Ukrainian Official Says F-16 No Longer Relevant?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 апр 2024
- Mover, Mace, and Gonky discuss reports that an anonymous Ukrainian general said that it was too late for the F-16 to make a difference.
www.thedefensepost.com/2024/0... Check out Mace's Badass Masterclass and get 20% off with code LAUNCH20 macecurran.com/masterclass (Registration ends April 15th)
Every Monday at 8PM ET, Mover (F-16, F/A-18, T-38, 737, helicopter pilot, author, cop, and wanna be race car driver) and Gonky (F/A-18, T-38, A320, dirt bike racer, author, and awesome dad) discuss everything from aviation to racing to life and anything in between.
Send your voice message for the show: podcasters.spotify.com/pod/sh...
Looking for a good book? www.cwlemoine.com
Want to create live streams like this? Check out StreamYard: streamyard.com/pal/d/56844703...
The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement.
Views presented are my own and do not represent the views of DoD or its Components.
I think they're mis quoting him a bit too. It's an artillery war. They're better off with F16s but if they run out of artillery rounds they're screwed.
Ukrainians are screwed anyways and never had a chance of winning against Russia, puppet Zilly is a fool that has destroyed Ukraine.
One FPV drone + RPG-7 warhead costs about $250 + $350 = $600. One F16 costs about $60 million, not including maintenance, fuel, weapons, and pilot and crew training. For that amount of money you could buy 10,000 FPV drone/RPG-7 units. That's potentially 10,000 vehicles disabled. So I can see why in a war of attrition a handful of F16's would be less useful than a mass of cheaper yet still very effective weapons.
Smart thinking... but listen to ukrainian drone operators talk about russian electronic capabilities. They take 90% of everything down.
drones can’t fly as high and far as jet f16 also can’t take down russian planes with missiles
A drone needs a connection to work. If Russia saturates the area with EM waves the Drone loses signal and crashes uselss.
$60 million would buy you a new one. These F16's are all pretty much end of life...
You are not correct but not everyone has a war mind. keep flipping those Burgers.
"It's unbelievably expensive to be poor." Once you get behind the curve, the effort, energy, resources necessary to catch up, much less win, becomes exponentially greater.
Words of wisdom.
It's harder to be poor than to get rich. At least in relatively free nations.
We all know they should have just brought Doug Masters in 2 years ago. He’d of fixed it all.
Thats a fresh reference, thumbs up:P
"A bunch of things must have gone wrong if you're listening to this. Whatever happened, you must be real scared...."
Unfortunately we just lost Chappie Sinclair....I guess Doug is no longer his wingman.
Why is nobody talking about F-18s?
Doug Masters and a great mixtape 😀😀😀
Yes, the truth is, when you are in the field and require immediate fire support, a 30-minute delay makes a huge difference to your troops. Just ask them.
Funnily enough Churchill never missed an opportunity for a photo op, quite often in front of planes.
Have these guys never seen the picture of him with a tommy gun?
And he was flying as a stress relief. There is this photo of him in a cockpit (Boeing 314-A) with a cigar. Yeah, can totally imagine him giving a thumbs up in a P-51, unless he had a British plane to give a thumbs up in. :p
Or the photo of him at a river that separated him and the frontline?
He was a pilot also
The Russians say zelenski was trained by the British MI6 to move Ukrqine away from the Russian influence! So probably part of his learning
Ive also seen Churchill firing an M1A1 Carbine somewhere
"Winnie" did do a photo-op flying a Lancaster bomber while smoking a cigar. And, to quote one of the best tankers in the Army .... there's a firstest with the mostest thing factor that matters.
It was originally Nathan Bedford Forest “I always make it a rule to get there first with the most men”, often misquoted since as “The firstest with the mostest”. A brilliant tactician and master of what is now called manoeuvre warfare, but also with some less savoury aspects to his character.
Yeah, Winston always did this kind of stuff. These guys don't know their history.
There were also some badass photos of him holding a Tommy gun… while smoking a cigar haha
@@timgosling6189 Nathan Bedford Forest was an awful human being in important ways, but also a genuine, natural military genius.
It might have been a BOAC Boeing 314A flying boat
I don’t think Winston Churchill could fit in a p-51. 🤣
It really does sound like Taft and the bathtub scenario.
Hi! I’m the S400 missile system!
It’s a pleasure to meet you!
Your point is that the Russians will shoot back? Thanks for the revelation, Boris.
Hi S400, I'm an AGM-88E AARGM, fired from an F16. Nice to meet you as well, and believe me when I say that the pleasure is all mine.
@@jklappenbachHi, agm-88! I'm 9m335.
@@jklappenbach Your plane WILL NOT survive Russian SAM defended skies, it never has.
@@jklappenbach Funny u think u have a chance but Range is Everything. And u dont got it.
I think part of the issue is benefit vs resources required. You're going to have to allocate more air def to the airfields F16's operate out of since they're not really going to be able to do consistent off field operations and have the ability to be dispersed like the MiG 29's. This is air def that's going to have to be taken from protecting civilian areas/energy infrastructure etc. How much of your fleet is going to be operational 3 months after the aircraft have been deployed, 40%? 60%? Are you going to have an ongoing issue with a constant need for spare parts and replacement engines that get caught in transport delays and lack of availability? All the highly trained staff that maintain, manage and fly the aircraft, would they be better used running EW systems, drones or air-defense systems? Countries that tend to look at dollar value provided, are they going to say: "hey those F16's were a big ticket item, I don't think we need to provide artillery ammunition given the value of that contribution".
I can see where the bang may not be worth the buck in their minds.
Keep.in kind that Vipers and NATO BVR missiles, plus full.utilization of HARM, will almost certainly *reduce* the long range fires threat to Ukraine overall, by pushing back Russian launch platforms directly (the BVR missiles) AND indirectly (reducing Russian air defenses, thus allowing older aircraft to operate closer to the launching platforms' current operating areas).
Clearing the air picture even a little bit will likely open more opportunities for Ukrainian air power to target Russian forces on the ground as well.
Abandoning the air fight to focus on the ground fires is surrendering an entire axis of operation and likely degrades Ukrainian defenses overall - Combined Arms means more than just "integrate the infantry, armor, and tube artillery".
Dispersed operations are somewhat fantasy. Maybe you do land and take off from different airfields but at most you keep the infrastructure to refuel. Having maintenance and rearmament as part of dispersed operations is just utopian.
Operating F-16s from a single airbase would be easier than MiG-29 dispersal, especially since MiG infrastructure doesn't grow of trees and Russia isn't selling.
@@ChucksSEADnDEAD The Swedish air force has been practicing dispersed operations for several decades including rearmament. Our aircraft and support equipment has to some degree been specialized for that but I don't really see why it couldn't be done with an F-16.
@@skunkjobb I can do a front kick and spinning hook kick combo. I've never used it in a real fight. There's a difference between doing it, and actually fighting.
Rearmament is the easy part. You drive guy X and Y to place Z with a truck with weapons, land the aircraft at Z, and just bolt the weapons to the pylons. Easy.
Actually fixing malfunctions, pilots having the need to sleep and eat, there's a myriad of wrenches that get thrown into your gears when you actually have a live opponent and your resources can't follow the script. Maybe the guys driving the truck with the bombs were ambushed by a spec ops raid. The guys delivering the bombs got shwacked and the truck was set on fire. Now what? Your aircraft lands but can't rearm. Unsurprisingly enough, insurgents targeted American fuel runs during the Global War on Terror. They couldn't shoot the aircraft down but they could hinder operations by targeting the fuel.
Dispersed operations are cool, but they drastically make it easier for small teams to insert behind enemy lines and target isolated fuel/weapons runs.
Having been involved in several allies acquiring F-16s & F-15s, this process takes typically takes more than 5 years.
Ukraine didn't send us experienced pilots. All we got were brand new recruits that weren't pilots & didn't speak English. They had to be taught to fly & taught English, then taught jet trainers, and now the 1st class is nearing month 8 of the 6th month Beginner Course. Beginner Course. They have a long ways to go to be combat ready.
Maintenance personnel didn't start training until this year. No idea if they're experienced troops or new recruits. Are we looking at 3 years of training or 8? I dunno
Speaking as an American and with shame, we abandon pretty much every ally we pledge to support. The reasons and the manner in which we do it change, but it’s real and recurring.
Actually it’s way worse. Your government organized a coup in Ukraine in order to change to a pro-NATO regime, and funded the most anti-Russian factions without caring about who they really were (extremists), caused a civil war, then whispered sweet nothings in the ears of the Ukrainian people who found themselves in a totally avoidable conflict, and now it’s a matter of time before abandoning them, leaving hundreds of thousands killed and wounded behind, their country mortgaged to your funds and banksters, millions migrating and basically imposing on EU economies.
Even worse is when they aren't abandoned and win they become the enemy a few years later (ie. the Mujahideen vs the Soviets, Ho Chi Minh vs Imperial Japan, Saddam Hussein vs Iran, etc)
Oh,they never really had any chance of victory.Those Rush-keys just never gonna let NATO surround them.Bad idea.
To be an enemy of the US is dangerous, but being a friend is absolutely fatal.
@@davidmorris8509 The war in Ukraine never had anything to do with NATO. As long as Ukraine refused to become a Russian puppet state like Belarus this war was inevitable even if NATO literally ceased to exist after the end of the cold war.
Thats the Danish prime minister with Selinskij, not the Russian
Oh we know how "accurate" Politico is......
They're not getting Vipers. They're getting Block 15 MLU. These frames are so old that many jets aren't even serviceable.
You mean block 20 / 25? The block 25 was an ADF. Ukraine got AMRAAMS and other stuff the MLU’s were upgraded to use.
All F-16s are called the Viper.
@@CWLemoine not really, no.
All F-16s are called fighting falcons, only the latest block is called the viper.
@@brunol-p_g8800 how many hours do you have in the F-16? I have 1000.
@@CWLemoinegame, set, match….
Hahaha “it’s not Airwolf.”
But 'Poland is the Texas of Europe' Made my Day!😁😁😁
Why is nobody talking about F-18s?
They should send the A Team
@@michalandrejmolnar3715 then why not F-22?? isn't USAF gonna retire that thing anyway?
@@fatdoi003no and that would put a good chance of 5th Gen American fighter tech falling into Russian hands because Ukrainian pilots are nowhere the skill level of our pilots. And there is no parts manufacturing of anything f22. We can give our old tech (even though we shouldn't even do that). No way we're giving 5th Gen. Are you nuts. And lastly fuck Ukraine, just a little less than Russia.
What is clear to me. They did not get the stuff they needed in time and quantity. Time plays for Russia.
Time plays against Ukraine, but somehow even worse against Russia. The videos of defeated assaults have crossed over to straight up snuff. It's not even combat footage anymore.
It's really time for both sides to start going to the peace table.
@@WALTERBROADDUS What peace? Russia doubled down and gambled their entire future on this war. If they strike a peace deal, they lose everything. It's a sunk cost fallacy situation, if they give up they are still a sanctioned nation with a degraded army.
Meanwhile Ukraine knows what Russian "peace" entails. Executions and gulags. It's easy for you to say "peace" when it's not you who will be frogmarched into basements.
@@ChucksSEADnDEAD Do you even relize that most of the videos on the western platforms are fakes?
@@ChucksSEADnDEAD exactly. peace deal after all the nazi ruSSians left ukraines soil.
Photo of Zelensky in F-16 was taken a long time ago. At that time it was just confirmed, that Ukraine will get F-16. It was kinda diplomatic victory
They got tanks and that did what? Unless they get like 500 jets russia will still outnumber them with better planes etc.
@@Raguel1984 well, if you wait for tanks for almost a year, screaming for counter offensive, I guess, it’s tuff to get a lot from those tanks
@@Raguel1984 i dont think the whole west has 500 jets to spare you see they need to phase out theirs and get new ones which takes time same with other equipments tanks and stuff on the other hand russians dont have to beg and wait for approval thats a key difference in russan advantage
Forget about Ukraine, we lost Chappy 3 weeks ago......
Who is Chappy?
@@wanderlust0120 never watched Iron Eagle????
@@Mythos1981who?
Mover - why would he look like he would know what to do in an F-16?
He probably just watched Independence Day, and thought -that's what a president should look like 😄
@@cigarsid7445 and that was in a F-18
That is what a President *should* look like. Unfortunately, we get career politicians, actors, et al.
@@CWLemoine So a president should look like a president being played by an actor in a movie about fighting off an alien invasion?
Why is nobody talking about F-18s?
“Don’t send planes, we are fine with you just sending money. Lots of money.”
1:48 for what is relevant and they need (NOW!), according to the article. This is so y'all don't pop in here and spout off that Ukraine is really angling for B-21s.
They need everything, they need to stop complaining and take wherever they get. Nobody owes them anything and need to stop being ungrateful
@@MrTakin00 This. If Trump was President they'd be getting absolutely nothing, so why complain at all about anything. I get it, shit sucks, but be thankful for every little bit of help you get and find a way to make it work. Don't whine about it like an ungrateful child who has to wait until his birthday to get the shiny new toy.
@@RedFail1-1 These "ungrateful children" have lost ~50,000 people in a war they never asked for. The only child here is you.
@@Cozak360 the Ukies shouldn't have been trying to cut off the Water to Russias "Bread-Basket" then; like they already did. Ukraine started this War and has been pushing for it since OBAMA!
@@ligmasack9038 What bread-basket, you silly goose? Pre-2022, Crimea exported ~$6 million worth of goods annually, mainly in poultry. This pales in comparison to both what Ukraine and Russia produce. Russia would have gotten more food for less money per bushel if they kept trading with Ukraine like a normal country. And why is Ukraine obligated to give its fresh water to a territory occupied by a hostile country? Crimea became Russia’s responsibility to supply when they illegally occupied it.
“Ukraine started this War and has been pushing for it since OBAMA.” Why would Ukraine, a country of sub-50 million people, with a military that was until recently running on Soviet fumes, push for a war with Russia?It was Putin’s will to invade in 2014, just as it was his will in 2022.
Send Airwolf!
Blue thunder.....
The question is whether you are in defense or in offense. This reminds me the delays with the use of ATACMS. The use of them in june-july 2023 could be game changer against aerial bases and attack helicopters, two months later they lost the momentum.
The thought of Winston Churchill in a Mustang with thumbs up LMAO.
Clearly the Ukrainian General is an Army General.
That's my guess and he's advocating for more ground items while dissing the F-16.
Maybe he is navy and wants A ship.
😂
There is nothing that can help to solve this disaster anymore. "Too little too late as long as it takes" has its cost and consequences
It certainly has been a disaster for the Russians and a tragedy for the Ukrainians, Boris. The only solution is for you Russians to pack up and leave Ukraine.
if they cant be supplied with bog standard artillery ammo, how in the world will the logistics support high tempo f16 air ops?
Sounds like the General needs to clean his plate glass window of the crap that he’s looking thru!
They still need F16's and they would have needed them next year if the artillery and tank shells had kept up the pace. Just need the US to sort their shit out so the world can get this sorted ASAP
Americans feel like it's a far, far away war. They will be surprised soon or later.
Russian Prime Minister? 2:24 check yer notes, MOVER!!
I like your channel and videos because there is always something to learn keep it up
2:42, that's the Danish Prime minister.
Regarding 2:49, nothing looks more ridiculous than Michael Dukakis in a tank.
I remember that. He looked so incredibly dopey with that oversized tankers’ helmet on. That pretty much killed his campaign as I recall.
Did you ever look in a mirror?
Churchill snuck on several planes....one only a few days after Normandy ....he wanted to see it
Churchill was noted for pretending to be a low jr officer to visit navy ships. While I don't picture him doing a photo op with a p51 like that, I can see him visiting an air base and taking one up if attacked. He served in the army but missed combat then as a reporter took comand of an ambushed unit in South Africa. He was then a POW that escaped before his years in political office. You might want to look a bit more into his early life and his secret habit as PM to join his navy's crews. Some of the S. Africa stuff is better than most fiction about POWs.
He served in a number of wars in various parts of the World. After the Dardanelles fiasco he actually volunteered to serve in the Army in the trenches of France. From Lord of the Admiralty to the trenches, not something you see every day.
@@nerdyali4154 Yes, he commanded a battalion in France. He wasn't exactly staring the Germans eye to eye, but he wasn't very far back at all.
Sir Winston was sn honorary Air Commodore RAF
Putin said he wasn't going to attack a NATO country before he said any missions launched from 3rd countries would make them legit military targets. You are either just quoting headlines or are conflating what he said and taking it out of context. Actual strikes launched from 3rd countries, regardless the emblems on the planes or uniforms on the pilots, would make them legit targets even in those countries. He was just stating a fact, not proclaiming he's going to do it.
And the General might be thinking he'd rather have $63M worth of Howitzer rounds then a single F-16. Especially if he doesn't have any Howitzer rounds at all.
If F-16s are available and howitzer rounds are not.... also, what would be his plan in, like long term? Hoping to outpound the Russians?
plus it may only take weeks or months to train artillery operator..... but it'll take years to train a fighter pilot....
Putin stating facts? Like when he stated Russia will not invade Ukraine, but couple of days later Russia still invaded.
There is wisdom to never trust anything Putin says.
@@fatdoi003and then one mistake near a SAM site and you go back to the chalkboard.
Is a NATO flag a magical protector for not to be engaged? No...
If a NATO country supports operations from its territory, as in F-16 landing, rearming, repairing and taking-off to attack Russia, it becomes valid military target. If not almost equal to declaration of war.
If they get serviced only in NATO country, by flying them there from Ukraine, and back to Ukraine, where in Ukraine they get armed and prepared... Now that might be questionable... (IMHO still same thing).
If a NATO forces in Ukraine service them, they just became valid targets, not as a trainer in boxing corner between rounds...
We know very well that supplying weapons to an enemy at the time of war is a participation to the war.
Selling weapons to country at the peace time, that is weapons business, and already considered threat.
As in when USA placed strategic nuclear missiles to Italy and Turkey in 60's, the Soviet Union took it as a threat. Then USA tried to invade a country that was in trade coalition with Soviet Union, and requested assistance to defend itself, so Soviet Union offered tactical nuclear missiles to defend it's shores against landing/carrier group at time of invasion, and US took it as highest possible threat... Not as Cuba being it, but Soviet Union that provided weapons.
Why shouldn't Russia consider NATO military installations and weapons deliveries to Ukraine (Cuba), as direct actions against it?
Are the runways sufficiently clean? I'm just a layman, but it's my understanding that the F-16 has a very aggressive air intake.
They are as relevant as Ukraine's existing aircraft - they play a minute role or they get shot down.. Ukraine was always going to lose and it is only businessmen who think otherwise.
Airwolf is 2025.
Never mind the F16s, what is important is the fact that the US is proving to be an unreliable partner that allies can no longer rely on. The US is falling apart before our very eyes!
stop voting Democrat...
Also, why should the US carry the weight? Every other country has been getting a free ride at US expense for many decades. Let them prove they are worthy allies.
@@SoloRenegade It's the party that is very cozy to Russia causing suspicion. The issue is allies questioning the US commitment to alliances. Can't promise the world and provide and atlas then expect to be seen as trustworthy.
European freeloader
@@SoloRenegade Do you remember that so far the USA was the ONLY NATO member to EVER call for article 5? :) So much for USA carry the weight.
I freaking LOVE seeing Mace on here. Still miss Wombat tho.
What a great trio!
Looks like Dukakis in a tank.
With Mickey Mouse ears!
No G suit, helmet or mask he would pass out from basic dogfight moves.
Ukraine wants JAS39 Gripen cause the quick roadbases starts and lifts
That’s useful, but I suspect that the Gripens much more advanced EW suite is a more important factor. Unlike the f16 it stands some sort of chance against a modern SAM.
ukraine roads vs swedish roads?? you kidding right?
@@fatdoi003 300 meters its all its takes.👍
@@djtroopexalibur5997 if only you can find 300m of good roads in country side ukraine.....
@@fatdoi003 yea..thats gonna be a mission.
They needed them 2 years ago .
Isnt the main issue that ukriane is not ready to take the jet yet? It seams like norway, denmark and netherlands can deliver some directly
They weren't ready in large part because *we* slow walked beginning pilot and maintainer training. And the Pentagon was throwing out wildly inaccurate figures for how long it would take, pretending that the *peacetime training cycle* for taking a would be pilot from "this is an airplane" to "fully mission qualified" was the *only* timeline that was reasonable, instead of saying, "Hey, let's start with *already experienced fighter pilots and jet mechanics* and *transition them* to the new aircraft and TTPs," which would be a far shorter number (for one, you can skip basic flight training and a lot of the basic combat flying training, and focus on the differences in performance, switchology, and how NATO weapons and systems possible with the Viper change the tactics.
More like retraining an A-10 pilot to fly a pointy nose fighter than training a butterbar straight from Colorado Springs or Texas A&M and making them an F-16 pilot.
The hardest part would be finding enough Ukrainian or Russian speaking instructors for the *maintainers* (Ukrainian pilots are more likely to speak at least some English, especially if they are former active duty who have commercial time.)
The main issue in regards to the F-16 was assuming a peacetime training cycle would adjust to wartime demands. There are also other decidedly more pressing issues facing Ukraine right now anyways. I think that's what the alleged anon is getting at.
@@geodkyt
"They weren't ready in large part because we slow walked beginning pilot and maintainer training. "
i´m not sure that is really true. While it sure looked like that, it might note be true anyway.
The issue is that Ukraine during the early part of the war had very little capacity to train up crews. When hey slowly retain that capacity the slow movement of western politics kind of already cough up to the situation.
Maybe they could have gained 1 or 2 month, but i would say, 6 is probobly unlikely.
And remember. its not really the pilot training that is the bottle neck. As far as i understand, Ukraine is sending fully certified pilots for training. (they have sent some for basic training as well, but a large bulk of them are already certified pilots).
This is basically type training, weapons training and tactics.
The issue is the ground crew. While giving the pilots a crash course, or say a war emergency course could cut down on the training considerately, that would not matter. With no ground crew, that would not make any diffrance what so ever.
F16 is a fairly maintenance heavy aircraft that need quite skilled personnel. Moving over personnel from older Russian fighters would have very little impact on training time, but have a huge impact on current fleet.
And here i feel like F16 might have been the worse choice of aircraft.. Well. i guess, F22 or F15 would be even worse, but those was never on the table. Poland giving them a 14 mig 29 have had a much larger impact on the battlefield so far.
In that sense, something like a Gripen would make more sense. Not only that, there is somewhere in the rounds of 70 gripen just sitting around in a bunker doing nothing
@@geodkyt I think you're also forgetting just how different old soviet flight systems are to the F-16. I'm also looking at the transfer of tanks, look at what happened to all of the next gen tanks they were given. All blown up.
@@chigmeister1906 True about the jets but not the tanks. Ukraine has irrecoverably lost about 20% of the western tanks donated, and I would not call Leo2 A4/5/6 Abrams or Chally2 "next gen", maybe the CV-90 and some of the artillery/air defense are of the latest greatest type. But most of what has been given is quite dated.
The F-16 brings to the table the ability to fully utilize the HARM and other smart munitions that are currently programmed prior to launch from what I've seen & heard. Quick response to priority targets is usually a significant battlefield enhancer. Making the skies over Ukraine safer makes it easier for the older jets to be effective too. They still need the F-16 and Biden's delays have been unwarranted.
Not Biden's delays, rather it's speaker of the House and Trump puppet Mike Johnson that's doing the delay 'game'...
Besides that i agree on the usability of the F-16s.
They have to be supplied said munitions
A jet alone is useless a jet with munitions is also useless, go hop in a jet in dcs that you’ve never flown before and see how effective you are
It’s the pilots training of the deployment of those weapons and the supply of the weapons and which weapons are supplied that make the jet lethal
@@g0vernedhitman934 They already have AGM-88 HARM and have so for quite some time now. The way Ukraine has been employing HARM, as described by the OP, could be accomplished with a Cessna. Being able to employ HARM on primary, secondary or targets of opportunity can only help Ukraine.
They are not “Biden’s delays” , they are speaker Johnson’s delays. He is acting under instructions from his MAGA boss Trump to refuse to allow a vote on more aid. He is violating every principle of government. Without him, Ukraine would have received $billions more aid. They are sacrificing Ukraine just to score political points by preventing Biden scoring a victory. It’s disgusting.
Perhaps this is a case of "lost in translation". What he might have meant was, "we needed those weapons last year"
If some "Senior official" was smarter, those RAAF F-18s would probably be available, after refurbishment, and pilots available to fly a carrier rated, short field take off/ arrested landing, tactical fighter.
so true ,its easier to convert a naval fighter jet for land based operations ,seems like a stupid decision by Ukraine to reject them
Having the planes is just a small part of the picture. You need trained pilots and support crews and all the support infrastructure, consumables,spare parts, and other things that make the F-16 useful in a combat situation. Simply getting the planes by themselves is the EASY part.
Why is nobody talking about the F-18?
@@michalandrejmolnar3715 Ukraine doesn't even have a Navy. They haven't asked for the Hornet and nobody has offered it to them. So why talk about it?
@@Turboy65 Hornets can be used on land and their advantage is that there are 200 of them being replaced by F-35s in Canada, Australia, Switzerland and Finland
@@michalandrejmolnar3715 But they're all older models and of questionable utility in today's battlefield. Plus, you have to get more than just the aircraft, you have to get the whole support package to go along with them. Otherwise they're grounded the first time something breaks.
@@michalandrejmolnar3715 then why not F-22?? isn't USAF gonna retire that thing anyway?
Coming from seasoned pilots this video was interesting and highly enlightening. Taking things to another level it would have been even more compelling to have someone like Doug McGregor to lend his insights as far as the war on the ground is concerned. From what I understand lines have already been breached and with now over 600,000 servicemen killed and with Russia's economy on a war footing it may be time for Ukraine's president to do the right thing by his people and look toward drafting terms of surrender.
Yup. The writing's on the wall. Zelensky Has 3 options.
A) Surrender now and take what's given to him
B) Unconditional surrender to the Russians
C) Get overthrown in a military coup by his own military commanders
Winston Churchill was a pilot who actually flew in the lest seat of the transport plane taking him to the US in WWII.
As I pointed out he also pretended to be a jr. Officer to serve on navy ships on short missions. His time taking over a unit in S.Africa as a news reporter and then escaping as a POW is worth a read.
I'd think the weapons that come with them are more important as the F-16 becomes a weapons platform.
What missiles will be available to them?
But what do i know.
What he says makes a lot of sense to me.
The way I see it, weapons are tools strategists use to solve their problems. Sure, it would be great for Ukraine to have F-16s but the problem they're best at solving may no longer exist.
It still exists. It's just not the highest priority at the moment. But, it might very well become a top priority again later. So building up capacity for it absolutely needs to be continued without further delay.
@@cigarsid7445 I agree
I would not describe a single weapon as a game changer, but certain weapons can be force multipliers.
And this becomes very obvious in this case.
In 2023 Ukraine had new western weapons and fresh soldiers. The F-16's would multiply these forces capabilities, and make a huge difference.
Now the situation is different, Ukriane is struggling on the ground, they lack weapons and ammunition, and fatigue is a real thing.
Enters the F-16, the force multiplier. Only, multiply with 0 and you'll get 0. Multiply with 1, and you're at a standstill.
The F-16 is just as capable in 2024 as in 2023, but it can't win the war alone.
Is there anywhere that's going to be safe from missiles and drones when they're parked on the ground?
There as never and won’t ever be another weapon system as battlefield changing as Airwolf.
lol “they’re a scrappy bunch!” I see Poland as being the new powerhouse of Europe and they’re looking to play
No we're not xD we've sent almost everything we had and our military and political leadership is as bad as it gets. Our "leaders" like to talk big with nothing to show
@@Raguel1984 Poland sent only it's old stuff and ALL of it was paid for by the EU.
You are as bad as it gets.
Poland is heavily subsidized by Germany. Like most of EU really.
Poland is nothing
@@Raguel1984 If that's really what you think, you might be living in the wrong Country. Where is your Patriotism?
I don't know why people are talking about Poland being a powerhouse but we are not a powerhouse and we will not be a powerhouse in the future. We have a broken political class. Our politicians like to talk a lot but do little. A new party won the last election and there are already ideas in Poland to allocate Polish GDP to the Ukrainian army instead of the Polish army. Despite the opposition of Polish citizens and Polish military personnel, who demand more funding for the Polish army.
This is false. The F-16 is 100% relevant. Even the F-15 was undefeated, the F-16 is better, but more importantly, the F-16 is compatible with all the American air-to-ground munitions that the MiGs are not compatible with, which opens up a lot of ground strike capabilities for them. Being able to blow up ground targets from 100 km beyond Russian anti-air defenses is extremely relevant.
It's a matter of time and perspective. Right now Ukraine is getting hammered and they're not getting the basics. They're running low on artillery ammo, air defense missiles, etc. if they run out of these they lose even if they get 30-60 Vipers. If not getting Vipers right now means getting more ammo they'll take that. Both would be ideal, one is vital right now, the other is important but not immediate.
@@josephahner3031 Right now there's about 100 unused Patriot batteries sitting around collecting dust in Europe. The only issue with them is a qualified crew basically has to go with it because not just anyone can operate them. With the F-16 the only obstacle is training, then tens of thousands of 100-1000km range air to surface missiles and bombs can be fired off by Ukraine with precision, taking out barracks, ammo dumps, even moving trains full of ammo, from complete safety. Ukraine is apparently capable of disabling oil refineries deep inside Russia with mere drones, so this would be a HUGE increase in their capabilities as well as in their ability to call in precision air support for defense or attack.
This is not for laughing ,people are left die by hundreds of thousands . They are fighting against something so bad that you cannot even imagine it and it is comming for you next. Read the history .
I suggest YOU read some history….Russia did not break the Minsk Accords, UKRAINE and NATO did! Markell admitted they were only a “ delaying tactic” until the West could sic a NATO trained, equipped and supplied military on Russia to “ degrade” the Russian military. Ukrainians fell for the LIES of the West and the lure of American dollars….
Zero evidence that Russia will want to commit suicide by attacking NATO.
Russia is now flying jets and lobbing FAB-500 and FAB-1500 glide bombs at Ukrainian defensive positions and cities. Right now, Ukraine has no weapon that can sustainably stop those jets. I think the radars on Ukrainian MIGs just don't see far enough, and I don't think their A/A missiles can realistically engage those Russian Su-34s and Su-35s.
If Ukraine gets F16s with upgraded long-range radars and the longest-range NATO A/A missiles that can work with those F16s then Ukraine will suddenly have the capability of shooting down Su-34s and Su-35s that run regular routes to lob FAB-500 glide bombs.
If Ukraine can shoot down a few Su-34s and Su-35s with F16s without suffering losses, Russia will probably do what they did with their ships in the Black Sea. They'll just stop using them within range of Ukrainian weapons, and suddenly Ukrainian troops will stop being hit by FAB-500 bombs. If Ukraine also gets ample supplies of 155mm shells then I think Russia might suddenly not be able to advance.
The current Russian tactic is to spend a few days lobbing glide bombs at Ukrainian positions to force Ukrainians to give up certain positions that are too exposed to heavy bombs. Then Russians send 10 tanks and IFVs into a field, lose 5 to 8 of them, lose at least half the infantry, and have the remaining infantry entrench. Then they repeat this over and over until they slowly gain a few kilometers per week -- sometimes more and sometimes less. If Ukraine can stop the glide bombs with F16s and then eliminate more of the meat waves with artillery then suddenly Russia won't be able to advance.
I think we still don't know if Ukrainians can find relatively safe air fields for their F16s or how F16s with A/A missiles can perform if the Russian jets lobbing FAB-500s are covered by the best Russian jets equipped with the best Russian radars and A/A missiles. I don't really trust Russia's claims about the range of their missiles and radars. I also don't know if Ukraine will get the best radars that can possibly be installed in those F16s. If it's a matchup of the best radars from the USA or European partners vs the best Russian radars, I'd put my money on the west and Ukrainian pilots, but I think there are still open questions.
How about a foreign legion of pilots from multiple countries flying whatever they want from the bone yard
Is this a troll or have you watched too many hollywood movies?
Sorry, Louis Gossett Jr is no longer available.
@reubensandwich9249 It has been done before, with American volunteers (known as Eagle squadrons) flying with the RAF in 1940 and with the Flying Tigers in China from April 1941 to July 1942.
@@reubensandwich9249 That is kind of what the Flying Tigers was
They are busy making RUclips videos .
Was the anonymous general the one that fired?
It's like Imagine Churchill in a P51 while also saying we don't need this expensive piece of doodoo.
Never made sense really...it took years to get you all trained up to fight for real...and the MRO people to maintain the EPU/etc. And what stops them from getting blown up on the ground...by the 18 year old with a backpack. Gotta park them somewhere...probably not in Finland. Not to mention the MANPADS stuff all over the place...it is a target rich environment and you are it.
Base security? How many 18 year olds with backpacks have been used in this war?
My guess is US wants to sell more F-35's. Gotta get the customers to dispose of the current F-16 inventory.
That F-16 photo op is about as bad as the Churchill one with the tommy gun.
Gen 4 is not going to be survivable in that airspace.
guys, jokes aside, US has lost 60% of its credibility during last few months. Poland is procuring 1000 A2G cruise missiles from US. What if US says "dear Poland, you can use them only on your own territory". So what is the point to have such an ally? It would probably be better to ally with Sweden, Norway, Finalnd and start making own missiles, even if worse, still usable in case of Russian invasion. I know you're far away, but this is a real threat if you sit next to russian border.
Kind of the same current political discourse happening in Australia over AUKUS. The big question is if the US will hold up to their end of the deal given the shaky political landscape.
@@goodshipkaraboudjan thank you for your comment. it proves, the whole world is watching US as a global leader, and spots every case where US fails to deliver on its promise. It has the chance to grind Russian army at low cost by third hands, and yet it is failing to deliver event this little amount of weapens, and even restricting Ukraine from using their own. This will not go unnoticed. US is sending really bad signal to all allies.
@@wojciechczupta9185 Well as we can see the world is closely watching on how "effective" the NATO works together. And currently it seems that nobody really takes threats from the US serious anyway. Iran is starting to get more aggressive along with their allied rebels, so does North Korea and China. The USA simply lost the "World Power" reputation it used to have. I think it is just a matter of time until a world wide conflict starts and it could have been stopped if the west had reacted in 2014 already when russia attacked and annexed the crimea.
Yes, stop talking, start delivering!
German Taurus was most effectful in 2023. Now Russia is building a railway connection via land bridge.
When this is mostly finished, the effect of cutting the Kherch-bridge will greatly vanish.
So, yes - everything has its window of most effect.
But F-16 are still needed to interdict Russian air superiority and suppress russian FAB glide bombs.
The rail bridges in the land corridor are in SCALP/Storm Shadow and GLSDB range and have already been struck.
@@cigarsid7445 These railway lines are easy to repair and hard to destroy. With a missile strike Ukraine could effectively disrupt traffice there for a few days at best.
And would still have to sacrifce a Cruise missile for that which it can't use for other targets having only very limited numbers of them.
It's the same with the few ATAMCS cluster missiles given to Ukraine. In '23 they would have made huge impact in ng the KA-52 bases. Biden deliberately sent them only the moment the counter offensive already failed in Nov'23. Their usage destroyed more than 20 helicopters. 6 months earlier would have meant huge success for Ukraine. But Biden never wanted Ukraine to win (fast). They only wanted Ukraine to hold the lines and now badly miscalculated.
@@utrian4148 Nobody strikes railway lines with cruise missiles, they strike bridges that take months to rebuild. And currently there are several within GLSDB range. Unless the Russians can move the front line 50km north, they will not be able to keep the rail line operational very much
@@cigarsid7445 No, there's only one small river ro cross - Klmius. can even track the planned route on Deepstate maps.
And GLSDB is not suitable for those targets. Maybe You missed completely how GLSDB works.
And You completely ignore that Russia is preparing this railway line to withstand any attack as best as possible.So You won't find easy vulnerabilities.
Ukraine had a window of opportunity to cut the land bridge and take big territories back.
But without the tools, Ukraine is doomed to fight bloody battles for minimal gains.
Germany never sent Ukraine Taurus missiles. US called Germany's bluff & exposed them. Germany said it would only send Taurus to Ukraine if USA sent ATACMS, well USA sent a limited number of ATACMS to Ukraine yet Germany still hasn't sent Ukraine any Taurus missiles.
Tell his wife in paris who spends 1million a week to pay for weapons and materials not the tax payer that has nfn to win or lose or other countries far far away from this bs.
Its obvs that the only reason uk and usa care is cos they have energy shares in Ukrainian companies
There is a story of Winston Churchill getting into a fighter, not sure which one. It was sitting armed and he test fired it before anyone bothered to check if the test range was clear.
Most WW2 fighters were tail draggers. So the plane was always pitched up. Although the bullets or shells had a pretty good range, and could travel over 3 kilometres based on the inclination of the plane. Someone still should check and keep the safety on, as the shells or bullets could just as well drop into an unsuspecting town, village, or people passing by on the dirt road.
Ainda não são mas vão ser muito relevantes!
Nah.
The F16 is relevant once the war ends and Ukraine need to rebuild its Air Force.
Currently is true they need motar rounds, HIMARS rounds, 203mm Artillery rounds, Javelin anti-tank rounds, small arms ammos.
But once the war is over, Ukraine needs hardware and equipments to rebuild.
All of that is nice, and probably even necessary. But the urgent NEED is people. Without that all the fancy gadgets don't get the job done.
If you think whatever is left of Ukraine gets to have a military when this war ends, you're living in an alternate reality from me
@@ominousbiscuit Hey, gotta give the Ukrainian's some credits. Unless you are a Putin / Commie Red China supporter or even Trump supporter, then you might just have a 2nd Civil War in the States.
@@MrNicholas89As long as everyone is given McDonalds and internet there won't be a civil war in USA. No one will want to give up their comfortable life, and many of us aren't even fit for combat. The ones in power just have to keep the lights on and the entertainment coming and people will remain sedated.
once the war is over they'll be buying russian again.
Russia is not going to be expelled from Ukraine without direct intervention from the U.S. and that would, for many reasons, be a bad idea. What can happen though, is for the war to go on for many years at a basic stalemate. A lot of lives and a lot of money so wealthy politicians can look tough.
Concern trolling
They don't need to be expelled, the cost just need to be to high to continue. Their economy is going down the drain already. Either they will have to withdraw to quell uprisings and protect the regime or their government will collapse, and their army dissolve when logistics and the command structure breaks down. Just like the 90s. The Soviet Union was way more robust than the Russian Federation, and it went belly up.
It is very relevant. Specially if they plan to mount an offensive
What offensive? Offensive is gone brother. Was a small fart
Seems like having a nato platform also helps that other nato weapons can be donated. So far Ukraine has been limited by what could be launched from their in country assets.
To be fair most NATO weapons can be adapted to Russian cold war systems, maybe not extremely good but it can.
The old NVA Mig 29 got Sidewinder support when they were adopted by the Bundeswehr and the HARM and Scalp/Storm shadow are already used by Ukrainian aircraft.
I also believe that the CEO of MBDA Said that the Taurus KEPD could easily be adapted.
It is an absolute disgrace, our failure to support Ukraine in it's defense against russian aggression.
I am ashamed of our "political leadership".
Or Ukrainian genocide of a third of thier own people before the current dictator banned all elections and parties.
You guys started this mess. Now your politicians are weaseling out of this because they have figured out it's a lost cause.
@@DDtch6669 right. Ukraine forced ruZzia to invade them. That makes sense
@@GrantvsMaximvs No, Ukrainians are the least ones guilty in this mess. Uncle Sam is the one that forced them. Just liket he Soviets messed around with the Americans trying to get Cuba in their influence.
I my self am from a country where the Yank is interfering. I know when I see it. You can smell it in the air.
It's enough to listen to Lindsey Graham to know what the American politicians actually want. Hawks without any shame. War is their priority, doesn't matter how many Ukrainian lives goes to waste.
@@GrantvsMaximvs well.... that's what happened.
They could have gotten the Viper earlier but they didn’t have pilots who could fly them at a level that it wasn’t going to just be shot down or crash. Plus they have people who know how t put 20mm into it, add missiles and bombs. Then you have the maintenance. Ukraine treats there lack of military weapons and ammo, as a problem that nato countries should be sacrificing there defense to help them.
If anything this war should be another 😮example of why we need more manufacturing jobs in America, plus defense companies need facilities big enough to handle the demands and have backup facilities to bump output.
Your neighbors house is on fire, are you going to tell them they can't use the water in your swimming pool to put out the fire because your house might catch fire? The Poles and Baltic states are sending 5-50% of their military budget to help Ukraine, the US sent 5%. In terms of percentage of GDP the US is #30 on that leader board with the Baltic states and Poland in the top 5.
One of the problems with the US is that it's too little too late. We will probably find the 60 some billion is going to get wasted because we waited so long to get it to them
F-16 are critical for Ukrainian defence. Air superiority and air suppression is critical in NATO doctrine and to make any offensive with NATO equipment successful. Here is the thing. Ukraine has no where near enough equipment in all categories. Not enough armour, not enough artillery, not enough air defence. Ukraine needs 200 f-16s, they are getting 45. It’s like NATO doesn’t want a Ukrainian offensive or something. To be fair, NATO doctrine all ways prioritized defence because in the depths of the Cold War NATO assumed an overwhelming attack from the Soviet Union with war ending in a nuclear disaster. Modern NATO can overwhelm Russia. It’s probably the nuclear disaster they are afraid of.
For west the risk of reputation losses is exceeding the risk of potential F-16 battle value.
The crazy thing is thinking Ukraine could have won without direct NATO intervention in the first place. We spent the entirety of the Cold War seeking to prevent an alliance between China and Russia and all we've done in the last 2 years is push them together...
Anyone else tired of Ukraine being an entitled freeloader. If they hate waiting for free equipment then Ukraine should have started buying military equipment since Crimea got invaded in 2014
lol
they did, but it's not really a wealthy country and most of the stuff they acquired has been depleted by now
calling them entitled freeloaders while they are holding on for dear life is a bit unhinged though
Ukraine is a lot smaller than russia so it has a lot less ressources. The Fact that they even stopped the invasion in the first year is a big surprise. USA and most other countries said "They will be overrun in like 3 days" and now we are in the 3rd year of the war. But i am sure Germany in WW2 would have loved if the allied acted like the western world dows now, no DDay landing, no support for the UK via convoys from the USA, no land lease for the soviet union.....
Its not the plane, it's the pilot - Maverick.
" "it's not the plane, it's the pilot" - Maverick" - robocop2u2
It is not the plane. It is the battlefield-integrated weapon system on the plane.
@@kevin.keen.socialmedia it's not the integrated weapons system - it's the cool factor
@@julianjames2899 That it is.
It's not the plane, it's the WEF puppet master.
They weren't relevant when they were given to them. Most of the equipment isn't, unfortunately.
Unless they come up with a way to get more people none of our toys matter.
If they had the shells and more guns they wouldn't have backed up in the first place. When they got sent the stuff they were going forward when it got scarce they had to back up. They have millions of people still to fight they can't field em. Same reason Russia never tops a million men in the field. It's about what you can muster and where. Ukraine is being drip fed and still smashed Russia to ribbons. Look at how many tanks they sent. Toys and the fuel/ammo to run em is everything right now.
Don’t worry. Trump will sold Ukraine to Russia as soon as he become president next year.
They recently passed legislation to lower the conscription age
@@jerseyshoredroneservices225 Exactly. Which doesn't square well with the comment made by @bcluett1697. Unless they also remove some of the exemptions and find a way to get men who left to return it still won't be enough. It's what happens in a war with a country that has 5 times the population that you do. We don't have to like it to realize it's true.
@@DeplorableBitterClinger
I think it can be enough if they have the right equipment. Russia has been going through five to ten times more personnel than Ukraine has. Even for Russia that's not sustainable and it could get even worse if Ukraine had the equipment and supplies that they need.
If the bridge goes down and Ukraine has what they need to really put pressure on the Russians, the Russians will implode without sufficient resupply.
I think it all depends on whether or not nato countries want to use their supplies to support Ukraine or if they want to hold onto it so they can fight the Russians themselves. If it were up to me, I'd say supply Ukraine...
Yes it's called losing and retreat
From February to April 2022 the Russians took 18.6% of Ukraine's territory. From then to October 2023 the Ukrainians took back 9.24%. Since 11 2023 to end of March 2024 the Russians took 0.04% of Ukraine.
At that rate, the Russians will reach their march 2023 lines in 5-6 years and their March 2022 in 64 years.
@@pogo1140what ever helps you sleep at night, but that's not how wars work
@@TheJessfletcher17 or maybe you bought the Russian disinformation because every day they say they captured territory, that they've forced the Ukrainians to retreat.
Maybe perhaps you pay attention to the names of what they say they've captured and cross reference the name (the Russians often use the Russian name or the Ukrainian name for the same place). Looking at the control map and comparing it to the one from last year and you realize you have to zoom in to the 10 km map to be able to fine where the line moved
Remember our country lost to dude in sandals armed with nothing more than AK-47s and RPGs we are in no position to s*** on Russia over their current position in Ukraine
@@AmirShafeek Thanks for the input, Amir.
There is absolutely no way Russia can fail in this campaign, this is not Afghanistan, its their backyard.
I am curios what type of weapon will come with F16? And how many crews will be needed to keep them flying 24-7, and how big is a crew I have seen eveything from 12-24 men.
According to previous aid reports, the US had been sending AIM-120's and -9's before the Republican maga and Johnson decided to not pass any funding
@@pogo1140 Throwing money into a burn barrel. SU-35's would smoke the F-16's out of the air before they could make a meaningful impact in the campaign.
@@tbirdpunk They'd have to send the SU-35's into the range of the UAF SAM's for them to be a threat to any F-16
@@pogo1140 Plus they would have to fly over Russian air defense, which is always a gamble. AIM-120 and 9 are also used with NASAMS so several countries have been giving those.
@@cigarsid7445 yeah, I think as much as 1/2 the Russian tac air losses have been from their own SAMs.
As far as the NASAMS and other SAMs, the US list the reloads for them separately
I’ve said this many times who’s gonna pay for all this military aid? That’s going to Ukraine my country where I live the UK claims it’s in bloody poverty. Can’t look after its own citizens can’t keep its own roads to an adequate standard yet it can give hundreds of millions of pounds of crap which is gonna get blown to smithereens and not even paid for in Ukraine And now Ukraine I’ll get too fussy with their requests. I’m sorry to say if I was in charge I would just literally turn my back and walk away on them about time all these European countries and America and Canada and Australia where the help is coming from looking inward and getting their own country sorted out I’m pretty sure the USA got lots of internal problems that need sorting out same as the UK apparently we can afford to donate hundreds of millions of pounds worth which no doubt will never ever get paid for
I doubt even if this money was never going to Ukraine in the first place, it would have gone to all the social programs you wanted. They would have just used it for something else, that is not the social program you want or need.
They said the same in 1938. But the only thing more expensive than paying for defence is not paying for it and then having to go to war.
@@marknicholson2281 Where there nukes in 1938? No. Was there a binding treaty in 1938? No. This guy is from the UK, that met its 2% goal for years while other countries still can't meet that basic goal.
@@reubensandwich9249 I’m in the UK too.
Article 5 is not binding. If it kicked off and Canada said “We are only going to do maritime patrols over the Atlantic. Then they have complied.
If Spain say we are sending a platoon of soldiers and a tank, they have complied.
And like us most of the original NATO members have cut massively on defence since the wall came down.
And I agree about the 2%.
But we are tenth in spending on NATO by GDP. Way behind the USA and most of the former soviet countries. We have only gone over the 2% mark by a couple of decimal points in the last 20 years and it shows.
You can’t rely solely on nukes to keep us safe. We only have four missile boats and only one at sea. We could push it to two in an emergency.
If Trump pulls out that’s just us and the French with nukes. I wouldn’t like to rely on the French.
That means the Russians would only have to find one boat and sink it if they wanted to go first. If they don’t go first there is a good chance a politician will not use them.
We have less than 50 fighter jets and only 100 tanks. That’s due to be reduced to 60. We have nothing like HYMARS or Patriot if the Yanks pull out.
The Navy has two aircraft carriers without aircraft or support ships. They wouldn’t last a month in a real war.
The armed services have been hit by Austerity.
We are perfectly safe behind Poland and Germany if Russia tries something.
But what if USA China kicks off over Taiwan? We would probably send something to help.
And even without a defensive pact it’s highly likely Putin would take advantage and jump in.
The Russians have massively increased their defence spending.
They have learned lessons. They aren’t the shambles they were two years ago.
They are producing new tanks of a design they know that works and they can produce in large numbers. It might not be as good as ours but it’s good enough.
They have drones and countermeasures and they know how to use them. Meanwhile we only have a handful. Some of them were designed for long patrols over desert countries and can’t fly if the get wet. In England ffs!
The government has the idea that of it kicks off we can order in. You know like PPE at the beginning of Covid. That went well didn’t it?
We need to rearm. We and NATO have sent a lot of kit to Ukraine and not replaced it. Ukraine shows just how fast that stuff can go.
Putin will never invade NATO? It wasn’t even ten years ago he was having “defensive exercises “ on the doorstep of Estonia. Exactly as he did just before he invaded Ukraine.
And we are sitting on our hands hoping for the best. It’s just sticking your head in the sand.
Is it certain within 5 years? No
Is it even likely within 10 years. No
But is there a 10% chance. ?
I wouldn’t bet on that.
And the cost of a real war is going to really hurt. It won’t be 2% or 3%. It will be 20-40% and destruction and lives lost.
We only stopped paying for WW2 a few years back. And that was when we had all the recourses of Empire to help out. We had a massive car and aircraft industry. We made almost everything ourselves. All that manufacturing has gone and we are going to have to buy stuff not make it.
And money for other things, hospitals, homes filling in pot holes. That money is there.
While you and I are worse off than twenty years ago that’s not true for the top 5%.
The harbour near me is full of luxury yachts.
While people who have jobs can’t afford to live in a home and are living in vans or cars.
There are 2.849,000 millionaires in the UK. And 171 billionaires. 94% of them inherited their wealth.
The money is there.
We just need to get it back and use it. And I mean get it back. They didn’t get that money by going to the money tree. They got it from us by price gouging fuel and food and not paying a fair wage.
@@marknicholson2281 They are in shambles my guy. They're using Chinese golf carts in assaults. The Russian 2024 military is a death cult at this point. It's mad max over there.
Ukraine never had a chance
You said airwolf and all I heard was the iconic intro and the screaming sounds of the maneuvers of that graceful non military helicopter that effed everything up. Haha
F 16's are not going to make any difference..not enough people to fly them,maintain,or support them,no AWACS ability,what the Ukranians would have needed and need now are soldiers,which they are in critical short supply of
'You can't always get what you want...'-M Jager
Negotiating with Russia is a better option at this point.
Negotiations with entity that never upholds its deals is meaningless...
It makes the world more and more like WW2. Finland had to give up its territory to Russia, and Russia ended up going further and attacking Poland. Later, Finland had to fight Russians again with Nazis. I don't see what makes giving up Ukraine territory gonna help stabilizing this current world order.
@@chrisblack6258 Can't understand that either... "let's just give authoritarian leaders what they want... maybe they'll respect us and won't ask for more !"... bulletproof logic
@seanprice7645 uhh bud Finland survived DESPITE USSR not because of it and fought alongside Germans AGAINST russians during WW2 ... and even post WW2 relations were "tense" at best ...
secondly USSR back then and Russian federation today are incomparable ... even USSR knew that deals have to be adhered to otherwise noone will take anything you put forward seriously ... which Putler doesnt understand ... noone sane will today make any deal with russia because they will not abide by any deal they sign...
Pretty much obvious, it should have happened 2 years ago. Ukraine has been abandonned by the west and it showed how much of a paper tiger NATO actually was and how unwilling it was to defend democracy. This should be a wake up call to Poland, Taiwan and the Baltics that they will be abandonned too to avoid a war with a nuclear power like russia and china.
"democracy".
Have you not realized there was a couple in 2014?
This is all geopolitics, nothing to do with democracy
This is such a brain dead comment. Ukraine is not part of NATO and this means that NATO was never obligated to send troops to defend it. If Poland gets attacked that’s a different story, that’s article 5.
@@jaimea.3771 just like israel isn't part of nato and yet both us and uk willing to fly to other side of the planet to defend them from drones lmao
@@smh- US and UK are already patrolling parts of Syria. It's also smooth brain to link that to NATO when Turkey, a NATO member, threatend to attack Israel.
Interesting to hear your point of view. I read this comment very differently than you all.
Instead of a passive aggressive commentary on the speed of arms delivery, I thought the Ukrainians were saying we needed a dynamic system like F-16 for last year’s offensive. Now that the war is stagnant, drones, artillery, and HIMARS are perfectly capable. Also, these weapons are a better option due to the entrenched anti-air systems blanketing the battle space.
Thats the way I took the statement. Would love to hear feedback.
They’re losing the war… they should be happy to get biplanes at this point.
This war is gonna go on for ever.
Neither side has the ability to.
Ukraine will run out of fighting men at some point. To much population disparity between them
nah its actually about to end, LOL
@@maeton-gamingUkraines wars gonna end. Natos wars bout to begin
we should only have temporary alliances and be more of a commercial state which was Washington's vision in farewell speech