Been thinking about this a couple days. Asking myself why would EU/US give F 16's to Ukraine knowing they 1) probably can't be stationed in Ukraine 2) know air defense systems will identify them and 3) limited flight range making combat capability extremely limited.
I assume at some point US/EU pilots will need to be involved to make full use of the F16 capabilities as suggested above. However, I keep going back to why does US/EU/Ukraine see this as a critical component necessary at this time to "turn the tide" of war? Gotta be something or some hidden agenda behind this. I don't buy the "freeze" thinking. I think it might be intended to up the game by having Russia respond in a manner perceived to "provoke" things enough to get NATO engagement.
How this will be accomplished is the question in my mind.
mirrors what Davis is saying. "Damaging Russia" (David Austin) hardly seems a sensible policy goal in light of all that's known and all that's likely to come from this. Russia is becoming ever stronger, while we alienate vast portions of the world and diminish the status of the dollar and of our international role and standing.
I do question Mearshimer's Greek tragedy sorta contention that both "both sides – Ukraine and the West versus Russia – see the other as an existential threat."
The West appears to view this war as a war of choice, a war of opportunity--to force it's Woke ideology on the rest of the world and to retain its economic hegemony/neo-colonialism hold. Russia is the convenient starting point from which the rest of the world--especially China--can be rolled up. I recall Mercouris recounting his experience attending the Munich Security Conference right before the war. He has *several* times described the mood among the attendees--heads of state and other "responsible" people--as one of euphoria at the prospect of crushing Russia.
Agreed. Hence my point about escalation and going to war (as NATO) against Russia. Where does it lead? To further escalation, broader escalation, heightened escalation.
Almost all USAF aircraft are unable to operate under austere conditions, A-10's and especially C-130's being exceptions to that rule. Stealth isn't all it is supposed to be either, supposedly the F-22, F-35 and B-2 aren't all that stealthy when wet. Without AWACS support stealth fighters have to use their own powerful radars, becoming big targets to adversaries. External fuel tanks and/or weapons are not stealthy, range limitations without aerial refueling etc. etc. It sucks when the entire paradigm of the West's MIC turns out to be based on bogus assumptions. Your taxes at work . . .
Maybe F16's are the initial ask and then Ukraine will stair-step up to request F-22 or F-35's in a year? Wonder how Russia would react to one of these shot down and recovered.
I like Col. Davis: he’s a realist and a straight shooter. He also says there’s no strategy behind this about-face by Biden, no “end state.” This is the absurdity behind the whole war, and we all know it. To “harm” or hurt Russia? All our actions have harmed and hurt us (as in “the West”)! They’ve brought Russia/China together! So, again, time to pretend, time to extend. As Becket says in Godot to the question What time is it? Answer: the same as always.
Yes, those comments of his toward the beginning were incisive and exposed the utter lack of military professionalism and realism driving these Neocon fantasies.
AK-47 & AK-74 are simple, effective, affordable, therefore are anathema to the MIC, you can't have trillion $ "defense" budgets with weapons that are simple, effective, affordable . . . WRONGTHINK is not allowed, don't mention the subject in polite company. Western politicians, bureaucrats and military officers cannot be bothered with facts, they are easily offended by truth.
Micron was in Mongolia the other day, I wonder what he was up to? I am pretty sure the Mongols have enough sense to ignore whatever nonsense was being peddled by the French poodle.
He was on a “géostratégique” mission, to quote the all-but irrelevant Quai d’Orsay. In other words, uranium extraction to feed France’s nuclear reactors which he, as Finance Minister to Hollande, helped shut down in the 90’s!! The Mongols better wake up and smell the café!
Been thinking about this a couple days. Asking myself why would EU/US give F 16's to Ukraine knowing they 1) probably can't be stationed in Ukraine 2) know air defense systems will identify them and 3) limited flight range making combat capability extremely limited.
I assume at some point US/EU pilots will need to be involved to make full use of the F16 capabilities as suggested above. However, I keep going back to why does US/EU/Ukraine see this as a critical component necessary at this time to "turn the tide" of war? Gotta be something or some hidden agenda behind this. I don't buy the "freeze" thinking. I think it might be intended to up the game by having Russia respond in a manner perceived to "provoke" things enough to get NATO engagement.
How this will be accomplished is the question in my mind.
I've often wondered the same thing, re each escalation. But it's like Davis and others say--what's the end game? Where does "NATO engagement" get you?
"a war with no forseeable good outcomes"
mirrors what Davis is saying. "Damaging Russia" (David Austin) hardly seems a sensible policy goal in light of all that's known and all that's likely to come from this. Russia is becoming ever stronger, while we alienate vast portions of the world and diminish the status of the dollar and of our international role and standing.
I do question Mearshimer's Greek tragedy sorta contention that both "both sides – Ukraine and the West versus Russia – see the other as an existential threat."
The West appears to view this war as a war of choice, a war of opportunity--to force it's Woke ideology on the rest of the world and to retain its economic hegemony/neo-colonialism hold. Russia is the convenient starting point from which the rest of the world--especially China--can be rolled up. I recall Mercouris recounting his experience attending the Munich Security Conference right before the war. He has *several* times described the mood among the attendees--heads of state and other "responsible" people--as one of euphoria at the prospect of crushing Russia.
Agreed. Hence my point about escalation and going to war (as NATO) against Russia. Where does it lead? To further escalation, broader escalation, heightened escalation.
Agreed; however if you've been blind in one eye for some time... you will continue to be blind in one eye.
This is true. Very disturbing to see no questioning of the war going on in DC. Not for the most part or in a really meaningful way.
Almost all USAF aircraft are unable to operate under austere conditions, A-10's and especially C-130's being exceptions to that rule. Stealth isn't all it is supposed to be either, supposedly the F-22, F-35 and B-2 aren't all that stealthy when wet. Without AWACS support stealth fighters have to use their own powerful radars, becoming big targets to adversaries. External fuel tanks and/or weapons are not stealthy, range limitations without aerial refueling etc. etc. It sucks when the entire paradigm of the West's MIC turns out to be based on bogus assumptions. Your taxes at work . . .
Maybe F16's are the initial ask and then Ukraine will stair-step up to request F-22 or F-35's in a year? Wonder how Russia would react to one of these shot down and recovered.
Our EuroPeon allies will be wishing they bought MIG's and Sukhoi's instead of Lockheed's F-35 maintenance hogs, $$$$$$.
I like Col. Davis: he’s a realist and a straight shooter. He also says there’s no strategy behind this about-face by Biden, no “end state.” This is the absurdity behind the whole war, and we all know it. To “harm” or hurt Russia? All our actions have harmed and hurt us (as in “the West”)! They’ve brought Russia/China together! So, again, time to pretend, time to extend. As Becket says in Godot to the question What time is it? Answer: the same as always.
I'm convinced Zhou and the NeoCon's want war with Russia at any cost.
Yes, those comments of his toward the beginning were incisive and exposed the utter lack of military professionalism and realism driving these Neocon fantasies.
17 hrs of maintenance for ever hour of flight is manpower bank they do not possess.
Each will be a wasted ground target.
That's why they'll stay in Poland and/or Romania.
Yeah. As a practical matter I don't see how this works.
Davis doesn't say that, but I think that's part of what's behind his comments.
"But one little glitch and a ship goes down" or perhaps 1 to many female commanders and a ship goes down.
I agree 100%
AK-47 & AK-74 are simple, effective, affordable, therefore are anathema to the MIC, you can't have trillion $ "defense" budgets with weapons that are simple, effective, affordable . . . WRONGTHINK is not allowed, don't mention the subject in polite company. Western politicians, bureaucrats and military officers cannot be bothered with facts, they are easily offended by truth.
Yes, the Euros just keep towing the line…amusing to see Macron caught between trade with China (rock) and US belligerence (hard place).
Micron was in Mongolia the other day, I wonder what he was up to? I am pretty sure the Mongols have enough sense to ignore whatever nonsense was being peddled by the French poodle.
He was on a “géostratégique” mission, to quote the all-but irrelevant Quai d’Orsay. In other words, uranium extraction to feed France’s nuclear reactors which he, as Finance Minister to Hollande, helped shut down in the 90’s!! The Mongols better wake up and smell the café!