[dabigv13]

https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/06/21/nor...n-denmark/

Sweden and other Nordic NATO members already planning a unified Nordic Air Force. Sweden is sending amounts of weaponry to Ukraine on par or even more than other Nordic NATO members. Sweden allowing NATO troops and equipment basing. 

Maybe some people in Sweden are annoyed but I don't think they're going to withdraw their bid to join. Maybe not this year, but soon they will be in NATO and every indication is that until the accession happens, Sweden will be contributing to Ukraine and NATO defense in a similar way as if they had been a full member.

[dabigv13]

https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/06/21/nor...n-denmark/

Sweden and other Nordic NATO members already planning a unified Nordic Air Force. Sweden is sending amounts of weaponry to Ukraine on par or even more than other Nordic NATO members. Sweden allowing NATO troops and equipment basing. 

Maybe some people in Sweden are annoyed but I don't think they're going to withdraw their bid to join. Maybe not this year, but soon they will be in NATO and every indication is that until the accession happens, Sweden will be contributing to Ukraine and NATO defense in a similar way as if they had been a full member.

[Goose]

Maybe some people in Sweden are annoyed but I don't think they're going to withdraw their bid to join.

I would not wager a lot of money on that. Annoyed is much too gentle a description. As we are witnessing, Erdoğan can be pretty stubborn and in our opinion unreasonable. I can tell you from hard experience, so can the Swedish government. As a public example, consider the Kockums - ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems fiasco and the Swedish government's actions in that regard. For a very long time public opinion in Sweden was against joining NATO. IMO it takes much less than most people realize to return to that status quo ante.

Maybe not this year, but soon they will be in NATO and every indication is that until the accession happens, Sweden will be contributing to Ukraine and NATO defense in a similar way as if they had been a full member.

I hope so, but IMO the longer it takes the less probable it is. First, the view you present that Sweden is "effectively in NATO" already argues against accepting the additional responsibilities that actually being in NATO entails. This is especially true for Sweden who for years had relied on keeping it's non-aligned status as a means of having Russia basically leave them alone. It probably never really worked, but the Swedes thought it did, so they liked that. As a member of NATO, if a war breaks out in the Baltic, they get attacked for sure, even if they don't intend to respond to an Article 5 invocation.

Sweden has always been willing to spend money on defense, and their actions regarding Ukraine reflect that. What they HAVEN'T been willing to do is give up on their own military's C3I and technological uniqueness. They aren't cleared for lots of the NATO info and NATO isn't cleared for lots of their info. That hasn't changed and won't until they are a member. It also means surrendering some diplomatic leverage as a "neutral", which in the area of military sales is very problematic. As part of NATO, they are going to have to do so. That isn't going to be near as easy as it sounds. If they can get almost all the benefits without having to do that, they will gladly accept. NATO just has to hope Erdoğan folds before the Swedes decide exactly that.

[Goose]

Maybe some people in Sweden are annoyed but I don't think they're going to withdraw their bid to join.

I would not wager a lot of money on that. Annoyed is much too gentle a description. As we are witnessing, Erdoğan can be pretty stubborn and in our opinion unreasonable. I can tell you from hard experience, so can the Swedish government. As a public example, consider the Kockums - ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems fiasco and the Swedish government's actions in that regard. For a very long time public opinion in Sweden was against joining NATO. IMO it takes much less than most people realize to return to that status quo ante.

Maybe not this year, but soon they will be in NATO and every indication is that until the accession happens, Sweden will be contributing to Ukraine and NATO defense in a similar way as if they had been a full member.

I hope so, but IMO the longer it takes the less probable it is. First, the view you present that Sweden is "effectively in NATO" already argues against accepting the additional responsibilities that actually being in NATO entails. This is especially true for Sweden who for years had relied on keeping it's non-aligned status as a means of having Russia basically leave them alone. It probably never really worked, but the Swedes thought it did, so they liked that. As a member of NATO, if a war breaks out in the Baltic, they get attacked for sure, even if they don't intend to respond to an Article 5 invocation.

Sweden has always been willing to spend money on defense, and their actions regarding Ukraine reflect that. What they HAVEN'T been willing to do is give up on their own military's C3I and technological uniqueness. They aren't cleared for lots of the NATO info and NATO isn't cleared for lots of their info. That hasn't changed and won't until they are a member. It also means surrendering some diplomatic leverage as a "neutral", which in the area of military sales is very problematic. As part of NATO, they are going to have to do so. That isn't going to be near as easy as it sounds. If they can get almost all the benefits without having to do that, they will gladly accept. NATO just has to hope Erdoğan folds before the Swedes decide exactly that.

[OutsiderFan]

It’s possible Stoltenberg is FOS, but he’s been pretty consistent in his public comments that Sweden will join NATO by the July 11 summit. He’s seemingly put his credibility on the line about this. Hard to see the upside of setting himself up to look bad in public if it doesn’t happen.

I’m going to guess we are seeing last minute posturing by Erdoğan to extract as much as he can from the situation. He and Turkey will never have more leverage to get something than he has right now. I’m hopeful there is some under the radar thing Turkey won’t get that it wants if Sweden is not approved at the July 11 event.

[OutsiderFan]

It’s possible Stoltenberg is FOS, but he’s been pretty consistent in his public comments that Sweden will join NATO by the July 11 summit. He’s seemingly put his credibility on the line about this. Hard to see the upside of setting himself up to look bad in public if it doesn’t happen.

I’m going to guess we are seeing last minute posturing by Erdoğan to extract as much as he can from the situation. He and Turkey will never have more leverage to get something than he has right now. I’m hopeful there is some under the radar thing Turkey won’t get that it wants if Sweden is not approved at the July 11 event.

[Goose]

It’s possible Stoltenberg is FOS, but he’s been pretty consistent in his public comments that Sweden will join NATO by the July 11 summit. He’s seemingly put his credibility on the line about this. Hard to see the upside of setting himself up to look bad in public if it doesn’t happen.

I’m going to guess we are seeing last minute posturing by Erdoğan to extract as much as he can from the situation. He and Turkey will never have more leverage to get something than he has right now. I’m hopeful there is some under the radar thing Turkey won’t get that it wants if Sweden is not approved at the July 11 event.

It would be nice. Surprising given all the current flap about the Koran burning, but maybe Erdoğan is going to do the "right thing". Is it even possible for the legislature to pass the necessary legislation by July 11?

[Goose]

It’s possible Stoltenberg is FOS, but he’s been pretty consistent in his public comments that Sweden will join NATO by the July 11 summit. He’s seemingly put his credibility on the line about this. Hard to see the upside of setting himself up to look bad in public if it doesn’t happen.

I’m going to guess we are seeing last minute posturing by Erdoğan to extract as much as he can from the situation. He and Turkey will never have more leverage to get something than he has right now. I’m hopeful there is some under the radar thing Turkey won’t get that it wants if Sweden is not approved at the July 11 event.

It would be nice. Surprising given all the current flap about the Koran burning, but maybe Erdoğan is going to do the "right thing". Is it even possible for the legislature to pass the necessary legislation by July 11?

[Goose]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/angered-count...27247.html

Nothing "new" here but the article does set out (correctly IMHO) the limitations of the current weaponry Ukraine has available. Indeed the NATO combined arms doctrine has always assumed at least local command of the air and the existence of at least locally effective SEAD/DEAD plans. The thing I find both annoying and scary is that Ukraine seems to always approach getting it's weaponry one category at a time. For quite a while tanks and APCs were the requirement. They got those. Now they are saying "well, obviously we need F-16s". They are right, but that was true 6 months ago as well. Both Ukraine and NATO seem to be proceeding without much of a plan. I understand there is politics involved here, but it doesn't give one confidence that anybody involved actually knows what they are doing :-).

Ukraine appears to be making rock soup. That shouldn't be necessary when they are defending NATO against Russia. If NATO is going to "help", both sides need to have a realistic and common understanding of what will be required and when it will be required. Yes, the enemy gets a vote and will do things that mess up the plan. That is bad enough, but having a "plan" that isn't common and more of a "happening" is a recipe for failure.

[Goose]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/angered-count...27247.html

Nothing "new" here but the article does set out (correctly IMHO) the limitations of the current weaponry Ukraine has available. Indeed the NATO combined arms doctrine has always assumed at least local command of the air and the existence of at least locally effective SEAD/DEAD plans. The thing I find both annoying and scary is that Ukraine seems to always approach getting it's weaponry one category at a time. For quite a while tanks and APCs were the requirement. They got those. Now they are saying "well, obviously we need F-16s". They are right, but that was true 6 months ago as well. Both Ukraine and NATO seem to be proceeding without much of a plan. I understand there is politics involved here, but it doesn't give one confidence that anybody involved actually knows what they are doing :-).

Ukraine appears to be making rock soup. That shouldn't be necessary when they are defending NATO against Russia. If NATO is going to "help", both sides need to have a realistic and common understanding of what will be required and when it will be required. Yes, the enemy gets a vote and will do things that mess up the plan. That is bad enough, but having a "plan" that isn't common and more of a "happening" is a recipe for failure.

[OutsiderFan]

I hope NATO countries are ready to have a good long stare in the mirror at themselves when the ZNPP meltdown happens. They lived in fear of some kind of escalation that would lead to nuclear weapon use. Well, what difference does it make if it is a bomb or a reactor?  They not only should have armed Ukraine with every weapon system Ukraine requested, when Ukraine requested it, they should have developed a plan to bring NATO country forces - even if their own PMCs - to help the cause of booting Russia out of Ukraine ASAP. The unfortunate reality is big bureaucratic organizations can't act fast and usually only are reactionary. This war needed to be treated as its own entity with its own challenges and opportunities, not reacted to within rigid decision-making structures designed for a different war.

Poland isn't asking for nukes because it doesn't feel protected and NATO wouldn't come to its aid if attacked. Poland is asking for nukes so it can unilaterally threaten Russia with them if they allow a nuclear meltdown. I've seen maps of the fallout potential and most of them don't seem to impact Poland, but it's all dependent on the weather conditions, and good luck calming your citizens. There will be all kinds of fake images and news overflowing the Internet about where the fallout is headed that will cause anarchy.

It's always smarter to go all-in on an objective you want to achieve, rather than pussyfoot around with half-measures that prolong achieving it and maybe even prevent achieving it.

[OutsiderFan]

I hope NATO countries are ready to have a good long stare in the mirror at themselves when the ZNPP meltdown happens. They lived in fear of some kind of escalation that would lead to nuclear weapon use. Well, what difference does it make if it is a bomb or a reactor?  They not only should have armed Ukraine with every weapon system Ukraine requested, when Ukraine requested it, they should have developed a plan to bring NATO country forces - even if their own PMCs - to help the cause of booting Russia out of Ukraine ASAP. The unfortunate reality is big bureaucratic organizations can't act fast and usually only are reactionary. This war needed to be treated as its own entity with its own challenges and opportunities, not reacted to within rigid decision-making structures designed for a different war.

Poland isn't asking for nukes because it doesn't feel protected and NATO wouldn't come to its aid if attacked. Poland is asking for nukes so it can unilaterally threaten Russia with them if they allow a nuclear meltdown. I've seen maps of the fallout potential and most of them don't seem to impact Poland, but it's all dependent on the weather conditions, and good luck calming your citizens. There will be all kinds of fake images and news overflowing the Internet about where the fallout is headed that will cause anarchy.

It's always smarter to go all-in on an objective you want to achieve, rather than pussyfoot around with half-measures that prolong achieving it and maybe even prevent achieving it.

[dabigv13]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-...offensive/

Publicly, Ukrainian officials have expressed frustration with critics of the pace at which the counteroffensive has played out thus far. But in private, military planners in Kyiv have relayed to Burns and others bullish confidence in their aim to retake substantial territory by the fall; move artillery and missile systems near the boundary line of Russian-controlled Crimea; push further into eastern Ukraine; and then open negotiations with Moscow for the first time since peace talks broke down in March of last year, according to three people familiar with the planning.

I thought this was a very interesting article. Nothing surprising necessarily, but for the first time it seems we are hearing (through a leak, not directly) Ukraine not express maximalist goals of retaking Crimea. While Western officials have publicly been behind Ukraine when they have talked about reclaiming all seized territories including Crimea, I think most observers have presumed that a peace would involve Russia retaining Crimea.

[dabigv13]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-...offensive/

Publicly, Ukrainian officials have expressed frustration with critics of the pace at which the counteroffensive has played out thus far. But in private, military planners in Kyiv have relayed to Burns and others bullish confidence in their aim to retake substantial territory by the fall; move artillery and missile systems near the boundary line of Russian-controlled Crimea; push further into eastern Ukraine; and then open negotiations with Moscow for the first time since peace talks broke down in March of last year, according to three people familiar with the planning.

I thought this was a very interesting article. Nothing surprising necessarily, but for the first time it seems we are hearing (through a leak, not directly) Ukraine not express maximalist goals of retaking Crimea. While Western officials have publicly been behind Ukraine when they have talked about reclaiming all seized territories including Crimea, I think most observers have presumed that a peace would involve Russia retaining Crimea.

[Goose]

While Western officials have publicly been behind Ukraine when they have talked about reclaiming all seized territories including Crimea, I think most observers have presumed that a peace would involve Russia retaining Crimea.

I think you are correct for some time in the past. Early on, the idea Ukraine could even survive, let alone regain Crimea seemed fanciful. Eventually it became accepted that this could actually happen and it became politic to at least publicly embrace this idea. However, I think some "mature reflection" among both the Ukrainian government and their NATO supporters have come to the (correct IMO) realization that Ukraine without Crimea is not a viable state. Russia controlling access to the sea of Azov and possessing the only really viable naval base on the Black Sea is just too much for Ukraine to live with. On top of that, holding Crimea de facto allows blocking navigation of the Dnipro river because it is so easy to mine the approaches operating out of Sevastopol.

Every nation since the 1800s that has attempted to occupy Ukraine has in the end attempted to take Crimea. Whoever holds Crimea becomes the major naval power on the Black Sea and controls the Sea of Azov. Odesa and Constanta have been tried as substitutes and simply didn't cut it. Russia tried to substitute Novorossiysk and it didn't (and doesn't, the way things are going) "work" for them either. If Russia was Canada then maybe, possibly, Ukraine could live with Crimea not being under their direct control but having a "99 year" lease on Sevastopol. That isn't the case and Russia is not suddenly going to become a good neighbor. Going forward, Ukraine could actually live with the 2014 boundaries in the Donbas much easier than it can without Crimea.

[Goose]

While Western officials have publicly been behind Ukraine when they have talked about reclaiming all seized territories including Crimea, I think most observers have presumed that a peace would involve Russia retaining Crimea.

I think you are correct for some time in the past. Early on, the idea Ukraine could even survive, let alone regain Crimea seemed fanciful. Eventually it became accepted that this could actually happen and it became politic to at least publicly embrace this idea. However, I think some "mature reflection" among both the Ukrainian government and their NATO supporters have come to the (correct IMO) realization that Ukraine without Crimea is not a viable state. Russia controlling access to the sea of Azov and possessing the only really viable naval base on the Black Sea is just too much for Ukraine to live with. On top of that, holding Crimea de facto allows blocking navigation of the Dnipro river because it is so easy to mine the approaches operating out of Sevastopol.

Every nation since the 1800s that has attempted to occupy Ukraine has in the end attempted to take Crimea. Whoever holds Crimea becomes the major naval power on the Black Sea and controls the Sea of Azov. Odesa and Constanta have been tried as substitutes and simply didn't cut it. Russia tried to substitute Novorossiysk and it didn't (and doesn't, the way things are going) "work" for them either. If Russia was Canada then maybe, possibly, Ukraine could live with Crimea not being under their direct control but having a "99 year" lease on Sevastopol. That isn't the case and Russia is not suddenly going to become a good neighbor. Going forward, Ukraine could actually live with the 2014 boundaries in the Donbas much easier than it can without Crimea.

[OutsiderFan]

And... Zelenskyy in response to that WaPo story said Ukraine would give up joining NATO in order to get all its territory back. He's not going to agree to giving up land for "peace" in part because Ukraine gave up nukes for security guarantees and then was invaded. Twice.

[OutsiderFan]

And... Zelenskyy in response to that WaPo story said Ukraine would give up joining NATO in order to get all its territory back. He's not going to agree to giving up land for "peace" in part because Ukraine gave up nukes for security guarantees and then was invaded. Twice.

[Goose]

And... Zelenskyy in response to that WaPo story said Ukraine would give up joining NATO in order to get all its territory back. He's not going to agree to giving up land for "peace" in part because Ukraine gave up nukes for security guarantees and then was invaded. Twice.

There are other (and possibly "better") treaties that can be written outside of the NATO context. Ukraine obviously realizes that in the future it is going to need enough military power of it's own to keep Russia out of Ukrainian territory. That isn't going to be easy to do. Details are TBD.

[Goose]

And... Zelenskyy in response to that WaPo story said Ukraine would give up joining NATO in order to get all its territory back. He's not going to agree to giving up land for "peace" in part because Ukraine gave up nukes for security guarantees and then was invaded. Twice.

There are other (and possibly "better") treaties that can be written outside of the NATO context. Ukraine obviously realizes that in the future it is going to need enough military power of it's own to keep Russia out of Ukrainian territory. That isn't going to be easy to do. Details are TBD.

[Leftcoast]

"It's always smarter to go all-in on an objective you want to achieve, rather than pussyfoot around with half-measures that prolong achieving it and maybe even prevent achieving it. - OF "

Sounds like the quick road to World War 3 to me.  Perhaps you don't mean this as your a one-size-fits-all response.  I hope not.  

Not every confrontation, including the military variety, need an all-in armed response by the US Armed Forces.  If measured responses are out then both sides will play the brinksmanship game and sooner or later my kids and grand-kids are drafted for war in Eastern Europe, South-East Asia, or China.  No thank you.  Spend our military blood sparingly please and I am FINE with taking some time to decide if any particular confrontation is the right moment for NATO boots on the ground.

[Leftcoast]

"It's always smarter to go all-in on an objective you want to achieve, rather than pussyfoot around with half-measures that prolong achieving it and maybe even prevent achieving it. - OF "

Sounds like the quick road to World War 3 to me.  Perhaps you don't mean this as your a one-size-fits-all response.  I hope not.  

Not every confrontation, including the military variety, need an all-in armed response by the US Armed Forces.  If measured responses are out then both sides will play the brinksmanship game and sooner or later my kids and grand-kids are drafted for war in Eastern Europe, South-East Asia, or China.  No thank you.  Spend our military blood sparingly please and I am FINE with taking some time to decide if any particular confrontation is the right moment for NATO boots on the ground.

[Goose]

"It's always smarter to go all-in on an objective you want to achieve, rather than pussyfoot around with half-measures that prolong achieving it and maybe even prevent achieving it. - OF "

Sounds like the quick road to World War 3 to me.  Perhaps you don't mean this as your a one-size-fits-all response.  I hope not.  

Not every confrontation, including the military variety, need an all-in armed response by the US Armed Forces.  If measured responses are out then both sides will play the brinksmanship game and sooner or later my kids and grand-kids are drafted for war in Eastern Europe, South-East Asia, or China.  No thank you.  Spend our military blood sparingly please and I am FINE with taking some time to decide if any particular confrontation is the right moment for NATO boots on the ground.

This conundrum is as old as time, and nobody has really "solved" it. There are plenty of examples of both cases, instances where one combatant waited too long to take action and was destroyed and other instances where one combatant rushed full speed ahead into a disaster. After action analysis often suggest that following the opposite course would have had a better result. Of course, that can't be known. The result might have been even worse.
In Ukraine, it is impossible to know what action the US or NATO might take that will push Russia "over the edge" and into a bigger war. OTOH, we don't know how much Ukraine can "take" and when will they falter. Difficult choices.

[Goose]

"It's always smarter to go all-in on an objective you want to achieve, rather than pussyfoot around with half-measures that prolong achieving it and maybe even prevent achieving it. - OF "

Sounds like the quick road to World War 3 to me.  Perhaps you don't mean this as your a one-size-fits-all response.  I hope not.  

Not every confrontation, including the military variety, need an all-in armed response by the US Armed Forces.  If measured responses are out then both sides will play the brinksmanship game and sooner or later my kids and grand-kids are drafted for war in Eastern Europe, South-East Asia, or China.  No thank you.  Spend our military blood sparingly please and I am FINE with taking some time to decide if any particular confrontation is the right moment for NATO boots on the ground.

This conundrum is as old as time, and nobody has really "solved" it. There are plenty of examples of both cases, instances where one combatant waited too long to take action and was destroyed and other instances where one combatant rushed full speed ahead into a disaster. After action analysis often suggest that following the opposite course would have had a better result. Of course, that can't be known. The result might have been even worse.
In Ukraine, it is impossible to know what action the US or NATO might take that will push Russia "over the edge" and into a bigger war. OTOH, we don't know how much Ukraine can "take" and when will they falter. Difficult choices.

[Goose]

NATO/the West is in the process of repeating a monumental error. It appears that the "decision" has been reached to provide F-16s to Ukraine, although the timeline and lots of other "details" are still TBD. At the same time, the West has drug it's feet on starting pilot training. This pilot training is currently targeted to occur in Europe. A significant part of such training is initially classroom work followed by simulators. That can take place virtually anywhere the equipment exists and at any time. However, in order to actually fly the aircraft, you have to do exactly that, and you need to do it "a lot", especially if you are on an accelerated training schedule.

The weather in Europe right now is pretty good and you could do quite a bit of flying. Unfortunately, there are no Ukrainian F-16 students that far advanced in the program to take advantage of this good weather. Even if the classes started today, it would probably be the end of August at the earliest before the students would be even vaguely ready for high-intensity flight training. That is about the time the weather in Europe starts to become an issue, and it just gets worse from there. The West is missing another "window". While you can fly in Europe in the winter, it isn't true you can fly every day. It is also true (based on past experience) that student pilots in Europe (actually everywhere) have a much higher accident rate in bad weather. Some air-to-air training requires the ability to see the other aircraft. In bad weather, you can't. There are just all kinds of constraints on what is possible training-wise in the European winter months.

For many decades, Germany in particular and other NATO nations to a lesser extent maintained significant training locations in the US because the weather was better. They could train almost every day even in the depths of winter. That is no longer the case, as the end of the cold war removed the need for intense pilot training (or so it was thought). NATO missed the opportunity to train pilots to be ready for the current Ukrainian offensive by not starting training on a contingency basis a year (or more) ago. NATO is in the process of repeating the mistake.

[Goose]

NATO/the West is in the process of repeating a monumental error. It appears that the "decision" has been reached to provide F-16s to Ukraine, although the timeline and lots of other "details" are still TBD. At the same time, the West has drug it's feet on starting pilot training. This pilot training is currently targeted to occur in Europe. A significant part of such training is initially classroom work followed by simulators. That can take place virtually anywhere the equipment exists and at any time. However, in order to actually fly the aircraft, you have to do exactly that, and you need to do it "a lot", especially if you are on an accelerated training schedule.

The weather in Europe right now is pretty good and you could do quite a bit of flying. Unfortunately, there are no Ukrainian F-16 students that far advanced in the program to take advantage of this good weather. Even if the classes started today, it would probably be the end of August at the earliest before the students would be even vaguely ready for high-intensity flight training. That is about the time the weather in Europe starts to become an issue, and it just gets worse from there. The West is missing another "window". While you can fly in Europe in the winter, it isn't true you can fly every day. It is also true (based on past experience) that student pilots in Europe (actually everywhere) have a much higher accident rate in bad weather. Some air-to-air training requires the ability to see the other aircraft. In bad weather, you can't. There are just all kinds of constraints on what is possible training-wise in the European winter months.

For many decades, Germany in particular and other NATO nations to a lesser extent maintained significant training locations in the US because the weather was better. They could train almost every day even in the depths of winter. That is no longer the case, as the end of the cold war removed the need for intense pilot training (or so it was thought). NATO missed the opportunity to train pilots to be ready for the current Ukrainian offensive by not starting training on a contingency basis a year (or more) ago. NATO is in the process of repeating the mistake.

[OutsiderFan]

It was also dumb not to have NATO forces aiding Ukraine. I know, I know, WWIII, and all that Chicken Little stuff.

I just saw two pieces of news yesterday that pissed me off in this vein. First, I saw Ukraine lacks air support to attack Russian trenches, which means Ukraine needs thousands of artillery rounds that are in short supply.

Then I heard Ukraine was given guided JDAMs but can't use them on these trenches because there are no planes to deliver them, and F-16s are needed to employ them on the battlefield. WITAF?!?!?!

Can someone explain how it makes sense to give a weapons system to someone that can't be used because it doesn't have a delivery platform?  

All I can think of when I see these images of Russian trenches is "man, sure would be nice to give Ukraine some B-52s." Again, the support Ukraine has received is great, but there is soooo much more that can be given to actually accomplish the objective. It's infuriating to me how the West is basically saying "we are more concerned about our own butts not getting into a war with Russia than we care about the lives of Ukrainian soldiers." They are being asked to sacrifice their lives on a scale that isn't necessary. A Ukrainian soldier life is not worth any less than any American's life, but it is clear our decision makers see them as less valuable. Just disgusting.

[OutsiderFan]

It was also dumb not to have NATO forces aiding Ukraine. I know, I know, WWIII, and all that Chicken Little stuff.

I just saw two pieces of news yesterday that pissed me off in this vein. First, I saw Ukraine lacks air support to attack Russian trenches, which means Ukraine needs thousands of artillery rounds that are in short supply.

Then I heard Ukraine was given guided JDAMs but can't use them on these trenches because there are no planes to deliver them, and F-16s are needed to employ them on the battlefield. WITAF?!?!?!

Can someone explain how it makes sense to give a weapons system to someone that can't be used because it doesn't have a delivery platform?  

All I can think of when I see these images of Russian trenches is "man, sure would be nice to give Ukraine some B-52s." Again, the support Ukraine has received is great, but there is soooo much more that can be given to actually accomplish the objective. It's infuriating to me how the West is basically saying "we are more concerned about our own butts not getting into a war with Russia than we care about the lives of Ukrainian soldiers." They are being asked to sacrifice their lives on a scale that isn't necessary. A Ukrainian soldier life is not worth any less than any American's life, but it is clear our decision makers see them as less valuable. Just disgusting.

[Mick]

All I can think of when I see these images of Russian trenches is "man, sure would be nice to give Ukraine some B-52s." Again, the support Ukraine has received is great, but there is soooo much more that can be given to actually accomplish the objective. It's infuriating to me how the West is basically saying "we are more concerned about our own butts not getting into a war with Russia than we care about the lives of Ukrainian soldiers." They are being asked to sacrifice their lives on a scale that isn't necessary. A Ukrainian soldier life is not worth any less than any American's life, but it is clear our decision makers see them as less valuable. Just disgusting.

I don't understand this paragraph. The Ukrainians are fighting to save their country. It's not our country, or a NATO country. They're fighting against our implacable foe and we're aiding them on that basis, but we absolutely do not want to get into a broader conflict with Russia that turns the planet into a cinder.

[Mick]

All I can think of when I see these images of Russian trenches is "man, sure would be nice to give Ukraine some B-52s." Again, the support Ukraine has received is great, but there is soooo much more that can be given to actually accomplish the objective. It's infuriating to me how the West is basically saying "we are more concerned about our own butts not getting into a war with Russia than we care about the lives of Ukrainian soldiers." They are being asked to sacrifice their lives on a scale that isn't necessary. A Ukrainian soldier life is not worth any less than any American's life, but it is clear our decision makers see them as less valuable. Just disgusting.

I don't understand this paragraph. The Ukrainians are fighting to save their country. It's not our country, or a NATO country. They're fighting against our implacable foe and we're aiding them on that basis, but we absolutely do not want to get into a broader conflict with Russia that turns the planet into a cinder.

[Goose]

I just saw two pieces of news yesterday that pissed me off in this vein. First, I saw Ukraine lacks air support to attack Russian trenches, which means Ukraine needs thousands of artillery rounds that are in short supply.
Then I heard Ukraine was given guided JDAMs but can't use them on these trenches because there are no planes to deliver them, and F-16s are needed to employ them on the battlefield. WITAF?!?!?!

Can someone explain how it makes sense to give a weapons system to someone that can't be used because it doesn't have a delivery platform?  

The Ukraine does have a "delivery platform". Their existing Soviet Era aircraft have been modified to drop JDAMs and the Ukrainian's have indeed done so. It is true they lack numbers. More would be better. However, that isn't the problem.

There are actually two reasons JDAMs are not being used effectively. First and foremost, the Russians have deployed many GPS jammers that deny the JDAM accurate GPS data. That renders the JDAMs relatively inaccurate. For "area" targets, that doesn't much matter, but if you are trying to hit a trench, it absolutely matters. Miss by 10 meters and all it does is annoy the occupants of the trench (well, maybe they need to change their pants).

The second reason does involve F-16s, but indirectly. To launch a JDAM from standoff ranges, you want the launch aircraft to be up pretty high in altitude. The distance the JDAM can glide is a function of altitude. You want to keep the launch platform away from the target so that things like MANPADS/Pantsir/Tor etc. can't destroy them. To do that the launch platform needs to be high enough for the launched JDAM to reach the trenches. If they do that, they are potentially vulnerable to Russian longer range air defense, like the S-300/S-400. Worse still, whether the Ukrainian jets are high or low, they are at risk from Russian air operating at high altitude inside Russian airspace launching long range air-to-air missiles.

Ukraine needs F-16s to operate at high altitude inside Ukrainian air space to shoot down the Russian air. In reality, what would probably happen is that both sides would have to be very careful when operating at higher altitude, but Ukraine would gain more from this than Russia. Ukraine could also use F-16s to perform SEAD/DEAD operations against the S-300/S-400 long range air defense. HARMs work much better when not restricted to predefined targets as Ukraine currently is. The radar operators can get pretty HARMshy when F-16 are flinging them out like confetti :-).

All I can think of when I see these images of Russian trenches is "man, sure would be nice to give Ukraine some B-52s."

which the Russians would destroy pretty much immediately. B-52s can only operate AFTER the SEAD/DEAD mission has been successfully completed. Nobody would be crazy enough to try using B-52s until that had happened. ALT-XX units can only do so much :-).

Again, the support Ukraine has received is great, but there is soooo much more that can be given to actually accomplish the objective. It's infuriating to me how the West is basically saying "we are more concerned about our own butts not getting into a war with Russia than we care about the lives of Ukrainian soldiers." They are being asked to sacrifice their lives on a scale that isn't necessary. A Ukrainian soldier life is not worth any less than any American's life, but it is clear our decision makers see them as less valuable. Just disgusting.

The Ukrainian solders aren't being "asked" to do anything by the US/NATO. They are in a war that they want to win. They aren't fighting for us. They are fighting for themselves. The US recognizes that helping Ukraine is in our interests. We aren't doing it because we are "good guys". Indeed, most (almost all) of the people in the US would not support sending US troops to Ukraine, even if the Administration wanted to do so (which they most emphatically do not). The additional complication is that Russia would (at least threaten) to attack the US, possibly with nuclear weapons, if we put "boots on the ground". No way we are going to do that. The only way that happens is if the risk/reward evaluation was heavily in favor of doing so and that was the "consensus" opinion. It isn't.

I too have bones to pick with the US response. In many cases, we appear not to have thought through our actions and have taken steps that while they helped Ukraine marginally did not deliver "optimal" results due to lack of planning/half measures. We have not recognized this "war" requires many contingency plans that can be rapidly executed. We often appear to be well behind events. We need a plan to "win" this war, not to "just try things and see what happens". Even with a plan, events will require new plans. Without a plan, we can end up in a war we can't win and no good way out. This is a "war of choice". We could have just done nothing. IMHO that would have been a bad idea, but it was possible. Now, it isn't. We need to control events, not be controlled by them.

[Goose]

I just saw two pieces of news yesterday that pissed me off in this vein. First, I saw Ukraine lacks air support to attack Russian trenches, which means Ukraine needs thousands of artillery rounds that are in short supply.
Then I heard Ukraine was given guided JDAMs but can't use them on these trenches because there are no planes to deliver them, and F-16s are needed to employ them on the battlefield. WITAF?!?!?!

Can someone explain how it makes sense to give a weapons system to someone that can't be used because it doesn't have a delivery platform?  

The Ukraine does have a "delivery platform". Their existing Soviet Era aircraft have been modified to drop JDAMs and the Ukrainian's have indeed done so. It is true they lack numbers. More would be better. However, that isn't the problem.

There are actually two reasons JDAMs are not being used effectively. First and foremost, the Russians have deployed many GPS jammers that deny the JDAM accurate GPS data. That renders the JDAMs relatively inaccurate. For "area" targets, that doesn't much matter, but if you are trying to hit a trench, it absolutely matters. Miss by 10 meters and all it does is annoy the occupants of the trench (well, maybe they need to change their pants).

The second reason does involve F-16s, but indirectly. To launch a JDAM from standoff ranges, you want the launch aircraft to be up pretty high in altitude. The distance the JDAM can glide is a function of altitude. You want to keep the launch platform away from the target so that things like MANPADS/Pantsir/Tor etc. can't destroy them. To do that the launch platform needs to be high enough for the launched JDAM to reach the trenches. If they do that, they are potentially vulnerable to Russian longer range air defense, like the S-300/S-400. Worse still, whether the Ukrainian jets are high or low, they are at risk from Russian air operating at high altitude inside Russian airspace launching long range air-to-air missiles.

Ukraine needs F-16s to operate at high altitude inside Ukrainian air space to shoot down the Russian air. In reality, what would probably happen is that both sides would have to be very careful when operating at higher altitude, but Ukraine would gain more from this than Russia. Ukraine could also use F-16s to perform SEAD/DEAD operations against the S-300/S-400 long range air defense. HARMs work much better when not restricted to predefined targets as Ukraine currently is. The radar operators can get pretty HARMshy when F-16 are flinging them out like confetti :-).

All I can think of when I see these images of Russian trenches is "man, sure would be nice to give Ukraine some B-52s."

which the Russians would destroy pretty much immediately. B-52s can only operate AFTER the SEAD/DEAD mission has been successfully completed. Nobody would be crazy enough to try using B-52s until that had happened. ALT-XX units can only do so much :-).

Again, the support Ukraine has received is great, but there is soooo much more that can be given to actually accomplish the objective. It's infuriating to me how the West is basically saying "we are more concerned about our own butts not getting into a war with Russia than we care about the lives of Ukrainian soldiers." They are being asked to sacrifice their lives on a scale that isn't necessary. A Ukrainian soldier life is not worth any less than any American's life, but it is clear our decision makers see them as less valuable. Just disgusting.

The Ukrainian solders aren't being "asked" to do anything by the US/NATO. They are in a war that they want to win. They aren't fighting for us. They are fighting for themselves. The US recognizes that helping Ukraine is in our interests. We aren't doing it because we are "good guys". Indeed, most (almost all) of the people in the US would not support sending US troops to Ukraine, even if the Administration wanted to do so (which they most emphatically do not). The additional complication is that Russia would (at least threaten) to attack the US, possibly with nuclear weapons, if we put "boots on the ground". No way we are going to do that. The only way that happens is if the risk/reward evaluation was heavily in favor of doing so and that was the "consensus" opinion. It isn't.

I too have bones to pick with the US response. In many cases, we appear not to have thought through our actions and have taken steps that while they helped Ukraine marginally did not deliver "optimal" results due to lack of planning/half measures. We have not recognized this "war" requires many contingency plans that can be rapidly executed. We often appear to be well behind events. We need a plan to "win" this war, not to "just try things and see what happens". Even with a plan, events will require new plans. Without a plan, we can end up in a war we can't win and no good way out. This is a "war of choice". We could have just done nothing. IMHO that would have been a bad idea, but it was possible. Now, it isn't. We need to control events, not be controlled by them.

[OutsiderFan]

All I can think of when I see these images of Russian trenches is "man, sure would be nice to give Ukraine some B-52s." Again, the support Ukraine has received is great, but there is soooo much more that can be given to actually accomplish the objective. It's infuriating to me how the West is basically saying "we are more concerned about our own butts not getting into a war with Russia than we care about the lives of Ukrainian soldiers." They are being asked to sacrifice their lives on a scale that isn't necessary. A Ukrainian soldier life is not worth any less than any American's life, but it is clear our decision makers see them as less valuable. Just disgusting.

I don't understand this paragraph. The Ukrainians are fighting to save their country. It's not our country, or a NATO country. They're fighting against our implacable foe and we're aiding them on that basis, but we absolutely do not want to get into a broader conflict with Russia that turns the planet into a cinder.

The West wouldn't be aiding Ukraine if it wasn't strategically important to do so. There are other more effective weapon systems Ukraine could be given that would make achieving the objective of forcing Russians out of the country faster and easier. And NATO countries could have joined the fight, maybe not as NATO, but as individual member countries on their own outside of NATO, and even put together PMCs to help out.

What are people going to say when ZNPP melts down and radioactive fallout contaminates NATO countries? I'll bet Putin doesn't fear a NATO reaction from that either, and that's why it looks more and more likely to happen. If NATO came out and said, "blow up that plant, and we liquidate Moscow," we'd not be seeing that facility mined and ready to melt down. I just for the life of me don't understand why people live in fear of the nuclear war bogeyman. You really, I mean REALLY think Russia is going to start a nuclear war as a first strike?  Really?  Keep in mind Putin and others in the Russian hierarchy wet their pants with a Wagner coup attempt. They would rapidly change course on the ZNPP if NATO threw high and tight on Putin. Even worse, Russia is planning to scare the world into not supporting Ukraine anymore by causing a radioactive material release. See how this works?

Bullies and dictators are at their root, cowards. The uneducated might not know Adolf Hitler was the first to flee when he was faced with resistance when leading an uprising. The dude also had millions of people executed and ultimately killed himself, the ultimate acts of cowardice. ALL dictators and authoritarians are cut from the same cloth. They always back down when the going gets tough because people aren't intimidated by their threats.

The ONLY reason Putin invaded Ukraine in 2022 was because he knew NATO didn't have the balls to stand up to him after the West didn't make the consequences large enough for invading Crimea in 2014. Obama's "we'll expel some diplomats" was feckless and laughably weak. Putin understands one thing - power and force. If you don't use it on him, he will keep pushing. I'll bet he laughs all the time about how afraid the West is of nuclear war he won't ever start, and how much power he derives from the empty threat.

[OutsiderFan]

All I can think of when I see these images of Russian trenches is "man, sure would be nice to give Ukraine some B-52s." Again, the support Ukraine has received is great, but there is soooo much more that can be given to actually accomplish the objective. It's infuriating to me how the West is basically saying "we are more concerned about our own butts not getting into a war with Russia than we care about the lives of Ukrainian soldiers." They are being asked to sacrifice their lives on a scale that isn't necessary. A Ukrainian soldier life is not worth any less than any American's life, but it is clear our decision makers see them as less valuable. Just disgusting.

I don't understand this paragraph. The Ukrainians are fighting to save their country. It's not our country, or a NATO country. They're fighting against our implacable foe and we're aiding them on that basis, but we absolutely do not want to get into a broader conflict with Russia that turns the planet into a cinder.

The West wouldn't be aiding Ukraine if it wasn't strategically important to do so. There are other more effective weapon systems Ukraine could be given that would make achieving the objective of forcing Russians out of the country faster and easier. And NATO countries could have joined the fight, maybe not as NATO, but as individual member countries on their own outside of NATO, and even put together PMCs to help out.

What are people going to say when ZNPP melts down and radioactive fallout contaminates NATO countries? I'll bet Putin doesn't fear a NATO reaction from that either, and that's why it looks more and more likely to happen. If NATO came out and said, "blow up that plant, and we liquidate Moscow," we'd not be seeing that facility mined and ready to melt down. I just for the life of me don't understand why people live in fear of the nuclear war bogeyman. You really, I mean REALLY think Russia is going to start a nuclear war as a first strike?  Really?  Keep in mind Putin and others in the Russian hierarchy wet their pants with a Wagner coup attempt. They would rapidly change course on the ZNPP if NATO threw high and tight on Putin. Even worse, Russia is planning to scare the world into not supporting Ukraine anymore by causing a radioactive material release. See how this works?

Bullies and dictators are at their root, cowards. The uneducated might not know Adolf Hitler was the first to flee when he was faced with resistance when leading an uprising. The dude also had millions of people executed and ultimately killed himself, the ultimate acts of cowardice. ALL dictators and authoritarians are cut from the same cloth. They always back down when the going gets tough because people aren't intimidated by their threats.

The ONLY reason Putin invaded Ukraine in 2022 was because he knew NATO didn't have the balls to stand up to him after the West didn't make the consequences large enough for invading Crimea in 2014. Obama's "we'll expel some diplomats" was feckless and laughably weak. Putin understands one thing - power and force. If you don't use it on him, he will keep pushing. I'll bet he laughs all the time about how afraid the West is of nuclear war he won't ever start, and how much power he derives from the empty threat.

[Goose]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/russias-elect...00083.html

Interesting timing on this article. The fact that JDAMs were vulnerable to Russian jamming has been common and public knowledge since Iraq used them to defeat the attack on Saddam Hussein at the start of the second gulf war. There has been a little improvement on this front, but only a little. JDAMs are good because they are cheap, and making their GPS receivers more robust and capable costs money. OTOH, there is no excuse that Russian jamming systems are allowed to "live" in Ukraine. They are easy to find and relatively easy to kill. The fact that isn't happening is very, very strange IMO. FWIW, cluster munitions are ideal for that task.

[Goose]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/russias-elect...00083.html

Interesting timing on this article. The fact that JDAMs were vulnerable to Russian jamming has been common and public knowledge since Iraq used them to defeat the attack on Saddam Hussein at the start of the second gulf war. There has been a little improvement on this front, but only a little. JDAMs are good because they are cheap, and making their GPS receivers more robust and capable costs money. OTOH, there is no excuse that Russian jamming systems are allowed to "live" in Ukraine. They are easy to find and relatively easy to kill. The fact that isn't happening is very, very strange IMO. FWIW, cluster munitions are ideal for that task.

[GK3]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/russias-elect...00083.html

Interesting timing on this article. The fact that JDAMs were vulnerable to Russian jamming has been common and public knowledge since Iraq used them to defeat the attack on Saddam Hussein at the start of the second gulf war. There has been a little improvement on this front, but only a little. JDAMs are good because they are cheap, and making their GPS receivers more robust and capable costs money. OTOH, there is no excuse that Russian jamming systems are allowed to "live" in Ukraine. They are easy to find and relatively easy to kill. The fact that isn't happening is very, very strange IMO. FWIW, cluster munitions are ideal for that task.

Here is a more detailed discussion of the issues, possible solutions and more.

https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/pu...to%20Earth.

[GK3]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/russias-elect...00083.html

Interesting timing on this article. The fact that JDAMs were vulnerable to Russian jamming has been common and public knowledge since Iraq used them to defeat the attack on Saddam Hussein at the start of the second gulf war. There has been a little improvement on this front, but only a little. JDAMs are good because they are cheap, and making their GPS receivers more robust and capable costs money. OTOH, there is no excuse that Russian jamming systems are allowed to "live" in Ukraine. They are easy to find and relatively easy to kill. The fact that isn't happening is very, very strange IMO. FWIW, cluster munitions are ideal for that task.

Here is a more detailed discussion of the issues, possible solutions and more.

https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/pu...to%20Earth.

[Goose]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/russias-elect...00083.html

Interesting timing on this article. The fact that JDAMs were vulnerable to Russian jamming has been common and public knowledge since Iraq used them to defeat the attack on Saddam Hussein at the start of the second gulf war. There has been a little improvement on this front, but only a little. JDAMs are good because they are cheap, and making their GPS receivers more robust and capable costs money. OTOH, there is no excuse that Russian jamming systems are allowed to "live" in Ukraine. They are easy to find and relatively easy to kill. The fact that isn't happening is very, very strange IMO. FWIW, cluster munitions are ideal for that task.

Here is a more detailed discussion of the issues, possible solutions and more.

https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/pu...to%20Earth.

FWIW, the signal strength calculations in "dBm" involve assuming antenna efficiencies, both on the transmitting and receiving ends. The figure for the GPS antenna/receiver is pretty much the "generally accepted" value for your phone GPS. This may or may not reflect how the antenna(s) on the JDAM operate. The jammer signal received power is another matter. There are a lot of variables that go into estimating that, many of which are far from public domain and a few of which are very sensitive to how the jammer is operated. Makes me wonder a bit about these numbers, but I know I don't have "better" ones. In any case, there are indeed lots of things that can be done to mitigate the effects of this kind of jamming. They all cost money, and making the guidance kits more expensive (especially when you need LOTS of them) isn't a popular choice. It also isn't going to happen in the next year even if we were building them today, which AFAIK we are not.

The US has always assumed that this type of jamming wouldn't really be a problem because it is suicidal. The enemy can't know exactly where and when they will be attacked with GPS guided munitions. Generally, they don't possess enough jammers to "guard" everything, so attack what they aren't guarding. Furthermore, the jammers have to jam basically all the time, because they don't reliably and quickly know when weapons are inbound. Home-on-jam weapons can destroy them reliably and cheaply. Failing that, cluster munitions can be used. These munitions don't need to be "precision" guided. Spread them around, close counts. So, why in Ukraine does Russia appear to have "enough" jammers, and why aren't they dropping like flies? Seems a bit strange.

[Goose]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/russias-elect...00083.html

Interesting timing on this article. The fact that JDAMs were vulnerable to Russian jamming has been common and public knowledge since Iraq used them to defeat the attack on Saddam Hussein at the start of the second gulf war. There has been a little improvement on this front, but only a little. JDAMs are good because they are cheap, and making their GPS receivers more robust and capable costs money. OTOH, there is no excuse that Russian jamming systems are allowed to "live" in Ukraine. They are easy to find and relatively easy to kill. The fact that isn't happening is very, very strange IMO. FWIW, cluster munitions are ideal for that task.

Here is a more detailed discussion of the issues, possible solutions and more.

https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/pu...to%20Earth.

FWIW, the signal strength calculations in "dBm" involve assuming antenna efficiencies, both on the transmitting and receiving ends. The figure for the GPS antenna/receiver is pretty much the "generally accepted" value for your phone GPS. This may or may not reflect how the antenna(s) on the JDAM operate. The jammer signal received power is another matter. There are a lot of variables that go into estimating that, many of which are far from public domain and a few of which are very sensitive to how the jammer is operated. Makes me wonder a bit about these numbers, but I know I don't have "better" ones. In any case, there are indeed lots of things that can be done to mitigate the effects of this kind of jamming. They all cost money, and making the guidance kits more expensive (especially when you need LOTS of them) isn't a popular choice. It also isn't going to happen in the next year even if we were building them today, which AFAIK we are not.

The US has always assumed that this type of jamming wouldn't really be a problem because it is suicidal. The enemy can't know exactly where and when they will be attacked with GPS guided munitions. Generally, they don't possess enough jammers to "guard" everything, so attack what they aren't guarding. Furthermore, the jammers have to jam basically all the time, because they don't reliably and quickly know when weapons are inbound. Home-on-jam weapons can destroy them reliably and cheaply. Failing that, cluster munitions can be used. These munitions don't need to be "precision" guided. Spread them around, close counts. So, why in Ukraine does Russia appear to have "enough" jammers, and why aren't they dropping like flies? Seems a bit strange.