“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?

  • magnetosphere @beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

    • unscholarly_source@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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…

      • Kangie@lemmy.srcfiles.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m not an expert

        Clearly.

        Ukraine were to have access to F-18s, F-35s, or any NATO asset, it would implicate NATO

        Bullshit. Everything you just listed is in use by non-NATO countries. The primary drivers for “unlocking” new varieties of aid to Ukraine appear to be:

        • battlefield utility in the near future (javelin, himars/m270, western IFVs, tanks etc).
        • sending a message to that western support is locked in for the long term (repair facilities, announcements around reconstruction aid)

        the geo-political consequences of Ukraine having NATO weapons is enormous… … [It would] … further escalate the conflict towards a NATO-Russian war (World War 3), and the precipitation of nuclear assets.

        Russia has claimed that every single new weapons system delivered is “escalatory” and threatens nuclear war every single time. Please stop spreading their propaganda for them.

        This is why even France’s own Dassault assets and Sweden’s Saabs were not offered.

        Are you sure that it has to do with this and not the fact that there were more F-16s produced than each of the alternatives combined?

            • Kangie@lemmy.srcfiles.zip
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              You can always stick to beehaw if you want nothing but butterflies and puppies.

              I’m going to counter Russian misinformation wherever I see it, and these are the same old tired claims, just dressed up with a little hat and bow tie this time.

              • magnetosphere @beehaw.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Oh, please. Don’t try and pretend your behavior is justified because you’re spreading Truth.

                You could have made your point without being obnoxious and condescending, but chose to throw civility out the window. I don’t want “nothing but butterflies and puppies”. I want mature people who are able to communicate like adults.

      • yetAnotherUser@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Any sane person would want to actively work to reduce escalation between nuclear powers instead of finding out what the breaking point is.

    • supercriticalcheese@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • magnetosphere @beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

    • Echo71Niner@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      I haven’t understood the hesitancy to give Ukraine all the weapons they ask for, immediately.

      It’s clear that you’re unaware of the extensive corruption in Ukraine. Political corruption, Bribes, Judicial corruption, Corruption in the public sector, Corruption in higher education, Corruption in the social security system, not like Russia is any different, but Ukraine like to pretend they are honest while they pickpocket you.

      • magnetosphere @beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I’m not unaware, but I got too worked up and simply forgot. It amounts to the same thing, though. Whoops.

        You make a good point. Corruption is a good reason to think carefully about any requests. There’s no use in a country donating billions of dollars worth of military hardware unless that hardware actually makes it to the front lines.

    • lntl@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • magnetosphere @beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

        • lntl@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Thanks for doing your part to build and maintain the narrative comrade