Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky has said the death of Yevgeny Prigozhin – the Russian mercenary leader whose plane crashed weeks after he led a mutiny against Moscow’s military leadership – shows what happens when people make deals with Russian leader Vladimir Putin.
As Ukraine’s counteroffensive moves into a fourth month, with only modest gains to show so far, Zelensky told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria he rejected suggestions it was time to negotiate peace with the Kremlin.
“When you want to have a compromise or a dialogue with somebody, you cannot do it with a liar,” Volodymyr Zelensky said.
Dogfights are an outdated paradigm.
If an Su-57 picks up your radar signature and gets a lock, you better pray to your countermeasures suite because you’re not even going to get a glimpse of it. That’s literally the entire modern US fighter paradigm.
You’re supporting my point: those F-16s are going to have the latest countermeasure suit.
It doesn’t matter how “invisible” is the plane (Ukraine already downed a Russian Su-57) or how “hypersonic” is the missile it launches (Ukrainian ground countermeasures are also taking care of those), what matters is whether it can hit you or not.
A bunch of “old” F-16s equipped with the latest stuff, plus some decent ground support… we’ll see how it goes, but since Russia hasn’t been able to establish air superiority over Ukraine in all this time, with a little push Ukraine likely will.
With… 40 F-16s? Do you imagine Ukraine to be the size of Taiwan while the Russians fly around in Chaika biplanes?
Ukraine is already protected from those magnificent Russian Su-57s, they don’t need F-16s for that. All Ukraine needs is to keep maybe 5 of those F-16s in the air over whatever scrap of land they happen to be trying to take back at any given moment. And yes, those pieces of land are going to be much smaller than Taiwan, what matters is that piece by piece, they will no longer be under Russian control.
Ah yes, because F-16s will absolutely be able to achieve what Su-27s couldn’t… Because, reasons I guess? Just like the Patriot system. Just like the Bradley. Just like the Challenger. Just like the Leopard 2. Just like HIMARS. The Patriot system was supposed to help Ukraine gain air superiority, too. Western armour was supposed to act as a fist straight through Russian lines.
How much has Ukraine captured over the counteroffensive so far?
This war lives and dies on attrition and logistical superiority. Ukraine needs more artillery shells, more drones, more ammunition, and more men, not some new wonder weapon that’ll go straight where all the other wonder weapons are. Thing is, nobody has the manufacturing capability to produce more artillery, more drones, off more ammunition and Ukraine has been bleeding refugees since the start of the war.
Put another way: if Ukraine knew it was going to get F-16s eventually and that F-16s could gain air superiority, why go on a counteroffensive and bleed morale/resources now? By your reasoning, Ukraine could have just hunkered down until they had technological superiority and pulled some good old Blitzkrieg tactics on Russian lines to punch straight throw them. Either this counteroffensive was a severe tactical blunder or the F-16s won’t do as much as claimed.
We’ve been over this: because F-16s have updated hardware (radars, ECMs, etc.) that couldn’t be retrofit into a Su-27.
That too. This wouldn’t be a war in the first place if Russia hadn’t fucked up their initial logistics so severely.
Personally, that’s my opinion, yes.
I think they’ve done it to “boost morale” by hopefully regaining “some” territory before the whole place turns into a mud bath, but from a tactical point of view, yes, I think they should have waited it out, stick to defense and drones for the time being.
I think we’re at a bit of an impasse then. I don’t think it makes sense to bleed men and defectors for morale (because, y’know, people dying is bad for morale), but maybe the Ukrainian propaganda machine is more powerful than I am.
My point is that the West has sat behind the idea that every single new weapon they send to Ukraine will be a GAME CHANGER and lead to the COLLAPSE OF RUSSIAN LINES. Nothing has done so so far, so why should the F-16 be any different? The Patriot was supposed to help Ukraine maintain air superiority. Western tanks were supposed to outclass Russian ones. The Bradley, through it’s rich operational history, was supposed to completely outmaneuver Russian forces. Yet… Nothing.
That’s propaganda used to get the expenditures approved. Nothing is going to be a “game changer” by itself, it’s all a step by step way to replace Ukraine’s soviet-era weapons, with an updated NATO weapons kit.
Once the kit gets completed, we’ll see what happens. For now, each part is proving superior to its Russian counterpart. The Patriot is a defensive system intended to prevent Russia from achieving air superiority, and it’s doing just that.
How well has NATO equipment fared on the front lines? With the exception of HIMARS (which has given Ukraine long-range artillery strike capability that Russia can’t match), what’s all this NATO equipment done?
The Patriot systems are parked far from the front lines in Kiev. The “indestructible” Challenger 2 has lost 14% of their delivered vehicles in barely a few weeks.
Ukraine needs artillery, ammunition, drones, and supplies. These new weapons have done nothing to shift the front lines whatsoever and serve only to distract the population from providing Ukraine with real, tangible military aid.