Sure, in an ideal world they’d use Gripens instead of F-16s but in our actual world, where there are about 15 times as many F-16s as there are Gripens, availability matters more than fit.
Ideal and actual are drifting a little closer together after Sweden dangling their recent offer.
Ukraine can only work with so many F-16s, if we somehow gave them 50,000, you would not see large wings of them flying Ukrainian skies, because the planes and pilots just aren’t enough. There’s a whole infrastructure around them that is completely necessary and that takes years to build up.
So, don’t get me wrong. F-16s are great and I’m glad they’re going, but they are not a viable solution to Ukrainian problems. They’ll help some. The Grippen could be an actual solution, even in fairly small numbers due to its highly unique capabilities.
I think they need Vipers for SEAD. Gripens may be able to mount HARMs but effective SEAD is way more than just a missile. During Gulf War 1 they had to use phantoms and intruders for SEAD because vipers and hornets couldn’t support the mission yet.
If they landed (in a non-emergency) in NATO countries and more importantly took off from there, then that country would obviously be an active participant in the war. Also voiding NATO Article 5 protection because you can’t claim to be attacked when you voluntarily joined the fight.
@Ooops@Wilshire@Candelestine@bstix The decision about who is actively taking part in this war, is done by russia every other week. How many times did they already claim, that some country is involved enough, to attack it? Or was it only their media doing that?
And you do realize that nobody gives a shit about Russian bullshit claims in comparison to actual international law? Which is indeed the reason nobody sends NATO soldiers to to fight in Ukraine as it wouldn’t be some none-sensical claim then but reality.
@Ooops@Wilshire@Candelestine@bstix Which law are we talking about, that forbids NATO to stop a genocide in Ukraine happening? I mean actively by sending troops? Which law is that?
Are you seriously asking me to cite the law saying that attacking Russian troops as a non-involved party is an attack? I guess someone should start poking you with pan until you can show us the law that clearly defines being poked by pan as an attack.
But jokes aside… international law (especially in regards to armed conflicts) is customary law going back hundreds of years. And even back then they weren’t stupid enough to need a defintion of attacking and defending. Because some people believe in humans to have a brain.
An uninvolved country attacking Russian troops is an illegal act of war by definition, declaring the attack beforehand is still an act of war. It doesn’t matter if it’s in Ukraine, in Russia in free international waters or anywhere else. The actual only exception is when doing it by madate of the UN to restore peace.
Are you really so dense to think NATO countries can attack other countries, then claim to be attacked when that country shoots back by pretending their attack was actually defense? Sorry, but back to above’s pan it is…
@Ooops@Wilshire@Candelestine@bstix Ok let’s start at the end of this chaos. I Wonder with how many excuses somebody can come up with. If Ukrainians would be ⚽️-less like that, russia would already be in charge there. First thing: where is the UN mandate? Is the situation not severe enough? Is the organization useless, corrupted, can’t act even in life-threatening situations? Second: Budapest memorandum. Do the security guarantees for Ukraine only mean the delivery of weapons and no troops? /1
@Ooops@Wilshire@Candelestine@bstix Third: There is a criminal offense called: denial of assistance of help to a person in danger. It means prosecution in case of proven violation of that law. Does that law lose its significance on the international scale, when it comes to the relation of nations? Forth: What Does This War Mean for the Future of Mankind and Today’s Civilization?
Removed by mod
Sure, in an ideal world they’d use Gripens instead of F-16s but in our actual world, where there are about 15 times as many F-16s as there are Gripens, availability matters more than fit.
Ideal and actual are drifting a little closer together after Sweden dangling their recent offer.
Ukraine can only work with so many F-16s, if we somehow gave them 50,000, you would not see large wings of them flying Ukrainian skies, because the planes and pilots just aren’t enough. There’s a whole infrastructure around them that is completely necessary and that takes years to build up.
So, don’t get me wrong. F-16s are great and I’m glad they’re going, but they are not a viable solution to Ukrainian problems. They’ll help some. The Grippen could be an actual solution, even in fairly small numbers due to its highly unique capabilities.
I think they need Vipers for SEAD. Gripens may be able to mount HARMs but effective SEAD is way more than just a missile. During Gulf War 1 they had to use phantoms and intruders for SEAD because vipers and hornets couldn’t support the mission yet.
Once again, we wait on Turkey.
What if Ukraine landed the planes inside NATO?
If they landed (in a non-emergency) in NATO countries and more importantly took off from there, then that country would obviously be an active participant in the war. Also voiding NATO Article 5 protection because you can’t claim to be attacked when you voluntarily joined the fight.
@Ooops @Wilshire @Candelestine @bstix The decision about who is actively taking part in this war, is done by russia every other week. How many times did they already claim, that some country is involved enough, to attack it? Or was it only their media doing that?
And you do realize that nobody gives a shit about Russian bullshit claims in comparison to actual international law? Which is indeed the reason nobody sends NATO soldiers to to fight in Ukraine as it wouldn’t be some none-sensical claim then but reality.
@Ooops @Wilshire @Candelestine @bstix Which law are we talking about, that forbids NATO to stop a genocide in Ukraine happening? I mean actively by sending troops? Which law is that?
Are you seriously asking me to cite the law saying that attacking Russian troops as a non-involved party is an attack? I guess someone should start poking you with pan until you can show us the law that clearly defines being poked by pan as an attack.
But jokes aside… international law (especially in regards to armed conflicts) is customary law going back hundreds of years. And even back then they weren’t stupid enough to need a defintion of attacking and defending. Because some people believe in humans to have a brain.
An uninvolved country attacking Russian troops is an illegal act of war by definition, declaring the attack beforehand is still an act of war. It doesn’t matter if it’s in Ukraine, in Russia in free international waters or anywhere else. The actual only exception is when doing it by madate of the UN to restore peace.
Are you really so dense to think NATO countries can attack other countries, then claim to be attacked when that country shoots back by pretending their attack was actually defense? Sorry, but back to above’s pan it is…
@Ooops @Wilshire @Candelestine @bstix Ok let’s start at the end of this chaos. I Wonder with how many excuses somebody can come up with. If Ukrainians would be ⚽️-less like that, russia would already be in charge there. First thing: where is the UN mandate? Is the situation not severe enough? Is the organization useless, corrupted, can’t act even in life-threatening situations? Second: Budapest memorandum. Do the security guarantees for Ukraine only mean the delivery of weapons and no troops? /1
@Ooops @Wilshire @Candelestine @bstix Third: There is a criminal offense called: denial of assistance of help to a person in danger. It means prosecution in case of proven violation of that law. Does that law lose its significance on the international scale, when it comes to the relation of nations? Forth: What Does This War Mean for the Future of Mankind and Today’s Civilization?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bu9BWMFFqNc&pp=ygUZdmljdG9yIHBpbmNodWsgZm91bmRhdGlvbg%3D%3D
A brief explanation of what is at stake here, and why Ukraine can’t lose the war. /2
… I have no fucking clue. lol
@bstix @Candelestine operationally that wouldn’t work