307
submitted 1 year ago by lntl@lemmy.ml to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml

"I am writing to express the United States' full support for both the transfer of F-16 fighter aircraft to Ukraine and for the training of Ukrainian pilots by qualified F-16 instructors [...] It remains critical that Ukraine is able to defend itself against ongoing Russian aggression and violation of its sovereignty" said Blinken.

Will this solidify a Ukrainian victory?

U.S. officials have privately said that F-16 jets would have been of little help to Ukraine in its current counteroffensive and will not be a game changer when they eventually arrive given Russian air defense systems and contested skies over Ukraine

Or will Russian radar and missle systems tear them up?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] jeffw@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago

Fuck Putin, any little bit helps

[-] HappyMeatbag@beehaw.org 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Other than cost, I haven’t understood the hesitancy to give Ukraine all the weapons they ask for, immediately.

When war breaks out, it means diplomacy has failed. It only makes sense to no longer consider diplomacy a major factor when making wartime decisions - especially when providing support to a country that’s defending itself from an unprovoked invasion, which is a violation of international law. Half measures only prolong the war, which ultimately makes it more expensive for supporting countries. For Ukraine, civilians and soldiers are dying every day.

This war should have ended by now. I’m glad that most of the world is condemning Putin, but we’re not doing enough.

[-] unscholarly_source@lemmy.ca 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'm not an expert or anything, but as it has been explained to me, the geo-political consequences of Ukraine having NATO weapons is enormous.. If Ukraine were to have access to F-18s, F-35s, or any NATO asset, it would implicate NATO, and further escalate the conflict towards a NATO-Russian war (World War 3), and the precipitation of nuclear assets. This is why even France's own Dassault assets and Sweden's Saabs were not offered. F-16s are old enough, and used enough by non-NATO forces that this might be okay.

A prolonged war, while incredibly tragic, might still be less costly than World War 3...

[-] HappyMeatbag@beehaw.org 8 points 1 year ago

Grrr. Damn geopolitics. I appreciate the response, though!

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] supercriticalcheese@feddit.it 8 points 1 year ago

It takes years to train pilots, maintenance staff, logistics to bring a fighter jet to be ready into active operation in a hostile environment under normal conditions.

[-] HappyMeatbag@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago

True, but I’m not just talking about jets. I’m talking about ALL weapons, like rockets and such. There’s been resistance over a lot of things.

[-] Echo71Niner@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago

I haven’t understood the hesitancy to give Ukraine all the weapons they ask for, immediately.

It's clear that you're unaware of the extensive corruption in Ukraine. Political corruption, Bribes, Judicial corruption, Corruption in the public sector, Corruption in higher education, Corruption in the social security system, not like Russia is any different, but Ukraine like to pretend they are honest while they pickpocket you.

[-] HappyMeatbag@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I’m not unaware, but I got too worked up and simply forgot. It amounts to the same thing, though. Whoops.

You make a good point. Corruption is a good reason to think carefully about any requests. There’s no use in a country donating billions of dollars worth of military hardware unless that hardware actually makes it to the front lines.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Echo71Niner@lemm.ee 11 points 1 year ago

How fucking long have they been saying Ukraine will get F-16? The war will end before they get them! It's likely they won't be operational in Ukraine before 2025.

[-] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 5 points 1 year ago

it's very possible the war will go on way past that

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 4 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


WASHINGTON, Aug 17 (Reuters) - The United States has approved sending F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine from Denmark and the Netherlands to defend against Russian invaders as soon as pilot training is completed, a U.S. official said on Thursday.

"We welcome Washington's decision to pave the way for sending F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine," Dutch Foreign Minister Wopke Hoekstra said on messaging platform X, formerly known as Twitter.

A coalition of 11 countries will start training Ukrainian pilots to fly the F-16 fighter jets later this month in Denmark, the Danish defence ministry said on Friday.

NATO members Denmark and the Netherlands have been leading international efforts to train pilots as well as support staff, maintain aircraft and ultimately enable Ukraine to obtain F-16s for use in its war with Russia.

"I am writing to express the United States' full support for both the transfer of F-16 fighter aircraft to Ukraine and for the training of Ukrainian pilots by qualified F-16 instructors," Blinken said in a letter to the two officials, a copy of which was seen by Reuters.

Kyiv will not be able to operate U.S.-built F-16 fighter jets this coming autumn and winter, Ukraine air force spokesperson Yuriy Ihnat told Ukrainian television late on Wednesday.


The original article contains 573 words, the summary contains 207 words. Saved 64%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[-] Commiejones@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago

Did they solve the issue of F16s needing pristine runways to take off and land? Russia as been able to damage Patriot AA in the heart of Kiev months ago so any airstrip in Ukraine is basically a sitting duck. A kinzal missile has an effective range 1.5-2x a F16 and all it has to hit is the runway to ground every f16 on an airbase. That said theyd still probably get more flight time than the average F35

[-] Dolores@hexbear.net 0 points 1 year ago

europeans insisting they're independent countries but they need Uncle Sam's permission to send their own military hardware anywhere 🤔

[-] CMDR_Horn@lemmy.ml 29 points 1 year ago

Still contains secrets that the US doesn’t want to fall in to the hands of her enemies. I’m sure part of the purchasing agreement is non-transfer clauses and the such to limit the risk. That said Ukraine should’ve had access to these last year

[-] 420blazeit69@hexbear.net 7 points 1 year ago

The first F-16 flew in 1974, half a century ago. Considering how widely they've been used, no one is going to learn anything significant if a few more are shot down or captured.

[-] ikilledtheradiostar@hexbear.net 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Which is going to happen 30s after getting into country. The weapons trickle is a cruel joke at this point. The last Ukrainian to die is going to be in an Abrahams.

[-] Firemyth@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah? And the last Russian to die is going to be in a recommissioned t55.

[-] Hyperreality@kbin.social 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Sorry, but I'm going to be blunt. This is an ill informed comment. This is in fact normal with most weapons sales. For example:

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/swiss-government-refuses-re-export-arms-ukraine-2023-03-10/

By your logic, Denmark, Germany and Spain aren't independent of Switzerland, simply because they were able to refuse reexport. But of course that's nonsense. It's just that arms and weapons contract invariably include clauses which prohibit reexport without permission of the country of origin. To not include these clauses would make weapons trafficking far too easy. Simply export to a second country which isn't on the sanctions list, then have them re-export to another country, then another country, then another country, then North Korea or wherever because the second to final country doesn't have laws that prohibit it or has insufficient checks.

In this case, the US doing it publically bolsters US allies. The US has publicly said it's ok, so that if shit hits the fan, the US can't say "we didn't approve of this weapons sale, so it's their own problem".

Also, don't forget that the F16 is used as a delivery mechanism for nuclear weapons as part of nuclear sharing, so it's not a crate of automatic rifles. It's a serious escalation, given the Russians can never be entirely sure that the Ukrainian F16 flying towards their border isn't actually a Dutch F16 armed with nukes. In the case of the Netherlands the B61 with a yield of 300 kilotons of which IRC they have 200 of at their disposal if shit hits the fan. The US really isn't the bad guy for including stringent conditions on the reexport of a plane potentially capable of nuking Moscow.

TLDR The US may have undue influence on smaller NATO members, but this really isn't a good example of that.

[-] Ooops@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

By your logic, Denmark, Germany and Spain aren't independent of Switzerland

By his logic the US isn't independent of Norway because they couldn't send NASAMS to Ukraine without approval...

So his "logic" might just be bullshit.

[-] Madison_rogue@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Since it's an arms deals via NATO, with weapons provided by the U.S., it seems fairly obvious the terms of the treaty include consent and/or approval when repurposing arms to non-member states.

[-] Ooops@kbin.social 15 points 1 year ago

Welcome to the real world where US jets can't be re-exported without the US' approval, where nobody can re-export Isreali-build missiles without Israel's approval, where Switzerland blocks the delivery of ammunition produced by a Swiss company or where Estonia couldn't even send old howitzers to Ukraine without Germany's approval although those were actually soviet-build and only for a short time owned by Germany (via ex-GDR stocks)...

This has exactly zero to do with the US or Europe but with the internationally agreed terms of arms export that absolutely everyone agreed upon... or most arms trade would mostly cease to exist.

But that's okay... we can live with the US being dependent on Europeans to send NASAMS to Ukraine and having to ask for approval first.

But nice atttempt at trolling...

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Lols@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

europeans do not need uncle sams permission to send their own military hardware anywhere, they need uncle sams permission to send US patented and classified materials anywhere

similar to how the US needs permission to send [european country here]'s patented and classified materials anywhere

[-] sunbeam60@lemmy.one 2 points 1 year ago

Correct! If the US wanted to send a batch of their NSMs to another country, sure as shit Norway would need to approve first.

It’s got zero to do with European independence and everything to do with how a purchasing contract is set up.

[-] Firemyth@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago
[-] Commiejones@hexbear.net 4 points 1 year ago

HA! And now you have been hexed too! If you were quiet we wouldn't have known to hex you but now you will forever be noticing that your shoes are untied and have rocks in them. haha ha ha!

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2023
307 points (97.8% liked)

World News

32353 readers
357 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS