Current Affairs Ukraine

[Spadge Vernacular]

Air power? What has Russian air supremacy done for them? They cant even use their air force they''d be sitting ducks. And so would any Ukrainian attempt to control the airspace from the skies.

I'm fairly sure additional air power would be a good thing for Ukraine and not a negative.

This sort of thinking.

Airpower is the Key to Victory in Ukraine | Air & Space Forces Magazine

By not providing F-16s, allies are prolonging the war and the suffering of the Ukrainian people by withholding the tools of victory. %

www.airandspaceforces.com

 

[Rita_Poon]

control the airspace from the skies.

how's about controlling airspace from under the kitchen table? in the bath? down the potting shed? Redundant.

 

[davek]

I'm fairly sure additional air power would be a good thing for Ukraine and not a negative.

This sort of thinking.

Airpower is the Key to Victory in Ukraine | Air & Space Forces Magazine

By not providing F-16s, allies are prolonging the war and the suffering of the Ukrainian people by withholding the tools of victory. %

www.airandspaceforces.com

The losses would be catastrophic. Imagine these Ukrainian pilots getting blown out of the sky - all the time spent training them and all the propaganda about them.

That's not the way to victory. The only way to victory is for Ukraine to get a game changing infusion of personnel on the ground and the weaponry that the US have but are withholding.

 

[davek]

how's about controlling airspace from under the kitchen table? in the bath? down the potting shed? Redundant.

I don't understand.

 

[Rita_Poon]

I don't understand.

Ok. We move on...

 

[Spadge Vernacular]

The losses would be catastrophic. Imagine these Ukrainian pilots getting blown out of the sky - all the time spent training them and all the propaganda about them.

That's not the way to victory. The only way to victory is for Ukraine to get a game changing infusion of personnel on the ground and the weaponry that the US have but are withholding.

Why would the losses of more advanced aircraft and missiles be catastrophic, unless you mean for Russia.

And whilst you continue on your hopes of imagining Ukraine pilot being blown out of the sky I'll instead understand the devastation these pilots and missiles would bring to Russian defences and its ability for aggression on neighbouring land.

 

[Martin Alvito]

Probably worth pointing out that Ukraine are not losing this war. If anything Russia has been pushed back from every objective and is now behind defensive lines designed to slow/halt Ukraines progress. These lines have been successful and there is something of a stalemate at present. Ukraine need further equipment to destroy these defensive lines, such as air power, longer range missiles and it has been made clear that these won't arrive until early 2024.

This is correct. The question on the table is whether a collapse in US funding and weapons provision would lead to a temporary stalemate, a protracted one or a tilting of the scale towards Russia. That probably depends on how willing EU countries prove to pick up the slack, and how quickly they do it. I would expect both parties in Congress to happily go along with producing arms, selling them to EU countries and having those countries then ship them to Ukraine.

The basket of goods Congress proves willing to launder through the EU, and how quickly they authorize the transfers, will also matter. I would expect our military to balk at exporting those new midrange missiles that can drop a 500 lb. warhead on the head of a pin, now that they have proof of concept. The military will also be looking to reload their own stockpiles of a number of munitions, to best be prepared for a conflict in the near term.

 

[Rita_Poon]

This is correct. The question on the table is whether a collapse in US funding and weapons provision would lead to a temporary stalemate, a protracted one or a tilting of the scale towards Russia. That probably depends on how willing EU countries prove to pick up the slack, and how quickly they do it. I would expect both parties in Congress to happily go along with producing arms, selling them to EU countries and having those countries then ship them to Ukraine.

The basket of goods Congress proves willing to launder through the EU, and how quickly they authorize the transfers, will also matter. I would expect our military to balk at exporting those new midrange missiles that can drop a 500 lb. warhead on the head of a pin, now that they have proof of concept. The military will also be looking to reload their own stockpiles of a number of munitions, to best be prepared for a conflict in the near term.

SV put a belter of an article up a few pages back re procurement, cost of upkeep to older munitions and replenishment.

 

[Spadge Vernacular]

This is correct. The question on the table is whether a collapse in US funding and weapons provision would lead to a temporary stalemate, a protracted one or a tilting of the scale towards Russia. That probably depends on how willing EU countries prove to pick up the slack, and how quickly they do it. I would expect both parties in Congress to happily go along with producing arms, selling them to EU countries and having those countries then ship them to Ukraine.

The basket of goods Congress proves willing to launder through the EU, and how quickly they authorize the transfers, will also matter. I would expect our military to balk at exporting those new midrange missiles that can drop a 500 lb. warhead on the head of a pin, now that they have proof of concept. The military will also be looking to reload their own stockpiles of a number of munitions, to best be prepared for a conflict in the near term.

Although the US have been incredibly supportive to Ukraine in facing off its old foe, as you allude to this is an issue in Europe and so the EU and the UK should be firmly committed to ensuring victory for Ukraine to ensure stability. Canada and Japan have been very supportive also and I suspect that once the situation in Gaza settles that Israel will become active. Putins gamble there will backfire.

 

[Martin Alvito]

SV put a belter of an article up a few pages back re procurement, cost of upkeep to older munitions and replenishment.

It is very good. I didn't know about the accounting at full replacement value. I understand procurement at the political level, and I understand stuff like ditching disposal costs on surplus and outdated munitions, but I was never all the way out in the weeds on that stuff.

It explains a lot about why the US is so frequently willing to provide arms assistance to its allies right when a conflict breaks out, but then starts to hem and haw when a conflict becomes protracted. The Pentagon is happy to ship its legacy stocks so it can buy more stuff, but dislikes depleting its stockpiles of the newer toys it believes will win the next war. Once it reaches its ideal point it starts pushing back, and Republicans start griping about the costs of foreign assistance.

 

[Rita_Poon]

It is very good. I didn't know about the accounting at full replacement value. I understand procurement at the political level, and I understand stuff like ditching disposal costs on surplus and outdated munitions, but I was never all the way out in the weeds on that stuff.

It explains a lot about why the US is so frequently willing to provide arms assistance to its allies right when a conflict breaks out, but then starts to hem and haw when a conflict becomes protracted. The Pentagon is happy to ship its legacy stocks so it can buy more stuff, but dislikes depleting its stockpiles of the newer toys it believes will win the next war. Once it reaches its ideal point it starts pushing back, and Republicans start griping about the costs of foreign assistance.

Replacement has been a massive uplift to arms manufacturers as well, so that arm of the economy has been hugely helped out. Old stock at 100% original cost exported for use against who it was designed to be used against and then the means to upgrade and replenish has been a win cubed situation.

 

[Martin Alvito]

Although the US have been incredibly supportive to Ukraine in facing off its old foe, as you allude to this is an issue in Europe and so the EU and the UK should be firmly committed to ensuring victory for Ukraine to ensure stability. Canada and Japan have been very supportive also and I suspect that once the situation in Gaza settles that Israel will become active. Putins gamble there will backfire.

I agree that they should, but then again the US also should. We now live in an era where Kenneth Waltz's uniform billiard-ball, interest-based model of predicting state behavior in international relations no longer works well, and Bob Putnam's two-level games concept is in ascendance. That latter concept has been expanded and extended by any number of people, but it's still often the cleanest way to think about a problem due to its simplicity.

As an example, Europe's ability to respond to the situation would be diminished if it were Corbyn, rather than Starmer, who was on the threshold of power. Corbyn would have tools like the whip and cabinet ministries to hand out as a means of quelling internal party dissent over his preferred Ukraine policy. The result would probably be conflict internal to Labour, and a delayed, watered-down response by the UK.

If Corbyn had been in power for a bit, his toolkit for pushing back against internal dissent would be diminished. He would no longer have the cabinet ministries to hand out, so I would expect a stronger and swifter response from the UK, but not as strong as the one Starmer would produce. Strangely, his hand is strongest at the moment right before he wins the election, diminishes sharply the day after the Cabinet ministries are settled, and then increases again as his ability to conduct a Cabinet reshuffle without looking like an idiot increases.

 

[davek]

Biden seems to believe there's a deal to be done with the Republicans. I'm not too sure though. If he signs off on all kinds of spending on border infrastructure with Mexico to pacify the Republicans his own base is going to be even more alienated with him.

We'll see later, I suppose.

I also think it's politically expedient for the Republicans to show division between themselves and the Democrats on Ukraine for the upcoming race for POTUS.

 

[Spadge Vernacular]

 

[Spadge Vernacular]