fallap wrote:

art wrote:

What would you think about fighters or SAM's in Poland launching against incoming missiles while they are still in Ukrainian airspace? The only way to stop them entering Polish airspace is to destroy them before they get there.

Unless it is 120% verified and confirmed that the missile is heading towards Poland, then I am against that as well. Under no circumstances should NATO forces engage ANY target inside Ukrainian territory. We are treading on eggshells here.

Poland is a sovereign state. Are you implying that an independent country cannot take measures to defend itself from attack because it joined NATO?

art wrote:

art wrote:

fallap wrote:

What would you think about fighters or SAM's in Poland launching against incoming missiles while they are still in Ukrainian airspace? The only way to stop them entering Polish airspace is to destroy them before they get there.

Unless it is 120% verified and confirmed that the missile is heading towards Poland, then I am against that as well. Under no circumstances should NATO forces engage ANY target inside Ukrainian territory. We are treading on eggshells here.

Poland is a sovereign state. Are you implying that an independent country cannot take measures to defend itself from attack because it joined NATO?

Any nation has the right to defend itself, if Russia, or anyone else for that matter, launches an attack against NATO, then article 5 would be invoked with everything that follows. But it would be reckless to begin defending your country inside Ukrainian territory during a war that involves a nuclear armed actor. Especially since this was a minor incident, and because it is the first of its kind in a war that has lasted for a good 9 months now.

fallap wrote:

... it is the first of its kind in a war that has lasted for a good 9 months now.

True. But this missile straying into Polish air space with tragic results raises the question of whether NATO members forfeit the right to act militarily as sovereign states once they join NATO. My contention is that they do not. Your contention seems to be that they do.

GDB wrote:

Ward Carroll, former F-14 Crew, meets in person Justin Bronk of the RUSI, to discuss the air war, air defence, what we have learned about early on, challenges now and ahead;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYDnspMWdaM

Very astute, differentiated and plausible as far as I can tell.

Pretty dense and jargon-heavy (fortunately with abbreviations subtitled) but extremely interesting especially since there has been relatively little differentiated information in the public domain about the aerial situation!

fallap wrote:

art wrote:

art wrote:

Poland is a sovereign state. Are you implying that an independent country cannot take measures to defend itself from attack because it joined NATO?

Any nation has the right to defend itself, if Russia, or anyone else for that matter, launches an attack against NATO, then article 5 would be invoked with everything that follows. But it would be reckless to begin defending your country inside Ukrainian territory during a war that involves a nuclear armed actor. Especially since this was a minor incident, and because it is the first of its kind in a war that has lasted for a good 9 months now.

Invoking art. 5 is an option, not automatic. The country that has been attacked is the one to consider whether doing it or not.

scbriml wrote:

If we accept the growing belief that the missile that hit Poland was indeed one fired by Ukraine, for me there are two immediate take-aways:

1 - nobody believes Russia, even when they’re telling the truth

2 - Zelenskyy was too quick to play the “This was a direct attack on NATO” card.

The first is an obvious consequence of Russia’s duplicitous nature throughout the war and it’s constantly pathetic claims it doesn’t hit civilian targets. Nobody would have been surprised by a Russian denial followed by clear evidence that they did it.

Does Zelenskyy just ignore this, or how does he row it back while maintaining the huge credit that he’s built up through this barbaric attack by Russia?

Very well observed. To answer the question: Zelensky could play the NATO card because it was the first time it happend. Yes, he and the Ukrainians are having a lot of credit, but IMO he can’t do it the next time when it happens again. It’s more or less the same as when he asked multiple times for a few 100 HIMARS. I can imagine someone in Washington and some in Brussels are saying to him: “ssst, be less vocal next time and we will accept this collateral damage.”

JJJ wrote:

fallap wrote:

art wrote:

Poland is a sovereign state. Are you implying that an independent country cannot take measures to defend itself from attack because it joined NATO?

Any nation has the right to defend itself, if Russia, or anyone else for that matter, launches an attack against NATO, then article 5 would be invoked with everything that follows. But it would be reckless to begin defending your country inside Ukrainian territory during a war that involves a nuclear armed actor. Especially since this was a minor incident, and because it is the first of its kind in a war that has lasted for a good 9 months now.

Invoking art. 5 is an option, not automatic. The country that has been attacked is the one to consider whether doing it or not.

I'm perfectly aware of that. Thank you.

fallap wrote:

Under no circumstances should NATO forces engage ANY target inside Ukrainian territory. We are treading on eggshells here.

Agree. NATO should not be involved.

As a technicality, NATO is not providing arms and intelligence to Ukraine. Individual member states are.

So if Poland and Ukraine sign a deal for the Polish Airforce to project its air coverage 40 km into Ukrainian air space to prevent stray missiles, then it would be a legitimate treaty. Similar to how a NATO member state have agreed to provide air cover for other member state after the latter donated its aircrafts to Ukraine.

If Poland loses airplanes while doing this, it would not drag in NATO.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

fallap wrote:

Under no circumstances should NATO forces engage ANY target inside Ukrainian territory. We are treading on eggshells here.

Agree. NATO should not be involved.

As a technicality, NATO is not providing arms and intelligence to Ukraine. Individual member states are.

So if Poland and Ukraine sign a deal for the Polish Airforce to project its air coverage 40 km into Ukrainian air space to prevent stray missiles, then it would be a legitimate treaty. Similar to how a NATO member state have agreed to provide air cover for other member state after the latter donated its aircrafts to Ukraine.

If Poland loses airplanes while doing this, it would not drag in NATO.

bt

That sounds to me like a better idea than any suggestion that Poland should simply absorb any death and damage from errant missiles to avoid the risk of NATO getting involved.

Kind of funny really. Turkey, a NATO member, have been protecting its borders for years by projecting its forces in to Syria and even shot down a Russian plane.

Not much talk about involking NATO article then.

bt

scbriml wrote:

If we accept the growing belief that the missile that hit Poland was indeed one fired by Ukraine, for me there are two immediate take-aways:

1 - nobody believes Russia, even when they’re telling the truth

2 - Zelenskyy was too quick to play the “This was a direct attack on NATO” card.

The first is an obvious consequence of Russia’s duplicitous nature throughout the war and it’s constantly pathetic claims it doesn’t hit civilian targets. Nobody would have been surprised by a Russian denial followed by clear evidence that they did it.

Does Zelenskyy just ignore this, or how does he row it back while maintaining the huge credit that he’s built up through this barbaric attack by Russia?

It's an interesting test, isn't it?

Since he wants reparations from Russia, he should lead by example and offer to pay reparations to this farmer's family. Good opportunity to show statesmanship instead of barbarism.

art wrote:

True. But this missile straying into Polish air space with tragic results raises the question of whether NATO members forfeit the right to act militarily as sovereign states once they join NATO. My contention is that they do not. Your contention seems to be that they do.

Think of NATO as a giant insurance policy. Would you do something your insurance company didn't want you to do? You could, but then maybe the insurance company drags their feet next time you file a claim.

Russia and China lost the war of words over the word "war":

A draft declaration from G20 leaders said “most members strongly condemned the war in Ukraine”, demanding Russia’s “complete and unconditional withdrawal” from its neighbour’s territory. The reference to war is a rejection of Russia’s claim that it is involved in a “special military operation”. But it also said “there were other views and different assessments of the situation and sanctions”, reflecting the divisions among G20 states over Russia. The declaration warns that “the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons is inadmissible. The peaceful resolution of conflicts, efforts to address crises, as well as diplomacy and dialogue, are vital. Today’s era must not be of war.”

Ref: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/ ... e-invasion

scbriml wrote:

If we accept the growing belief that the missile that hit Poland was indeed one fired by Ukraine, for me there are two immediate take-aways:

1 - nobody believes Russia, even when they’re telling the truth

2 - Zelenskyy was too quick to play the “This was a direct attack on NATO” card.

The first is an obvious consequence of Russia’s duplicitous nature throughout the war and it’s constantly pathetic claims it doesn’t hit civilian targets. Nobody would have been surprised by a Russian denial followed by clear evidence that they did it.

Does Zelenskyy just ignore this, or how does he row it back while maintaining the huge credit that he’s built up through this barbaric attack by Russia?

I would add:

3 - The West closed the case within 24h by being open and truthfull.

Jalap wrote:

scbriml wrote:

If we accept the growing belief that the missile that hit Poland was indeed one fired by Ukraine, for me there are two immediate take-aways:

1 - nobody believes Russia, even when they’re telling the truth

2 - Zelenskyy was too quick to play the “This was a direct attack on NATO” card.

The first is an obvious consequence of Russia’s duplicitous nature throughout the war and it’s constantly pathetic claims it doesn’t hit civilian targets. Nobody would have been surprised by a Russian denial followed by clear evidence that they did it.

Does Zelenskyy just ignore this, or how does he row it back while maintaining the huge credit that he’s built up through this barbaric attack by Russia?

I would add:

3 - The West closed the case within 24h by being open and truthfull.

Why would they be anything else? If they wanted an excuse to get openly involved, they've had plenty of opportunities.

scbriml wrote:

Jalap wrote:

scbriml wrote:

If we accept the growing belief that the missile that hit Poland was indeed one fired by Ukraine, for me there are two immediate take-aways:

1 - nobody believes Russia, even when they’re telling the truth

2 - Zelenskyy was too quick to play the “This was a direct attack on NATO” card.

The first is an obvious consequence of Russia’s duplicitous nature throughout the war and it’s constantly pathetic claims it doesn’t hit civilian targets. Nobody would have been surprised by a Russian denial followed by clear evidence that they did it.

Does Zelenskyy just ignore this, or how does he row it back while maintaining the huge credit that he’s built up through this barbaric attack by Russia?

I would add:

3 - The West closed the case within 24h by being open and truthfull.

Why would they be anything else? If they wanted an excuse to get openly involved, they've had plenty of opportunities.

Not to get openly involved of course. Though it could be used to put more pressure, more sanctions, more leverage against Russia. It could also be a selling point to the own population for more defense spending, more support for aid to Ukraine, ...

I for one find it refreshing to see this isn't being used to play games. Just truth, plain and simple.

One thing Ukraine has called out and it seems each time found to have told the truth, is this aspect of the war;
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/ ... ed-kherson

On reparations to Poland, the affected families in particular, I'm sure NATO and/or the EU can help here.
No Russian invasion, they'd still be alive after all.

Revelation wrote:

Since he wants reparations from Russia, he should lead by example and offer to pay reparations to this farmer's family. Good opportunity to show statesmanship instead of barbarism.

Yes, he has to turn it into an opportunity. Attending the funeral of the victims would also be a good look.

Revelation wrote:

Russia and China lost the war of words over the word "war"

Glad to see the 18 other Gs haven't lost their balls entirely.

Jalap wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Why would they be anything else? If they wanted an excuse to get openly involved, they've had plenty of opportunities.

Not to get openly involved of course. Though it could be used to put more pressure, more sanctions, more leverage against Russia. It could also be a selling point to the own population for more defense spending, more support for aid to Ukraine, ...

I for one find it refreshing to see this isn't being used to play games. Just truth, plain and simple.

I agree. We need to be as truthful as possible as often as possible. Facts matter. Credibility matters. As US President John Adams, a former judge, wrote, "Facts are stubborn things". Lots of Germans were led to believe their problems were all the fault of the Jews, but the fact was they were not, and that is what took hold once the Nazis were defeated. Hopefully there is a time when everyone in Russia understands that Putin was a paranoid despot willing to sacrifice everything so he could cling to power, and that his circle of oligarchs are nothing but thieves.

I hope there is a time when the Russian people finally see NATO is all about peace and not about war, that no one wants to deprive them of their culture, and it is possible to return to the good old days when you could easily exchange rubles for other currencies and get visas to see the rest of the world. Unfortunately for them there is now a big price to be paid for that to happen, including withdrawing from Ukraine, paying reparations, and dealing with over 100,000 dead and wounded Russians and many more in exile who probably won't be returning once they see what life is like in a free and open society.

Revelation wrote:

I agree. We need to be as truthful as possible as often as possible. Facts matter. Credibility matters.

In this case it would be very difficult to hide the facts considering all the internet sleuths abound.

Not to mention the AWACs crew on station who probably knew right a way which missiles hit where. If it was a NATO crew, with many nationalities involved, trying to keep the info hidden for ulterior motives would be difficult indeed.

bt

Ukraine Weapons Tracker on Twitter

So what crashed in the village of Przewodów, Poland today?

With the cooperation of @blueboy1969
we analyzed the available photos of fragments and came to a clear conclusion that they belong to the 48D6 motor of the 5V55-series missile of the S-300 AD system- a Ukrainian one.

https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/15 ... 1161075712

art wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

fallap wrote:

Under no circumstances should NATO forces engage ANY target inside Ukrainian territory. We are treading on eggshells here.

Agree. NATO should not be involved.

As a technicality, NATO is not providing arms and intelligence to Ukraine. Individual member states are.

So if Poland and Ukraine sign a deal for the Polish Airforce to project its air coverage 40 km into Ukrainian air space to prevent stray missiles, then it would be a legitimate treaty. Similar to how a NATO member state have agreed to provide air cover for other member state after the latter donated its aircrafts to Ukraine.

If Poland loses airplanes while doing this, it would not drag in NATO.

bt

That sounds to me like a better idea than any suggestion that Poland should simply absorb any death and damage from errant missiles to avoid the risk of NATO getting involved.

To be fair, a few deaths like this are preferable to a war with Russia.

The tragedy is real for the victims and their families even if it was apparently an accident.
Rest in peace.

I hope going forward it will be possible to reduce or eliminate such accidents both in neighbouring countries like Poland and within Ukraine where the risk will be greatest, of course.

Food for thought?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRjnbACvsXs

More 'Lend Lease';
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43nCBnglpoY

One missile that was prevented from reaching it's target;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VT9hemvakk

So hilarious. Did y'all see Denis' latest video on a theory why Poland was hit?

He suggested that the Russian programer mashed up the coordiant of Kyiv and Lyiv.

bt

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Ukraine Weapons Tracker on Twitter

So what crashed in the village of Przewodów, Poland today?

With the cooperation of @blueboy1969
we analyzed the available photos of fragments and came to a clear conclusion that they belong to the 48D6 motor of the 5V55-series missile of the S-300 AD system- a Ukrainian one.

https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/15 ... 1161075712

"From the information that we and our allies have, it was an S-300 rocket made in the Soviet Union, an old rocket and there is no evidence that it was launched by the Russian side," he said.

"It is highly probable that it was fired by Ukrainian anti-aircraft defence to protect Ukrainian territory." - Polish president

https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-war- ... n-12749296

I don't see the point of Zelensky insisting this was not a stray Ukrainian missile (if he is insisting). Unless Ukraine knows 100% where all its missiles end up after firing.

PS From the same source:

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has also spoken about Tuesday's incident and said whatever the outcome of the investigation into the blast, Russia "bears ultimate responsibility as it continues its illegal war against Ukraine".

"This is not Ukraine's fault," he said.

I don't like this kind of 'Ukraine can do no wrong' PR.

art wrote:

I don't like this kind of 'Ukraine can do no wrong' PR.

Is the fault on Zelensky insisting it was a Russian missiles? Or is the fault on Ukrainian trying to shoot down a missile and through the laws of probability, have one of its missiles failed and killed some innocent civilian?

At least in this case, it was unintentional. The truck bomb that took out the bridge killed the innocent driver was intentional.

So yes, Ukraine is not 100% innocent, but I do not find fault in there action in this case.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

art wrote:

I don't like this kind of 'Ukraine can do no wrong' PR.

Is the fault on Zelensky insisting it was a Russian missiles?

Though it may not be probable, it is possible that NATO is giving Russia a free pass on an errant missile.

art wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Ukraine Weapons Tracker on Twitter

So what crashed in the village of Przewodów, Poland today?

With the cooperation of @blueboy1969
we analyzed the available photos of fragments and came to a clear conclusion that they belong to the 48D6 motor of the 5V55-series missile of the S-300 AD system- a Ukrainian one.

https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/15 ... 1161075712

"From the information that we and our allies have, it was an S-300 rocket made in the Soviet Union, an old rocket and there is no evidence that it was launched by the Russian side," he said.

"It is highly probable that it was fired by Ukrainian anti-aircraft defence to protect Ukrainian territory." - Polish president

https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-war- ... n-12749296

I don't see the point of Zelensky insisting this was not a stray Ukrainian missile (if he is insisting). Unless Ukraine knows 100% where all its missiles end up after firing.

PS From the same source:

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has also spoken about Tuesday's incident and said whatever the outcome of the investigation into the blast, Russia "bears ultimate responsibility as it continues its illegal war against Ukraine".

"This is not Ukraine's fault," he said.

I don't like this kind of 'Ukraine can do no wrong' PR.

The NATO Gen Sec is right, of all millions of AA shells fired at German bombers in WW2, some would have ended up coming down killing and injuring civilians, few people would have blamed the gunners or the nation trying to defend itself.
The same is true on the other side except it would have been dangerous to air such a view out loud.
Plus NATO likely have AWACS covering of the area, just as part of their defending a NATO ally.

It is not worth risking the moral authority he has, with what is being found in Kherson adding to it;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qdk1lr7ShdQ

However, there might be an explanation for their stance on this;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmW_7arJVhw

art wrote:

I don't like this kind of 'Ukraine can do no wrong' PR.

As I wrote earlier I think facts are really important, and "fake news" doesn't help anyone.

I don't want to live in a world where vranyo is the norm, but I'm losing that battle.

Also, it is a fact that none of this would be happening if Russia did not conduct an illegal invasion of Ukraine.

art wrote:

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has also spoken about Tuesday's incident and said whatever the outcome of the investigation into the blast, Russia "bears ultimate responsibility as it continues its illegal war against Ukraine".

"This is not Ukraine's fault," he said.

I don't like this kind of 'Ukraine can do no wrong' PR.

Well, this really isn't Ukraine's fault, even if it does appear to have been a Ukrainian S-300.

At worst a tragic accident. But one for which Zelensky should apologise if it was a Ukrainian missile.

Revelation wrote:

As I wrote earlier I think facts are really important, and "fake news" doesn't help anyone.
I don't want to live in a world where vranyo is the norm, but I'm losing that battle.

Yes but:

This is an actual real time war we are talking about, not some historical exercise. Wars are political events, public perception can mean just as much as a win or loss on the battle field. We, who have been following the story and who are knowledgeable more than some others, serve no good purpose by bringing to the forefront every negative observation we notice along the way. We might hold back a bit in the hope of balance, lest we have missed some positive observation along the way.

As I posted in the second link above, there could be an explanation for Ukraine's intransigence on this, however all that does is to show them to be maybe half right, with a dose of fog of war.

I also think they are getting jumpy, about medium to long term Western support, mainly based on remarks by one of tne US Joint Chiefs even if they have been in effect contradicted by his boss, who is also not as vulnerable to political action to stem or stop US support than might have been before the mid terms.

For another perspective, for anyone who does think we should slacken off supporting Ukraine, in the face of a violently irrational attacker, Luke Harding, veteran western reporter on Russia, who they once threw out, was in Kyiv on 23rd Feb this year.....
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/ ... raine-kyiv

Vintage wrote:

Yes but:

This is an actual real time war we are talking about, not some historical exercise. Wars are political events, public perception can mean just as much as a win or loss on the battle field. We, who have been following the story and who are knowledgeable more than some others, serve no good purpose by bringing to the forefront every negative observation we notice along the way. We might hold back a bit in the hope of balance, lest we have missed some positive observation along the way.

I'm not sure where you are going with this. Maybe I need more coffee.

Your post makes me think of the Trump Jr tweet Denys shared last night:

Since it was Ukraine's missile that hit our NATO ally Poland, can we at least stop spending billions to arm them now?

Ref: https://twitter.com/donaldjtrumpjr/stat ... 9065702401

It makes me think the "negative observations" are being picked up regardless of what I do.

Are you suggesting Denys should follow your advice, stop bringing such negative observations to the forefront?

I'm asking honestly, as above I'm not sure where you're going with this.

Seems the news cycle is moving on from the errant missile, in the face of more incoming missiles as well as the MH17 verdict against Russia:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/20 ... on-flight/

Revelation wrote:

I'm asking honestly, as above I'm not sure where you're going with this.

That will have to stand on its own, I have gone as far as I'm going to go with that.

Ukrainian heavy artillery in the Donbas;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rzDIePnViU

Revelation wrote:

Seems the news cycle is moving on from the errant missile, in the face of more incoming missiles as well as the MH17 verdict against Russia:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/20 ... on-flight/

I imagine that the missile that killed 2 people in Poland was not aimed at Poland and that the deaths it caused were unintentional. In other words, something went wrong. It would be good if whoever launched it stood up and said just that.

I hear that 4 people have been convicted of murder in respect of the downing of flight MH17 over eastern Ukraine. I imagine that was a case of mistaken identity and that the deaths it caused were unintentional. In other words something went wrong. It would have been good if whoever launched it had stood up and said just that.

In 1988 Iran Air flight 655 was shot down by a missile launched by USS Vincennes. That was a case of an unresponsive airliner heading towards the ship in a conflict zone. The deaths it caused were unintentional. In other words, something went wrong. It was good that whoever launched it stood up and said just that.

I note that the people involved in MH17 were convicted of murder. The captain of USS Vincennes was absolved (quite rightly IMO). I don't suppose anyone will be prosecuted for the deaths in Poland.

Tragic mistakes/equipment failures occur in war. I think they should be seen as such, regardless of who made the mistake or whose equipment failed.

Correction: 3 of 4 were convicted, as pointed out in next post

art wrote:

I hear that 4 people have been convicted of murder in respect of the downing of flight MH17 over eastern Ukraine. I imagine that was a case of mistaken identity and that the deaths it caused were unintentional. In other words something went wrong. It would have been good if whoever launched it had stood up and said just that.

All four were offered the opportunity to offer a defense, but 3 of 4 declined.

The one man who did provide a legal team at the trial was acquitted, as per the article I posted before.

The rest were tried in absentia and were convicted.

As for the specifics of this case, again according to the linked article:

Those convicted are Igor Girkin, a former colonel of the FSB, Russia’s security service, who later served as defense minister of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic; Sergey Dubinsky, a former officer of the GRU, Russia’s military intelligence agency; and Leonid Kharchenko, a Ukrainian commander of separatist forces in Donbas.
...
Russia has long maintained that it was not a party to the conflict that unfolded in Donbas in 2014 and that it did not control pro-Russian fighters in Donetsk, where the four defendants held senior positions as part of the separatist militias.

The court, however, determined that Moscow financed and armed the separatist forces in Donetsk and generally controlled the breakaway region and its authorities.

The court also found that the Buk launch was intentional but the defendants most likely thought they were firing at a military aircraft.

So, the ones convicted were the ones who issued the orders, not the ones who did the shooting, and it is believed likely that the ones doing the shooting believed they were shooting at a military aircraft.

Revelation wrote:

art wrote:

I hear that 4 people have been convicted of murder in respect of the downing of flight MH17 over eastern Ukraine. I imagine that was a case of mistaken identity and that the deaths it caused were unintentional. In other words something went wrong. It would have been good if whoever launched it had stood up and said just that.

All four were offered the opportunity to offer a defense, but 3 of 4 declined.

The one man who did provide a legal team at the trial was acquitted, as per the article I posted before.

The rest were tried in absentia and were convicted.

As for the specifics of this case, again according to the linked article:

Those convicted are Igor Girkin, a former colonel of the FSB, Russia’s security service, who later served as defense minister of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic; Sergey Dubinsky, a former officer of the GRU, Russia’s military intelligence agency; and Leonid Kharchenko, a Ukrainian commander of separatist forces in Donbas.
...
Russia has long maintained that it was not a party to the conflict that unfolded in Donbas in 2014 and that it did not control pro-Russian fighters in Donetsk, where the four defendants held senior positions as part of the separatist militias.

The court, however, determined that Moscow financed and armed the separatist forces in Donetsk and generally controlled the breakaway region and its authorities.

The court also found that the Buk launch was intentional but the defendants most likely thought they were firing at a military aircraft.

So, the ones convicted were the ones who issued the orders, not the ones who did the shooting, and it is believed likely that the ones doing the shooting believed they were shooting at a military aircraft.

Got you... but did ones issuing the order believe they were ordering shooting at a military aircraft?

As John Lennon once sung, 'instant karma's gonna get you'.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmolymnEEnI

If the west is willing to supply Ukraine with ammunition, anti-tank missiles, MANPADS, artillery, MLRS and so forth, why is it so precious about supplying fighters? Assuming that it has a change of heart and decides to supply fighters to help Ukraine counter Russian bombers, A2G missiles, G2G missiles and drones, what should be supplied? I appreciate that training of maintenance, ground crew and pilots would take time, so it would take some time to build capability.

One reason I ask is because if Russia continues its attack on Ukraine's infrastructure and the west will not sanction use of supplied weapons being used to strike inside Russia to neutralise threats, Ukraine may be rendered marginally habitable - not so unlike Leningrad in WWII. At some point large numbers of people may need to leave for other countries. And where would they probably go? To countries to the west of Ukraine., I suspect.

It occurs to me that used F-16's or - perhaps even better - used Eurofighters would be extremely valuable to knock down cruise missiles, Tu-160's, Su-24's/Su-25's and Su-30's. I believe that Eurofighters in particular would be superior to the best of the aforementioned types used by Russia in Ukraine. I think that UK, Italy, Spain, Germany have around 100 tranche 1 Eurofighters. I believe that the RAF ones have not reached 3,000 hours, so have 3,000+ hours left on the frames. RAF plans to retire its tranche 1 aircraft soon, Italy has offered tranche 1 frames to Bulgaria, Spain has offered tranche 1 frames to Colombia, Germany plans to retire tranche 1 frames.

Am I being unrealistic or will continued degradation of Ukraine's infrastructure push the west to up its game and give the Ukrainian Air Force a chance to achieve some sort of superiority in the air? By the way, how would earlier F-16's fare against Su-30's?

art wrote:

If the west is willing to supply Ukraine with ammunition, anti-tank missiles, MANPADS, artillery, MLRS and so forth, why is it so precious about supplying fighters? Assuming that it has a change of heart and decides to supply fighters to help Ukraine counter Russian bombers, A2G missiles, G2G missiles and drones, what should be supplied? I appreciate that training of maintenance, ground crew and pilots would take time, so it would take some time to build capability.

One reason I ask is because if Russia continues its attack on Ukraine's infrastructure and the west will not sanction use of supplied weapons being used to strike inside Russia to neutralise threats, Ukraine may be rendered marginally habitable - not so unlike Leningrad in WWII. At some point large numbers of people may need to leave for other countries. And where would they probably go? To countries to the west of Ukraine., I suspect.

It occurs to me that used F-16's or - perhaps even better - used Eurofighters would be extremely valuable to knock down cruise missiles, Tu-160's, Su-24's/Su-25's and Su-30's. I believe that Eurofighters in particular would be superior to the best of the aforementioned types used by Russia in Ukraine. I think that UK, Italy, Spain, Germany have around 100 tranche 1 Eurofighters. I believe that the RAF ones have not reached 3,000 hours, so have 3,000+ hours left on the frames. RAF plans to retire its tranche 1 aircraft soon, Italy has offered tranche 1 frames to Bulgaria, Spain has offered tranche 1 frames to Colombia, Germany plans to retire tranche 1 frames.

Am I being unrealistic or will continued degradation of Ukraine's infrastructure push the west to up its game and give the Ukrainian Air Force a chance to achieve some sort of superiority in the air? By the way, how would earlier F-16's fare against Su-30's?

After russia announced that Crimea, Kherson, Zaporizhia, Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts are all russia, we can safely say that ROE that say "don't strike targets inside russia" are useless...

Something needs to be done.
Either what you suggest -- decent fighters to take out the threats enroute.

Or long-range systems, to eliminate launch platforms at their bases.
Sinking the submarines, either at their moorings, or in the open sea.
Blowing up airbases and airfields, so the nearest usable runway is in Vladivostok somewhere.

Otherwise, slaughter of civilians and critical support to their livelihood continues.

art wrote:

If the west is willing to supply Ukraine with ammunition, anti-tank missiles, MANPADS, artillery, MLRS and so forth, why is it so precious about supplying fighters? Assuming that it has a change of heart and decides to supply fighters to help Ukraine counter Russian bombers, A2G missiles, G2G missiles and drones, what should be supplied? I appreciate that training of maintenance, ground crew and pilots would take time, so it would take some time to build capability.

One reason I ask is because if Russia continues its attack on Ukraine's infrastructure and the west will not sanction use of supplied weapons being used to strike inside Russia to neutralise threats, Ukraine may be rendered marginally habitable - not so unlike Leningrad in WWII. At some point large numbers of people may need to leave for other countries. And where would they probably go? To countries to the west of Ukraine., I suspect.

It occurs to me that used F-16's or - perhaps even better - used Eurofighters would be extremely valuable to knock down cruise missiles, Tu-160's, Su-24's/Su-25's and Su-30's. I believe that Eurofighters in particular would be superior to the best of the aforementioned types used by Russia in Ukraine. I think that UK, Italy, Spain, Germany have around 100 tranche 1 Eurofighters. I believe that the RAF ones have not reached 3,000 hours, so have 3,000+ hours left on the frames. RAF plans to retire its tranche 1 aircraft soon, Italy has offered tranche 1 frames to Bulgaria, Spain has offered tranche 1 frames to Colombia, Germany plans to retire tranche 1 frames.

Am I being unrealistic or will continued degradation of Ukraine's infrastructure push the west to up its game and give the Ukrainian Air Force a chance to achieve some sort of superiority in the air? By the way, how would earlier F-16's fare against Su-30's?

A realistic perspective about this issue, it is far from simple, with a myriad of issues, political and technical;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgA91gxmZfY

art wrote:

Am I being unrealistic or will continued degradation of Ukraine's infrastructure push the west to up its game and give the Ukrainian Air Force a chance to achieve some sort of superiority in the air? By the way, how would earlier F-16's fare against Su-30's?

As much as I'd like to see more support, my impression is the US is supportive of the current commitment, but have seen no evidence they are thinking of going beyond it. Now that the House has gone to the Grumpy Old People, IMO we can't expect a major acceleration of support lest they make the current President look too good.

Meanwhile we have a 2nd round of comments by Gen. Milley about it being a good time to negotiate:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... negotiate/

Looks like the only option is to keep boiling the frog.

GDB wrote:

art wrote:

A realistic perspective about this issue, it is far from simple, with a myriad of issues, political and technical;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgA91gxmZfY

LOL, I thought the link you'd give would be: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYDnspMWdaM

I agree with what you wrote about all the issues.

Justin points out it's not all that clear the F16 is the best weapon for the job due to its reliance on pristine basing, even though they are probably the most available platform. The better suited Western platforms for rougher fields (F18, Gripen, etc) just aren't very available.

Revelation wrote:

art wrote:

Am I being unrealistic or will continued degradation of Ukraine's infrastructure push the west to up its game and give the Ukrainian Air Force a chance to achieve some sort of superiority in the air? By the way, how would earlier F-16's fare against Su-30's?

As much as I'd like to see more support, my impression is the US is supportive of the current commitment, but have seen no evidence they are thinking of going beyond it. Now that the House has gone to the Grumpy Old People, IMO we can't expect a major acceleration of support lest they make the current President look too good.

Meanwhile we have a 2nd round of comments by Gen. Milley about it being a good time to negotiate:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... negotiate/

Looks like the only option is to keep boiling the frog.

GDB wrote:

art wrote:

A realistic perspective about this issue, it is far from simple, with a myriad of issues, political and technical;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgA91gxmZfY

LOL, I thought the link you'd give would be: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYDnspMWdaM

I agree with what you wrote about all the issues.

Justin points out it's not all that clear the F16 is the best weapon for the job due to its reliance on pristine basing, even though they are probably the most available platform. The better suited Western platforms for rougher fields (F18, Gripen, etc) just aren't very available.

There seems to be a consensus that the best tool for the job, given Ukrainian conditions, is the Gripen C. Sweden has 94 in service, according to the sources I have checked but needs them more than before, I think (due to heightened tension with Russia). What about NATO basing fighters in Sweden once Sweden has joined? That could release some Gripen C's for transfer to Ukraine. Sweden has 60 Gripen E on order. There are about 30 Gripen E's in varying stages of construction (I have read) so if NATO could provide cover, it would not be needed for many years. Another source could be South Africa. The entire fleet was grounded due to funds for training and maintenance being unavailable (my guess because they went into the pockets of corrupt members of the government/air force). Perhaps South Africa could be persuaded to part with some of them. I think I read that there may also be a small number of 'white tails' at SAAB.

Perhaps enough Gripen C's could be conjured up to enable Ukraine to raise 2/3 squadrons fairly quickly. If US does not want to supply fighters, fine. Just don't block others doing it, please!

Revelation wrote:

art wrote:

Am I being unrealistic or will continued degradation of Ukraine's infrastructure push the west to up its game and give the Ukrainian Air Force a chance to achieve some sort of superiority in the air? By the way, how would earlier F-16's fare against Su-30's?

As much as I'd like to see more support, my impression is the US is supportive of the current commitment, but have seen no evidence they are thinking of going beyond it. Now that the House has gone to the Grumpy Old People, IMO we can't expect a major acceleration of support lest they make the current President look too good.

Meanwhile we have a 2nd round of comments by Gen. Milley about it being a good time to negotiate:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... negotiate/

Looks like the only option is to keep boiling the frog.

GDB wrote:

art wrote:

A realistic perspective about this issue, it is far from simple, with a myriad of issues, political and technical;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgA91gxmZfY

LOL, I thought the link you'd give would be: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYDnspMWdaM

I agree with what you wrote about all the issues.

Justin points out it's not all that clear the F16 is the best weapon for the job due to its reliance on pristine basing, even though they are probably the most available platform. The better suited Western platforms for rougher fields (F18, Gripen, etc) just aren't very available.

See reply 9984!

Any near term, practical AD solution, more systems. Doesn’t matter if they are old and/or in storage, like the recently retired UK Rapiers, the refrain about ‘missiles costing millions for small cheap drones’ hardly counts when the system has or soon will be retired.
Plus still good for aircraft and with most likely available systems, cruise missiles.
Has the US got any M113 mounted V163mm cannon stored and could be made available?

As for aircraft, the designed for dispersal/servicing by short period conscripts Gripen is the best choice except yes, availability.

US reported to be running low on some weaponry it supplies to Ukraine. Mentioned are

- 155mm artillery shells
- Stinger MANPADS
- HARM anti-radar missiles
- GMLRS surface-to-surface missiles
- Javelin anti-tank missiles

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ft8E5TgNLo

The retired air force colonel in the video has some interesting comments to make.

art wrote:

US reported to be running low on some weaponry it supplies to Ukraine. Mentioned are

- 155mm artillery shells
- Stinger MANPADS
- HARM anti-radar missiles
- GMLRS surface-to-surface missiles
- Javelin anti-tank missiles

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ft8E5TgNLo

The retired air force colonel in the video has some interesting comments to make.

The Stingers were barely in production anyway, very recently a large order was placed by the DoD with South Korea for 155mm shells, for delivery to Ukraine, Javelins are in wide use with a number of nations, the NATO ones, not just the US and UK, have sent some they are also still in production.
Though production should be increased for the shells, standard and smart, Javelins, Starstreak/Martlet (this might be the case given the 1000 more recently delivered by the UK), GMRLS is being increased and it is also in wide service with donor nations, as are 155mm shells.

It increases the case for ramping up support, the quicker the Russian position in Ukraine is unsustainable the better.
Then watch that head of Wagner make a play for power, which he seems to be positioning himself for, after making himself indispensable to Putin.
There’s a situation, that massive military and he needs a mob of mercenaries, with the ratio of ex Russian forces personnel to convicts offered to join them to be released changing to the latter.

Also on the political/diplomatic front;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGXPwMiFFfE&t=306s

What has happened on the Kinburn peninsula? Have UAF been forced to withdraw? Ukraine does not seem to be talking about it any more. A hardly unbiased source says it is in Russian hands: https://tass.com/russia/1536543

Perhaps it was a diversionary raid to pull Russian resources away from another area?

art wrote:

What has happened on the Kinburn peninsula? Have UAF been forced to withdraw? Ukraine does not seem to be talking about it any more. A hardly unbiased source says it is in Russian hands: https://tass.com/russia/1536543

Perhaps it was a diversionary raid to pull Russian resources away from another area?

Ah, Kinburn peninsula - Ochakov locale. Yeah, not a simple place.
A fog of war is always thick in those parts.

Come think of it -- this is the place where John Paul Jones (and his Zaporizhian Cossack boarding parties) was victorious against Ottomans, while fighting for Russian Empire -- but he (Cossacks too) was on the losing side, in russian palace intrigue -- so was soon squeezed out as a "useless fellow" from the theater...