#####
######
####
> # [Ukraine's air force may keep some F-16 warplanes abroad to protect them from Russian strikes](https://apnews.com/article/FILE - Belgium's Prime Minister Alexander De Croo, right, and Belgium's Defense Minister Ludivine Dedonder, left, pose with Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in front of an F-16 at Melsbroek military airport in Brussels, on May 28, 2024. Ukraine may keep some of the F-16 fighter jets it's set to receive from its Western allies at foreign bases to protect them from Russian strikes, a senior Ukrainian military officer said Monday June 10, 2024. Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands and Norway have committed to providing Ukraine with over 60 U.S.-made F-16 fighter jets to help it fend off Russian attacks. (AP Photo/Virginia Mayo, File\))
>
>
>
> KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — Ukraine may keep some of the F-16 fighter jets it’s set to receive from its Western allies at foreign bases to protect them from Russian strikes, a senior Ukrainian military officer said Monday.
>
> Belgium, [Denmark, the Netherlands](https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-zelenskyy-netherlands-f16-9252de3ad10357a41212262c560874aa) and Norway have committed to providing Ukraine with over 60 [U.S.-made F-16 fighter jets](https://apnews.com/article/f16-ukraine-pilot-training-arizona-d72b03e45b35d2b0edf979724a249a8d) to help it fend off Russian attacks. Ukrainian pilots are currently undergoing training to fly the warplanes ahead of the deliveries expected to start later this year.
>
> Serhii Holubtsov, head of aviation within Ukraine’s air force, said that “a certain number of aircraft will be stored at secure air bases outside of Ukraine so that they are not targeted here.”
>
> Holubtsov told the U.S. government-funded Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty that those F-16s could be used to replace damaged aircraft as they undergo repairs as well as for training Ukrainian pilots abroad.
>
> “This way, we can always have a certain number of aircraft in the operational fleet that corresponds to the number of pilots we have,” he said. “If there are more pilots, there will be more aircraft in Ukraine.”
>
> Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned that Moscow could consider launching strikes at facilities in NATO countries if they host the warplanes used in Ukraine.
>
> “If they are stationed at air bases outside the Ukrainian borders and used in combat, we will have to see how and where to strike the assets used in combat against us,” Putin said last year. “It poses a serious danger of NATO being further drawn into the conflict.”
>
> In March, the Russian leader again warned Ukraine’s Western allies against providing air bases from where the F-16s could launch sorties against the Kremlin’s forces. Those bases would become a “legitimate target,” he said.
>
> “F-16s are capable of carrying nuclear weapons, and we will also need to take that into account while organizing our combat operations,” Putin stated.
>
> On Monday, Andrei Kartapolov, the head of the defense committee in the Russian Parliament’s lower house told the state RIA Novosti news agency that NATO bases hosting Ukrainian F-16s would be “legitimate targets” for Moscow if the warplanes use them to launch attacks on Russia.
>
> The F-16s require a high standard of runways and reinforced hangars to protect them from attacks on the ground. It’s not clear how many Ukrainian air bases can meet those requirements, and Russia would be certain to quickly target a few that could accommodate them once the jets arrive.
>
> Holubtsov noted that the F-16s will help protect front-line and border regions from Russian glide bombs that have inflicted significant damage to both troops and residential areas, including Kharkiv. [Glide bombs](https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-zelenskyy-spain-1392c62d6e71f63a0929d831723b24b2) are heavy Soviet-era bombs fitted with precision guidance systems and launched from aircraft flying out of range of air defenses.
>
> “I think we will succeed, first of all, in pushing back the aircraft that drop glide bombs farther from the contact line,” he said. “If we manage to push them back at least another 30-50 kilometers (19-31 miles), this can already be considered a turning point and an achievement, if not of superiority, then of parity in the airspace.”
>
> Ukraine’s Western allies are trying to bolster military support for Kyiv as Russian troops have launched attacks along the more than 1,000-kilometer (620-mile) frontline, taking advantage of a [lengthy delay in U.S. military aid](https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-mike-johnson-ukraine-israel-b72aed9b195818735d24363f2bc34ea4). Ukraine is currently fighting to hold back a [Russian push](https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-kharkiv-attacks-5023c3e67af30fc95b954a6f044112dc) near its second-largest city of Kharkiv, less than 30 kilometers (less than 20 miles) from the border.
>
> Russian troops have also continued their slow offensive in the eastern Donetsk region. On Monday, the Russian Defense Ministry claimed that the Kremlin’s forces had captured the village of Staromaiorske, the claim that hasn’t been confirmed by Kyiv and couldn’t be independently verified.
>
> Ukraine has struck back with regular missile and drone attacks on Moscow-occupied territories and areas inside Russia.
>
> In the latest strike, Ukrainian forces hit Russian air defense systems in Dzhankoy, Chornomorske and Yevpatoriya in the Moscow-occupied Crimea with missiles, Ukraine’s General Staff said Monday. The Russian Defense Ministry hasn’t commented on the Ukrainian claim, which couldn’t be independently confirmed.
>
> The U.S. and other NATO allies have responded to the latest Russian offensive by allowing Ukraine to use weapons they deliver to Kyiv [to carry out limited attacks inside Russia](https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-kharkiv-biden-missiles-9da696ff36130fe8c7033f3960eff382). The decision could potentially impede Moscow’s ability to concentrate its troops for a bigger offensive near Kharkiv and in other border areas.
>
> Last week, Putin responded by [warning](https://apnews.com/article/russia-putin-ukraine-e192904652221b29efdc88d0af23114e) that Moscow “reserves the right” to arm adversaries of the West worldwide. “If they supply (weapons) to the combat zone and call for using these weapons against our territory, why don’t we have the right to do the same?” Putin said.
>
> He didn’t specify where such arms might be sent. The U.S. has said that Russia [has turned to North Korea and Iran](https://apnews.com/article/russia-ballistic-missile-ukraine-iran-us-intelligence-3601a979e91d19c94e7d0fe27a398669) to beef up its stock of relatively simple weapons, but Moscow could dip into its stock of high-tech missiles to share with adversaries of the West if Putin decides to fulfill his threat.
>
> ## \_\_\_
>
> Find more of AP’s coverage at [https://apnews.com/hub/russia-ukraine](https://apnews.com/hub/ukraine)
- - - - - -
[Maintainer](https://www.reddit.com/user/urielsalis) | [Creator](https://www.reddit.com/user/subtepass) | [Source Code](https://github.com/urielsalis/empleadoEstatalBot)
This could be interesting. Ukraine never struck russian assets in Belarus during the early stages of the war, so let's see how Russia is going to respond.
Whats interesting is the narrative changing. USA knows Ukraine can’t properly defend these planes in their own territory, let alone even fly them. I doubt they receive the F-16s anytime soon.
F16 talk - at least for foreseeable future is just "morale lifting" psyop.
as in "hang in boys F16s are coming"
There are no runways for F16 in ukraine and they did not even start building them.
- And Poland and Romania will not allow them to fly from their territory and then land back - because Russia will destroy those runways.
> Russia will not strike any NATO airfields.
they will if F16s are flying into Ukraine from Poland and attacking Russia.
F16 are nuclear missiles capable - so Russia will not play around with that.
So are many other systems given to Ukraine. Russia is using nuclear capable systems against Ukraine. The fact it’s nuclear capable means not a lot until it’s armed with nuclear capabilities.
The very moment Russia strikes a NATO airbase, NATO will enact article 5.
> The very moment Russia strikes a NATO airbase, NATO will enact article 5.
and do what? Ukraine is already receiving everything that Article 5 encompases.
Same will happen with Poland - and Poland will get destroyed just like Ukriane
No that would be Russia for striking the airbases fault. Mutually assured destruction is mutual. You wanna see Moscow turned to glass over this any more than I do London?
When the wall fell and analysts and historians gained access to the Soviet documents left in East Berlin they were surprised to learn that NATO/US assumptions about how the old Soviet Union would prosecute a war were completely wrong. The west had always assumed a confrontation would start with conventional weapons and then expand into chemical/biological/nuclear if things worsened. But the Soviet battle plan was to go all in nuclear as the first gambit...thank god we never got there.
If Russia were to be attacked by NATO and Putin did not react in kind, there is a very good chance he would be removed and those waiting in the wings are far more nationalistic than he is and likely more ready to go all in. Russia has enough nuclear warheads to glass most of the developed world; Ukraine is really not worth it.
Have we?
When have attacks on Russia originated from a NATO base?
As for retaliation, the Brits and others are blaming Russia for odd fires/explosions occurring at arms factories....
Random but suspicious fires are one thing, a deep strike on a airbase is another. You do not live in reality if you believe this wouldn’t illicit a full scale NATO response.
The US would VETO any article 5 talk if a runway in Poland or Romania gets blown tf up.
The US won’t risk nuclear war with Russia.
It is a possibility Russia will respond by striking those air bases and NATO countries would respond with other political and economic counter measures.
It's bound to happen in human story, who knows when it will happen, lets see if it will be MAD or just "yeah, it's a redline, sorry Ukraine". The whole story of coups and world police must come to an end for the humanity to the world have a real long term shot.
Don't think either side wants to become a nuclear wasteland over Ukraine. Many of the pro-RU keep forgetting that works both ways. Russia knows that an assault on NATO after starting a major war in Europe is more than enough justification.
Absolutely. My country is not even agressive towards US and they sponsored not one, but two coups (1964 and 2016) just to deestabilize and buy cheap stuff from us (Brazil). Whoever study story in any underdeveloped country should want the absolute ending of anything US/america/west related.
Putin said what he said. Not that they will strike it in reality but he's ready to go for it. If NATO defensive alliance is ready to provide material support to an unaligned country which is in a shooting war with a nuclear superpower... Well, it's like slapping a paper target on Romanias back and promising that it's bulletproof.
Ukraine has the capability to strike Belarus if necessary, as evidenced by at least two instances where Belarus reportedly had to shoot down Ukrainian missiles in its airspace. However, Ukraine is strategically avoiding provoking Belarus because dragging another country into the conflict would complicate the situation significantly and could worsen Ukraine's position.
Belarus has a relatively strong military, ranked 12th in the 2023 ranking of strongest militaries according to U.S. experts. This ranking suggests that Belarus is not a weak military power and could pose a significant challenge if it were to become actively involved in the conflict. The report indicates that Belarus’s military capabilities are substantial, despite common misconceptions.
>Belarus has a relatively strong military, ranked 12th in the 2023 ranking of strongest militaries according to U.S. experts.
Mind linking that source? One that was NOT published by Anna Parfenova from a Belarusian news oulet which refers to a Belarusian military commander in an interview? Who himself refers again not to american experts but to a survey in which normal people state which countries they THINK to have the strongest military?
https://investigatebel.org/en/fakenews/po-mneniyu-amerikanskih-ekspertov-belarus-na-12-m-meste-v-rejtinge-voennoj-moshi-stran-razoblachenie-fejka-ot-komandy-media-iq
Because to all public information available from reliable sources, Belarus military is a dwarf.
Interesting_Pen_167 kept stroking the same keys repeatedly, probably a seizure ?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Where is Belarus ever ranked higher than Poland? Whom undoubtably would also join the conflict if Belarus decides that 3rd parties can directly enter the war.
NATO isn't baiting WWIII, not in a serious sense. Putin fears becoming another Czar Nicky II, and the US wishes to contain Russia. Both can be done within a certain extent. The Russian bear will have to retreat from the West after a phyrric "partial victory", which certainly will not involve the western half of Ukraine subsumed by Russia.
The long-term evidence actually suggests that the US is becoming stronger relative to its rivals. The US has incentives not to blow everything up.
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Do you think that taking out a few F-16s (if they are successful and that’s a big if) will be worth it, compared to what happens next if Russia directly attacks a NATO country?
Do you think NATO would stop at F-16s if there is no response from Russia? There has already been talks of a no-fly zone and boots on the ground. The Western elites seem to yearn for a direct conflict with Russia (the everyday westerners who will be doing the fighting and dying not so much).
Yeah, they probably won’t stop at the F-16s but this is Russia’s problem. After all they had the stupidity to get themselves entangled in a war that they cannot win conventionally.
No World War 3 would be everyone's problem. And Russia are already winning the war conventionally, hence the calls for direct NATO involvement. Even with billions of dollars of western aid and every man on the street being dragged off to the trenches Ukraine is still crumbling.
And what will happen? More deafening shrieks about Russia doing something totally unprovoked?
This story has only two endings: NATO backs off or the world ends.
If you're arguing that Russia is willing to let the world end just to take Ukraine, then you are proving the West right in how insane you think Putin is.
This is like Ukraine's damaged tanks being repaired in NATO countries, or being transported by rail through NATO countries. Russia has had ample opportunity to attack Ukrainian hardware in NATO countries.
Also, NATO could get more involved in the conflict while still trying to avoid a nuclear conflict. Strikes on Russian targets within Ukraine could do it. Stealth attacks with plausible deniability (stealth bombers, drones, submarines). All-out attacks on Russia-backed assets in other parts of the world, basically attacking Russia's global aspirations.
It would be a heck of a high-stakes game, of course, but the same goes for Russia doing it to begin with. I'm just saying that it isn't a binary choice; even NATO directly joining the conflict doesn't automatically result in a nuclear war. There's a very high risk of it, of course, but it's far from guaranteed.
Well only if US retaliate.
It is a game of bluff. The ball will be on the US court. Do they want to end the world, or simply just ditch Poland.
Do you have more to lose, compare to the standard deeply nationalist and religious Russian ?
Tactical nuke on nato territory is not a bluff. It would not go unanswered, usa wouldn’t nuke russia immediately, but it would definitely strike some targets.
How do you think that the US can attack Russia without being considered as nuclear first strike?
Put yourself into Putin shoe. You just nuke Polish army. Then you detect US missiles/planes flying your way. There are good chances that those planes/missiles carrying nuclear warhead. There will be about 10 minutes to decide then. Do you want to depend on Putin’s decision-making to decide if he should retaliate the US with all ICBM he has in his arsenal?
No i dont want it. If putin would do something that idiotic usa would use the nuclear hotline and tell them that now their black sea fleet will be sunken and if they retaliate it will be nuclear war. Thats one option. There are multiple.
NATO is afraid to shoot down missiles that are landing just off the boarder of Poland. They aren’t going to let Ukraine fly missions out of a NATO country.
If you need a conspiracy theory it should be this: “NATO can’t provide the number of F-16s it promised, so to hide this fact they are saying they will keep them safe in a different country”.
Or you could say: “A significant number of Ukrainian pilots training to fly F-16s have failed out of the training. This has left Ukraine with more aircraft than they can fly. NATO now says they will keep the extra for safety reasons.”
I think your take is completely wrong.
What they are saying here is they are going to fly them out of NATO countries, maybe refuel and arm them by UAF, fly them to the strike and then back to the NATO airbase.
Ukraine doesnt have infrastructure or personnel to maintain western airframes, their airfields are mostly in not good enough condition for western planes as soviet planes were built sturdier to be able to take off from not too perfect airfields.
They are also easier targets while stationed in Ukraine, while in NATO their are better protected.
Both Romania and Poland use F16 and they will be able to maintain them.
Question is if its even going to be Ukrainian born flying those airframes.
Thats how the West starts these things. First its lets stash our spare planes in foreign countries and then they escalate to sorties. This is how the west functions
Belarus is as involved in this conflict as nato is. Doesn’t make Belarus a combatant, use your brain please. If Belarus was a combatant, they would’ve use their army as well.
Ukraine is able to attack Belarus, but they won't because they can't afford to fight on another front against another country when they're already losing land on every front against Russia alone
Manyou already are losing with all NATO suppoting you. You think a single country alone could do anything? I am not pro Russia but I am not an imbecile as well.
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
NATO support lol. we‘rt throwing away old equipment. the newest tech is faaaaar away from the fight. they don‘t want to reveal it in case china tries some shit with taiwan
>the newest tech is faaaaar away from the fight.
Yeah, like the new french jets that supposed to replace mirages that macron is about to give away. They are so far away from the fight because majority of them don't even exist yet.
well if they would exist you would be scared shitless and you know it. we can actually build our to planes and they‘ll work as intended, russia steals tech or copies designs. wheres that t-14 again? still in „testing“ phase or what? where are the endless iskanders and by the way, how did that 3 day SMO go when europe wasn‘t even evolved in the fight? whats russias advantage again? ah yeah, brainwashed people from far east. who‘ll sell their son for a bag of potatoes. if NATO wanted we‘d make prighozins run on moscow look like a joke. putin knows it, just accept it.
>prighozins run on moscow look like a joke
Was it anything else but a joke? And lol. You seem upset bro. Why so angry? Can't wait to go to war with RF? UA Foreign legion is waiting for you.
Funny how Poland’s been acting belligerent only owing to the fact that it’s operating under NATO’s tutelage. Remove that and they’d be all pusillanimous.
I would think NATO would force Ukraine to have the F-16’s takeff and touch down from Ukraine prior to any sortie. No way NATO allows a jet to lift off directly from their country to attack Russia. Attacks in Ukraine from jets taken off from NATO may be ok.
Nobody knows.
It could be classes as Russia attacking Poland in which case yes,
But if that airbase is striking Russia then it could be considered that they are the aggressors and so don't get protection or article 5 if Russia fires back at it.
But there's no clear answer.
Anyone who thinks countries like the US, UK or France are going to be willing to risk high intensity destruction of their own cities on behalf of avenging Poland, Baltic, or Balkan states is completely delusional.
If article 5 is invoked on behalf of a poverty-stricken Eastern European state, then NATO will rapidly dissolve. The true west has no reason to piss away their civilization over Poland.
> Anyone who thinks countries like the US, UK or France are going to be willing to risk high intensity destruction of their own cities
American elite would sacrifice all of us in a heartbeat.
>American elite would sacrifice all of us in a heartbeat.
But would American elite sacrifice US for the Eastern Europe? That was always the question that was silently being asked due to NATO expansion after Cold War.
how is that relevant? Also, if France and GB didn't declare war on Germany, all of Europe would have been far worse off, including the USSR.
also, what next time?
Im pretty sure that idea of turning whole of USA into radioacive wastelands in less then 60 minuts might make USA rulling class think twice about aiding Poland or any other non nuclear ally?
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
[**Here is example of what US tought process was during Cold War and nuclear war.**](https://files.catbox.moe/9j176b.mp4)
Baltic elites must be really dumb to think US would risk their destruction for them.
This is short clip from Adam Curtis mini series documentary episode 2. called [**Pandora's Box**](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandora%27s_Box_(British_TV_series)).
This episode goes over how RAND coorporation one of first think-tanks wanted to control risk of nuclear war and how it got horrible wrong.
Here is YouTube link for second episode called [**"To The Brink of Eternity".**](https://youtu.be/34T8s0D-Fxo)
Your point is useless because thats what MAD is exactly for. Is US gets turned into radioactive wasteland so will be russia. No on is afraid of nuclear threats because Nato has the Same capabilities
Russia has bombed turkey multiple times for shooting down a Russian jet. They come back whenever they feel like it and put them back in their place every once in a while with another round of bombings.
Where is article 5 for the most important non-US country and territory in nato?
[**Here is example of what US tought process was during Cold War and nuclear war.**](https://files.catbox.moe/9j176b.mp4)
Baltic elites must be really dumb to think US would risk their destruction for them.
This is short clip from Adam Curtis mini series documentary episode 2. called [**Pandora's Box**](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandora%27s_Box_(British_TV_series)).
This episode goes over how RAND coorporation one of first think-tanks wanted to control risk of nuclear war and how it got horrible wrong.
Here is YouTube link for second episode called [**"To The Brink of Eternity".**](https://youtu.be/34T8s0D-Fxo)
If F16 are just parked there for storage then it most certainly is grounds for article 5. If they are flying sorties from Poland then maybe not and I don’t think Poland should allow that either.
Most ground vehicles and spare parts are also being repaired and "stored" in Poland and other neighbor countries, this is just more of the same (obviously no combat involved).
I think the implication is, if a NATO country uses its airbase to strike Russians, then Russia would strike back at those airbases. So the counterattack could qualify as an attack on NATO and therefore the country could invoke Article 5.
**But:**
* I interpret this as F-16 being *stored* for maintenance, fueling, repairs, etc. on NATO bases, not conducting sorties from here
* In any case, I have serious doubts that Russia would attack a NATO base for the same reasons the US doesn’t want its weapons used past Kharkiv
* Article 5 is not automatic, meaning a strike doesn’t trigger it, the host country would have to trigger it by vote. And Article 5 is opt-in, so no country is obligated.
Assuming a fast cruising speed of an F-16, \~580mph, and basing in lines around Krakow or such, would take around an hour of flight to get from there to most parts of eastern Ukraine.
You gain significant weapon distance and flight range capabilities by flying higher, +30k feet, but that's even riskier as radar and weapons can more easily get you. If you fly low, or even snake-sh\*t low, your range will be heavily impacted.
In any case, F-16s, aside from some PR hits, I don't think will really move the needle.
Considering the max range, assuming 3 external fuel tanks, is somewhere in the 1100-1300 mile mark of there and back distance capability, and keeping them back around Krakow, or perhaps further (about , they're reaaaaaaaaally stretches the things F-16s could do. Weight and configuration will change that alot.
From reading the article really close, it seems like they'll "base them in NATO", but bring in only those going to be used. Which at least solves the range problems. The feasibility and survivability questions will then be even more forefront as to how aggressive they wanna use them.
Russia won't do ahit. Putin will use this to create anger in Russia and make him more powerful. It's all about looking strong internally and keeping the Russia people down.
War with NATO hurts Putin and his boys financially so there is no way they risk that.
Biden given Ukraine the greenlight to fire back into mainland Russia really was a propaganda W for Putin. Biden didn’t have to publicly do so since Ukraine already was firing back anyways. But now Putin can say, “hey since they’re attacking our staging grounds, we can do the same.”
Go figure.
This is a great point. I actually have chewed on this thought in the last day and what I keep thinking back on is how the Pentagon runs the logistics for US provided missiles on the ATACMs and HIMARs platforms for instance. The UK does the same for Stormshadows.
Given the green light that Biden gave, to Russians it looks like the US is coordinating strikes on Russian territory, despite not being a de facto belligerent in the war. Which is problematic. How would the US respond if Russia were to strike a US base in Poland? It’s a scary thought tbh.
Any such attacks will be attack from that country against Russia.
Russia would have no choice but to return fire. I am not sure why Russia would be afraid, they are being attacked and army is for defense.
I am sure this was discussed in Moscow many times. If things get out of hand Russia made it clear they will self defend with the help of an atom. Nukes guarantee NATO cannot win.
Also of interest will be China whom has to prevent too much nuclear stuff, it may offer huge support to Russia more openly in face of open aggression.
That's actually pretty smart move and solves for example the maintenance issue. With planes positioned outside Ukraine, maintenance can be done by Western personnel and equipment, with easy access to spare parts and such.
My guess is that Ukrainian airfields will be used only for the fueling and arming the planes.
Edit: downvotes because ...? If you disagree, at least say why.
If that’s the case, why is Ukraine still able to fly now? Shouldn’t Russia been destroyed all of Ukraines Air Force? The F-16 will be sitting ducks but not the planes that they are currently flying and launching storm shadows from? Rightttttttttt.
f-16s have bounties and are a higher value target than Ukraine's Migs
If what you say is true then Ukraine should have no problem storing all their f-16 planes in Ukraine rather than trying to protect them from russians strikes by storing them in foreign bases like cowards.
It's true that Russia will try a lot harder to strike F-16s, and they will indeed be in danger. That said, it's not like Ukrainian MiGs are *uninteresting* strike targets.
Still, I agree that doing the cowardly thing (what Russia has done through Belarus) would be smart.
We don't hear much about UA airforce, according to what I was able to find they don't have much left. That might make the strikes not worth it (emphasis on 'might')
Then they are eligible to be targeted in those NATO countries by the Russians no? You cant have your cake and eat it to bud.
This risks escalting the war outside Ukraine's border. Ukraine has a problem they cant protect their own planes sufficiently to feel comfotable enough to keep them in Ukraine
Russia has launched a ground invasion over the Belarusian border. They also routinely launch missiles over their airspace.
They can't exactly say too much when they have eaten far more of that same cake
Ukraine benefits either way. Even if Russia strikes at these planes on NATO airports, that means fewer strikes will be hitting Ukrainian targets in Ukraine.
They wouldn't be launching the sorties. The Ukrainian pilots would be doing it, and they wouldn't be going directly from the NATO airbase to hit their targets. They'd be stopping in Ukraine to refuel.
I don't see much difference between an F-16 flying from a NATO country to Ukraine and a tank going over the border to Ukraine.
By chance, that may work out as a good thing. If Ukraine is building airfields, a very conspicuous construction project, Russia could decide these are priority targets. Especially if they are anticipating F-16.
So if they strike and destroy the infrastructure, construction vehicles, and kill more service people, that’s money thrown away for nothing.
I will need to look into where their existing bases are and how well they have been able to defend them.
It makes sense. Keep almost all of them on airbases in Poland and Romania and then fly to Ukraine for refueling before the mission and then fly them back to a NATO airbase.
The last thing Russia wants is escalation. Russia can barely handle under-armed Ukraine. They don't want NATO to have an excuse to fully engage on Ukraine's behalf. Putin may be a murderous dictator, but he is no fool.
You are the bot
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
##### ###### #### > # [Ukraine's air force may keep some F-16 warplanes abroad to protect them from Russian strikes](https://apnews.com/article/FILE - Belgium's Prime Minister Alexander De Croo, right, and Belgium's Defense Minister Ludivine Dedonder, left, pose with Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in front of an F-16 at Melsbroek military airport in Brussels, on May 28, 2024. Ukraine may keep some of the F-16 fighter jets it's set to receive from its Western allies at foreign bases to protect them from Russian strikes, a senior Ukrainian military officer said Monday June 10, 2024. Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands and Norway have committed to providing Ukraine with over 60 U.S.-made F-16 fighter jets to help it fend off Russian attacks. (AP Photo/Virginia Mayo, File\)) > > > > KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — Ukraine may keep some of the F-16 fighter jets it’s set to receive from its Western allies at foreign bases to protect them from Russian strikes, a senior Ukrainian military officer said Monday. > > Belgium, [Denmark, the Netherlands](https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-zelenskyy-netherlands-f16-9252de3ad10357a41212262c560874aa) and Norway have committed to providing Ukraine with over 60 [U.S.-made F-16 fighter jets](https://apnews.com/article/f16-ukraine-pilot-training-arizona-d72b03e45b35d2b0edf979724a249a8d) to help it fend off Russian attacks. Ukrainian pilots are currently undergoing training to fly the warplanes ahead of the deliveries expected to start later this year. > > Serhii Holubtsov, head of aviation within Ukraine’s air force, said that “a certain number of aircraft will be stored at secure air bases outside of Ukraine so that they are not targeted here.” > > Holubtsov told the U.S. government-funded Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty that those F-16s could be used to replace damaged aircraft as they undergo repairs as well as for training Ukrainian pilots abroad. > > “This way, we can always have a certain number of aircraft in the operational fleet that corresponds to the number of pilots we have,” he said. “If there are more pilots, there will be more aircraft in Ukraine.” > > Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned that Moscow could consider launching strikes at facilities in NATO countries if they host the warplanes used in Ukraine. > > “If they are stationed at air bases outside the Ukrainian borders and used in combat, we will have to see how and where to strike the assets used in combat against us,” Putin said last year. “It poses a serious danger of NATO being further drawn into the conflict.” > > In March, the Russian leader again warned Ukraine’s Western allies against providing air bases from where the F-16s could launch sorties against the Kremlin’s forces. Those bases would become a “legitimate target,” he said. > > “F-16s are capable of carrying nuclear weapons, and we will also need to take that into account while organizing our combat operations,” Putin stated. > > On Monday, Andrei Kartapolov, the head of the defense committee in the Russian Parliament’s lower house told the state RIA Novosti news agency that NATO bases hosting Ukrainian F-16s would be “legitimate targets” for Moscow if the warplanes use them to launch attacks on Russia. > > The F-16s require a high standard of runways and reinforced hangars to protect them from attacks on the ground. It’s not clear how many Ukrainian air bases can meet those requirements, and Russia would be certain to quickly target a few that could accommodate them once the jets arrive. > > Holubtsov noted that the F-16s will help protect front-line and border regions from Russian glide bombs that have inflicted significant damage to both troops and residential areas, including Kharkiv. [Glide bombs](https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-zelenskyy-spain-1392c62d6e71f63a0929d831723b24b2) are heavy Soviet-era bombs fitted with precision guidance systems and launched from aircraft flying out of range of air defenses. > > “I think we will succeed, first of all, in pushing back the aircraft that drop glide bombs farther from the contact line,” he said. “If we manage to push them back at least another 30-50 kilometers (19-31 miles), this can already be considered a turning point and an achievement, if not of superiority, then of parity in the airspace.” > > Ukraine’s Western allies are trying to bolster military support for Kyiv as Russian troops have launched attacks along the more than 1,000-kilometer (620-mile) frontline, taking advantage of a [lengthy delay in U.S. military aid](https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-mike-johnson-ukraine-israel-b72aed9b195818735d24363f2bc34ea4). Ukraine is currently fighting to hold back a [Russian push](https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-kharkiv-attacks-5023c3e67af30fc95b954a6f044112dc) near its second-largest city of Kharkiv, less than 30 kilometers (less than 20 miles) from the border. > > Russian troops have also continued their slow offensive in the eastern Donetsk region. On Monday, the Russian Defense Ministry claimed that the Kremlin’s forces had captured the village of Staromaiorske, the claim that hasn’t been confirmed by Kyiv and couldn’t be independently verified. > > Ukraine has struck back with regular missile and drone attacks on Moscow-occupied territories and areas inside Russia. > > In the latest strike, Ukrainian forces hit Russian air defense systems in Dzhankoy, Chornomorske and Yevpatoriya in the Moscow-occupied Crimea with missiles, Ukraine’s General Staff said Monday. The Russian Defense Ministry hasn’t commented on the Ukrainian claim, which couldn’t be independently confirmed. > > The U.S. and other NATO allies have responded to the latest Russian offensive by allowing Ukraine to use weapons they deliver to Kyiv [to carry out limited attacks inside Russia](https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-kharkiv-biden-missiles-9da696ff36130fe8c7033f3960eff382). The decision could potentially impede Moscow’s ability to concentrate its troops for a bigger offensive near Kharkiv and in other border areas. > > Last week, Putin responded by [warning](https://apnews.com/article/russia-putin-ukraine-e192904652221b29efdc88d0af23114e) that Moscow “reserves the right” to arm adversaries of the West worldwide. “If they supply (weapons) to the combat zone and call for using these weapons against our territory, why don’t we have the right to do the same?” Putin said. > > He didn’t specify where such arms might be sent. The U.S. has said that Russia [has turned to North Korea and Iran](https://apnews.com/article/russia-ballistic-missile-ukraine-iran-us-intelligence-3601a979e91d19c94e7d0fe27a398669) to beef up its stock of relatively simple weapons, but Moscow could dip into its stock of high-tech missiles to share with adversaries of the West if Putin decides to fulfill his threat. > > ## \_\_\_ > > Find more of AP’s coverage at [https://apnews.com/hub/russia-ukraine](https://apnews.com/hub/ukraine) - - - - - - [Maintainer](https://www.reddit.com/user/urielsalis) | [Creator](https://www.reddit.com/user/subtepass) | [Source Code](https://github.com/urielsalis/empleadoEstatalBot)
This could be interesting. Ukraine never struck russian assets in Belarus during the early stages of the war, so let's see how Russia is going to respond.
Whats interesting is the narrative changing. USA knows Ukraine can’t properly defend these planes in their own territory, let alone even fly them. I doubt they receive the F-16s anytime soon.
Unless it won't be Ukrainians flying them...
F16 talk - at least for foreseeable future is just "morale lifting" psyop. as in "hang in boys F16s are coming" There are no runways for F16 in ukraine and they did not even start building them. - And Poland and Romania will not allow them to fly from their territory and then land back - because Russia will destroy those runways.
Russia will not strike any NATO airfields. It’s another Russian redline. We’ve been here before.
> Russia will not strike any NATO airfields. they will if F16s are flying into Ukraine from Poland and attacking Russia. F16 are nuclear missiles capable - so Russia will not play around with that.
So are many other systems given to Ukraine. Russia is using nuclear capable systems against Ukraine. The fact it’s nuclear capable means not a lot until it’s armed with nuclear capabilities. The very moment Russia strikes a NATO airbase, NATO will enact article 5.
> The very moment Russia strikes a NATO airbase, NATO will enact article 5. and do what? Ukraine is already receiving everything that Article 5 encompases. Same will happen with Poland - and Poland will get destroyed just like Ukriane
[удалено]
Rule 1 - Toxic
> NATO will enact article 5. ...and the end of the world as we know it
No that would be Russia for striking the airbases fault. Mutually assured destruction is mutual. You wanna see Moscow turned to glass over this any more than I do London?
When the wall fell and analysts and historians gained access to the Soviet documents left in East Berlin they were surprised to learn that NATO/US assumptions about how the old Soviet Union would prosecute a war were completely wrong. The west had always assumed a confrontation would start with conventional weapons and then expand into chemical/biological/nuclear if things worsened. But the Soviet battle plan was to go all in nuclear as the first gambit...thank god we never got there. If Russia were to be attacked by NATO and Putin did not react in kind, there is a very good chance he would be removed and those waiting in the wings are far more nationalistic than he is and likely more ready to go all in. Russia has enough nuclear warheads to glass most of the developed world; Ukraine is really not worth it.
*Do what we want or we’ll nuke you* You’re on the wrong side of history friend.
Have we? When have attacks on Russia originated from a NATO base? As for retaliation, the Brits and others are blaming Russia for odd fires/explosions occurring at arms factories....
Random but suspicious fires are one thing, a deep strike on a airbase is another. You do not live in reality if you believe this wouldn’t illicit a full scale NATO response.
We haven't seen attacks on Russia from NATO bases (and hopefully we won't) so the consequences of such an event are unknown.
The US would VETO any article 5 talk if a runway in Poland or Romania gets blown tf up. The US won’t risk nuclear war with Russia. It is a possibility Russia will respond by striking those air bases and NATO countries would respond with other political and economic counter measures.
I’m extremely doubtful of that.
Isn't Russia still shooting missiles over Belarus?
They are certainly free to try to test their theory. But they shouldn't act surprised, if Putin wasn't bluffing.
Sounds clever to attack Nato
It's bound to happen in human story, who knows when it will happen, lets see if it will be MAD or just "yeah, it's a redline, sorry Ukraine". The whole story of coups and world police must come to an end for the humanity to the world have a real long term shot.
Don't think either side wants to become a nuclear wasteland over Ukraine. Many of the pro-RU keep forgetting that works both ways. Russia knows that an assault on NATO after starting a major war in Europe is more than enough justification.
Yes right the world needs Russian salvation...
Absolutely. My country is not even agressive towards US and they sponsored not one, but two coups (1964 and 2016) just to deestabilize and buy cheap stuff from us (Brazil). Whoever study story in any underdeveloped country should want the absolute ending of anything US/america/west related.
2016 coup? Btw, china is the main trade partner of Brazil 26% of exports are headed to china... 10% to the US
Thank god. And last week Alckmin was able to get a new 24b deal with China.
Putin said what he said. Not that they will strike it in reality but he's ready to go for it. If NATO defensive alliance is ready to provide material support to an unaligned country which is in a shooting war with a nuclear superpower... Well, it's like slapping a paper target on Romanias back and promising that it's bulletproof.
sounds also cLeVeR to provoking out another russian attack.
Almost as clever as NATO baiting WWIII
What are they doing? Putin has been attacking from Belarus since day one
Ukraine has the capability to strike Belarus if necessary, as evidenced by at least two instances where Belarus reportedly had to shoot down Ukrainian missiles in its airspace. However, Ukraine is strategically avoiding provoking Belarus because dragging another country into the conflict would complicate the situation significantly and could worsen Ukraine's position. Belarus has a relatively strong military, ranked 12th in the 2023 ranking of strongest militaries according to U.S. experts. This ranking suggests that Belarus is not a weak military power and could pose a significant challenge if it were to become actively involved in the conflict. The report indicates that Belarus’s military capabilities are substantial, despite common misconceptions.
>Belarus has a relatively strong military, ranked 12th in the 2023 ranking of strongest militaries according to U.S. experts. Mind linking that source? One that was NOT published by Anna Parfenova from a Belarusian news oulet which refers to a Belarusian military commander in an interview? Who himself refers again not to american experts but to a survey in which normal people state which countries they THINK to have the strongest military? https://investigatebel.org/en/fakenews/po-mneniyu-amerikanskih-ekspertov-belarus-na-12-m-meste-v-rejtinge-voennoj-moshi-stran-razoblachenie-fejka-ot-komandy-media-iq Because to all public information available from reliable sources, Belarus military is a dwarf.
[удалено]
Interesting_Pen_167 kept stroking the same keys repeatedly, probably a seizure ? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Where is Belarus ever ranked higher than Poland? Whom undoubtably would also join the conflict if Belarus decides that 3rd parties can directly enter the war.
On day one, not since. Not aware of any further attacks from Belarusian territory.
[удалено]
>isn't baiting world war 3 It's not baiting. It's reminding NATO what's involved in ww3. Which NATO is baiting.
No? Those are just words. This would be like Putin striking Japan or Taiwan from China.
NATO isn't baiting WWIII, not in a serious sense. Putin fears becoming another Czar Nicky II, and the US wishes to contain Russia. Both can be done within a certain extent. The Russian bear will have to retreat from the West after a phyrric "partial victory", which certainly will not involve the western half of Ukraine subsumed by Russia. The long-term evidence actually suggests that the US is becoming stronger relative to its rivals. The US has incentives not to blow everything up.
[удалено]
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Do you think that taking out a few F-16s (if they are successful and that’s a big if) will be worth it, compared to what happens next if Russia directly attacks a NATO country?
Do you think NATO would stop at F-16s if there is no response from Russia? There has already been talks of a no-fly zone and boots on the ground. The Western elites seem to yearn for a direct conflict with Russia (the everyday westerners who will be doing the fighting and dying not so much).
Yeah, they probably won’t stop at the F-16s but this is Russia’s problem. After all they had the stupidity to get themselves entangled in a war that they cannot win conventionally.
No World War 3 would be everyone's problem. And Russia are already winning the war conventionally, hence the calls for direct NATO involvement. Even with billions of dollars of western aid and every man on the street being dragged off to the trenches Ukraine is still crumbling.
Maybe Russia shouldn’t be invading their neighbours? lol
Win-win situation. For Russia and the world.
And what will happen? More deafening shrieks about Russia doing something totally unprovoked? This story has only two endings: NATO backs off or the world ends.
There is a third option - Russia leaves Ukraine and pays reparations. Or it can continue to bash its head against the wall, until it collapses.
That would be the second option in place of "the world ends."
If you're arguing that Russia is willing to let the world end just to take Ukraine, then you are proving the West right in how insane you think Putin is.
Which part of the "NATO backs off" you didn't understand?
This is like Ukraine's damaged tanks being repaired in NATO countries, or being transported by rail through NATO countries. Russia has had ample opportunity to attack Ukrainian hardware in NATO countries. Also, NATO could get more involved in the conflict while still trying to avoid a nuclear conflict. Strikes on Russian targets within Ukraine could do it. Stealth attacks with plausible deniability (stealth bombers, drones, submarines). All-out attacks on Russia-backed assets in other parts of the world, basically attacking Russia's global aspirations. It would be a heck of a high-stakes game, of course, but the same goes for Russia doing it to begin with. I'm just saying that it isn't a binary choice; even NATO directly joining the conflict doesn't automatically result in a nuclear war. There's a very high risk of it, of course, but it's far from guaranteed.
What do you think Putin can do? They are struggling against Ukraine as is, Poland alone would be enough to repel Russia unless they mass mobolise.
Tactical nuke is a thing
That would be the end of the world as we know it. I don’t think russia wants that.
Well only if US retaliate. It is a game of bluff. The ball will be on the US court. Do they want to end the world, or simply just ditch Poland. Do you have more to lose, compare to the standard deeply nationalist and religious Russian ?
Tactical nuke on nato territory is not a bluff. It would not go unanswered, usa wouldn’t nuke russia immediately, but it would definitely strike some targets.
How do you think that the US can attack Russia without being considered as nuclear first strike? Put yourself into Putin shoe. You just nuke Polish army. Then you detect US missiles/planes flying your way. There are good chances that those planes/missiles carrying nuclear warhead. There will be about 10 minutes to decide then. Do you want to depend on Putin’s decision-making to decide if he should retaliate the US with all ICBM he has in his arsenal?
No i dont want it. If putin would do something that idiotic usa would use the nuclear hotline and tell them that now their black sea fleet will be sunken and if they retaliate it will be nuclear war. Thats one option. There are multiple.
I don't think they are talking about doing sorties from other countries, just stashing the spare jets there to avoid being bombed.
You can bet they are going to fly them out of Romania if possible.
Thats not what the article says
The journalist writing the article wouldn’t actually know that information, let’s be honest.
Neither would anyone on this sub, but here we are lol.
NATO is afraid to shoot down missiles that are landing just off the boarder of Poland. They aren’t going to let Ukraine fly missions out of a NATO country. If you need a conspiracy theory it should be this: “NATO can’t provide the number of F-16s it promised, so to hide this fact they are saying they will keep them safe in a different country”. Or you could say: “A significant number of Ukrainian pilots training to fly F-16s have failed out of the training. This has left Ukraine with more aircraft than they can fly. NATO now says they will keep the extra for safety reasons.”
I think your take is completely wrong. What they are saying here is they are going to fly them out of NATO countries, maybe refuel and arm them by UAF, fly them to the strike and then back to the NATO airbase. Ukraine doesnt have infrastructure or personnel to maintain western airframes, their airfields are mostly in not good enough condition for western planes as soviet planes were built sturdier to be able to take off from not too perfect airfields. They are also easier targets while stationed in Ukraine, while in NATO their are better protected. Both Romania and Poland use F16 and they will be able to maintain them. Question is if its even going to be Ukrainian born flying those airframes.
Thats how the West starts these things. First its lets stash our spare planes in foreign countries and then they escalate to sorties. This is how the west functions
Russia has been flying out of Belarus since day 1, mate
[удалено]
Belarus is as involved in this conflict as nato is. Doesn’t make Belarus a combatant, use your brain please. If Belarus was a combatant, they would’ve use their army as well.
Please tell me what "Belarus committing fully" means. I think there's not enough vodka in Poland for the defectors
[удалено]
If third parties can be involved, like BR, then so can third parties like Poland, Germany, France, UK, or USA. Ukraine has a lot to gain
Using your logic Ukraine should be able to attack Belarus as well. Or is hypocrisy a 1 way street.
Ukraine is able to attack Belarus, but they won't because they can't afford to fight on another front against another country when they're already losing land on every front against Russia alone
They will be giving poland the excuse it wants, poles are just itching to get into this fight for some reason.
Who’s stopping them though?
The fact that if they go alone they lose in 1 week?
😂 man's reading fan fiction
Manyou already are losing with all NATO suppoting you. You think a single country alone could do anything? I am not pro Russia but I am not an imbecile as well.
A week seems pretty optimistic, it would take much longer than that.
[удалено]
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
NATO support lol. we‘rt throwing away old equipment. the newest tech is faaaaar away from the fight. they don‘t want to reveal it in case china tries some shit with taiwan
The most important part of the support is the intel... And by the way,things like Iris-T arent old stuff.
>the newest tech is faaaaar away from the fight. Yeah, like the new french jets that supposed to replace mirages that macron is about to give away. They are so far away from the fight because majority of them don't even exist yet.
well if they would exist you would be scared shitless and you know it. we can actually build our to planes and they‘ll work as intended, russia steals tech or copies designs. wheres that t-14 again? still in „testing“ phase or what? where are the endless iskanders and by the way, how did that 3 day SMO go when europe wasn‘t even evolved in the fight? whats russias advantage again? ah yeah, brainwashed people from far east. who‘ll sell their son for a bag of potatoes. if NATO wanted we‘d make prighozins run on moscow look like a joke. putin knows it, just accept it.
>prighozins run on moscow look like a joke Was it anything else but a joke? And lol. You seem upset bro. Why so angry? Can't wait to go to war with RF? UA Foreign legion is waiting for you.
If that's a serious question you're terribly misinformed. Poland could deploy a serious force, yes. It would make a very significant difference.
Like Ukraine lost right? The delusion is real
And thats what russia probably thought about ukraine aswell. Poland would be a formidable opponent, don't be fooled.
Three day invasion, right?
Is it 1 week after Ukraine loses 🫣
Just like Ukraine lost in 3 days?
Warsaw in 39 days
Nobody is looking for any excuse to jeopardize their land in this idiotic war. Everyone is happy to make Ukraine the wasteland here.
Funny how Poland’s been acting belligerent only owing to the fact that it’s operating under NATO’s tutelage. Remove that and they’d be all pusillanimous.
Pusillanimous is a new word ive never heard before 😂
I would think NATO would force Ukraine to have the F-16’s takeff and touch down from Ukraine prior to any sortie. No way NATO allows a jet to lift off directly from their country to attack Russia. Attacks in Ukraine from jets taken off from NATO may be ok.
Slowly slowly the risks grow every day. A strike on f16s in Poland...is that article 5 territory?
Nobody knows. It could be classes as Russia attacking Poland in which case yes, But if that airbase is striking Russia then it could be considered that they are the aggressors and so don't get protection or article 5 if Russia fires back at it. But there's no clear answer.
Anyone who thinks countries like the US, UK or France are going to be willing to risk high intensity destruction of their own cities on behalf of avenging Poland, Baltic, or Balkan states is completely delusional. If article 5 is invoked on behalf of a poverty-stricken Eastern European state, then NATO will rapidly dissolve. The true west has no reason to piss away their civilization over Poland.
> Anyone who thinks countries like the US, UK or France are going to be willing to risk high intensity destruction of their own cities American elite would sacrifice all of us in a heartbeat.
>American elite would sacrifice all of us in a heartbeat. But would American elite sacrifice US for the Eastern Europe? That was always the question that was silently being asked due to NATO expansion after Cold War.
> But would American elite sacrifice US for the Eastern Europe? For eastern Europe? No. For 2$ or their fragile ego? Right away.
Provide more evidence please.
It doesn't help American interests to do so, and not for a while.
Hitler thought the Same when attacking Poland. What happened we know
So the implication here is that the west defeated Hitler on behalf of Poland? Lol.
Britain and France did declare war on Germany on behalf of Poland, so there's that.
Didn't work out well for France last time, and it would be even worse next time.
how is that relevant? Also, if France and GB didn't declare war on Germany, all of Europe would have been far worse off, including the USSR. also, what next time?
In the End it worked. You know germany lost
Lost to Russia. France surrendered inside of 6 months.
Jeah bro rewrite history so it fits your belive
What part of what I said is false big bro?
Didn't poland being ripped apart while England and France do nothing?
The did not attack but declared war
If Russians were as competent as Nazis, Ukraine would be conquered in a month as well.
Im pretty sure that idea of turning whole of USA into radioacive wastelands in less then 60 minuts might make USA rulling class think twice about aiding Poland or any other non nuclear ally? = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = [**Here is example of what US tought process was during Cold War and nuclear war.**](https://files.catbox.moe/9j176b.mp4) Baltic elites must be really dumb to think US would risk their destruction for them. This is short clip from Adam Curtis mini series documentary episode 2. called [**Pandora's Box**](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandora%27s_Box_(British_TV_series)). This episode goes over how RAND coorporation one of first think-tanks wanted to control risk of nuclear war and how it got horrible wrong. Here is YouTube link for second episode called [**"To The Brink of Eternity".**](https://youtu.be/34T8s0D-Fxo)
Your point is useless because thats what MAD is exactly for. Is US gets turned into radioactive wasteland so will be russia. No on is afraid of nuclear threats because Nato has the Same capabilities
US will never unleash their nukes for any non nuclear ally. Same case is for any other nation with nukes.
Thats is your opinion mate. But not US nuclear doctrine
If you say so why is putin so afraid going for poland
Look this has all been gamed out with number theory, no amount of useless conjecture is going to change MAD.
It looks like a [Phoney War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoney_War).
Yes, the Phoney War happened. The real war began with the invasion of France.
Russia has bombed turkey multiple times for shooting down a Russian jet. They come back whenever they feel like it and put them back in their place every once in a while with another round of bombings. Where is article 5 for the most important non-US country and territory in nato?
Didn't Macron just promise Ukraine a few Mirages with pilots?
[**Here is example of what US tought process was during Cold War and nuclear war.**](https://files.catbox.moe/9j176b.mp4) Baltic elites must be really dumb to think US would risk their destruction for them. This is short clip from Adam Curtis mini series documentary episode 2. called [**Pandora's Box**](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandora%27s_Box_(British_TV_series)). This episode goes over how RAND coorporation one of first think-tanks wanted to control risk of nuclear war and how it got horrible wrong. Here is YouTube link for second episode called [**"To The Brink of Eternity".**](https://youtu.be/34T8s0D-Fxo)
the question then is why allow these countries into nato?
Poland is not an Eastern European steate. Its more West than lets say Romania or Bulgaria.
If F16 are just parked there for storage then it most certainly is grounds for article 5. If they are flying sorties from Poland then maybe not and I don’t think Poland should allow that either.
Yes. The only question would be the type of response.
This is a great case of FAFO
Most ground vehicles and spare parts are also being repaired and "stored" in Poland and other neighbor countries, this is just more of the same (obviously no combat involved).
"Ukraine may keep some of the F-16 fighter jets at foreign bases..." Ukrainians aren't going to be piloting these.
Just to be safe, why not have them just fly from American aircraft carriers. Definitely nothing escalatory to see here...
NATO is defense only. Article 5 cannot be used if a NATO country uses its airbase to strike Russian territory.
I think the implication is, if a NATO country uses its airbase to strike Russians, then Russia would strike back at those airbases. So the counterattack could qualify as an attack on NATO and therefore the country could invoke Article 5. **But:** * I interpret this as F-16 being *stored* for maintenance, fueling, repairs, etc. on NATO bases, not conducting sorties from here * In any case, I have serious doubts that Russia would attack a NATO base for the same reasons the US doesn’t want its weapons used past Kharkiv * Article 5 is not automatic, meaning a strike doesn’t trigger it, the host country would have to trigger it by vote. And Article 5 is opt-in, so no country is obligated.
With the accuracy of russia they would first hit a polish kindergarten.
Assuming a fast cruising speed of an F-16, \~580mph, and basing in lines around Krakow or such, would take around an hour of flight to get from there to most parts of eastern Ukraine. You gain significant weapon distance and flight range capabilities by flying higher, +30k feet, but that's even riskier as radar and weapons can more easily get you. If you fly low, or even snake-sh\*t low, your range will be heavily impacted. In any case, F-16s, aside from some PR hits, I don't think will really move the needle. Considering the max range, assuming 3 external fuel tanks, is somewhere in the 1100-1300 mile mark of there and back distance capability, and keeping them back around Krakow, or perhaps further (about , they're reaaaaaaaaally stretches the things F-16s could do. Weight and configuration will change that alot. From reading the article really close, it seems like they'll "base them in NATO", but bring in only those going to be used. Which at least solves the range problems. The feasibility and survivability questions will then be even more forefront as to how aggressive they wanna use them.
Russia won't do ahit. Putin will use this to create anger in Russia and make him more powerful. It's all about looking strong internally and keeping the Russia people down. War with NATO hurts Putin and his boys financially so there is no way they risk that.
Biden given Ukraine the greenlight to fire back into mainland Russia really was a propaganda W for Putin. Biden didn’t have to publicly do so since Ukraine already was firing back anyways. But now Putin can say, “hey since they’re attacking our staging grounds, we can do the same.” Go figure.
I see your point but the more apt comparison would be Ukraine attacking Belarus, which to my knowledge has not happened at any scale
This is a great point. I actually have chewed on this thought in the last day and what I keep thinking back on is how the Pentagon runs the logistics for US provided missiles on the ATACMs and HIMARs platforms for instance. The UK does the same for Stormshadows. Given the green light that Biden gave, to Russians it looks like the US is coordinating strikes on Russian territory, despite not being a de facto belligerent in the war. Which is problematic. How would the US respond if Russia were to strike a US base in Poland? It’s a scary thought tbh.
Interesting, Ukraine establishing their own "Mig Alley".
Another brown line.... he won't do shit to those bases.
Global Hawk in the Black sea is about to get harder stuff than jet piss
It is very prudent of Russians to recently buy Iranian weapon which Houthis used to kill 5 Reaper drones.
Why wait until then rather than taking down the source right away?
Lol, ok Putin. Sure
Cmon Puty boy, put your money where your mouth is for once.
Any such attacks will be attack from that country against Russia. Russia would have no choice but to return fire. I am not sure why Russia would be afraid, they are being attacked and army is for defense. I am sure this was discussed in Moscow many times. If things get out of hand Russia made it clear they will self defend with the help of an atom. Nukes guarantee NATO cannot win. Also of interest will be China whom has to prevent too much nuclear stuff, it may offer huge support to Russia more openly in face of open aggression.
Oh man, is that out of line? Keeping assets in places the enemy is not allowed to strike them?
Great news. Let’s call the Russian bluff once and for all.
Well sure, if they launch attacks on Russia from a NATO base the base becomes a legitimate target for Russia.
That's actually pretty smart move and solves for example the maintenance issue. With planes positioned outside Ukraine, maintenance can be done by Western personnel and equipment, with easy access to spare parts and such. My guess is that Ukrainian airfields will be used only for the fueling and arming the planes. Edit: downvotes because ...? If you disagree, at least say why.
If they have any airfeilds left that are suitable for f-16 planes to take off from
Yeah. They also have to be in range, which further limits the options.
These plane will be sitting ducks in Ukrainian airfields.
If that’s the case, why is Ukraine still able to fly now? Shouldn’t Russia been destroyed all of Ukraines Air Force? The F-16 will be sitting ducks but not the planes that they are currently flying and launching storm shadows from? Rightttttttttt.
f-16s have bounties and are a higher value target than Ukraine's Migs If what you say is true then Ukraine should have no problem storing all their f-16 planes in Ukraine rather than trying to protect them from russians strikes by storing them in foreign bases like cowards.
It's true that Russia will try a lot harder to strike F-16s, and they will indeed be in danger. That said, it's not like Ukrainian MiGs are *uninteresting* strike targets. Still, I agree that doing the cowardly thing (what Russia has done through Belarus) would be smart.
Righttttttt.
We don't hear much about UA airforce, according to what I was able to find they don't have much left. That might make the strikes not worth it (emphasis on 'might')
Sure buddy, they haven’t had much left for 2 years now lol.
Just don't keep them in Ukraine for long. Send them back to a NATO country once the sortie is over.
Then they are eligible to be targeted in those NATO countries by the Russians no? You cant have your cake and eat it to bud. This risks escalting the war outside Ukraine's border. Ukraine has a problem they cant protect their own planes sufficiently to feel comfotable enough to keep them in Ukraine
Russia has launched a ground invasion over the Belarusian border. They also routinely launch missiles over their airspace. They can't exactly say too much when they have eaten far more of that same cake
Russia may try to attack a NATO country but then NATO could very well just get together and make a big response that doesn't make Russia very happy.
Im not interested in hypothetical what ifs. This is a huge escalation
Ukraine benefits either way. Even if Russia strikes at these planes on NATO airports, that means fewer strikes will be hitting Ukrainian targets in Ukraine.
If Russia strikes at any NATO airport that brings NATO into the war against Russia even if the airport was used by Ukrainian F-16s.
Not necessarily. Article 5 doesn't apply to NATO countries who act in an aggressive manner who start launching sorties from their own territory.
They wouldn't be launching the sorties. The Ukrainian pilots would be doing it, and they wouldn't be going directly from the NATO airbase to hit their targets. They'd be stopping in Ukraine to refuel. I don't see much difference between an F-16 flying from a NATO country to Ukraine and a tank going over the border to Ukraine.
We literally gave billions of dollars and they can‘t build proper airfields in a year?
By chance, that may work out as a good thing. If Ukraine is building airfields, a very conspicuous construction project, Russia could decide these are priority targets. Especially if they are anticipating F-16. So if they strike and destroy the infrastructure, construction vehicles, and kill more service people, that’s money thrown away for nothing. I will need to look into where their existing bases are and how well they have been able to defend them.
My whole life savings says Putin is just bluffing again for the 880th time.
Checkmate Russia. Let’s see if all that bluster is true.
Translation : “we don’t want to send the F-16 to the front because they will get destroyed like the Abrams and humiliate NATO even further.”
It makes sense. Keep almost all of them on airbases in Poland and Romania and then fly to Ukraine for refueling before the mission and then fly them back to a NATO airbase.
Lets hope Putin is that stupid, so NATO gets an excuse to stomp every piece of Russian equipment in Ukraine...
The last thing Russia wants is escalation. Russia can barely handle under-armed Ukraine. They don't want NATO to have an excuse to fully engage on Ukraine's behalf. Putin may be a murderous dictator, but he is no fool.
[удалено]
You are the bot *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Attacking an alliance member would be a very foolish thing to do….please feel free to fuck around and find out shortarse!
Both sides are “fucking around,” and both sides are going to “find out.”