What's new

US to allow its Western allies to supply Ukraine with advanced fighter jets including F-16s

Rahil khan

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
1,783
Reaction score
0
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
By Jonathan Beale, defence correspondent, and James Gregory
BBC News

The US says it will allow its Western allies to supply Ukraine with advanced fighter jets, including American-made F-16s, in a major boost for Kyiv.
National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan said President Joe Biden "informed his G7 counterparts" of the decision at the bloc's summit in Japan on Friday.
US troops will also train Kyiv's pilots to use the jets, Mr Sullivan said.
Ukraine has long sought advanced jets and President Volodymyr Zelensky hailed the move as a "historic decision".

The US legally has to approve the re-export of equipment purchased by allies and the move will clear the way for other nations to send their existing stocks of F-16s to Ukraine.
"Over the past few months, we and our allies and partners have really focussed on providing Ukraine with the systems weapon and training it needs to conduct offensive operations this spring and summer," Mr Sullivan told reporters in Hiroshima. "We have delivered what we promised."

"Now we have turned to discussions about improving the Ukrainian air force as part of our long-term commitment to Ukraine's self-defence. As the training unfolds in the coming months, we will work with our allies to determine when planes will be delivered, who will be delivering them, and how many."
Ukraine has repeatedly lobbied its Western allies to provide jets to help in its fight against Russia. Ahead of Saturday's official announcement, President Zelensky said the jets would "greatly enhance our army in the sky", adding that he looked forward to "discussing the practical implementation" of the plan at the G7 summit in Hiroshima, where he will arrive on Sunday.
The US had been sceptical about providing Ukraine with modern fighter jets - at least in the near term. Its focus has instead been on providing military support on land.
Senior US military officials who have spoken to the BBC in the past have questioned whether Western-supplied fighter jets will dramatically alter the conflict, with Russia's large air force still struggling to gain air superiority and the high density of air defence systems on the ground.
And in February, President Biden told reporters that he was "ruling out for now" sending advanced fighters to Ukraine.
But Mr Sullivan told reporters that US had provided weapons to Kyiv as they were needed on the battlefield, and the decision to start supplying advanced fighters to Ukraine indicated the conflict had entered a new phase.

"Now we have delivered everything we said we were going to deliver, so we put the Ukrainians in a position to make progress on the battlefield through the counteroffensive. We've reached a moment where it is time to look down the road, and say what is Ukraine going to need as part of a future force to defend against Russian aggression," he said.
While the change in US policy is significant, training pilots to fly F-16 jets will take time. Ukraine does have more trained fighter pilots than aircraft at present. But even training experienced fighter pilots on a new plane could take up to four months.
And then nations will need to agree to supply the jets. The F-16 is widely used by a number of European and Middle East nations as well as the US, which still manufactures the aircraft. Who is willing to supply the jets is the next key question.
The UK, Netherlands, Belgium and Denmark also welcomed the US move.
UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak tweeted: "The UK will work together with the USA and the Netherlands, Belgium and Denmark to get Ukraine the combat air capability it needs."
The UK does not have any F-16s in its air force itself.

Denmark has announced it too will now be able to support the training of pilots, but did not confirm whether it would send any jets to Ukraine. Denmark's air force has 40 F-16s, around 30 of which are operational.
Earlier this week, Mr Sunak and Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte said they would build an "international coalition" to provide fighter jet support for Ukraine.
Mr Sunak said the UK would set up a flight school to train Ukrainian pilots. French leader Emmanuel Macron said his country was willing to do the same but would not provide jets.

Some of the opposition to sending the jets has centred around maintenance issues, with former Nato official Dr Jamie Shea saying they require extensive maintenance after almost every fight.
Some Nato member countries have also expressed their worries that handing jets to Ukraine would be viewed as escalating the war, risking a direct confrontation with Russia.

At the start of Russia's full-scale invasion, Ukraine was believed to have around 120 combat capable aircraft - mainly consisting of aging Soviet-era MiG-29s and Su-27s.
But officials say they need up to 200 jets to match Moscow's air-power - which is thought to be five or six times greater than Kyiv's.
Mr Zelensky has primarily been asking its allies for F-16s. First built in the 1970s, the jet can travel at twice the speed of sound and can engage targets in the air or on the ground.
While now eclipsed by the more modern F-35, it remains widely in use. Experts say modern fighters like the F-16 would help Ukraine strike behind Russian lines.
Earlier this year some Eastern European countries sent Soviet-era Mig fighter jets to Ukraine.


US to back fighter jet training for Ukrainian pilots​

International training programme, to begin soon in Europe, would be prerequisite to transfer of F-16s to Kyiv

Dan Sabbagh and Julian Borger
Fri 19 May 2023 17.50 BST
The US has told its allies it will back a joint international effort to train Ukrainian pilots to fly F-16 and other modern fighter jets, marking a significant boost to western support for Kyiv as it prepares a major counteroffensive.

Joe Biden has already informed fellow leaders attending a G7 summit in Japan of his decision, a senior administration official said, adding that the plan would include training “on fourth-generation fighter aircraft, including F-16s, to further strengthen and improve the capabilities of the Ukrainian air force”.


The fourth generation category includes Britain’s Eurofighter Typhoon and France’s Mirage 2000.

“As the training takes place over the coming months, our coalition of countries participating in this effort will decide when to actually provide jets, how many we will provide, and who will provide them,” the senior official said. “This training will take place outside Ukraine at sites in Europe and will require months to complete. We hope we can begin this training in the coming weeks.”
The decision represents a dramatic shift in stance by Washington, which had previously presented the supply of F16s to Ukraine as unfeasible.

The Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, tweeted: “I welcome the historic decision of the United States and @POTUS to support an international fighter jet coalition. This will greatly enhance our army in the sky. I count on discussing the practical implementation of this decision at the #G7 summit in Hiroshima.”
The speed of the U-turn took some allies by surprise.

There had been reports that the US would give a green light for other states to make preparations to supply western fighter jets, but even close allies did not expect Biden to support direct US involvement in a training programme.


“Things are moving really fast in Japan. Faster even than we had dared hoped,” one European diplomat said.

Yehor Cherniev, the deputy chair of the Ukrainian parliament’s national security committee, said F-16s could be in operation within four months of the start of training.

“When we will have well-trained pilots, the F-16s will be in the sky over Ukraine and will help us to move forward,” Cherniev said. “It’s important to us, not just as one more tool for our air defence system, but also to cover our infantry from the sky because without it, we would have more losses.”
Even if F-16s and other jets arrived in Ukraine by autumn, they would not be in time to support the widely anticipated spring-summer offensive Ukraine has been planning. However, the move represents a significant show of western resolve and could help consolidate any Ukrainian gains.

Cherniev said he thought Biden’s decision had been influenced by the speed at which Ukrainians had mastered the use of other sophisticated weaponry, such as the Patriot anti-aircraft system, and pressure from allies.

“It was our successful use of Patriots, a complicated system,” he said. “We have proven that we can learn much faster than the traditional programme. So we will be able to train our pilots much faster than the training programmes. Plus, there was the readiness of other countries to provide us with F-16s.”
The shift in US stance, could eventually allow countries such as the Netherlands to export the US-designed jets once pilots and ground crews have been trained.
This week the UK and the Netherlands announced they would set up a “jets coalition” aimed at providing Ukraine with the fighter planes it needs. The US initially said it was still negative on the topic.
A fresh background briefing on Friday, however, suggested it would not block third-party countries exporting the Lockheed Martin-made jets.
Cherniev pointed out that Belgium and Denmark had indicated they would supply fighter jets, and said he hoped other countries would declare their readiness in the wake of Biden’s announcement.

“It is just the start of this coalition,” he said.

Biden’s change in policy will avoid any embarrassment at the G7 summit. The Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, is expected to visit the meeting on Sunday and is likely to repeat his “wings for freedom” request amid concerns Ukraine’s small air force will be unable to survive a long war.

Ukraine is desperate for extra airpower as it plots a counteroffensive against the Russian invasion. While its small, Soviet-standard air force remains operational, it is able to run only a dozen or so combat missions a day.

The most obvious problem with any gift of F-16s is that it would take at least three months – and more likely six to nine months – to train Ukrainian pilots and crews. Kyiv has been identifying a list of potential pilots and teaching them English so they could begin their tuition in the UK.

There are 3,000 F-16s, a jet that dates back to the late 1970s, in service in 25 countries, including several smaller European nations, such as the Netherlands. However, they are not used by the UK, France or Germany, which are able only to provide training and some related services.

The UK prime minister, Rishi Sunak, said he “welcomed announcement that the US will approve the training of Ukrainian pilots on F-16 fighter jets”. The UK would work together with the US and the Netherlands, Belgium and Denmark “to get Ukraine the combat air capability it needs”, he added.
 
Last edited:
No this is barbaric news, this is like you hit me, I hit you with bigger stone and so forth. The conflict should by now find a peaceful solution to end it once and for all.
First Putin is not pushing to use tactical nukes.
Second NATO & Biden are persistent in pushing for reaction or any kind from Russia, I rest my case in favor of Russia.
Thirdly the whole world doesn't have Artillery ammuniation to supply to both countries.

F-16s will make the situation worse for Ukraine not Russia.
 
No this is barbaric news, this is like you hit me, I hit you with bigger stone and so forth. The conflict should by now find a peaceful solution to end it once and for all.
First Putin is not pushing to use tactical nukes.
Second NATO & Biden are persistent in pushing for reaction or any kind from Russia, I rest my case in favor of Russia.
Thirdly the whole world doesn't have Artillery ammuniation to supply to both countries.

F-16s will make the situation worse for Ukraine not Russia.
Lol, tell me, what is the other solution then?

Russia invade Ukraine, which mean objectively, the war is ONLY going to end if Russian Troop no longer in Ukraine.

Now, that's the objective way to look at this. Let's talk about what both side wanted.

Russia wanted Donbass, and most likely the rest of Ukraine to either under Russian control or back in Russian camp. Otherwise, I don't see how they will take their troop out. Problem is, would Ukraine be able to accept this?

Now looks at what Ukraine want. Probably first and foremost, Ukraine want Russian out of Ukraine, but if this is not doable, they need security guarantee, otherwise this is a "you said he say" situation here, to which Russia already broken their word twice (Three times if you also count the time, they said that little green man in Crimea weren't Russian)

Now the impasse is below.

Let's say if Ukraine let Russia keep Donbas (that's a big ask for Ukraine to swallow that, but let's pretend this is on the table) Ukraine probably won't ever be neutral because being neutral let them lose Crimea, Donbass and whatever Kherson and Zaporizhya after this war. It would be stupid for them to be neutral as if none of this ever happen and with the only thing that tied them down with "Russia is not going to do it again" is their own word, again, it has been breached twice, I would be surprised if Ukraine will stay neutral as part of that ceasefire agreement. If I am Zelenskyy, I would need some security guarantee by the West, either a NATO membership or a binding defensive pact with US, UK or any other country (Like ANZUS/Philippine MDA)

Now, would Russia be okay with that? Well, If they just get Donbas and loses the entire Ukraine to the West, that is NOT really a bargain for me if I was Putin, which mean before I eventually have to do it, I would want to claw more land from Ukraine before that happen. Before situation dictate that I will have to sign that off with the Ukrainian, or not signing anything and try to get the entire Ukraine, either way, it would be the same, the war drag on and people died because of it.

This is the reason why there are no compromise from either side

This war is not dragging on because US send them HIMARS or F-16 or whatever, this war is being dragged on because of the aforementioned reason and no one in the two party have a clear victory that can overshadow the other, ie, either Russia would have to make significant gain in Ukraine for the Ukrainian to make concession, either acknowledge Donbas is Russian or drop NATO claim (which I don't see it happen at all) or the Ukrainian have to make enough battlefield gain to recover their own territories, so Russia would make concession and come to the negotiation table. Otherwise, the only way forward is for this war to continue. And Russian already made their move, which is the winter offensive, and they didn't make any inroad at all, unless they have another wind for another sail and have another go sometime soon, the war will not shift for the Russian. Which mean if we want this war to end, the only way it can be done soon, or next, is for Ukraine to make substantial gain now with their upcoming offensive.
 
No this is barbaric news, this is like you hit me, I hit you with bigger stone and so forth. The conflict should by now find a peaceful solution to end it once and for all.
First Putin is not pushing to use tactical nukes.
Second NATO & Biden are persistent in pushing for reaction or any kind from Russia, I rest my case in favor of Russia.
Thirdly the whole world doesn't have Artillery ammuniation to supply to both countries.

F-16s will make the situation worse for Ukraine not Russia.

Hope someone gives free advanced fighter jets and training to occupied Palestine and occupied Kashmir as well, just saying...

All the more reason to keep pumping the West and Russia to be at each other's throats.
 
Lol, tell me, what is the other solution then?

Russia invade Ukraine, which mean objectively, the war is ONLY going to end if Russian Troop no longer in Ukraine.

Now, that's the objective way to look at this. Let's talk about what both side wanted.

Russia wanted Donbass, and most likely the rest of Ukraine to either under Russian control or back in Russian camp. Otherwise, I don't see how they will take their troop out. Problem is, would Ukraine be able to accept this?

Now looks at what Ukraine want. Probably first and foremost, Ukraine want Russian out of Ukraine, but if this is not doable, they need security guarantee, otherwise this is a "you said he say" situation here, to which Russia already broken their word twice (Three times if you also count the time, they said that little green man in Crimea weren't Russian)

Now the impasse is below.

Let's say if Ukraine let Russia keep Donbas (that's a big ask for Ukraine to swallow that, but let's pretend this is on the table) Ukraine probably won't ever be neutral because being neutral let them lose Crimea, Donbass and whatever Kherson and Zaporizhya after this war. It would be stupid for them to be neutral as if none of this ever happen and with the only thing that tied them down with "Russia is not going to do it again" is their own word, again, it has been breached twice, I would be surprised if Ukraine will stay neutral as part of that ceasefire agreement. If I am Zelenskyy, I would need some security guarantee by the West, either a NATO membership or a binding defensive pact with US, UK or any other country (Like ANZUS/Philippine MDA)

Now, would Russia be okay with that? Well, If they just get Donbas and loses the entire Ukraine to the West, that is NOT really a bargain for me if I was Putin, which mean before I eventually have to do it, I would want to claw more land from Ukraine before that happen. Before situation dictate that I will have to sign that off with the Ukrainian, or not signing anything and try to get the entire Ukraine, either way, it would be the same, the war drag on and people died because of it.

This is the reason why there are no compromise from either side

This war is not dragging on because US send them HIMARS or F-16 or whatever, this war is being dragged on because of the aforementioned reason and no one in the two party have a clear victory that can overshadow the other, ie, either Russia would have to make significant gain in Ukraine for the Ukrainian to make concession, either acknowledge Donbas is Russian or drop NATO claim (which I don't see it happen at all) or the Ukrainian have to make enough battlefield gain to recover their own territories, so Russia would make concession and come to the negotiation table. Otherwise, the only way forward is for this war to continue. And Russian already made their move, which is the winter offensive, and they didn't make any inroad at all, unless they have another wind for another sail and have another go sometime soon, the war will not shift for the Russian. Which mean if we want this war to end, the only way it can be done soon, or next, is for Ukraine to make substantial gain now with their upcoming offensive.
I appreciate your detailed answer, firstly I am not getting into every single detail as I am involved in real day job tbh.

Okay as far Donbas is concerned that territory is going to go all under Russian control.
As far as Bahkmut is concerned that too will be all under Russian control and when that happens get ready for more invasion of near by towns & cities.

As far as Ukraine is concerned about its problem with Russia losing territory after territory even after NATO support of 56 nations - WE ALL KNOW RUSSIA IS ON TOP YET AGAIN.

Let me out it this way 56 nations after supplying all types of ammunition couldn't prevent Russia from defeat?
Now if I was NATO employee "man oh man" this would be worse than embarrasing more like resign your job position let someone else carry on with further humailation.

Remember I am just going to quote history, in WW2 US dropped 2 A bombs on Japan for EXACT SAME SITUATION, where Japanese had immense manpower to fight on American invaders. To counter US soldier losses the US dropped 2 a bombs to end the conflict & of course Japan imperial Army never had such weapons.

So I not pro nuclear war or anything, but from Big picture perspective I see this Ukraine getting F-16s or Leapord 2 tanks etc is super desperate move on behalf of NATO - just end the conflict.

I would support Russia in using tactical nuke on Ukraine now to end the damn conflict. Its now taking toll on global supplies of every thing from food to ammuniation etc.
 
All the more reason to keep pumping the West and Russia to be at each other's throats.
I don't understand the logic behind the continuation of prolonging the conflict ?
I mean from Anglo Saxon white point of view - why would Americans want to make EU a total battle field ?
Aren't they pro white or EU support for doing what US did in WW2 by assisting UK France etc in turning over night their domestic factories into war machine?
What is the BIG DEAL with Russia taking over little brother Ukraine for NATO?
It looks like to me Biden doesn't want to lose FACE front after doing everything and finding out Russia is on Top, more like annoyed baby trying last ditch effort to see what happens after delivery of F-16s.

Note : Also to be considered F-16s are in their timeline in their last decade of use since 1980s so it would be wise to throw everything at Russia see how they perform.
 
I appreciate your detailed answer, firstly I am not getting into every single detail as I am involved in real day job tbh.

Okay as far Donbas is concerned that territory is going to go all under Russian control.
As far as Bahkmut is concerned that too will be all under Russian control and when that happens get ready for more invasion of near by towns & cities.

As far as Ukraine is concerned about its problem with Russia losing territory after territory even after NATO support of 56 nations - WE ALL KNOW RUSSIA IS ON TOP YET AGAIN.

Let me out it this way 56 nations after supplying all types of ammunition couldn't prevent Russia from defeat?
Now if I was NATO employee "man oh man" this would be worse than embarrasing more like resign your job position let someone else carry on with further humailation.

Remember I am just going to quote history, in WW2 US dropped 2 A bombs on Japan for EXACT SAME SITUATION, where Japanese had immense manpower to fight on American invaders. To counter US soldier losses the US dropped 2 a bombs to end the conflict & of course Japan imperial Army never had such weapons.
Look, I deliberately not taking side on this, so I am not going to say whether or not Russia is ahead, or Ukraine is ahead. As far as I concern, the war is in stalemate, which mean nobody is ahead. I mean if you think Russia is on top with this performance, well, I can only say either you have a very low expectation, or you are an outliner, I mean, if you ask 100 military officer or military analyst, I don't think many of them would say "Yes, I want my army to perform exactly like the Russian did in the Ukrainian War.".

As I stated, the war can only be stopped by Russia as they started it, and it was their troop inside Ukraine right now, everything else is second. And that can NEVER happen unless either Russia think they are not going anywhere in Ukraine or Ukraine think they cannot claw back their territories. Whatever you think about the result oof the Russian offensive this winter, that PAST. and overall situation is not at all any improvement of their overall strategic situation, as they are only able to bite into Bakhmut, and that's too very wonky at this point. Which mean they probably not going to negotiate with Ukraine, because it basically changes nothing, and even if they wanted to start their negotiation with the Ukrainian, would the Ukrainian want to? They didn't lose that much during the Russian winter offensive, and they have their own upcoming offensive in the next couple of weeks, whether or not that will succeed or fail, they would most likely wanted to see how that turn out before going into negotiation. Again, because the strategic situation remain unchanged.

On the other hand, even if both side are on the negotiation table, you need to have a common ground so both parties can stand on. Which is not something happening soon. I can tell you this, Crimea or even Donbas probably mean nothing to Ukraine, if Russia is okay with Ukraine joining NATO, and NATO accept Ukraine as a member (or at least a candidate) They will most likely gave Crimea or Donbas to Russia, but the thing is, would Russia okay with Ukraine being in NATO? And if Russia only able to accept Neutrality for Ukraine, would Ukraine accept that? The key to negotiation is trust, you trust the other side not to violate the agreement or you trust a third party to guarantee your agreement, and Trust does not actually exist between Russia and Ukraine right now. So the only way I can see is they keep fighting, and whichever take the next big step would most likely be in a more advantageous position. It can be Russia, but it can also be Ukraine, again, it largely depends on how this Ukrainian Counteroffensive going, if they recover a bulk of Russian occupied land, then that most likely put Russia in a back foot, if not and they failed the counter offensive, that maintaining the status quo, either you keep fighting, or you won't get a deal that last long.

So I not pro nuclear war or anything, but from Big picture perspective I see this Ukraine getting F-16s or Leapord 2 tanks etc is super desperate move on behalf of NATO - just end the conflict.

I would support Russia in using tactical nuke on Ukraine now to end the damn conflict. Its now taking toll on global supplies of every thing from food to ammuniation etc.


Tactical nuke won't change anything. It's too small to take effect, you would need to use a lot of tactical nuke to have result, Because you are talking about a 1000+ km frontline. And this is what a 40kt tactical nuke would goes when it detonate.

Nuke.jpg



You are talking about a radius of 2 km to do heavy and moderate damage. You will need ~500 40kt device to cover the entire frontline, because Ukraine would not just bunch up their troop so you can nuke them. And then you would need to have more to go after the staging area behind that frontline.

Not to mention Russia is itself next to Ukraine, which mean any closer to the West, you risk starting a war with NATO because radiaton will get to Poland if you detonate a nuke in places like Lviv, And if you goes too close to the north, you are going to get radiation all over Belarus, Kyiv is 110km from Belarus, you go after Kyiv with a 40kt device, you are going to get the fall out blow back to Belarus. And if it is too close to the frontline, you are more or less nuking yourself

Let alone if Russia use nuke now, they will NO DOUBT drawn NATO into this conflict, NATO already said they would react if Russia used nuke, and then Russian most likely would lose support on the moderate neutral country like China, India or Brazil or any African nation. That consequence is immense. That is the reason why Russia is going nowhere since June last year and they keep saying they will use nuke, but they don't, because talking about using it is more effective than actually using it.
 
Last edited:
Look, I deliberately not taking side on this, so I am not going to say whether or not Russia is ahead, or Ukraine is ahead. As far as I concern, the war is in stalemate, which mean nobody is ahead. I mean if you think Russia is on top with this performance, well, I can only say either you have a very low expectation, or you are an outliner, I mean, if you ask 100 military officer or military analyst, I don't think many of them would say "Yes, I want my army to perform exactly like the Russian did in the Ukrainian War.".

As I stated, the war can only be stopped by Russia as they started it, and it was their troop inside Ukraine right now, everything else is second. And that can NEVER happen unless either Russia think they are not going anywhere in Ukraine or Ukraine think they cannot claw back their territories. Whatever you think about the result oof the Russian offensive this winter, that PAST. and overall situation is not at all any improvement of their overall strategic situation, as they are only able to bite into Bakhmut, and that's too very wonky at this point. Which mean they probably not going to negotiate with Ukraine, because it basically changes nothing, and even if they wanted to start their negotiation with the Ukrainian, would the Ukrainian want to? They didn't lose that much during the Russian winter offensive, and they have their own upcoming offensive in the next couple of weeks, whether or not that will succeed or fail, they would most likely wanted to see how that turn out before going into negotiation. Again, because the strategic situation remain unchanged.

On the other hand, even if both side are on the negotiation table, you need to have a common ground so both parties can stand on. Which is not something happening soon. I can tell you this, Crimea or even Donbas probably mean nothing to Ukraine, if Russia is okay with Ukraine joining NATO, and NATO accept Ukraine as a member (or at least a candidate) They will most likely gave Crimea or Donbas to Russia, but the thing is, would Russia okay with Ukraine being in NATO? And if Russia only able to accept Neutrality for Ukraine, would Ukraine accept that? The key to negotiation is trust, you trust the other side not to violate the agreement or you trust a third party to guarantee your agreement, and Trust does not actually exist between Russia and Ukraine right now. So the only way I can see is they keep fighting, and whichever take the next big step would most likely be in a more advantageous position. It can be Russia, but it can also be Ukraine, again, it largely depends on how this Ukrainian Counteroffensive going, if they recover a bulk of Russian occupied land, then that most likely put Russia in a back foot, if not and they failed the counter offensive, that maintaining the status quo, either you keep fighting, or you won't get a deal that last long.




Tactical nuke won't change anything. It's too small to take effect, you would need to use a lot of tactical nuke to have result, Because you are talking about a 1000+ km frontline. And this is what a 40kt tactical nuke would goes when it detonate.

View attachment 930566


You are talking about a radius of 2 km to do heavy and moderate damage. You will need ~500 40kt device to cover the entire frontline, because Ukraine would not just bunch up their troop so you can nuke them. And then you would need to have more to go after the staging area behind that frontline.

Not to mention Russia is itself next to Ukraine, which mean any closer to the West, you risk starting a war with NATO because radiaton will get to Poland if you detonate a nuke in places like Lviv, And if you goes too close to the north, you are going to get radiation all over Belarus, Kyiv is 110km from Belarus, you go after Kyiv with a 40kt device, you are going to get the fall out blow back to Belarus. And if it is too close to the frontline, you are more or less nuking yourself

Let alone if Russia use nuke now, they will NO DOUBT drawn NATO into this conflict, NATO already said they would react if Russia used nuke, and then Russian most likely would lose support on the moderate neutral country like China, India or Brazil or any African nation. That consequence is immense. That is the reason why Russia is going nowhere since June last year and they keep saying they will use nuke, but they don't, because talking about using it is more effective than actually using it.
Yes Russia is slightly ahead of Ukrainian armed forces BUT it is basically a STALEMATE overall. Ukrainians have done well to fight this much far into the period and keep preventing Russians from advancing for sure.

As for tactical Nuclear weapons you put really well description of few km's radius where the border is several hundred km's long. And now this is looking totally impossible to call to action in reality.
Totally in agreement for Putin Not to use nukes now.

Just let the next phase of battle take on with new NATO weapons and see where or how far Ukraine can sustain Russian advances or to counter attack.

Lets wait and see what the next several weeks bring to the conflict and whos favor outcome result.
 
The best for Ukraine is it receives F-16, better from america and block 70.

We ll see performance from S-300/S-400 systems.People laugh about Syria and Russia not able to stop Israeli F-16s, we will see if this warplanes when are used against russian military assets now... real conditions.

If US does not deliver to Ukraine necessary F-16s it would mean US military experts deems these warplanes not able to compete air space against russian defence systems, and S-300 would be the king, there is no other conclusion here.
 
Last edited:
- Two 12 F-16 squadrons would have to operate together with US E-3 AWACS aircraft to make a difference, and that would make the US AWACS active participants in the conflict. Without AWACS cover, Ukrainian F-16s will be facing RuAF Su-30SM & Su-35 flying underground radar cover on 247 air dominance patrol over the frontline.
 
"People laugh about Syria and Russia not able to stop Israeli F-16s"

WTF

Vladimir Vladimirovich is a friend of "our colonial project" (Jabotinsky) in the land of Canaan

The Ukrainian Gambit (1997-, 2008-, 2014-) i.e. sacrificing Ukrainians pawns out of hatred for Russia is an idea of the American Zionists NOT of Likud

Question: who replaced William Perry as Secretary of Defense (-1997)

Answer: William Cohen

 
...

The last president of the biblical madhouse said it clearly: -we have to get along with Russia because we need their permission to attack Syria with our aircraft.
 
Yes Russia is slightly ahead of Ukrainian armed forces BUT it is basically a STALEMATE overall. Ukrainians have done well to fight this much far into the period and keep preventing Russians from advancing for sure.

As for tactical Nuclear weapons you put really well description of few km's radius where the border is several hundred km's long. And now this is looking totally impossible to call to action in reality.
Totally in agreement for Putin Not to use nukes now.

Just let the next phase of battle take on with new NATO weapons and see where or how far Ukraine can sustain Russian advances or to counter attack.

Lets wait and see what the next several weeks bring to the conflict and whos favor outcome result.


Although I do support this decision, it does seem a touch ironic that it was made at Hiroshima. Time to dig out the old 'Protect and Survive' pamphlet from the late 70's! Lol

...

The last president of the biblical madhouse said it clearly: -we have to get along with Russia because we need their permission to attack Syria with our aircraft.

Ukraine help approves west does not need moscow permission Syria was an oddball. Iraq debacle was back of peoples mind not Iraq 2 all over again
 

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom