>

Best we can do is AT-ATs
No jets until you finish your tanks. >

Let's just lease them an aircraft carrier. Temporarily suspend everyone's Enlistment and commission. And have them be volunteers for Ukraine. Look at that loophole it's awesome >

That ain't no loophole. That's legal bullshitting for putting an American aircraft carrier in war against Russia. If it's a full strike force, it could dominate, not just Ukraine and the Russian border but pretty much all of Eastern Europe on its own.
Also, how much would you charge per week of war? $1B? $3B for a full month? Double that for all logistics support. Add another 75% of that for the entire strike force, including subs. Nuclear SLBM with turn key nuclear strike is a cool $500B deposit for each missile (95% of that back at end of conflict), 5X that if you actually fire it wit full payment in escrow. >

Best I can do is $20 >

Haha that got me good. >

What's funny is you think I'm kidding.
I literally only got $20 on me. >

:( >

Ok fine. I probably have some change on my dresser too. >

Let’s bring in the experts then. I know a guy, he’s gonna come down and check it out and if he agrees we’ve got a deal. >

Ask the PM of the Netherlands, they are happy to send some over! >

At this point, the Netherlands can just disband their entire fighter jet squadron, just like what they did to their tanks. >

I mean, they are pretty safe sending everything, even if they had no army nobody would dare attack them, USA likes to complain that nobody spends as much as them on defense but it and all of NATO would throw 110% of its force on anybody trying something at a fellow nation. >

I don't really understand why nearly everybody in Europe can't spare virtually their whole equipment stores. Russia is fully focused on Ukraine and America will slap them like a fly if they try anything, and who else will attack them? Their economically codependent neighbors they've been in a union with for decades? A few, like France, like to send the army to play colonial every now and then but most European militaries really have virtually no use for their equipment except for a theoretical war with Russia. And as it happens, there's a fantastic opportunity to use this equipment to destroy the Russian military right now with no casualties of their own! It seems like the biggest no-brainer of all time.
Please nobody say "but they need training and supplies too" yeah I know. That can be provided too. >

Because being completely dependent on the US for defense is stupid in a world where it's theoretically possible for one of the "America First" crowd to get elected and unilaterally pull the heart out of NATO Temple of Doom style. Until they establish a joint EU army they need to at least pretend they can defend themselves. But, if they establish a joint EU army, would they need NATO any longer?
I guess the bigger domestic problems are twofold. The first is that any EU army would be much more expensive than what they have now because the French would demand expeditionary capability so they could still play Imperialist in Africa as the mood takes them or they won't play ball. Any unified EU army without France simply won't function. The second is probably more fundamental, if the EU has an army and Belgium doesn't then Belgium doesn't have the monopoly on force that makes governments sovereign. Belgium would have to ask the EU to do military stuff on their behalf, which is precisely the same start of the process that turned the US from a collection of independent nations with a common market and foreign policy into a single nation. As long as people don't conceive of the EU as the nation then it's impossible for small European nations to give up their arms. >

Hopefully Russia will become too weak to keep providing support for the US Republicans. Or release their blackmail on them. Either of those. >

Eh, they provide support to anyone and everyone they think would pick fights. You see an awful lot of Russian propaganda coming from older leftist publications in Europe, too. They didn't reject free money at a time when they're fading in relevance.
It's just that the extremely far right fringe was energized and organized for first time since the John Burke Society collapsed in the early 1990s. Mainstream Republicans aren't going anywhere, even the ones who compromised their own ethics to work with Trump. It's the MTG and the Lakes of the world that are going to be losing key patrons.
Russia couldn't give less of a fuck ideologically. I mean, they famously organized an anti-immigrant rally in Texas and also organized the counterprotest. It's just that the extreme left is extremely disorganized, so there aren't that many groups to pour funding into. Even the ton of cash put in the BLM stuff didn't go much of anywhere, but that's mostly because the Facebook groups and web pages were run by grifters who just shamelessly stole the money. >

About two or three days ago, a boat or ship was included in the daily update, did anyone see/read any details regarding that? >

The US should just transfer them a big chunk of our reserve fleet so they can have a Blue Water Navy. Too bad Enterprise is being dismantled, I'm Sure Ukraine could make use of that to raid the Russian coast with jets. >

Are you going to DoLittle it and just try to take off from the deck without a catapult on a 1-way trip?
You can't just take an aircraft and make it work with a US carrier. The Russian style have ramps for a reason.
With that said, I like the where your head is at. >

Give ‘em the Mighty Mo, Alabama, and the Texas too! Let’s bring all the classics out for one final cage fight >

Sounds a probable F-16 announcement coming after the next Ramstein meeting. Hopefully the next generation of Ukrainian fighter pilots are getting a head start with their training somewhere… >

I'm fairly sure there were reports early on in the war that ukrainian pilots were training in the US. It'd be about the right time for them to have finished their training as far as I'm aware (a year?) >

Yep, people were shitting their pants hoping it was the A10 from what I remember. >

I’m a certified military expert from Reddit Comments Section School and according to my knowledge A10 would be of no use in this conflict - no air superiority and a lot of AA capabilities on the Russian side. >

But F-16's would be? Would Ukraine suddenly have air superiority with 2 dozen F-16's?
The only fighter either side appears to still be using are Su-25's, which are the Soviet version of the A-10. >

F-16s are much more survivable in contested airspace compared to an A-10.   The A-10 has basically had all the defensive equipment possible added to it.    
I did a paper on this while in the Air Force and worked with a few people from the Air Force Weapons School.   
The A-10 is awesome,  it’s a flying tank.  But it’s highly susceptible to any semi-modern manpads or AA missiles. >

A-10:  I'm kinda slow, so I'm built to take it like a champ.  One engine, half a wing, a third of a tail, fucking bring it.  Shoot at me all you want, I'll probably still make it home.
Modern weapons: I see... and how much do you like big internal explosions?
A-10: Well... not very much. >

That’s… actually almost like an ELI5 of the A-10. Which is what makes it so deadly against nations without modern missiles, or groups- ie the Taliban. But damn near worthless if there are SAMs in the area, or contested airspace.
117’s and the like cleared the way against those kinds of facilities even in Persian Gulf. Of course they are retired but even if they weren’t I can’t see us giving them out. F-16’s and/or the Eurofighter seem the most likely, with the F-16 being far more likely. >

Hell, 87 F-111s killed over 1500 Iraqi heavy armored units, with none damaged or destroyed. 144 A-10s didn't break 1000 Iraqi heavy armored units, 2 pilots were killed, 6 aircraft were shot down, and 28 were destroyed from ground fire. Hell, A-10 got pulled from the front lines there by Gen. Horner (allied air commander), because it was the most lost airframe of the war by a sizable margin.
Zooming in a high speeds, using advanced sensors to identify the target 30 miles out, and dropping a bomb accurate to within 5ft, ended up being more effective than flying barely faster than a helo, circling around to visually identify the target, and then doing gunruns that in testing couldn't even kill base model M-60s from the 1950s.
The A-10 does... fine for counter insurgency where there's no SAMs or ground fire. Against anything else, it's a flying coffin. Su-25s can survive, somewhat, over Ukraine l, because they're over 50% faster. They can fly in, shoot their shot, and scoot home before they're shot down. A-10 can't. Hell, the Army's Blackhawk replacement is almost as fast as an A-10 is... >


Hell, 87 F-111s killed over 1500 Iraqi heavy armored units, with none damaged or destroyed.

It’s hard to imagine any weapon system has ever destroyed tanks at scale as efficiently as F-111s and GBU-12s. 4 bombs for 4 tanks in one sortie wasn’t at all uncommon, and probably would’ve happened even more if the high command had been quicker to stop the A-10s, F-16s and Harriers from trying to kill tanks with dumb bombs during the day, as all their missed attempts made for a lot of infrared clutter. >

If you haven't noticed by now, this whole process of giving better and better weapons to Ukraine is going to be a slow process because they need to normalize it over time. It's too bad that it's going to take more time and many Ukrainians plus another 100,000 Russians will have to die because of it. The problem is we're not going to start World war III over the issue by rushing everything. People have finally figured out the media cycles in this world. In 6 months nobody cares about what happened 6 months ago. It's now normal. If this war goes on for years we will be handing over battleships and bombers. >

Zelensky: please gib nukes
The West: no fucking way
....
Okay here you go,
just dont point them at mainland russia. >

We can't give away nukes because of the nuclear proliferation treaty >

And the moment you do that, a whole bunch of Western geopolitical rivals - Iran, Venezuela, etc will suddenly get Russian nukes as well if they want them. >

They trying to get everything before April/May. That is when both sides are mostly likely to pull out all the stops. >

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 85%. (I'm a bot)


Germany's offer of 14 Leopard tanks has prompted calls for more heavy armour by Ukraine's government as it formally announced its forces' retreat from the eastern town of Soledar after nine months of bloody battle.
Dmytro Kuleba, Ukraine's foreign minister, said: "So the tank coalition is formed. Everyone who doubted this could ever happen sees now: for Ukraine and partners impossible is nothing."I call on all new partners that have Leopard 2 tanks in service to join the coalition and provide as many of them as possible.
Germany had been put under heavy pressure to agree to provide Leopard 2 tanks with Poland's prime minister, Mateusz Morawiecki, describing the apparent dithering in Berlin as "unacceptable".


Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: tank^#1 Ukraine^#2 forces^#3 Leopard^#4 decision^#5 >

Well damn, not even a day after the green light on the tanks >

No surprise, Melnyk asked for Tornados last week. >

Well damn Jackie I can't control the weather. >

2025: NATO agrees to build a death star for Ukraine >

If you give a Ukraine a HIMARS...
Then they will want Main Battle Tanks to go with it...
If you Give the Ukraine a Main Battle Tank, they they will want F-16s to provide air cover! >

And if you give them F-16's....? >

Then you need to give them B-2's to go along with it! >

Then you gotta give them their nukes back, to arm the b2. >

And if you give Ukraine Nukes and break up Russia, Ukriane is going to want to disarm again. 
And if Ukraine disarms....
Then Russia is going to want to invade them again! >

The optimist in me (as much as I am usually NOT one) says fighters may be on the table more now than ever what with tanks being sent to Ukraine. >

Makes no sense. Air defense on both sides are too good. NATO focused on air superiority/dominance where USSR/CIS focused on air denial. At most we could give them Wild Weasels and that is a massive skill that only the best/ suicidal pilots do to take out SAMs. >

Ya I don't think that would be a good idea. Even Russia has to sit their planes outside the warzone and lob missiles into Ukraine. Just too much AA right now. >

Really, you don't just jump into a jet and a start flying and fighting. My neighbor flys and trains in f16's. He's out every day. >

Microsoft flight simulator says otherwise. I'm confident I could match any ace pilot toe to toe in the air. >

If you're toe to toe, you've already crashed your plane! >

So, call it a draw? >

Only if OP's life is cheaper than that of a Russian conscript. >

Thank god Germany doesn't have any F-16s. This time PiS/Russian division division will have to look for another target. >

Someone asked for germanys Tornados...which exist only to carry nuclear warheads at this point >

A real populist asked for it, so don't bother >

Just show us the rest of the shopping list already. CH-47? >

They had to beg for tanks . They are doing , what’s working because somehow every country seem to have small but powerful group  oppose to helping Ukraine. Like some of these countries been co op by Russian operatives lol >

F-16s are not unreasonable. Training is obviously the major hurdle, but it's a work horse and not an extra special snowflake. Production line recently restarted and they are quite reasonably priced for a quality multi-role fighter. Used ones in good condition are plentiful and could be freed up with some horse trading. >

What's next on his wishlist, nuclear warheads? >

Boris Johnson: what are we waiting for?! >

“This is common sense policy that all Brits should be able to stand behind” >

F-16 will probably be the next one to be discussed >

I seriously hope F-16 comes to Ukraine. >

In an Unpredictable move, the US has transfered Ukraine all of its F-22 raptors. One Pentagon official said "The dinosaurs deserved to be free to hunt as they were meant to" >

It would be a beautiful sight in the skies of Ukraine, but F-22 still in service by USAF. >

We actually are already talking about retiring them, but even then sending them to Ukraine would never happen. Still, a man can dream. >

If you give Ukraine a cookie... >

Man, Scholz barely pressed enter on that Bundesregierung press release, and Zelensky is already asking for jets now. >

I mean it makes sense. Ukraine's (public) negotiating technique is quite consistent. Make a seemingly outrageous demand, keep talking about it whilst smaller requests are being fulfilled, now seeming more reasonable (IFV's for example). Then when those are delivered how big of a step are some tanks (not the 300 demanded but 50). Rinse repeat. I expect Ukraine to ask for a 100 fighters, and they will get a dozen in half a year, and after regular deliveries. >

What do they want next, the Death Star?