[Mick]

1. That is the big question, to hit Russian targets in Russia or not.  Allowing lines drawn on a map to dictate whether or not you can attack an enemy retreating over the line or do you have to simply allow them to regroup and then attack you again?  

2. Strikes me that the UK should hit every target it can reach in Russia without crossing the border.  Invading Russia has never worked out well for anyone.  There is also the question of how much will Putin take before he does something crazy.  Crossing the border might well be a bridge too far, but would HIMARS attacks from Ukrainian territory be viewed the same?  Of course if the Ukrainians can't keep up the pressure then may all be a moot point. 

3. Another question is are there any more spare Migs around to donate to the Ukraine?  They seem desperate for more Air Support.  How hard is it to train up experienced pilots in another airframe, say an F 16?  Lots of people seem to now want HIMARS and we don't seem to be in a position to build more very fast.  Would we license the weapon to another country? We seem to be at a point that we need to provide even more support as now matter how fast they advanced, there have been losses.

1. I think striking in Russia would be a mistake, and that Putin would react badly.  What might be acceptable is creating a demilitarized zone.  I just don't see the Russians going away any time soon, their ego is too wrapped up in winning.

2. I've been wondering a bit about the perfect storm surrounding Putin.  In Russia, you have an army that is failing badly, a mediocre officer corps, too many conscripts that don't want to fight and fight badly, an opponent that is tough, motivated, fighting exclusively on its own territory and armed to the teeth by dozens of opponent countries who are only too willing to see Russia and Russians go down in flames.  You have what I think is a seriously "prismed" information set fed to Putin...I think the level of candor, given Putin's predilection for punishing the messenger, is lacking, and you have bad decisions being made in the first place. Currently, the economy isn't doing well despite India's and China's best efforts to prop up the Russian economy by carbon fuel purchases, and the Russian populace seems to support the war, but man have they been suffering losses.  How soon before Putin's supporters turn on Putin?  How soon before Putin's medical condition causes him to collapse?

I wonder if it's just a matter of time before the Russians resort to tactical nukes, or chemical or biological weapons. 

3. I believe new planes would have to come from Bulgaria, Poland or Slovakia. I think those are the only NATO countries that still fly MiGs. I think it would be very difficult to train experienced pilots to a level of acceptability in western jets, though I believe an experienced MiG-29 fighter could transition to the F-16. I think fifth-generation jets are out of the question for a variety of reasons.

[Mick]

1. That is the big question, to hit Russian targets in Russia or not.  Allowing lines drawn on a map to dictate whether or not you can attack an enemy retreating over the line or do you have to simply allow them to regroup and then attack you again?  

2. Strikes me that the UK should hit every target it can reach in Russia without crossing the border.  Invading Russia has never worked out well for anyone.  There is also the question of how much will Putin take before he does something crazy.  Crossing the border might well be a bridge too far, but would HIMARS attacks from Ukrainian territory be viewed the same?  Of course if the Ukrainians can't keep up the pressure then may all be a moot point. 

3. Another question is are there any more spare Migs around to donate to the Ukraine?  They seem desperate for more Air Support.  How hard is it to train up experienced pilots in another airframe, say an F 16?  Lots of people seem to now want HIMARS and we don't seem to be in a position to build more very fast.  Would we license the weapon to another country? We seem to be at a point that we need to provide even more support as now matter how fast they advanced, there have been losses.

1. I think striking in Russia would be a mistake, and that Putin would react badly.  What might be acceptable is creating a demilitarized zone.  I just don't see the Russians going away any time soon, their ego is too wrapped up in winning.

2. I've been wondering a bit about the perfect storm surrounding Putin.  In Russia, you have an army that is failing badly, a mediocre officer corps, too many conscripts that don't want to fight and fight badly, an opponent that is tough, motivated, fighting exclusively on its own territory and armed to the teeth by dozens of opponent countries who are only too willing to see Russia and Russians go down in flames.  You have what I think is a seriously "prismed" information set fed to Putin...I think the level of candor, given Putin's predilection for punishing the messenger, is lacking, and you have bad decisions being made in the first place. Currently, the economy isn't doing well despite India's and China's best efforts to prop up the Russian economy by carbon fuel purchases, and the Russian populace seems to support the war, but man have they been suffering losses.  How soon before Putin's supporters turn on Putin?  How soon before Putin's medical condition causes him to collapse?

I wonder if it's just a matter of time before the Russians resort to tactical nukes, or chemical or biological weapons. 

3. I believe new planes would have to come from Bulgaria, Poland or Slovakia. I think those are the only NATO countries that still fly MiGs. I think it would be very difficult to train experienced pilots to a level of acceptability in western jets, though I believe an experienced MiG-29 fighter could transition to the F-16. I think fifth-generation jets are out of the question for a variety of reasons.