Enough with the MiGs, and Zelensky should stop asking for them, and stop asking for a no-fly zone.

[Muhammed]

No, they will not. The Polish MiG's have been refitted to NATO standards. They have glass cockpits and avionics that are in English, NATO IFF and NCTR, fire control computers, and databus.

They are made to be interoperable with NATO air forces, not Ukraine's. They can fire R-73's (IR guided), but I don't think R-77's (Radar-guided).

A Polish MiG would identify a Ukrainian MiG as an enemy fighter.

They would have to be converted back, or the Ukrainian pilots and maintainers would need to be retrained. It wouldn't be a rapid integration.

Irrelevant. They can still use them right away with no modifications.

 

[Lesh]

Where are people getting NATO was never in the cards for Ukraine? The US and NATO having being suggesting it since the Bush days.

And oh look...it never happened

Article 5 means it CAN'T happen while Ukraine is engaged in a war

 

[basquebromance]

Biden won't send the MIG's so as not to anger Putin

under Biden, America is afraid of Russia. under Trump, Russia was afraid of America

 

[bendog]

Where are people getting NATO was never in the cards for Ukraine? The US and NATO having being suggesting it since the Bush days.

Bucharest Summit Declaration issued by NATO Heads of State and Government (2008)

www.nato.int

Biden assures Zelenskiy that NATO membership in Ukraine's hands, Kyiv says

U.S. President Joe Biden assured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy that Kyiv's bid to join the NATO military alliance was in its own hands, Zelenskiy's chief of staff said after the two leaders spoke on Thursday.

www.reuters.com

"never" is simply my take. I don't think nato would ever have gotten there unless politics somehow changed. Ukraine housed a LOT of the USSR's nukes. Chernobyl was supposed to be a "jewel." Russia's been devoted to 'reclaiming Ukraine ever since Putin came to power, 30 years ago.

In March 2016, President of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker stated that it would take at least 20–25 years for Ukraine to join the EU and NATO.[84]

Ukraine–NATO relations - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ukraine doens't even meet turkey's democratic standing. It's corruption is endemic. The driving force for Ukraine to join Nato, has been from Nato's perspective, Putin's aggression. An non-aligned status was always preferable. But, Putin makes no secret that his goal is reacquiring Russia's empire of puppet states.

Ukraine's corruption also precluded EU membership, at least until Ukraine made more reforms. But Ukraine is going to be in the EU, and that was one thing Putin tried to stop.

Now Putin says his goal is not regime change is not his goal. And neutral status is good enough.

Ukraine–NATO relations - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

ANd Blinkin says Russia must be precluded from future invasions. So, if Ukraine is slated to be in the EU trading block, and Russia has to be prevented from invading again .... how?

But Putin's still ordered the murder of thousands of civilians. There's billions in econ damage. There's nothing on donbass or crimea.

 

[Hellokitty]

And oh look...it never happened

Article 5 means it CAN'T happen while Ukraine is engaged in a war

Wait so Ukraine was already involved in a war before Russia invaded?

 

[kyzr]

It's clear right now that **** Biden and NATO is just stringing Zelenskyy along keeping the fighting going. It's cruel. Nudging death by dangling the idea that Russia will surrender any day is inhumane. It isn't going to happen.

Remember when the US generals said that Russia would capture Ukraine in about 3-days?
The Ukraine is showing the Russian army and AF to be low quality, possibly because they know the war is unjust. In about 2-weeks Russia will have spent its ammo and will need to re-assess.

 

[kyzr]

IF the US (and nato although it had to rely on the US in both Kosovo and Libya) chose to establish a no fly over Ukraine, it would first have to destroy all the russian radar sites and fixed missile sites, and then the russian air force. I have no idea how many American pilots and airmen would be killed doing that. I'm confident the US could do it. But it's not going to happen. Biden is not risking WWIII over this, nor does he want to play his air power card, and the losses would make playing it again maybe impossible. And cynically, Biden's interests in using up Russian weapons and making Putin a wanted criminal sort of run contrary. (I'm not sure any president since Hoover has not at least bordered on being a sociopath. Maybe Carter, and that didn't work out well)

After watching Zelensky's video from today at his Washington presentation, I think Biden better send every Switchblade 300 we have pretty damn fast, or else even the dems in congress may impeach him.

1. We have stand-off missiles that can take out the Russian radar sites, like in Iraq.
2. What losses? The F-35 is invisible.
3. Presidents are human, they all have baggage.

 

[Lesh]

1. We have stand-off missiles that can take out the Russian radar sites, like in Iraq.
2. What losses? The F-35 is invisible.
3. Presidents are human, they all have baggage.

Now you want Americans killing Russians?

 

[whitehall]

It's about media hysteria. CNN calls Fox "traitors" if they think something is wrong with giving fighter jets to a country that probably can't fly them. The people who want a shooting war with Russia were the same kids who chanted "better red than dead" forty years ago. The difference is that they want to send someone else's kids to fight for a corrupt country to make a doddering old fool look good.

 

[Cassandro]

any aircraft flying from a NATO facility into Ukrainian airspace (even if flown by Ukrainian pilots) would likely be treated but Putin as a NATO attack, and would give him an excuse to extend his war to all of NATO.

This is exactly the type of "thinking" going on in the White House. Putin acts and we react. Guess who's writing the script? Why are we so fearful of him?

 

[bendog]

This is exactly the type of "thinking" going on in the White House. Putin acts and we react. Guess who's writing the script? Why are we so fearful of him?

Well, Putin's only response if he saw his military being literally decimated, and that is what would happen if Biden gave the "go" to tanks, helicopters and aircraft in Ukraine, would be nuclear.

Let's pray Putin doesn't use chemicals. You can bet Biden has a response planned for that event, and we really don't want to see it.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Remember when the US generals said that Russia would capture Ukraine in about 3-days?
The Ukraine is showing the Russian army and AF to be low quality, possibly because they know the war is unjust. In about 2-weeks Russia will have spent its ammo and will need to re-assess.

China is helping Russia.

 

[Cassandro]

Well, Putin's only response if he saw his military being literally decimated, and that is what would happen if Biden gave the "go" to tanks, helicopters and aircraft in Ukraine, would be nuclear.

Let's pray Putin doesn't use chemicals. You can bet Biden has a response planned for that event, and we really don't want to see it.

The problem is that Biden has zero credibility. His handlers only react to Putin's actions after consulting with domestic polls and focus groups. When President Trump threatened "fire and fury" to would-be aggressors, they listened. Even better, he didn't announce his plans in advance. As a result, they didn't know when, where or how they might be hit. Against Biden, Putin is always two moves ahead.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Ukraine's only real hope I'm afraid, is for someone on the inside to take out Putin.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

This is exactly the type of "thinking" going on in the White House. Putin acts and we react. Guess who's writing the script? Why are we so fearful of him?

There's nearly 6,000 reasons to be afraid of him. But I do agree that we are too timid in our approach. We need to be operating on the assumption that we will be drawn into this war. The objective should be to enter on our terms, but right now the goal seems to be avoid altogether.

 

[bendog]

The problem is that Biden has zero credibility. His handlers only react to Putin's actions after consulting with domestic polls and focus groups. When President Trump threatened "fire and fury" to would-be aggressors, they listened. Even better, he didn't announce his plans in advance. As a result, they didn't know when, where or how they might be hit. Against Biden, Putin is always two moves ahead.

JFC, you project. Did biden consult with polls before choosing to share intelligence with for govts 6 mos ago? Not hardly.

The question with Putin is what would result in a nuclear exchange. Most likely any direct conflict between the US and russian forces ... most likely because the russians would fare poorly, leaving Putin with even less of a way out.

What's scary now is Xi is changing the calculations. He's going to provide Russia with direct econ aid, because he sees this as an opportunity to lessen the US's power. Which even a sociopath would probably see as being different from Ukrainian civilians, and children, being killed with indiscriminate bombing. The difference between us and Putin and Xi is pretty simple, indiscriminate murder of civilians is not a political tool. The US policy is not the destruction of the russian country. It never was. Hell we even sent them wheat when the were starving. But personally, I'm fearful we are approaching another "time of choosing."

You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin - just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard 'round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn't die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well it's a simple answer after all.

You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, "There is a price we will not pay." "There is a point beyond which they must not advance." And this - this is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater's "peace through strength." Winston Churchill said, "The destiny of man is not measured by material computations. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we're spirits - not animals." And he said, "There's something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty."

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.

We'll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we'll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.

A Time for Choosing Speech, October 27, 1964

Timechoosing

www.reaganlibrary.gov

And I'm really afraid Europe isn't up to it, and I'm not that certain we are either.

 

[kyzr]

Now you want Americans killing Russians?

I was responding to bendog's post #7

 

[kyzr]

JFC, you project. Did biden consult with polls before choosing to share intelligence with for govts 6 mos ago? Not hardly.

The question with Putin is what would result in a nuclear exchange. Most likely any direct conflict between the US and russian forces ... most likely because the russians would fare poorly, leaving Putin with even less of a way out.

What's scary now is Xi is changing the calculations. He's going to provide Russia with direct econ aid, because he sees this as an opportunity to lessen the US's power. Which even a sociopath would probably see as being different from Ukrainian civilians, and children, being killed with indiscriminate bombing. The difference between us and Putin and Xi is pretty simple, indiscriminate murder of civilians is not a political tool. The US policy is not the destruction of the russian country. It never was. Hell we even sent them wheat when the were starving. But personally, I'm fearful we are approaching another "time of choosing."

You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin - just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard 'round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn't die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well it's a simple answer after all.

You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, "There is a price we will not pay." "There is a point beyond which they must not advance." And this - this is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater's "peace through strength." Winston Churchill said, "The destiny of man is not measured by material computations. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we're spirits - not animals." And he said, "There's something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty."

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.

We'll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we'll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.

And I'm really afraid Europe isn't up to it, and I'm not that certain we are either.

Putin can't use nukes, especially on any NATO country.
That would escalate things off the scale into a non-nuclear WW3.
MAD (mutually assured destruction) has kept the nuclear genie in the bottle for about 70-years.
Putin can't battle NATO, hell he can't even battle Ukraine.
The best bet is let it play out another week or two and then Putin will see his war is going nowhere.

 

[JuvenalsCat]

Wait so Ukraine was already involved in a war before Russia invaded?

Before 2022 or 2014? Before this recent event the disputes in Donbas region made it impossible. Before 2014, there was a tug-of-war between pro-european and pro-moscow governments in Kyiv.

 

[Turtlesoup]

F**K Zalensky andF**K Ukraine....If they do not have a military to defend against invasions, where is all the US aid going????

The US pledged $1.8 billion in military aid to Ukraine since 2001— 30.8% of total foreign aid to the country. This is consistent with the international average for US foreign aid with 30% of foreign assistance spent on the military. The US spent $284 million on military foreign aid to the country in 2020.
Since 2001, economic aid was $4.5 billion or 68% of total foreign aid to Ukraine. In 2020, the US spent $395.9 million on economic aid to the country. According to the Greenbook data, judicial system development, control of sexually transmitted diseases, and material relief assistance were the three biggest programs to receive economic aid. Together, they constituted about 30% of the 2020 economic obligations to Ukraine.

What a lot of bullshit spending---that offer the Clinton Foundation and biden lots of kickbacks--along with Obama.