[Goose]

Biden can't unilaterally donate F16s to Ukraine. He has to use budgeted funds to do so. If he had used those funds back in 2022 to send F16s as you wished he had, Ukraine would be in much worse shape today with regards to artillery shells and air defense. F16s cost several hundred million dollars.

You might want to take a look at https://www.dsca.mil/programs/excess-def...ticles-eda. All Biden had to do back in 2022 was "justify the transfer to Congress". It doesn't require an appropriation. Zero. Nada. We do this all the time with "big ticket" items like ships. Obviously Ukraine would have to figure out a way to get them to Ukraine. That might be easy if they were already in Europe ("as is, where is"). Today of course he would have no chance as Congress would at least consider a resolution telling him not to do it. As I understand it, Congress doesn't have to take any action to approve such grants. They can take action to stop them. Back in 2022, and probably early 2023, he could have done it. IMO the administration still believes this is "too risky" and that Russia might "overreact". That stopped them from even considering such a transfer.

On the subject of Abrams, the US position from early on was that it would not be the best use of limited funds to send lots of them. Ukraine loudly kept demanding them, probably for their own domestic political reasons more than battlefield considerations, as a handful of Abrams won't/wouldn't make a large difference on the battlefield, but every new Western weapon supplied is loudly touted and celebrated in Ukraine. The Abrams of course counted against the appropriated funds just like an F16 would.

See above. Abrams that are EDA do NOT count against appropriated funds. However, all the support and training would. It seems probable to me that the US indeed did not think that such a transfer was the best use of funds. It would be a distraction from other important tasks the Ukraine needed to perform. The US military didn't think the reward justified the price. Yet it eventually happened. I assume you believe the administration caved to Ukrainian politically motivated requests. That looks pretty plausible to me. However, the US only did it after other NATO countries did so. This eliminated any residual "anxiety" about the Russian response. IMO that played into the decision as well.

OK, so you say Biden should use some creative accounting to still somehow send F16s. Maybe he could do that, but he'd definitely be impeached for it. So here again we have domestic politics circumscribing the possible.

True today. Not true in 2022. It also isn't "creative accounting". It is done all the time. Otherwise, DLA has to let a contract to chop them up. That does cost money :-). Preparing an aircraft to go to Davis-Montham is even more expensive. Take a look at
https://www.airplaneboneyards.com/davis-...neyard.htm

[Goose]

Biden can't unilaterally donate F16s to Ukraine. He has to use budgeted funds to do so. If he had used those funds back in 2022 to send F16s as you wished he had, Ukraine would be in much worse shape today with regards to artillery shells and air defense. F16s cost several hundred million dollars.

You might want to take a look at https://www.dsca.mil/programs/excess-def...ticles-eda. All Biden had to do back in 2022 was "justify the transfer to Congress". It doesn't require an appropriation. Zero. Nada. We do this all the time with "big ticket" items like ships. Obviously Ukraine would have to figure out a way to get them to Ukraine. That might be easy if they were already in Europe ("as is, where is"). Today of course he would have no chance as Congress would at least consider a resolution telling him not to do it. As I understand it, Congress doesn't have to take any action to approve such grants. They can take action to stop them. Back in 2022, and probably early 2023, he could have done it. IMO the administration still believes this is "too risky" and that Russia might "overreact". That stopped them from even considering such a transfer.

On the subject of Abrams, the US position from early on was that it would not be the best use of limited funds to send lots of them. Ukraine loudly kept demanding them, probably for their own domestic political reasons more than battlefield considerations, as a handful of Abrams won't/wouldn't make a large difference on the battlefield, but every new Western weapon supplied is loudly touted and celebrated in Ukraine. The Abrams of course counted against the appropriated funds just like an F16 would.

See above. Abrams that are EDA do NOT count against appropriated funds. However, all the support and training would. It seems probable to me that the US indeed did not think that such a transfer was the best use of funds. It would be a distraction from other important tasks the Ukraine needed to perform. The US military didn't think the reward justified the price. Yet it eventually happened. I assume you believe the administration caved to Ukrainian politically motivated requests. That looks pretty plausible to me. However, the US only did it after other NATO countries did so. This eliminated any residual "anxiety" about the Russian response. IMO that played into the decision as well.

OK, so you say Biden should use some creative accounting to still somehow send F16s. Maybe he could do that, but he'd definitely be impeached for it. So here again we have domestic politics circumscribing the possible.

True today. Not true in 2022. It also isn't "creative accounting". It is done all the time. Otherwise, DLA has to let a contract to chop them up. That does cost money :-). Preparing an aircraft to go to Davis-Montham is even more expensive. Take a look at
https://www.airplaneboneyards.com/davis-...neyard.htm