Originally Posted by
ORAC
I think this over thinks it, as if the US and NSTO had agency here.
The aim is to aid UKR defend itself. What they need, when they need it and how to support are questions for UKR to answer.
For NATO the answer is give them what they want, when they ask for it - and let them decide what is, or isn’t, victory.
https://breakingdefense.com/2022/07/...aine-strategy/
4 Questions the US and NATO need to ask, and answer, about their Ukraine strategy
I have wished from the start that NATO would be free to give Ukraine what was requested. The barrier to doing that has been the fear that Putin would see this as direct NATO involvement akin to deploying ground or air personnel and that a nuclear response would ensue.
As I understand it, NATO has thus far operated under a strict self-restriction vis a vis tanks, APCs etc and aircraft. Soviet-era stock may be donated by former Eastern Bloc nations and backfilled with more modern, Western kit.
There does seem to be a
change in this regard:
Secretary of the U.S. Air Force Frank Kendall did not outright reject the idea of transferring A-10 Warthog ground attack jets to Ukraine when asked about that possibility earlier today. His comments came after Chief of Staff of the Air Force Gen. Charles Q. Brown said separately that the Ukrainian Air Force will eventually have to start moving away from their Soviet-era combat jets and that whatever comes next will "be something non-Russian."
/.../
"What is it that the Air Force ... needs to let go of?" The Washington Post's David Ignatius, who served as the moderator Kendall's talk at Aspen, asked the Air Force Secretary.
"The venerable A-10 ... is not a system that we are going to need against the kinds of adversaries we're concerned about most now," Kendall responded, in part.
In its most recent budget request for the 2023 Fiscal Year, the Air Force asked for authority to retire 21 Warthogs during that period. These aircraft have certainly proven to be useful in the past two decades or so when supporting low-intensity combat operations in permissive environments, but there are increasing questions about their utility in any future higher-end conflicts in contested airspace.
"A parenthetical thought. Why don't we give those A-10s to Ukraine?" Ignatius then asked after Kendall finished with his full answer to the initial question.
"General Brown addressed that question this morning about what fighters Ukraine might be interested in. That's largely up to Ukraine. ... Older U.S. systems are a possibility," Kendall said in response. "We will be open to discussions with them on what their requirements are and how we might be able to satisfy them."
I do wonder what is prompting this change in thinking. Aside from the acceptance that the Ukrainian forces DO need more potent weapons, is there now a degree of assurance that Putin won't resort to nuclear attack? Or that he would be prevented from doing so?
I have no quibble with the change in thinking. It is both welcome and curious.