinger, a military veteran, said on Twitter.

"We cannot win this war from a position of tepid fear. Ukraine fights for us all, we can give them the tools. Thank you to #poland."

Rep. Ted Lieu, a Democrat and Air Force veteran, tweeted: "Dear @DeptofDefense: Respectfully, your rationale makes no sense.

"You're fine with MiGs departing from a Polish base into contested Ukrainian airspace but not from a U.S. base in Germany? All are NATO countries. And it's Ukrainians who would be flying the jets. Just get it done." (my emphasis).
 
jonny5 said:
It WAS escalation. This is further escalation. Nuance is not a thing. We are either at war with Russia or we are not. We ARE at war. We are just increasing the scale. Is everyone prepared for that?
Click to expand...

"It WAS escalation"... well yes, and it's also called proportional response to an all-out invasion. It's NOT escalation beyond what the Russians are already doing...the only way to do that would be for the US to provide nuclear weapons to Ukraine ... THAT would be increasing the scale.

So yep, if a woman is attacked by a rapist and another person helps the victim that is "escalation". It the rapist really mad.
 
jonny5 said:
Sure, but then we should be prepared for him to escalate and move to WW3. So long as everyone is willing to accept the consequences.
Click to expand...

Putin would have fun toying with you were you the leader of this country. As I wrote, there are well known unwritten rules in the game of nations. Putin knows this, just as he knows it would be insane of him to start WW3 over some jet fighters delivered to Ukraine. The last thing he wants is NATO combat troops engaging Russian forces, for the now obvious reason that he will get his ass kicked in conventional war.

So the worst his response will be is to shoot at any fighter crossing the border. Which is, within unwritten rules of the game of nations.
 
Rogue Valley said:
Very disappointing.

Merrick Garland must also be in charge of the Pentagon.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure it was a good idea. IMO it would have been viewed as outside escalation.

I posted on it elsewhere.
 
Lursa said:
I'm not sure it was a good idea. IMO it would have been viewed as outside escalation. I posted on it elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Using that logic, why aren't Javelin's and Stinger's also "outside escalation"?
 
Rogue Valley said:
Someone in Washington is balking.....

'Surprise move': U.S. stunned by Poland's fighter jet offer

Pentagon Accused of 'Tepid Fear' as Ukraine Fighter Jets Plan Collapses

"The Pentagon was accused of acting with "tepid fear" after it rejected Poland's offer to transfer its Russian-made fighter jets to a U.S. military base."

I'm failing to understand the qualitative distinction between Javelin's, Stinger's, and MiG-29 fighter jets.

They are all lethal and they all kill the Russian invaders.
Click to expand...
LOL It was Poland that acted out of fear and we had to send Patriot anti-missile systems to them to calm their nerves. The believe that Putin would attack them if they sent the planes to Ukraine.
 
Lursa said:
No idea. Why did we refuse?
Click to expand...

No idea. The Pentagon has yet to offer a detailed and cogent rationale.

Congress is screaming.

We're not talking tactical nuclear weapons. They're older Polish MiGs whose best days are no doubt behind them.

But they might be serviceable enough to chew up that 40 mile Russian convoy approaching Kyiv.
 
Lursa said:
🤷 I offered one.
Click to expand...

You offered a distinction without a difference, and could not explain why Polish MiGs are "outside escalation" while US Javelin's/Stinger's are not "outside escalation".

🤷‍♂️
 
Rogue Valley said:
You offered a distinction without a difference, and could not explain why Polish MiGs are "outside escalation" while US Javelin's/Stinger's are not "outside escalation".

🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...

I did elsewhere, just didnt bother to find the post.

Have no idea about other weapons. Why dont you connect the dots about the others for me? Do you know?
 
maxparrish said:
Putin would have fun toying with you were you the leader of this country. As I wrote, there are well known unwritten rules in the game of nations. Putin knows this, just as he knows it would be insane of him to start WW3 over some jet fighters delivered to Ukraine. The last thing he wants is NATO combat troops engaging Russian forces, for the now obvious reason that he will get his ass kicked in conventional war.

So the worst his response will be is to shoot at any fighter crossing the border. Which is, within unwritten rules of the game of nations.
Click to expand...

I think you think you know things, but you know nothing. No one really knows Putin. There are not written or unwritten rules, this is not a movie.
 
Rogue Valley said:
Using that logic, why aren't Javelin's and Stinger's also "outside escalation"?
Click to expand...

They are outside escalations too

Lursa is right imo, it's a bad idea to keep flooding NATO arms in because the potential for a broader conflict increases with every example. I get why you wouldn't want to see it viewed as a bad idea. This is the war of your dreams and if NATO can be brought into it even more, with perhaps boots on the ground/planes in the air, it will just get better for you still.
 
Lursa said:
I did elsewhere, just didnt bother to find the post.

Have no idea about other weapons. Why dont you connect the dots about the others for me? Do you know?
Click to expand...

You're the one who stated the MiGs would be "outside escalation", yet couldn't (or wouldn't) explain why that classification does not also apply to Javelin's/Stinger's/Harpoon's. Seems to me the Pantagon is allowing Putin to define what a "red line" is in the 1st place and frankly, if he wanted to, Putin could say that US/NATO involvement at any level is escalation of the war and take any appropriate measures that he thinks he needs to take. There really is no difference to sending MiGs in to do the same job, it's just a different method. It's one thing for the West to talk about creating a full-blown "no fly zone" in Western Ukraine. I would not advocate doing that because it is indeed high-risk and could pit NATO and Russia pilots against each other in the skies. But providing Ukraine with 28 (maybe?) older Polish jets lacks equivalence. Russians and Ukrainians are already killing each other.

There was a time when Western leaders said canceling Nordstream-2 was out of the question. Then it was cancelled. Then they said no to banning the importation of Russian gas/oil. Then they banned such imports. How more horrible do the images being beamed into our living rooms from Ukraine have to be until we can no longer bear the shame of refusing these courageous people 28 outdated Polish MiGs?

What is desperately needed is a humanitarian no fly zone in western Ukraine that is created and mandated by the United Nations. In the past, no-fly zones were enforced over Iraq in 1991, over Bosnia and Herzegovina during the Balkans conflict in 1993–1995, and over Libya in 2011. In the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Libya, the no-fly zones were imposed by a UN Security Council resolution, arguably pursuant to the United Nations’ authority under Article 41 and 42 of the UN Charter. But even if Russia and/or China were to veto such a NFZ resolution, UN rules allow a vote by the General Assembly to override the veto. This is precisely what happened last week after Russia vetoed a UN resolution condemning its invasion of Ukraine. By request of the US, Britain, and France, the Resolution then went to the UN GA where 141 member states voted yes and the Resolution passed. I can't understand why this methodology or something similar is not being pursued with all speed.
 
Rogue Valley said:
You're the one who stated the MiGs would be "outside escalation", yet couldn't (or wouldn't) explain why that classification does not also apply to Javelin's/Stinger's/Harpoon's. Seems to me the Pantagon is allowing Putin to define what a "red line" is in the 1st place and frankly, if he wanted to, Putin could say that US/NATO involvement at any level is escalation of the war and take any appropriate measures that he thinks he needs to take. There really is no difference to sending MiGs in to do the same job, it's just a different method. It's one thing for the West to talk about creating a full-blown "no fly zone" in Western Ukraine. I would not advocate doing that because it is indeed high-risk and could pit NATO and Russia pilots against each other in the skies. But providing Ukraine with 28 (maybe?) older Polish jets lacks equivalence. Russians and Ukrainians are already killing each other.

There was a time when Western leaders said canceling Nordstream-2 was out of the question. Then it was cancelled. Then they said no to banning the importation of Russian gas/oil. Then they banned such imports. How more horrible do the images being beamed into our living rooms from Ukraine have to be until we can no longer bear the shame of refusing these courageous people 28 outdated Polish MiGs?

What is desperately needed is a humanitarian no fly zone in western Ukraine that is created and mandated by the United Nations. In the past, no-fly zones were enforced over Iraq in 1991, over Bosnia and Herzegovina during the Balkans conflict in 1993–1995, and over Libya in 2011. In the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Libya, the no-fly zones were imposed by a UN Security Council resolution, arguably pursuant to the United Nations’ authority under Article 41 and 42 of the UN Charter. But even if Russia and/or China were to veto such a NFZ resolution, UN rules allow a vote by the General Assembly to override the veto. This is precisely what happened last week after Russia vetoed a UN resolution condemning its invasion of Ukraine. By request of the US, Britain, and France, the Resolution then went to the UN GA where 141 member states voted yes and the Resolution passed. I can't understand why this methodology or something similar is not being pursued with all speed.
Click to expand...
TL;dr You got my answer.
 
Rogue Valley said:
Then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I mistakenly thought you were better at this.
Click to expand...

I am, I also know when not to waste my time against a zealot who's so locked into their agenda they cant distinguish more subtle or flexible ideas. Even when we dont disagree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom