The main objection is not about the MiG jets per se, but about the longevity of the jets. The Pentagon rationale is that every sq foot of Ukrainein airspace is covered by Russian S-400 anti-air systems in Russia, Kaliningrad, and Belarus. Tactically the Pentagon is right. But still, I'd rather have the Ukrainian pilots make the decision on whether or not to fly these birds.
Now Slovakia has offered to give Ukraine their S-300 anti-air system (provided they receive a replacement system). The S-300 is truck mounted (mobile) so it could be rapidly moved, and some models have a range of 200-250 miles.
There have been two arguments put forth for denial of the MiGs.
One is that, as you say, tactically Ukraine has not been flying the MiGs they
do have, because the airspace is so contested, so they will not be immediately useful. There, I think, the provision of S-300s is more efficacious and should be encouraged.
The second argument is that it would be seen as a provocation. Frankly, I think that ship sailed a
LONG time ago. But, the more nuanced concern is that Russia might seek to escalate by attacking the MiGs before they reached Ukrainian airspace. That would necessitate a response from NATO. At present, NATO resupply has been very effective (or so it is reported, and facts on the ground seem to support that conclusion).
I do think that the MiGs should be supplied, and **** Russia. Ukrainian pilots are skilled enough to get them to Ukraine without detection or at least interdiction. Once they are there, they can participate in coordinated attacks in support of the Ukrainian counterattack.
One of the other aspects of this may be disinformation, of a sort. If the Russians are looking for MiGs, they may miss the convoys of other supplies that are being sent overland.
From a
moral standpoint, Ukraine is a sovereign nation being attacked - illegally and immorally - by another nation. If that is the legal and moral standard the world community wants to enforce, it should take a much more active role in negotiations and even,
if necessary, military enforcement. For example, establishing escape corridors for civilians, and pushing supplies of foodstuffs and medicine to besieged enclaves. That is the international standard. There, I think, the world community is failing, and failing badly.
I have opined elsewhere that Europeans and Americans are operating with their head in the sand. This is WW3, we just don't want to admit it. We did the same thing in the other two wars, delaying our participation because of a reluctance to get involved (from 1914 to 1917, and from 1938 to 1941). I see the pattern repeating itself, but with new actors. Putin, like Hitler before him, is trying to bite off pieces of Europe seriatim on his way to at least regional hegemony. We need to name and shame that approach.
Finally, I think that the world can be even more forceful by cutting off the Black sea to Russian shipments, military and commercial. That would include supplying anti-ship weaponry to Ukraine that has the capacity to disable and sink Russian naval forces in the Black sea and Sea of Asov. Russia has been attacking civilian shipping there.
Calls for ‘blue corridor’ to let stranded seafarers leave Ukraine war zone (Guardian). "Hundreds of seafarers on more than 100 foreign-flagged cargo vessels are stranded in Ukrainian waters in the Black Sea and Sea of Azov “in the middle of the line of fire”.
The International Chamber of Shipping and unions are calling for the immediate creation of safe “blue corridors” to enable the ships and their crews to leave without risk of missile or mine strikes. The UN’s International Maritime Organization, which held an
emergency meeting last week to address the situation, estimates that up to 2,000 men could be affected, although some may have been repatriated, it said."
