“I am writing to express the United States’ full support for both the transfer of F-16 fighter aircraft to Ukraine and for the training of Ukrainian pilots by qualified F-16 instructors […] It remains critical that Ukraine is able to defend itself against ongoing Russian aggression and violation of its sovereignty” said Blinken.
Will this solidify a Ukrainian victory?
U.S. officials have privately said that F-16 jets would have been of little help to Ukraine in its current counteroffensive and will not be a game changer when they eventually arrive given Russian air defense systems and contested skies over Ukraine
Or will Russian radar and missle systems tear them up?
Other than cost, I haven’t understood the hesitancy to give Ukraine all the weapons they ask for, immediately.
When war breaks out, it means diplomacy has failed. It only makes sense to no longer consider diplomacy a major factor when making wartime decisions - especially when providing support to a country that’s defending itself from an unprovoked invasion, which is a violation of international law. Half measures only prolong the war, which ultimately makes it more expensive for supporting countries. For Ukraine, civilians and soldiers are dying every day.
This war should have ended by now. I’m glad that most of the world is condemning Putin, but we’re not doing enough.
I’m not an expert or anything, but as it has been explained to me, the geo-political consequences of Ukraine having NATO weapons is enormous… If Ukraine were to have access to F-18s, F-35s, or any NATO asset, it would implicate NATO, and further escalate the conflict towards a NATO-Russian war (World War 3), and the precipitation of nuclear assets. This is why even France’s own Dassault assets and Sweden’s Saabs were not offered. F-16s are old enough, and used enough by non-NATO forces that this might be okay.
A prolonged war, while incredibly tragic, might still be less costly than World War 3…
Grrr. Damn geopolitics. I appreciate the response, though!
It’s justifying the cost more than the cost itself. It is hard to justify freely giving to a foreign nation when there are domestic issues that don’t have funding.
The state must build the narrative that the money being spent abroad is going to help the people more than if it was spent at domestically. This is not an easy trick to pull off and then even more challenging to maintain.
In my opinion, it’s hard to justify because it’s bullshit. Problems remain unsolved because the will isn’t there, not because we can’t afford it. Anyone who says, for example, that American public schools are underfunded because of our Ukraine policy will (and should) be laughed out of the room.
Thanks for doing your part to build and maintain the narrative comrade
It takes years to train pilots, maintenance staff, logistics to bring a fighter jet to be ready into active operation in a hostile environment under normal conditions.
True, but I’m not just talking about jets. I’m talking about ALL weapons, like rockets and such. There’s been resistance over a lot of things.
Every escalation is a step closer to nuclear war. I can understand the hesitation.
Well, anything worsening the relation between nuclear powers could be considered a step closer to nuclear war. The question is how much of a step it is and how far away from nuclear war we are.
Any sane person would want to actively work to reduce escalation between nuclear powers instead of finding out what the breaking point is.