Europe under extreme duress

[jmcquate]

We shouldn’t be too smug…this fellow got all the way to America’s “first” back yard!

Don't forget this guy. He's the reason Pennsylvania Ave. was permanently close in front of the White House.

 

[Griz882]

Don't forget this guy. He's the reason Pennsylvania Ave. was permanently close in front of the White House.
View attachment 34658

Ahhhh….the “first” 9/11. I always thought that was more a case of AWI (aviating while intoxicated) than publicly stunt.

 

[jmcquate]

Ahhhh….the “first” 9/11. I always thought that was more a case of AWI (aviating while intoxicated) than publicly stunt.

...................a little from column A, and a little from column B.

 

[MIDNJAC]

Should we really launch them, though? I'll be the devil's advocate here.

With our 2 options as I see them being 1. Let Putin invade and play his cards while cutting him and anyone who supports him (ie China) off completely from the rest of the world, and 2. Nuking him as you suggested, let's ask ourselves some questions.

Which option leads to more death and destruction? Which puts the U.S. and our allies in a better position at the end of the day? Which is better for the citizens of the world?

I'd argue that on all accounts, not unleashing nuclear war on Russia (with their likely retaliation destroying us) is the winner. If anything, the war in Ukraine has shown me that Russia does not have the capability of holding any territory they actually take, not in Ukraine and much less if Putin continues to spread himself thinner. Could he take Finland, Ukraine, the Baltics... Maybe for awhile at great cost, but in doing so he would be sealing his fate, exhaust his capabilities, and ruin Russia. He'd get overthrown and all those territories would be free again. Fall of the Soviet Union all over again.

Put another way, arent you glad the Cold War didn't become nuclear at its height and we instead allowed the USSR to exhaust itself and collapse?

I probably could have been more clear with my thoughts. I am certainly NOT suggesting we should launch a nuclear attack over Ukraine. That would do the exact opposite of everything we hope to accomplish. What I'm saying is that I believe Ukraine serves two purposes for Putin, that basically are one in the same. He is seeking to expand his empire, first with Ukraine as a test, and then quite possibly elsewhere. I'm saying that we need adjust our collective mindset that we very well may be forced into a future nuclear crisis over Russian aggression into a NATO former-SSR (such as Poland). The threat of Article 5 carries no weight if Putin truly believes we won't actually do it. Your point about whether he actually could accomplish this is valid. I agree, at this point, probably not. At least not without using nuclear arms. But the main point is that we need to make Ukraine a stunning example of that, so that he isn't emboldened to continue. Bottom line, I agree, the nuclear option is absolutely not warranted over Ukraine or at this point in time in general.

 

[Random8145]

We shouldn’t be too smug…this fellow got all the way to America’s “first” back yard!

Yeah but he didn't fly all the way from Europe and enter U.S. airspace undetected.

 

[jmcquate]

But the main point is that we need to make Ukraine a stunning example of that, so that he isn't emboldened to continue.

That might have already happened.

 

[Griz882]

Yeah but he didn't fly all the way from Europe and enter U.S. airspace undetected.

All the way from Europe? Your guy flew from Finland to Moscow…under 500 miles…hardly high end aerial navigation. My guy, on the other hand, not only stole his helicopter, he circled up the Washington Monument, buzzed the Lincoln Memorial, and got away with nothing more than General Discharge at his court martial!

 

[jmcquate]

All the way from Europe? Your guy flew from Finland to Moscow…under 500 miles…hardly high end aerial navigation. My guy, on the other hand, not only stole his helicopter, he circled up the Washington Monument, buzzed the Lincoln Memorial, and got away with nothing more than General Discharge at his court martial!

MERICA............FUCK YA!

 

[wink]

All the way from Europe? Your guy flew from Finland to Moscow…under 500 miles…hardly high end aerial navigation. My guy, on the other hand, not only stole his helicopter, he circled up the Washington Monument, buzzed the Lincoln Memorial, and got away with nothing more than General Discharge at his court martial!

And isn't that why, to this day, Army helicopters have keys? Crusty 'ol Maintenance Control Chief is a big enough pain in the ass. Imagine if you had to have him toss ya the keys to your aircraft with a snotty comment like bring her back full of gas, be in by 10:00, park it under a light or clean the White Castle bags out when you are done.

 

[jmcquate]

My guy did every thing the Helo guy did, but he was hammered. There's gotta be some degree of difficulty scoring for that.

 

[Griz882]

My guy did every thing the Helo guy did, but he was hammered. There's gotta be some degree of difficulty scoring for that.

At least. Russian “9” in the WTF Olympics.

 

[Flash]

Thought this analysis was interesting. I also wholeheartedly agree that it is quite ironic (and IMO arrogant) for us to tell the Ukrainians that Mig-29s from Poland won't help them:

There is so much wrong with the debate surrounding the offer to transfer the Polish MiG-29's to Ukraine it is hard to know where to begin. There are so many questions that are unanswered or that folks don't know from the condition of the the Polish Fulcrums to their compatibility with Ukrainian ones to just how they would be transported to Ukraine, with countless more unanswered questions in between.

To be frank I really don't think there is a much more the Ukrainians can do with a just a squadron or two's worth of very short-legged air defense fighter that is well over 30 years old. They aren't going to gain anything near air superiority over the Russians and they could much better use ground attack aircraft, manned or unmanned, than a fighter with very minimal air to ground capability (if any) on a plane with half the range of a Hornet.

Last but definitely not least that a transfer of fighter jets could possibly trigger an outsized reaction from Russia. As has been exemplified by the inordinate public attention focused on this there is a lot of outsized and disproportionate emotion attached to fighter aircraft and their exploits. In reality the transfer of a mere squadron or two of MiG-29's to Ukraine will likely accomplish very little especially when compared to the massive transfer of thousands of ATGM's and MANPAD's that are actually making a difference in the war.

 

[vxc961]

Thanks. Good points. I think I was one of the guys hoping this goes through, largely for the symbolism and because the Ukraine gov is asking for them, but it seems like it’s not the panacea I sort of thought it was. I still hope Ukraine can pull this off somehow!

 

[wink]

There are so many questions that are unanswered or that folks don't know from the condition of the the Polish Fulcrums to their compatibility with Ukrainian ones to just how they would be transported to Ukraine, with countless more unanswered questions in between.

Saw a "defense expert" identified as a former Thunderbird Commander blythly dismiss transport concerns by claiming trucking 25+ MIG 29s was no big deal.

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

than a fighter with very minimal air to ground capability (if any) on a plane with half the range of a Hornet.

Well, MiG-29 commonly dubbed as "fighter of its own base air defence", indeed.
I think this deal makes mainly political sense and not too much military one. Patriot batteries may have another proportion, but the question remains: how to defend them while Russian AF controls the air? There's no impressive SEAD doctrine in that AF and not many means for it, but RU TLAMs, land-to-land missiles and SOF would hunt them too...