“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   ( @HappyMeatbag@beehaw.org ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    28
    edit-2
    10 months 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.

    • 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…

      • 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?

    • 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   ( @HappyMeatbag@beehaw.org ) 
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1
        edit-2
        10 months 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   ( @lntl@lemmy.ml ) OP
      link
      fedilink
      210 months 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   ( @HappyMeatbag@beehaw.org ) 
        link
        fedilink
        English
        12
        edit-2
        10 months 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.