Is Ukraine about to have a war?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 30,926
Received 1,745 Likes
on
752 Posts
Ostap Yarysh@OstapYarysh·11m‼️Antony Blinken: The U.S. has given the “green light” to NATO countries if they choose to provide fighter jets to #Ukraine️.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 30,926
Received 1,745 Likes
on
752 Posts
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
If true, I suppose any serviceable Migs are heading to the spray bay right now. I suppose providing aircraft is no different from providing missiles etc.
Quote from focus.de
" 15:51 MEZ .Poland repeats its refusal to either deliver Soviet-era planes to Ukraine, or allow its bases to be used to fly these aircraft . We are giving significant help in other areas." This was a Polish government statement on Twitter. Blinken's remarks are simply that the US is actively studying the possibility of supplying F-16's to replace the Mig 29's if Poland were to decide to send any to Ukraine.( this in reply to a question at a press-conference).
15.51 Uhr: Polen hat erneut Berichten widersprochen, wonach das Land die Ukraine mit Kampfflugzeugen sowjetischer Bauart ausstatten will. „Polen wird seine Kampfjets nicht in die Ukraine schicken und auch nicht erlauben, seine Flughäfen zu nutzen. Wir helfen ganz erheblich in vielen anderen Bereichen“, erklärte die Regierung in Warschau am Sonntag bei Twitter. Sie verwies dabei auf eine Erklärung des polnischen Generalstabs vom Donnerstag. Darin hieß es, alle polnischen Kampfflugzeuge vom Typ MiG-29 blieben auf ihren Heimatbasen, sie seien außerdem mit dem rot-weißen Hoheitszeichen der polnischen Luftwaffe markiert.
Zuvor hatten mehrere Medien berichtet, Polen werde der Ukraine MiG-Kampfjets zu Verfügung stellen und erhalte dafür von den USA Kampfflugzeuge vom Typ F-16.
US-Außenminister Antony Blinken bestätigte bei einer Pressekonferenz in Moldau auf eine Frage hin solche Überlegungen: „Wir sehen uns derzeit aktiv die Frage von Flugzeugen an, die Polen an die Ukraine liefern könnte. Und wie wir dann nachliefern könnten, sollte Polen sich entschließen (...) diese Flugzeuge zu liefern.“ Dafür gebe es keinen Zeitplan, aber man schaue sich das „sehr, sehr aktiv an“
https://www.focus.de/politik/ausland..._52139887.html
" 15:51 MEZ .Poland repeats its refusal to either deliver Soviet-era planes to Ukraine, or allow its bases to be used to fly these aircraft . We are giving significant help in other areas." This was a Polish government statement on Twitter. Blinken's remarks are simply that the US is actively studying the possibility of supplying F-16's to replace the Mig 29's if Poland were to decide to send any to Ukraine.( this in reply to a question at a press-conference).
15.51 Uhr: Polen hat erneut Berichten widersprochen, wonach das Land die Ukraine mit Kampfflugzeugen sowjetischer Bauart ausstatten will. „Polen wird seine Kampfjets nicht in die Ukraine schicken und auch nicht erlauben, seine Flughäfen zu nutzen. Wir helfen ganz erheblich in vielen anderen Bereichen“, erklärte die Regierung in Warschau am Sonntag bei Twitter. Sie verwies dabei auf eine Erklärung des polnischen Generalstabs vom Donnerstag. Darin hieß es, alle polnischen Kampfflugzeuge vom Typ MiG-29 blieben auf ihren Heimatbasen, sie seien außerdem mit dem rot-weißen Hoheitszeichen der polnischen Luftwaffe markiert.
Zuvor hatten mehrere Medien berichtet, Polen werde der Ukraine MiG-Kampfjets zu Verfügung stellen und erhalte dafür von den USA Kampfflugzeuge vom Typ F-16.
US-Außenminister Antony Blinken bestätigte bei einer Pressekonferenz in Moldau auf eine Frage hin solche Überlegungen: „Wir sehen uns derzeit aktiv die Frage von Flugzeugen an, die Polen an die Ukraine liefern könnte. Und wie wir dann nachliefern könnten, sollte Polen sich entschließen (...) diese Flugzeuge zu liefern.“ Dafür gebe es keinen Zeitplan, aber man schaue sich das „sehr, sehr aktiv an“
https://www.focus.de/politik/ausland..._52139887.html
I very much doubt a no-fly zone could be implemented be under the auspices of the UN for a simple reason that has been repeated ad nauseum on this thread. That said, there does appear to be a head of steam building for some sort of air intervention, whether it be boosting the Ukrainian AF with legacy eastern European fighters (the Yanks seem to be warming to this idea after the EU got cold feet), or something more as alluded to be a former US ambassador on Sky this morning (in essence a defensive no-fly zone over Kiev and the west of the country with very clear RoE i.e. only to fire on aircraft or helicopters if they entered and then refused to leave after warnings). Not quite sure how the Ukrainian AF would fit into the latter - if they flew a sortie over the east of the country and then were engaged by the Russian air force, could they scoot back to the west and gain the protection of patrolling NATO aircraft (as sort of happened in Libya with the ground war)?
Is possible the UN could offer a way out for Russia if their military continues to struggle i.e. them to request a UN mandated ceasefire and peacekeepers, they keeping their forces in place wherever they are, Putin announcing "mission accomplished" and his military going back to the drawing board to figure out exactly what this all means for future of the country (i.e whether they are well and truly f*cked and will eventually become a Chinese satellite state).
Is possible the UN could offer a way out for Russia if their military continues to struggle i.e. them to request a UN mandated ceasefire and peacekeepers, they keeping their forces in place wherever they are, Putin announcing "mission accomplished" and his military going back to the drawing board to figure out exactly what this all means for future of the country (i.e whether they are well and truly f*cked and will eventually become a Chinese satellite state).
What would really put that into perspective is if someone bought a lot of Airfix kits, made up the right amount of models to match those numbers and then photographed them. For starters, just think of the floorspace you'd need to display them all
- and I'm being serious ... a way to turn statistics into something tangible/understandable
- and I'm being serious ... a way to turn statistics into something tangible/understandable
Russia warning to Ukraine Neighbours ref aircraft
Russia on Sunday warned Ukraine's neighbours including NATO member Romania against hosting Kyiv's military aircraft, saying they could end up being involved in an armed conflict. (msn.com)
Russia on Sunday warned Ukraine's neighbours including NATO member Romania against hosting Kyiv's military aircraft, saying they could end up being involved in an armed conflict.
"We know for sure that Ukrainian combat aircraft have flown to Romania and other neighbouring countries," defence ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov said in a video briefing.
"The use of the airfield network of these countries for basing Ukrainian military aviation with the subsequent use of force against Russia's army can be regarded as the involvement of these states in an armed conflict."
bur/imm
Russia on Sunday warned Ukraine's neighbours including NATO member Romania against hosting Kyiv's military aircraft, saying they could end up being involved in an armed conflict.
"We know for sure that Ukrainian combat aircraft have flown to Romania and other neighbouring countries," defence ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov said in a video briefing.
"The use of the airfield network of these countries for basing Ukrainian military aviation with the subsequent use of force against Russia's army can be regarded as the involvement of these states in an armed conflict."
bur/imm
Footage of another downed helicopter - it might well be the one from yesterday? It appears to be a Hind
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vG64vMOoxmw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vG64vMOoxmw
Last edited by Ewan Whosearmy; 6th Mar 2022 at 18:42.
India voted with Russia, and are dependant on them for most of their weapons (excepting instant sunshine, of course). Gravitas news is an Indian based entity. Why am I not surprised that they are peddling Putin's line. The USA promised this that and the other and it was never written down, but Russia trusted this agreemnt implicitly. By the way Obba, I have a very nice bridge to sell you.
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/n...nderperforming
Janes Defence with their opinion of the performance of the Russian Air force (VKS ) to date
Janes Defence with their opinion of the performance of the Russian Air force (VKS ) to date
I found this a very good link explaining as to why this all started.
It appears from the link that NATO was getting to close...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFGEhtnUzJQ
It appears from the link that NATO was getting to close...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFGEhtnUzJQ
That's an actual agreement.
The "but he said" claim was never formalized. Dear silly Indian Lady, the US had an administration change in 1992 that substantially veered off course, policy wise, on a variety of topics_ so that aspirational point (and possibly the better idea, who knows) was not formalized by an agreement.
Too bad, perhaps, but nobody was willing to put in the work.
All politicians know that words are hot air, hence the hard work that goes into coordinating, negotiating, and signing actual international agreements ~ see the hard work that went into the Iran nuc deal that so many European governments signed up to. See the hard work that went into SALT, START, CFE, IMF, the various nuclear weapons stockpile reductions.
None of that happened under "but he said" - it took the hard staff work that was needed to get an agreement that both sides could live with.
(A friend of mine spent a few years on the traveling team that inspected the cutting in half of bombers during the 90's).
This journalist's spin is very careful what facts it omits, isn't it?
The above considered. I was not a fan of NATO expansion. To a certain extent, I didn't mind having having Poland and Czech republic on side - but from where I sit EU membership suffices. That the EU is utter garbage as a collective security organization isn't America's fault.
Given the long history of cultural ties to Central and Western Europe (they were a part of Christendom, if you like) it made a sort of sense but Article 5 is a non trivial guarantee. Fast forward a few years, and the "let's add Georgia" nonsense in 2008.
That was disgustingly bad foreign policy.
I never saw how Kosovo's issues were anything close to an actual American security concern (1999) nor how Slovenia's security is either, in that round of NATO expansion. (Given that the Swiss manage to stay unconquered in their mountain homes as well, can someone tell my how Slovenia is even threatened by anyone? They were the first to give the Serbs the middle finger, successfully, and that problem subsequently got solved).
For that matter, North and Atlantic Georgia isn't and never was. The signal that sent was obtuse and the opposite of confidence building.
I get the requests by the Baltic states to join the EU and NATO. Lot's of history of cultural ties and links facing west from there. On top of that, the 1940's annexation by the USSR is still a close enough memory to inform paranoia as regards Russia (just as some of the banana republics are wary of American intentions, even to this day). But is Article 5 the correct posture for NATO in that case? I guess that it was, if one is to believe the 19+ NATO members who voted yes, but I don't think so.
Final score on the video clip: about a 2.5 out of 10.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 6th Mar 2022 at 22:02.
The above considered. I was not a fan of NATO expansion. To a certain extent, I didn't mind having having Poland and Czech republic on side - but from where I sit EU membership suffices. That the EU is utter garbage as a collective security organization isn't America's fault.
.
