So, why can't the Ukrainian pilots go to Poland and fly the planes out of the country

[Baitball Blogger]

and bring them to Ukrainian air fields?

[Chainfire]

1. Because NATO in general, and the US in particular are afraid it would offend Putin.

It is just that simple.

[Baitball Blogger]

8. We have a humanitarian dog in this fight.

Countries outside of Ukraine have to take in the refugees. The US will accept refugees. Lots of countries will. So it's our problem too.

[Happy Hoosier]

10. Yup. And it is weak-sauce.

FUCKING DO IT.

[Chainfire]

18. NATO and the US consider that it may be considered A Bridge Too Far.

They have made the calculation, rightly or wrongly, that Ukraine just isn't worth it.

[Happy Hoosier]

24. We'll see.

I think this will still happen. I hope so. Falling all over ourselves to not upset pootie-poot is trouble in the making, IMHO. It makes us look like pushovers.

[Wingus Dingus]

2. I don't really get that either. NATO isn't flying the planes into Ukraine.

NATO nations are already giving Ukraine the means to fight--why are fighter jets the big exception? That said, maybe when the plan was announced, Lloyd Austin got a red-phone hotline call from Russia stating that Pooty will lose his shit if the planes get transferred--I don't know.

[Tommy Carcetti]

3. Exactly what I'm saying.

Some people are saying though if Ukrainians fly out of Poland that might be constituted as a de facto NATO involvement.

So I say have Poland fly its MiGs to a non-NATO country. Ideally Moldova--on the border with Ukraine, with the border on the Western part of Ukraine which isn't as heavily impacted by the war. They leave their planes there, Ukrainians fly their pilots in, and the pilots fly the MiGs back to Ukraine.

Easy peasy.

[Baitball Blogger]

6. +1

[HUAJIAO]

9. And then putin goes after Moldava...

[Tommy Carcetti]

13. Putin could very well go after Moldova regardless.

It's ex-Soviet, and Putin has a grand vision of righting the self-perceived "wrong" of the breakup of the Soviet states.

Right now Ukraine is acting as a buffer for Moldova, and the better fight Ukraine puts up against Russia, the better it is for Moldova. So helping Ukraine helps Moldova, which I don't think has the military capabilities that Ukraine has.

[relayerbob]

19. He already is

The "Transnistria" territory is thier Donbas. They say they want to join the EU, and help. Here's their chance

[Sherman A1]

14. If this was easy peasy it would have been done by now

What we would like to think of as the "ten word soundbite" answer to complex problems just doesn't work in the real world. There are lots of factors in play most of which we have absolutely zero knowledge. One needs to have some faith in the leaders we elected to do what is best for us and those involved.

[Doc Sportello]

31. So our leaders have never made a wrong decision?

I have faith in Biden and the officials making decisions but that doesn't mean they are infallible. In fact some of those leaders may disagree with the ultimate decision. Having unthinking belief in every decision made by leaders how dictatorships work. I really don't understand why some on here are so hostile to having any discussion about options and strategy here, or in other cases. It is a discussion forum.

[Ocelot II]

4. Why not send them to Sweden or Finland?

[Tommy Carcetti]

20. Even better, Moldova.

It's on the border of Ukraine, but on the western side, which is further away from the most intense fighting. So planes could be flown back into the Ukraine and into the "safer" side of the country.

Poland can reach it fairly easily, even with avoiding Ukrainian air space.

Moldova is not NATO, although it does want to join the EU. It has a vested interest in Ukraine succeeding against Russia because Putin could very well invade it as his troops move through Ukraine; right now Ukraine is essentially a buffer for Moldova.

I'm a pure amateur here but if something like this could be pulled off, Moldova is what would make most sense for me.

[Whiskeytide]

5. Leave the keys in them and go to lunch. n/t

[Baitball Blogger]

7. +1

[relayerbob]

15. Similar to my thoughts

[mitch96]

27. My thoughts exactally.. and on the seat is a bunch of sticky backed UKR insignias..nt

[TheFarseer]

11. Because

Putin gets to invade sovereign nations but we can’t even help that country defend itself because it might be offensive. Hope that helps. Doesn’t make a damn bit of sense to me.

[Sherman A1]

17. Gosh, we just ain't doin' nuthin'

No sanctions, no defensive military aid, no rallying NATO and the EU together..... Nah, we ain't done nuthin.......

[ColinC]

30. Not doing enough is different from doing nothing.

But it is still not enough

[Gore1FL]

32. Russia is hemorrhaging badly economically. They are losing on the battlefield.

They are embarrassed on the world stage and completely losing the public relations side of this.

Other than direct military involvement, which seems pretty unnecessary at this point, especially given the risks, what should they do differently that wouldn't change the terrible dynamic the Russians are facing?

[ColinC]

35. In addition to that, they are bombing hospitals and specifically targeting children and civlians

They are seemingly barely even attacking military targets, making their strategy appear to be murder as many civilians as possible until Ukraine crumbles. This isn't a war, it is a terrorist attack and direct intervention is nothing less than a humanitarian action.

[Gore1FL]

45. That would work save, among other things, the 1000+ active nuclear warheads available to Russia.

Right now Ukraine is winning. Anything we do right now changes that equation; in many cases this is not for the better.

[Calista241]

47. I wouldn't say they are losing on the battlefield.

Are they suffering casualties, of course they are. The Pentagon released this morning that they believe 95% of the Russian forces are still intact. They also stated that most of Ukraine, in the North and the South, is covered by Russian surface to air missile capability.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/95-putins-forces-intact-plan-surround-kyiv-pentagon/story?id=83317142

[Gore1FL]

52. The Russian military may be intact, but they are also in-the-mud.

At this point they can't get supplies to their equipment. Ukraine has managed to purloin more Russian equipment in the past couple of weeks than they procured in the years prior.

Russia can no longer win this.

[Sherman A1]

33. In your opinion

I would prefer to avoid a nuclear exchange.

[ColinC]

36. That won't be an issue

If Putin was suicidal he would have invaded a NATO country. He isn't, and he won't kill himself and his family and his leadership's family (all who have families in many NATO countries) over a no fly zone in an unoccupied portion of Ukraine.

[Sherman A1]

37. In your opinion

[ColinC]

38. Yes.

And apparently in an increasing number of actual experts on the issue -including Alexander Vindman. I, however, am admittedly not an expert.

[Sherman A1]

39. Oh, Vindman

The man who spends his time all about Twitter wars with MTG. That instills a big no confidence.

[ColinC]

40. Director of European Affairs for NSC from 2008-2019.

Again, I trust experts more than me or you. If the majority of experts agree with you, then I will still trust them regardless of my own opinion. Nonetheless, more actual experts are coming around to this idea. Ted Lieu -a former LT Col. has also seemingly all but called for a no fly zone and is increasingly critical of our inability to provide jets to Ukraine.

[Sherman A1]

42. I'll trust the Biden Administration to

Thread the needle on the situation rather than a bunch of Monday morning quarterbacks.

[ColinC]

43. "Monday Morning Quarterbacks"

You mean, people with years of experience and expertise on the issue?

Biden Admin has a lot of great people, but they aren't the only ones.

[Sherman A1]

46. And the Biden Administration has the

Pertinent data, rather than relying on whatever can be gleaned from outside sources. So laugh all you want and if you don’t want to trust the President and his team to do the right thing that’s up to you.

I’m done with this string of distrusting our President.

[ColinC]

49. Lol. I trust our president.

Even though I want him to do more, can you imagine how it would be under Trump? Russia would be in Germany by now. And again, I think the majority of experts still agree with you. So even if I disagree, I still trust the majority of experts -one of which I am not.

[ColinC]

50. What I am saying, is that people like Vindman and Lieu suggest to me that the opinion of the admin.

may also change in the very near future. And I will trust them in that scenario just as I do trust them in this one regardlesse of my personal opinoin.

[TheFarseer]

41. Sorry I'm making you so angry

We’re paying more for gas and some are getting their country turned to rubble and their families killed. And rallying NATO to do what? Let him know they’ll really be trouble if he invades a country we care about? Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania or Finland would be fine to invade though.

I’m just really not getting the distinction between some countries sending drones, antitank missiles, guns and sending warplanes. I’m not sure why that’s a red line.

[Sherman A1]

44. Defensive weapons vs potentially offensive ones

Is likely a major distinction.

[Wingus Dingus]

28. We're letting Putin set all the terms and conditions--

I've pretty much had it with that guy.

[Gore1FL]

34. He can set all of the conditions he wants.

Ukraine the West has to agree to them, and, at this time, those parties have not.

[The Magistrate]

12. The Risk Is Real

Russian aircraft operate in Ukraine's air space, and Russian anti-aircraft facilities are sighted in on it.

No matter who pilots it, and no matter what paperwork might say, an engagement over Ukraine between one of these ex-Polish MiGs en route and a Russian aircraft over Ukraine would be an engagement involving a fighter which took off from a NATO base. Reaction to this is uncertain, and could quickly reach extremes. Immediate responsibility would be obvious: no one takes off fueled from a military base without government approval and assistance. Perhaps even trickier would be the downing of an aircraft taking off from a NATO base by Russian anti-aircraft missiles launched from Russia itself.

I don't know if modern machines are amenable to rail transport, but transfer on the ground would be the best option, if it can be contrived.

[relayerbob]

16. HAve some Ukrainian farmers tow them in

[bigtree]

22. +1

[OneBlueDotS-Carolina]

21. This is due to cold war thinking....

Most of the folks at the Pentagon, state, etc, are still thinking in the cold war box. The EU is a superpower, they just refuse to admit it.

NATO thought it was just dandy to launch jets & cruise missiles to go after Gadaffi, due to "humanitarian" concerns. Libya is not a member of NATO.

On the other hand, who knows what NATO & the US are actually thinking, as the last folks to know are us the public. It could well be they are waiting for putin to do something really stupid, like bomb a children's hospital in Ukraine. Shelling innocent civilians running for their lives after putin said they had safe passage, got a big shrug.

Bottom line is this drama over 27 MIG-29 is showing putin cracks in NATO. Poland & the US need to do much better. Personally, I can't see one bit of difference between the US & NAO delivering Javelins, Stingers MLAWS, etc to Ukraine, & a few jets....Jets coming from a NATO base, is 'untenable', fly them to the closest civilian airport with at least a 2500' runway.

[Abnredleg]

25. The issue is not how they are transferred

the issue is WHAT is being transferred. MIG 29s are significantly different than small arms and anti-tank missiles, and providing them to Ukraine would be a major escalation. We can come up with all sorts of clever methods to transfer the aircraft, but that is irrelevant. What matters is the fact that aircraft were transfered.

[gab13by13]

26. So I guess we can't send them drones either?

Anything that is over and above what we have already sent is off limits?

[Abnredleg]

29. See .my post below

Turkey is already sending UAVs

[OneBlueDotS-Carolina]

58. Turkey sent the UAVs under contract, prior to invasion.

Has Turkey agreed to finish their contracted order of TB2 Bayraktars?

[OneBlueDotS-Carolina]

56. My opinion differs, as does the...

United States Secretary of State who greenlit the transfer. Really, what is there to actually escalate?

I agree 100% with Alexander Vindman, that such thought is fundamentally flawed.

[Abnredleg]

57. It was the Pentagon that said no

[OneBlueDotS-Carolina]

60. One might have thought that Kirby

would have had enough brains to call the WH & State, before he made such a stupid statement. He's been around for years, maybe he thinks he's still in uniform, who knows. He could have uttered some unintelligible drivel, or said, no comment.

[Abnredleg]

64. There was clearly poor communication

I read elsewhere that discussion were ongoing when some Polish politicians leaked it to the press to demonstrate “something was being done!” It’ll be interesting to see what comes out in the next few days.

[OneBlueDotS-Carolina]

65. This isn't a leak

Polish Government FM

Statement of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Poland in connection with the statement by the US Secretary of State on providing airplanes to Ukraine

The authorities of the Republic of Poland, after consultations between the President and the Goverment, are ready to deploy – immediately and free of charge – all their MIG-29 jets to the Ramstein Air Base and place them at the disposal of the Government of the United States of America.

At the same time, Poland requests the United States to provide us with used aircraft with corresponding operational capabilities. Poland is ready to immediately establish the conditions of purchase of the planes.

The Polish Government also requests other NATO Allies – owners of MIG-29 jets – to act in the same vein.

https://www.gov.pl/web/diplomacy/statement-of-the-minister-of-foreign-affairs-of-the-republic-of-poland-in-connection-with-the-statement-by-the-us-secretary-of-state-on-providing-airplanes-to-ukraine

[Abnredleg]

66. No, it isn't

I was referring to earlier communications. Once it was out the Polish government obviously had to make an official comment.

[AntiFascist]

54. Putin just bombed a maternity and children's hospital causing a lot of casualties...

On the one hand he is terrorizing the population causing more millions to seek refuge. On the other hand, he is slowly ratcheting up 'the unthinkable,' like frogs about to be boiled.

[OneBlueDotS-Carolina]

59. I wonder where the line is...

Maybe it's Russia using chemical weapons as they did in Syria, they are already using thermobaric rockets...

Russia’s foreign ministry has confirmed the use of the TOS-1A weapon system in Ukraine, Britain said. The UK’s ministry of defence said the system uses thermobaric rockets, creating incendiary and blast effects.

[AntiFascist]

61. Since they have already committed 'atrocities'...

is there much of a line left?

The main concern, from Poland's point of view, seems to be tactical nuclear weapons that could be launched from Kaliningrad targeting Warsaw.

[OneBlueDotS-Carolina]

62. I assumed, for some strange reason,

That the sane folks would have gone with, once you promised safe passage to civilians who wished to escape the horror you have subjected them to, you shelled them. You're done vlad... it's over, tell your forces in Ukraine to surrender, or we will surrender them.

I guess all the smart people said no, that might offend putin.

[Abnredleg]

23. Here is a good analysis on our various options

The conclusion was the transfer of UAVs, counterbattery radar, and electronic countermeasure equipment was the right balance of effectiveness and risk of escalation. The no-fly zone was considered effective but highly risky.


https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/content-series/the-big-story/what-are-the-risks-and-benefits-of-us-nato-military-options-in-ukraine-our-strategic-risk-calculator-has-answers/

[sciencescience]

53. That is a good list of options. It seems like the drones are very effective and they're basically

a much more limited version of air power.

[Calista241]

48. What happens if they get in a fight and have to defend themselves after they enter Ukrainian

airspace? Should they come armed from the US base? How is Russia going to react if an airplane operating from a NATO airbase destroys his air assets?

These may not seem like a big deal, but WW3 is at stake, and we can't afford to get this wrong.

[ColinC]

51. Russia has no interest in taking on a force with a population of nearly a billion people and 6k

nukes. They have evaded NATO forces nearly every chance they get. When they don't, they get crushed.

[Calista241]

63. So I won't disagree with you.

But if we poke the bear enough, eventually the bear is going to get pissed and attack. We're providing hundreds of stingers, hundreds of javelins, and who knows what else.

Probably the most valuable thing we could send them right now is MRE's and supplies of fresh water. Their cities are going to be surrounded soon, and those supplies would be infinitely more valuable than a number of aircraft that can be, and should be, shot down rather easily.

Small arms, ammunition, sniper rifles, rifle optics, mines, concertina wire, food, water, medical supplies, encrypted radios, night vision gear, grenades, and other shit. I'd rate all of that as more desirable for the average Ukrainian soldier than a few high dollar planes that might or might not be effective.

[Iggo]

55. But I want it!

Waaaaah!