• 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!

US should supply F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine now to end the stalemate with Russia and win the war

Rogue Valley

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
110,421
Reaction score
100,626
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
www.businessinsider.com

US should supply F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine now to end the stalemate with Russia and win the war, former US Air Force colonel says

Retired Air Force Col. Jeff Fischer laid out why the US should provide F-16s to the war-torn country in an interview with the Kyiv Post.
www.businessinsider.com www.businessinsider.com

iu

4.29.23
American-made F-16 fighter jets would help Ukraine defeat Russia and rapidly end the drawn-out conflict, according to an experienced former US Air Force officer. In an exclusive interview with the Kyiv Post, retired Air Force Col. Jeff Fischer laid out his thinking on why the US should provide F-16s to the war-torn country. "I have come to the conclusion that F-16s or a fourth-generation multi-role fighter is critical for Ukraine, and there's a simple reason why," Fischer said in an interview this week. "If you can dominate in the battle space and in the air domain, we can get away from this air parity, which exists right now," he added. Fischer served for over 30 years in the US Air Force and completed seven combat tours. While it may seem "counterintuitive," using greater force or having "air dominance" is actually likely to "bring the war to an end much faster," he said. "Send F-16s to Ukraine so Russia can be defeated now," he added.

When asked about American Defense Undersecretary Colin Kahl's evaluation that it would take 18 months to train Ukrainian fighters to use F-16s, Fischer responded that he believed that assessment was "a little bit disingenuous." While it would take someone without any experience 18 months to learn, he said, a transition program for "already trained and skilled Ukrainian pilots" would only take two to six months, he argued. The retired colonel added that it would be simple to find people to help provide technical and logistical support for the jets because they already exist "in massive numbers." There are 4,500 fighter jets already manufactured, he said, and the US is still producing them. While some have argued the single-seat fighter jets would be a "game changer" for the country, other experts believe it might prove more complicated. Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has urged the White House to send the jets, the Biden administration has said it is not a priority.
Click to expand...


As I see it, the Biden administration is always roughly 6 months behind the curve to supply Ukraine with more advanced American weaponry.

The Ukrainians have mastered every Western weapons system sent to them by the US and European nations.

At a minimum, the US (and our NATO allies) should already be training Ukrainians with pilot experience to fly the F-16, and then when the decision to "go" finally comes down the pipeline, they are ready to rock & roll.

IMO, the Biden administration has been derelict in the "training facet" of this war. Training pilots should have began at least 6 months ago when the F-16 question initially surfaced.

news.yahoo.com

Ukraine selects fighter pilots for F-16 training, but allies yet to OK deliveries

Ukraine has already compiled a list of pilots who will be the first to master F-16 fighters – when they are supplied, the spokesperson of the Ukrainian Air Force Command Yuriy Ihnat said on Ukrainian national television on April 30.
news.yahoo.com news.yahoo.com
 
Rogue Valley said:
www.businessinsider.com

US should supply F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine now to end the stalemate with Russia and win the war, former US Air Force colonel says

Retired Air Force Col. Jeff Fischer laid out why the US should provide F-16s to the war-torn country in an interview with the Kyiv Post.
www.businessinsider.com www.businessinsider.com

iu




As I see it, the Biden administration is always roughly 6 months behind the curve to supply Ukraine with more advanced American weaponry.

The Ukrainians have mastered every Western weapons system sent to them by the US and European nations.

At a minimum, the US (and our NATO allies) should already be training Ukrainians with pilot experience to fly the F-16, and then when the decision to "go" finally comes down the pipeline, they are ready to rock & roll.

IMO, the Biden administration has been derelict in the "training facet" of this war. Training pilots should have began at least 6 months ago when the F-16 question initially surfaced.

news.yahoo.com

Ukraine selects fighter pilots for F-16 training, but allies yet to OK deliveries

Ukraine has already compiled a list of pilots who will be the first to master F-16 fighters – when they are supplied, the spokesperson of the Ukrainian Air Force Command Yuriy Ihnat said on Ukrainian national television on April 30.
news.yahoo.com news.yahoo.com
Click to expand...
Haven't we done enough already? At what point do we decide to stop escalating the war, and start trying for peace?
 
Irredentist said:
Haven't we done enough already? At what point do we decide to stop escalating the war, and start trying for peace?
Click to expand...
When the globalists pulling the strings of the POTUS decide to give up. Also, has anyone noted the narrative is changing? Up until a few weeks ago Ukraine was kicking Russia's ass. Now it's a stalemate. The truth? Depends on whose propaganda one believes.
 
Irredentist said:
Haven't we done enough already? At what point do we decide to stop escalating the war, and start trying for peace?
Click to expand...

The US will not be taken seriously as a peace-broker. It has to be some major power which has not already taken a side.

And preferably some nation outside the West/Soviet distinction of years past.

China qualifies as "major power" but has already made it plain that the economic isolation of Russia is a business opportunity for them. They haven't exactly taken Russia's side, but they are compromised.

Maybe India should step up.
 
Irredentist said:
Haven't we done enough already? At what point do we decide to stop escalating the war, and start trying for peace?
Click to expand...

No surprise here that someone named "Irredentist" would embrace such a pro-Russia position.

Irredentism is usually understood as a desire that one state annexes a territory of a neighboring state.
Click to expand...
en.wikipedia.org

Irredentism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Rogue Valley said:
No surprise here that someone named "Irredentist" would embrace such a pro-Russia position.


en.wikipedia.org

Irredentism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
I'm not pro Russia. My forum name is completely irrelevant to this discussion topic. I have a documented history of pro-Ukraine posts. But I no longer support further escalation of this war.
 
Irredentist said:
I'm not pro Russia. My forum name is completely irrelevant to this discussion topic. I have a documented history of pro-Ukraine posts. But I no longer support further escalation of this war.
Click to expand...

So what does peace look like to you? Russia keeps Crimea, Ukraine promises not to seek NATO membership for 10 years? Something like that?

Or Russia should be punished with the loss of Crimea, as well as all occupied territory? And no NATO promise at all?

I think Russia might take the former deal. But they will die to the last man to avoid the latter. Because neither Putin nor his party can tolerate being PUNISHED with the loss of Crimea. Sure, whoever arbitrates allows that to be put on the table, but I don't think it's realistic to expect it to be part of a peace settlement.
 
Irredentist said:
At what point do we decide to stop escalating the war, and start trying for peace?
Click to expand...
The only long term possibility of peace is either Russia leaving Ukraine or completely annexing Ukraine. Anything less and either side will consider it a completely unacceptable situation.
 
Nomad4Ever said:
The only long term possibility of peace is either Russia leaving Ukraine or completely annexing Ukraine. Anything less and either side will consider it a completely unacceptable situation.
Click to expand...
I do not think that is true. If we ever want this war to end, then both sides are going to have to accept something less than what they originally wanted. Russia won't get to annex the whole of Ukraine, but they probably will accept some lesser territorial gains.
 
Ug make hammer said:
The US will not be taken seriously as a peace-broker. It has to be some major power which has not already taken a side.

And preferably some nation outside the West/Soviet distinction of years past.

China qualifies as "major power" but has already made it plain that the economic isolation of Russia is a business opportunity for them. They haven't exactly taken Russia's side, but they are compromised.

Maybe India should step up.
Click to expand...
India is traditionally in bed with Russia and has been since Soviet times.

Similarly its arch-enemy Pakistan has been with China.

There is no major power around currently that is not in some way partisan.

Just saying :)
 
Bok Tuklo said:
There are only two things to negotiate: Russia's withdrawal or Ukraine's surrender. Which are you suggesting?
Click to expand...
This is nothing more than partisan rhetoric. A realistic peace plan is going to have to involve compromise.
 
Ug make hammer said:
So what does peace look like to you? Russia keeps Crimea, Ukraine promises not to seek NATO membership for 10 years? Something like that?

Or Russia should be punished with the loss of Crimea, as well as all occupied territory? And no NATO promise at all?

I think Russia might take the former deal. But they will die to the last man to avoid the latter. Because neither Putin nor his party can tolerate being PUNISHED with the loss of Crimea. Sure, whoever arbitrates allows that to be put on the table, but I don't think it's realistic to expect it to be part of a peace settlement.
Click to expand...
I agree that the former option is a more realistic proposal.
 
Irredentist said:
I do not think that is true. If we ever want this war to end, then both sides are going to have to accept something less than what they originally wanted. Russia won't get to annex the whole of Ukraine, but they probably will accept some lesser territorial gains.
Click to expand...
The only possible compromise I could see is Russia keeping Crimea. But if Putin keeps the Donbas he will just use the peace to regroup and invade again. It wouldn't be like it's the first time he's done something like that.
 
I have no issue with it.
 
Nomad4Ever said:
The only possible compromise I could see is Russia keeping Crimea. But if Putin keeps the Donbas he will just use the peace to regroup and invade again. It wouldn't be like it's the first time he's done something like that.
Click to expand...
You say that as if you think you have a choice. Putin already has the Donbass, he's not going to give it back.
 
Nomad4Ever said:
The only possible compromise I could see is Russia keeping Crimea. But if Putin keeps the Donbas he will just use the peace to regroup and invade again. It wouldn't be like it's the first time he's done something like that.
Click to expand...

If Russia keeps Crimea the same danger exists.
 
Irredentist said:
You say that as if you think you have a choice. Putin already has the Donbass, he's not going to give it back.
Click to expand...
I don't think he's the one with a choice. Ukraine will take it back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom