Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

gangmasterfader t1_j6lc861 wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#1,641,975)

What the US has been sending so far is pretty much limited in range, while an F16 as a multi role "fighter" could strike deeper in to Russian territory.

That's probably a red line we don't need to cross.

131

theoldgreenwalrus t1_j6lculw wrote

Biden has a tough job of balancing helping Ukraine and not starting WWIII. I think he's done pretty well so far. We can help Ukraine in other ways without F-16s

150

flaker111 t1_j6lenz2 wrote

Replying to theoldgreenwalrus (#1,642,607)

tbh WWWIII will happen at some point. we as a species waste so much time, energy and skill into killing each other.....

really wish we had aliens so we can all finally have the same goals ie not die by aliens

−59

Admirable_Nothing t1_j6lfwy2 wrote

I would think Ukraine would be better off with A-10s than F-16s.

−7

kache4korpses t1_j6lgoy5 wrote

I am concerned that EU and US will piss off Russian/Putin to the point he will sell NW to Iran.

−30

FelixSupro t1_j6lk9kh wrote

What would you do if I told you the Biden admin instigated this entire war on Nov 10th, 2021 with the signing of the US-Ukraine Charter of Strategic Partnership? Also, what if I said they will intentionally drag our country into to war to divert from their abysmal economic policies that have caused the greatest depletion in household savings since WWII? Open your eyes. The modern dem party is 90% lawyers. It’s a club of the elite and soon our fellow citizens will be cannon fodder

−98

pegothejerk t1_j6lkinw wrote

Replying to gangmasterfader (#1,644,121)

I don't know about nothing to gain, there's always something to gain even from the worst choices, but there's definitely far more advantage to keeping Russia in a proxy war in a border country to Russia rather than spilling it into their country and then into ours.

2

Draker-X t1_j6llm2b wrote

Replying to FelixSupro (#1,645,042)

>What would you do if I told you the Biden admin instigated this entire war on Nov 10th, 2021 with the signing of the US-Ukraine Charter of Strategic Partnership?

Ignore you like I ignore the crazy people on the street that also babble bullshit?

45

ConstantAmazement t1_j6lm37c wrote

Replying to FelixSupro (#1,645,042)

Wow! Quite the gaslighting fear-monger, aren't you!

What would you do if I told you that Russia instigated this entire war by unjustifiably invading a sovereign country? Also, what if I reminded you that the largest modern tax breaks for the top 10% have devastated our national economy? Open your eyes? The modern Repub party also wants to end Medicare and Social Security. Stop voting against your own interests. Support your progressive candidates.

37

FelixSupro t1_j6lm6c8 wrote

Replying to Draker-X (#1,645,525)

Babble bullshit? really?? directly from the state dept. Putin is a maniac, no question but the dude has said publicly for 20 years he wouldn’t tolerate US missles on his border. Would we tolerate Russian missles in Toronto pointed at us? You Reddit loons are living in a bubble.. Here’s the link btw… In your weak minds, “Putin’s Price Hike!” 😂🤣

https://www.state.gov/u-s-ukraine-charter-on-strategic-partnership/

−54

FelixSupro t1_j6lmhxd wrote

Replying to ConstantAmazement (#1,645,671)

you realize the wealthiest party by far is the democrat party? It’s not even close!! Look up the data of the wealthiest neighborhoods in the entire country and then view their party association.. Those evil republicans tho.. It’s quite simple.. control the media, control the masses..

−50

ConstantAmazement t1_j6lmpza wrote

Replying to kache4korpses (#1,643,873)

Hasn't it occurred to you that the modern state of Iran is capable of making nuclear weapons all by itself? Think about it! North Korea has them. Iran is well aware that Israel would bomb them if they actually acquired them.

20

MoonRakerWindow t1_j6ln0au wrote

Replying to gangmasterfader (#1,644,121)

No that my opinion matters in the grand scheme, but this is what I want for Ukraine:

  • Ukraine retakes all of its territory, including Crimea.

  • Ukraine pushes Russian forces off its soil.

  • Ukraine is in a position to defend itself from future attacks.

Although I get the strategic logic of striking Russia to help further those 3 goals, I think it would cause more problems than it solves.

After Ukraine retakes all of its territory, pushes Russia out, and these is an end to hostilities, THEN it makes sense for Ukraine to acquire more long range weapons. They would provide a strong deterrent from Russia invading again.

12

pegothejerk t1_j6lnu8d wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#1,645,597)

You wouldn't have to tuck when you perform drag, you'd fit in tighter jean, you wouldn't have to wonder if it's really average size anymore, you'd no longer have to fear your dick getting cut off anymore, you could focus more on prostate orgasms, all sorts of things. Lots of downsides, too, of course.

23

allannon t1_j6lrq6g wrote

Replying to Admirable_Nothing (#1,643,613)

I'd honestly think something like a Super Turcano over A-10.

They don't have the bitchin' gun, but are still in actual production and probably simpler.

But I don't think either would be a great option for contested airspace.

4

senselesssht t1_j6m4gd1 wrote

Stupid title OP. Actual title: Western allies differ over jets for Ukraine as Russia claims gains

−7

crackhousebob t1_j6m5h3k wrote

It takes years to train combat pilots and the ground crews to operate an F-16 squadron. Then Ukraine has to be able to handle the logistics of fuel, armament, and maintenance all while actively at war.

By the time the Ukrainian air force is up to speed, the war will likely be over.

14

ReverendDerp t1_j6m8l73 wrote

I'm not seeing much of anyone else else saying it; Joe Biden is a bitch.

−38

pEppapiGistfuhrer t1_j6m9jod wrote

Replying to Admirable_Nothing (#1,643,613)

The A-10 would be utterly useless, its a bad aircraft that was outdated when it came out and only useable against insurgents armed 50's technology. They didnt even have any up to date optics or observation systems and instead the pilot had to use literal binoculars to spot targets which led to some of the highest amounts friendly fire incidents recorded with combat aircraft

15

McCree114 t1_j6mevmv wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#1,651,089)

Yeah this is what people don't understand. It's not a videogame where Ukrainian pilots can just hop into any aircraft and go. All these Abrams, Bradleys, Patriot systems, etc that we're sending over will require conversions and training/retraining for the crews and maintenance techs.

19

monogreenforthewin t1_j6mhjxe wrote

Replying to Draker-X (#1,645,444)

honestly it's probably safer to have now then 150 years of WMD development before we do. not saying i want to happen or anything but massive damage and loss of life is better than world ending damage and loss of life.

−15

jens-2420 t1_j6mitct wrote

One of the real questions is: Do „we“ want Ukraine to win the war and Russia to lose?

Or will we be content with a final stand-off, parts of Ukraine gone, and EU paying for the rebuilding of the rest-Ukraine? And everybody preparing for the next Russian invasion.

−6

Bitter_Director1231 t1_j6mmugz wrote

It's sounds like we aren't helping them, but the logistics to get this going is massive. Plus they can be used to go much deeper past the border of Ukraine , which would result in NATO getting dragged into conflict we don't want.

Arming them with anti aircraft and tanks in plentiful amounts is the best strategy we can give them.

0

Jeremycycles t1_j6mnsif wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#1,641,975)

F16's would absolutely decimate Russian tank forces. It is the golden standard for air to surface combat, and it doesn't need support aircraft to protect it since it is also very capable against air attacks.

10

D_REASONABLE_OPPZ t1_j6mpvq9 wrote

Duh.

Because it's obviously the F-15s you need to be using if you want to overturn the government.

−3

Left_Ya_Dirty t1_j6ms71v wrote

I’m a little worried that over diversification of equipment is going to create a distraction within the Ukrainian military.

−1

Grammarnazi_bot t1_j6mwwfa wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#1,654,279)

Approximately only 50% of Ukrainians can speak English, and the Ukrainian army is not composed of professional pilots. It’s best for their national security if things are translated, because a coin flip on whether or not they’ll easily learn things is not exactly a good thing

−12

Indy_IT_Guy t1_j6n8ruu wrote

Replying to Left_Ya_Dirty (#1,657,658)

It might, but honestly if you look at the history of warfare, it’s pretty common.

Even in World War II, you saw the Axis forces using the weapons of the conquered nations to augment what they could produced, as well as some of the Allied nations as well.

Going further back, WWI had all sides doing that. The same with the American Civil War, where both sides were using anything they could get their hands on.

It does cause challenges… but on the other hand, something is better than nothing.

That all being said, this whole thing about sending them Abrams is dumb. They didn’t even want them. They wanted Leopards, but the Germans refused to send some and allow other nations (like Poland) to send theirs unless the U.S. sent Abrams.

So we send a token force that end up sitting somewhere or maybe make up a specialized unit, and the Ukrainians get what they actually wanted.

3

Panaka t1_j6nn763 wrote

Replying to Jeremycycles (#1,656,300)

All that doesn’t matter if the plane can’t get within weapons range of their target. Currently the Russians are using long range weapons to suppress the Ukrainian Air Force, mainly from within Russia. In order to hit tanks, they’d first have to knock out Migs and S-300/400 in Russia. The weapons the F-16 uses to engage in BVR fights like this aren’t something most of NATO want to send.

7

joshemerson OP t1_j6ocadg wrote

Replying to ggood2 (#1,675,501)

I copied and pasted it. That was yesterday. I’ve seen news sites change article titles.. I think it’s stupid, but I’m assuming it’s cause the original title wasn’t getting enough clicks.

8

jlaw54 t1_j6opgsg wrote

Replying to crackhousebob (#1,651,173)

The training and logistics issues keep getting thrown around, except they keep getting overcome again and again. Patriot batteries are massively complex and they are moving ahead just fine.

NATO and the US aren’t just providing weapons systems, they have also focused on training how to use them and also how to re-supply and maintain them. Creating a modern, efficient logistics infrastructure is a MASSIVE focus in Ukraine by the US and western powers. And it’s working.

People consistently underestimate the adaptability of human beings. People also consistently underestimate what is possible during war. The impossible has been done time and time again in the history of humankind when it comes to war. And the covert action supporting logistical and other efforts inside Ukraine should not be discounted. They have advisors helping them each and every step of the way.

5

Al_Bundy_14 t1_j6os2s7 wrote

It’s for the best. If 1 guy went on a rogue bombing run inside Russia shit would hit the fan.

0

DaveFromBPT t1_j6owpbt wrote

Maybe Sweden can give them some Saab Grippens

7

geriatric-sanatore t1_j6oxtj8 wrote

Replying to jlaw54 (#1,680,302)

Patriot missile operators take 13 weeks to train from this is what they look like too certified to go to war and use them. F16 pilot takes 18 months and that's not including time spent in classroom and sere training and land and water survival training and officer training which wouldn't be relevant to already certified pilots. To go from joined Air Force too piloting an F16 takes about 2 years or more depending on training availability.

2

crackhousebob t1_j6oxzc8 wrote

Replying to jlaw54 (#1,680,302)

It can be done for sure but it will take far longer than Ukraine has time for. Russia is attacking now. Ukraine is stil rife with corruption. A government minister already was caught overspending aid money on food supplies and taking a kick-back. 4th generation fighter jets are vastly more complicated than tanks, howitzers, and missle systems and corrupt officials and criminal groups need a bribe for anything to happen.

0

Admirable_Nothing t1_j6oy0ok wrote

Replying to pEppapiGistfuhrer (#1,652,299)

Spoken like a true Jet jockey, that will fly over w about 20 minutes loiter time and swoop down so fast they can't lay down accurate fire for shit, expend a ridiculously light load of ordnance and head back to the concrete airconditioned O Club to have another gin and tonic. All the while the A-10 is hanging around laying down accurate fire and making a difference to the grunt on the ground. Yep, he will get shot up while doing it but that broken airframe will carry him home to fight another day.

3

lake_titty_caca t1_j6p0gx3 wrote

Replying to HumanFuture7 (#1,684,372)

People who speak English natively generally have learned it before they learn to read. So it makes sense that there are some who never learn how to read.

People who speak English as a second language are generally not learning it as an infant / toddler, so they are much more likely to be relying on written text as part of their learning process.

Just take the L.

3

HumanFuture7 t1_j6p2k81 wrote

Replying to lake_titty_caca (#1,684,508)

> so they are much more likely to be relying on written text as part of their learning process.

More likely =/= guaranteed. Generally when learning a new language you do indeed learn how to read/write it. However that isn't always the case. If you only have conversations with friends that speak a different language how will you learn to write that language? Especially if their alphabet is different from your own.

Here's an example.

It also goes the other way, sometimes people can read/write foreign languages but are unable to speak it.

To say that there are no people that can speak but can't read a second language (in this case, English) is just plainly wrong.

>Just take the L.

Wasn't the initial commenter, no need to be a dick

−3

wessneijder t1_j6pbk5z wrote

“Britain's Ministry of Defence said the Russian force in the new Vuhledar assault was at least the size of a brigade, a unit typically comprising several thousand troops.

The Russians had advanced hundreds of metres across a river toward Vuhledar and could make more localised gains there, the ministry said in an unusually detailed daily intelligence update. It said the assault on Vuhledar was unlikely to lead to a significant breakthrough, but could be intended to draw Ukrainian efforts away from defending Bakhmut.”

9