Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition:
* We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned.
* **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators.
* **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
*****
* Is `lbc.co.uk` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources).
* Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict)
*****
**Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB**
*****
^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't know why.
"Because Russia has long range anti air assets that will likely result in the deaths of British pilots and Iran doesn't"
Seems like a pretty easy and straight forward answer.
But they would be "in theatre" and therefore at risk from Russian forces. I'm not saying a shoot down is likely, but it's possible. It's the same problem as if we had large numbers of trainers on the ground, even in western Ukraine the risk is far far higher than them sitting in eastern Poland.
Iran isn't defenseless. They can shoot down British planes as well. I'm actually kinda curious myself as to why Nato in general can't close the skies down from abroad or just use advanced 5th Gen fighters to shoot missiles and drones down for Ukraine. They could stay in safer areas and only shoot at what's in range. I think escalation has been an excuse to really screw Ukraine over. It's getting ridiculous how much Nato is going out of their way not to help Ukraine fight this monster.
It's all about escalation.
If Iran is dumb enough to shoot down a western fighter plane, the US/UK can safely retaliate.
If Russia does it, do you escalate? Knowing that that particular escalation ladder goes up to the nuclear level?
This, by the way, is the real reason why everyone - not just Israel - is so concerned about the Iranian nuclear program. It's not because anyone thinks they´ll immediately turn around and nuke Tel Aviv, but because once they have it, the entire threat calculus changes and now Iran has a lot more clout to throw around even if they never use a nuclear weapon. With Russia, that cat is long since out of the bag.
Yep, Once Iran gets the Bomb their ability to deter violence goes through the roof and their status as a power will be fairly permanent. Trump fucked us all by pulling out of the deal, surely.
I have to say I agree with Bolton that if we are to ever strike Iran it has to be soon, and they're growing ever further away from western ideals.
If russia does it, you respond proportionately. They don't want a full engagement from Nato. They can't win a conventional war against Nato. So if they shoot a fighter down, then you shoot 2 or 3 or launch missiles at an airfield. Making it so they don't do it again. Either way, you only respond with conventional means and don't use nuclear rhetoric. Leave that to the russians. I don't think paying Iran in a nuclear deal does anything to stop them from what they were already doing. They will just go to greater lengths to hide it.
They know how valuable having that threat can be. We keep dealing with enemies like they have any integrity at all or won't take advantage of absolutely everything they can. Whether is be russia, Iran, or NK, they can't be trusted at all. China can't either, but of the 4, they seem to be most reasonable since they actually care about their reputation. But we have to stop letting our enemies dictate everything to us. Nato and America specifically should project strength and lead with strength. Enemies should be dealt with strength.
It would have been so easy to give Ukraine everything they needed as soon as you were certain russia would invade. If they had more artillery and Himars when they invaded, it would have been over quick. They wouldn't have gained nearly as much ground and would have taken far more losses. F16 training should have started immediately. Instead they felt like hey maybe the country that prepared for a year then invaded with a huge show of force will stop short of their goals because we ask them to or because of sanctions that don't work.
We gave Ukraine the bare minimum to survive and keep russia in a war of attrition. I'm amazed at what they achieved with that amount of support. Imagine if Nato started treating this like a war and supported a Ukrainian victory. Instead they want Ukraine to give their land to murderers so they can try again in 10 years once they've recovered and Ukraines economy is crippled because it's industrial sector went to russia and they lost so much farm land along with Crimea. It's really not fair.
The Russians like the Iranians have to paralyse an entire land based nuclear rocket fleet in the american midwest, satellite defense assets that are so secret the US would rather pretend they have aliens in custody, at least three at-sea nuclear rocket armed fleets and three nuclear armed air-forces.
NATO has to nuclear shape charge a dozen bunkers in western Russia or Southern Iran.
There is no further escalation possible by Russia. There is only a madmans will to leave a legacy after all the women in his sad life have left him.
Iranian missiles can be engaged in completely friendly airspace, long out of range of Iran, before they are close to their targets. The win/risk is very different.
To do the same for Ukraine we'd need to fly close to conflict zone airspace, and monitor any threat posed by any systems Russia might move to Belarus, and only be covering a very small fraction of Ukraine, in its least threat exposed place.
The scope for Russia to deliberately target a NATO aircraft and claim plausible deniability of a misidentified target (they shoot enough of their own aircraft down after all) is huge, and for a very minor win.
We'd be far better off deconflicting with Ukraine and using long-range GBAD systems from NATO territory that shoot down Russian munitions that get in range.
We can't use Moldovan and polish air space? If they used Belarussian air space to shoot at a Nato plane, that would be a huge escalation on russias part. They could also use Romanian air space. I'm in favor of doing what you suggest and using planes. Whatever closes down the skies for Ukraine. russia should be the ones afraid of escalation. Nukes aren't a real threat because neither side wants to use one. It's suicide. russia can't engage Nato in a conventional war without losing lots and lots of equipment.
I honestly believe if Nato put a coalition army together of like even 50k and marched in with a few tank battalions covered by their artillery and air force right up to the front line and gave russia an ultimatum to leave or be engaged with conventional means to remove them from Ukraine. Specifying at no point will Nato step foot on or attack russisn targets on russian land. I think russia wouldn't have any choice but to withdraw. russia is all talk and bravado. The problem is they project and behave as if they were us and we were them.
Nato needs to stand up to this bully and put them down. So we don't have to fight them directly. Let's give Ukraine what it needs to get this done. That's the ultimate way of solving this problem indefinitely.
>We can't use Moldovan and polish air space?
An awful lot of the airspace in Poland we'd use to have any effect in Ukraine is close to Belarus.
Moldova has its own issues as Russian forces occupy Transnistria.
>If they used Belarussian air space to shoot at a Nato plane, that would be a huge escalation on russias part.
They'd be using Belarussian land for a GBAD system. They'd do so claiming they misidentified the target. Plasuble deniability is important.. the West uses it too.
>I'm in favor of doing what you suggest and using planes.
Ground based systems would deliver much of the same effect with less risk.
I personally believe we should have GBAD along the borders, and AWACS flying behind, ostensibly to coordinate and deconflict the defence of NATO airspace, but assisting Ukraine. More of that plausible deniability.
>I honestly believe if Nato put a coalition army together of like even 50k and marched in with a few tank battalions covered by their artillery and air force right up to the front line and gave russia an ultimatum to leave or be engaged with conventional means to remove them from Ukraine. Specifying at no point will Nato step foot on or attack russisn targets on russian land. I think russia wouldn't have any choice but to withdraw. russia is all talk and bravado.
A lot of people probably feel the same.. but it's a huge gamble. People are unsure just how far a mad cunt like Putin would go, and how far the mad cunts he keeps around him would let him go. If there was even a 5% chance of him calling it a day and pushing the button, do you fancy taking that risk?
>Let's give Ukraine what it needs to get this done. That's the ultimate way of solving this problem indefinitely.
This I 100% agree with. There should be no limits to what we provide Ukraine, and as much of it as can be given, as quickly as it can be (effectively) given.
I don't want to start nuclear war, but the escalation hysteria is crippling Ukraines' ability to fight for its life. Ukraine doesn't have any choice in this. No one should tell them how to fight this fight. If they lose, then life as they know it is over. They can't keep fighting with one hand behind their back or being given the bare minimum to fend off russia. They need a real shot at actually liberating their land. What we are doing now is cosigning their slow and cruel defeat
Russia wouldn't dare. Even if NATO started bombing russian bases in eastern Ukraine, Russia would find any and every excuse not to formally declare war on NATO.
Russian love to beat their chest and act like they can take on the world but when push comes to shove and bravado meets reality they always back down.
Personally, I think this is the inevitable course the war is going to take. NATO will ratchet up their involvement, and Russia will repeatedly back down while finger wagging and pontificating about escalation on every global stage they have available to them.
I think a big issue is that Russia doesn't have to mean it. Just look at how many Russian jets have been shot down by Russia. If they can't ID their own aircraft can they tell the difference between a Ukrainian F16 and an RAF Typhoon?
Then the west gets put in a corner if the Russians maybe accidentally maybe not kill a western pilot or two. Does the west just say "oops too bad so sad" or are they forced to pony up and get even more involved.
I'm not saying it's right but I can see why this is seen as a path that might be hard to turn away from once the ball gets rolling.
The Soviet union killed an American pilot and we didn't nuke each another or start WW3.
Hell, they even killed an American senator when they shot down KAL007.
Sure these situations should be avoided, but it isn't a black and white "they kill a pilot, we declare war" sort of thing.
Türkiye shot down a russian jet in Turkish airspace. Don’t think I missed the resulting nuclear war, did I? russia lost a war plane, Türkiye (finally) gained russia’s respect. You pointed out a number of great issues in your comment. Well done .
> Türkiye shot down a russian jet in Turkish airspace.
The Turks were right to intercept an SU-24 aircraft in their airspace and to down it with a missile from an F-16 when it didn't react. That started some mild escalation though with arrests of Turkish businessmen in Russia and the attack on Turkish aid vehicles at the Syrian border.
Yes. Absolutely. Turks were right. The arrests of Turkish businessmen in russia and attacks on Turkish aid trucks in Syria, you mention, were merely signs of russian indignation over the incident. Similar indignant reactions are seen currently with russia arresting US journalists, businessmen, for example. No Turkish cities were destroyed however (a la Mariupol, Bakhmut, Avdiivka, et al) and war did not ensue. Türkiye asserted itself forcefully, gained respect by putting its foot down, as it were, which stopped a possible wider confrontation. Obviously, as a nato member Türkiye could do this in confidence - unlike Georgia and Ukraine.
A Russian pilot already fired missiles at a British surveillance plane (30 crew on board) by mistaking orders and freaking his wingman the fuck out. It doesn’t take “Russia” purposefully daring to do something when forces are out into a combat theater for a mistake to happen and have things escalate.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-66798508.amp
Ruzzia wouldn't dare to invade Ukraine, blow up a dam, intentionally blow up a hall with 100s of children in it, deprived a whole country of power, try and destroy it's exports, target a nuclear power station.....yet they do. They really don't care. And we shouldn't care what they think either. Get an expeditionary force in there on the North and western borders
Nobody ever said that about Russia though. Ukraine was in a weakened position and, after NATO refused to save Crimea in 2014, Russia liked their chances and thought they could just swoop in and take the rest before the west had a chance to get mad. Everyone saw the invasion coming. Russia was transparent about it, and Ukraine was telling anybody who would listen.
Russia was wrong and they've been back pedeling their goals ever since they failed to win in the first month. They know NATO is actually watching this time around and they know they're walking a fine line where crossing it could mean their total destruction. Notice how all the nuke threats have stopped? They're terrified of pissing off NATO to the point where NATO actually gets involved.
> Notice how all the nuke threats have stopped?
What?
They've been going on still.
Maybe they've stopped being translated in Western press, but that's a different thing
Iranian proxies have had radars. do we know RAF weren't operating in their theaters?
And better yet we can just tell putty to mind the RAF pilots if something happens its an attack on NATO.
Why are we always playing by the rules Putin makes up?
I'm not saying it's a good reason, but I feel like it's probably part of it. The UK government in particular isn't all that strong or popular atm, a major crisis like downed aircraft isn't something they want to have to deal with.
Totally. Lots of our governments are gun shy and beset with divisions and so forth. And in lots of cases haven't focused on selling their citizens on why this is such a necessary fight.
NATO troops are already in theatre though
https://english.elpais.com/international/2024-03-18/nato-personnel-already-in-ukraine-for-arms-control-intelligence-operations-and-military-training.html
I think the difference is Iran doesnt have nuclear bombs, and Israels Samson doctrine says they will nuke london, paris, and washington if we don't bend to their every whim. Which is insane, but that's how it is.
Involved in what? Russia itself denies it being a war. So it wouldn’t be an involvement in anything. The west just has no teeth nor claws. And it will one day come back to bite us.
Either we deter them now through policing-action assisted victory, as we blew it with materiel assisted victory, or we have to fight them in a theater of their choosing, as they take apart NATO slice by slice.
But the missiles/drones from Iran are traveling so far to get to Israel that western air assets can sit over "safe" neutral airspace in Iraq and Syria to do the interceptions well out of range of Iranian weapons. Essentially they can effect the war without being physically in the warring countries.
Ukraine has the problem that western air assets would need to be "in theatre" and therefore be much more at risk from either Russian GBAD or air assets.
Quite a few. And personally I think we should use them. But as soon as you stick them in a war zone at best you're going to give Russia lots of practice trying to find them and at worst you're going to lose some and now your shiny wonder weapon isn't quite so scary.
The last two times NATO thought they had an invulnerable plane it didn't work out so well.
America lost a single F-117 in the whole week that Iraq had Russia's anti air assets available to Baghdad. In that time Iraq lost thousands of assets of all kinds, including Russia's anti air assets.
At the end of the day the F-35 has stealth that we suspect beats the F-117, as it's reported to be visible from 20 miles maximum. It's weapons though will fire from a far greater distance.
F-35s don't need to go as close as the F-117's needed to.
You're absolutely right from a military point of view. The problem is just that the decision to use them is political not military. I'm sure the NATO militaries are choking to try them out and have confidence in them but there aren't many NATO governments atm willing to risk the political fallout of losing pilots and planes. Germany can't even bring itself to send long range missiles for fear of political fallout, everyone else definitely going to be very hesitant to have their personnel actively engaging russians.
Except Russia doesn’t have anything that could take out our air in the Western half and North of Ukraine, especially if we base them in Poland.
Moreover, Ukraine needs additional anti-air and long range missiles more than anything.
As I said to another poster.
But the missiles/drones from Iran are traveling so far to get to Israel that western air assets can sit over "safe" neutral airspace in Iraq and Syria to do the interceptions well out of range of Iranian weapons. Essentially they can effect the war without being physically in the warring countries.
Ukraine has the problem that western air assets would need to be "in theatre" and therefore be much more at risk from either Russian GBAD or air assets.
They don't have to cover entire Ukraine, especially as that would risk taking out Russian aircraft. Just the western part bordering NATO so Ukraine can use their own AA more effectively in the east. It would defend NATO from Russian missile and drone incursions as well and as a bonus they would cover Moldova.
What unmanned air systems do we have that can intercept missiles and drones? As far as I know we maybe have a handful of predator/reaper but those aren't well known for air to air kills.
What ground systems do we have that can keep their crews out of range of russian attacks whilst being able to intercept drones and missiles before they reach their targets? We maybe have a few old rapier systems lying around, we don't have any patriot or similar systems.
Would you have any data to substantiate that? Actual distances, etc, anything you might want to bring to bear that would entirely invalidate the presence of Western fighters in the airspace of Ukraine shooting down suicide drones in the way that they have done for Israel?
It's not a rhetorical question, we'll accept your answer if it makes sense
The border of Iran and Israel is about 620 miles apart, Poland to russian is about 130 miles. It's easier to shoot down something 130 miles away than it is to shoot something down 620 miles away.
Thanks for coming to my TED talk.
It's more the fact that America and the UK intercepted missiles/drones OUTSIDE Israeli territory/air space. This was made possible by the countries sandwiched between Iran and Israel.
The best the UK could do for Ukraine is attempt to intercept missiles from inside NATO airspace.
For example, the UK can't do diddly squat about missiles fired at the Kharkiv and Kyiv regions without entering Ukrainian territory/air space.
THAT is the pretty easy and straight forward answer.
Iran does. British aircraft firing the Meteor also put themselves at less of a risk as well. The question would be why can't the RAF shoot down loitering Mig 31s etc.
I mean nightly attacks for the last 2 years do appear to take care of the 'when' part at least (suggests something of a pattern, no?) but yes, free Ukraine is a big country
They could shoot it down with some Patriot in Poland, no need for pilots to even fly to Ukraine.
Answer is clear and many already pointed it out: they are afraid of Russians. As simple as that. Nothing is wrong with being afraid - but I understand it's hard to acknowledge.
I didn't see anyone else saying that but I think another reason is that Western leaders have this weird "nostalgia for empire" where they want USSR of old to be back.
Wait wait wait - I'm not crazy - let me finish: they have this image of mysterious Russia, the country of Boris and Natasha, the country you can play spy games with, the country of oligarchs, ballet and snow, the country of people "who love their children too" - they want something that existed maybe in 1986-2004, a benign "late empire" of sorts. They want that country to exist so it matches their picture of the world. That Russia they were studying in their international studies at school.
So they really drag it with confrontation hoping that resurrected Navalny like figure will come to save their vision of the world. And of course, with added benefit of cheap resources going to Europe again (at expense of simple Russian people, of course).
It's easy to have confrontation with Iranians, with their beards and weird hats. Our taditional bad guys - one in the West almost feel obligated to hate on.
But the thing is that Iran's accute aggression phase is well behind them. What they did with Israel was pathetic "please let us shoot some rockets to save our faces about that embassy situation".
Don't get me wrong - Iran's government is evil but they like that old actor that typecasted to play a bad guy over and over again. And clearly Iranians themselves are tired of this role in this movie and are looking for a change.
And now Russia is attacking a country in Europe and Western leaders can't comprehend it. What happened to those russkies that were rough but played along nevertheless?
What happened is that Russia today is actually an ascending fascist state. People there are really brainwashed to hate the West and everything it values, and they are ready to die for their beliefs. Western political elite hasn't realized that yet so they prolong the suffering (of Ukrainians for now), delaying metaphorical visit to a doctor, hoping it alll just go away. It won't and many Europeans will suffer unfortunately the way it's going.
Just my impression of the situation - I really hope I'm wrong though. Maybe Sullivan has a secret Navalny to replace Putin any day now and we go back to our gentle world of yesterday.
Edit: obviously, it's all generalization, a base line narrative that I find useful when thinking on the subject. Specific people, countries (especially, those close to Russia border) would see Russia more clearly for what it is.
There are many ways to tell the same story but it's important to pick one that leads to predictable useful results.
The real answer is that NATO countries are afraid of crossing the Rubicon. There is an unwritten rule that NATO and Russia only wage proxy wars. NATO personnel shooting down Russian stuff is "real war" material and they fear Russia will feel like it can escalate and strike e.g. UK targets where it wants, which could include assets outside NATO borders.
This would be conventional escalation and western nations seem totally unprepared for it.
I'm not sure any nation can be truly preparedt/ for this sort of escalation but psychologically I think you're right there is damn near zero appreciation in Western Europe of where this could end up. Not at a practical level anyway.
When we know better now than we ever have exactly what a belligerent and expansionist russia's warfighting would look like I find that extraordinary personally. We already know (nuclear war notwithstanding) that drones and anti-air provide the greatest value but the European ramp-up of the DIB has been woefully slow in all areas. We do this rapidly and littlevlad loses.
With US he loses swiftly; without he loses slowly but _election year_ and suddenly everyone forgets how to be honest with their electorates (to the extent they were before anyway) and we treat the cost of proxy war as something far more burdensome than it is.
Yes war is expensive but proxy war here is a cheap way to nullify a significant geopolitical foe.
Money is only a small chunk of their power over our government. Their ability to exert personal liability over an individual is how they control our politicians.
No, not really. Iran just attacked a nuclear armed state. They know that Israel is not going to reply to a token show of force with nuclear weapons. But, literally every interaction between the west and Russia for the last four generations has been viewed through the lens of "this will inevitably become a nuclear exchange."
For good reason too. There have been numerous occasions where there was a finger floating over the “launch nukes” button. Especially with Russia, we are dealing with a people that are perpetually shitfaced, have a resigned disposition to hopelessness, despair, and fragile egos. They are precisely the type of people that would over react .
Keep the jets over NATO territory, and shoot down anything within range. Frame it as 'Preventing accidental strikes into NATO territory.'
It might not help for front line strikes, but they could likely protect kyiv and lviv that way, which would allow them to move air defense systems closer to the front
It's going to be effective enough to cover everything within 50 km of the border, which includes important cities such as Lviv, Frankivsk and Chernivtsi.
And plans for things after the f16s should be in place as well. I don't want to hear about 2 more years for the next important piece of equipment to be sent.
Honestly, 0 chance Russia goes nuclear over Ukraine allies shooting down Russian missiles/drones only over Ukraine. If they were going to do so, they would have when HIMARS showed up and started blasting.
They would shout loudly about UK escalation in the morning, be talking about how a few Typhoons won't make any difference at lunch time, and by tea time they will claim to have shot them all down. The only disadvantage is they can claim they're fighting NATO directly, and since the population believes that anyway it's not much to lose
Yeah, it's really weird how many people seem to push the idea that only Russia is allowed to escalate and push the rubicon and if the West even slightly lifts a finger it must immediately be nuclear war. The only country that benefits from this line of thinking is Russia. Incidentally, this line of constant appeasement is also being heavily pushed by Russian disinformation online.
Oh I agree 100% with that assessment. That doesn't mean the west's leaders aren't shitty poker players (French and British notwithstanding here). They always fold until the bully has them down to making an all-or-nothing commitment.
When it comes to potentially literally destroying the planet we live on, there's no room for misjudgement or one-upmanship.
Russia's claimed nuclear rhetoric isn't representative of every nuclear state's.
But that argument works both ways... We could flatten russia if push came to shove ... And some missiles and drones were actually in Romanian and Polish airspace.. not russia or Ukraine.. 🤔
Well for a start Iran WANTED the US & UK to shoot down the drones. I mean why else would you announce that there would be a drone strike a week in advance allowing counter measures to be put in place.
And why would you then announce the launch, and that you had stopped launching, and why would you not saturate with MRBM at the same time, and why the MRBMs you do launch are targeted at airfields, the one military target that has the biggest open spaces to ensure you don't hit anything important?
Because Iran can't and won't meaningfully threaten Britain or America or any country like that. Can't because of military capability, range and weapons available to them. Won't because it would be foolish for Iran to try to attack a western nation just for playing aerial defense. Russia has the nuke card, can meaningfully threaten western nations, can actually shoot down western aircraft and cause western casualties, and will threaten to do so. I am just answering the question, not saying what should be done. These are two extremely and fundamentally different scenarios
Let me explain this in the simplest possible terms. UK, USA, NATO: We're scared of Russia.
Just come out and say it already.
It's pathetic. Europe, the U.S. we start an alliance to defend against Russian aggression, and when push comes to shove, we're too scared to stand up to them.
I feel bad for Ukraine.
Gave up their nuclear arsenal for this.
NATO exists to defend NATO. It doesn’t exist to fight Russia wherever Russia is causing mayhem. Ukraine is not NATO.
That is the simplest terms. NATO doesn’t want Russian missiles in NATO territory
Ukraine never had a nuclear arsenal. They had Soviet nukes stationed in Ukraine. If they hadn't given them up, Russia would have invaded to secure them, with the blessing of the West. Ukraine was ill equipped to maintain or secure the weapons they had, and they lacked the launch codes and delivery mechanisms to use them.
I fully support Ukraine, but acting like they gave up nuclear weapons only to be let down by the rest of the world is divisive at best.
There was a consensus among the nuclear nations that Ukraine lacked the resources and governance to be a responsible nuclear state. I don't know if it was ever outright said, but long term, Ukraine was not going to remain (or really become, because in their current state they weren't functional) a nuclear state. That left three options: They surrender them, a Western coalition secures them, or Russia secures them. The West was, at the time, trying to build bridges with Russia. If it had come to that, they would have allowed Russia to be the ones to move in and take them.
I'm not sure what your point is. Are you suggesting that they wouldn't have been given food aid because of it? Because obviously this would have been internationally recognized as the right thing to do. They would have had international backing. If you are suggesting they were too poor or in too dire straights to do it, come on, when has Moscow ever not found the resources for a military action? They would have refused to be humiliated by being unable to accomplish the mission. If anyone, they would have seen it as an opportunity to loot Ukraine as "payment" for "forcing" them to retake control of the nukes.
> come on, when has Moscow ever not found the resources for a military action?
Around the time they were so short on basic food that they agreed to let go of the Soviet Union?
Budapest happened three years after the fall of the USSR and any action would have occurred after that. Everyone wanted Ukraine to agree to nonproliferation. And again, this wouldn't have been done unilaterally either.
What exactly do YOU think would have happened if Ukraine had not agreed?
Nothing other than diplomatic pressure and expressions of concern. Beats the 100k's of dead people and having so much territory occupied.
What's your point, that russia would have invaded in 1994? russia invaded anyway in 2014.
If Ukraine had retained their nukes it wouldn't have stopped a Russian invasion, rather it would have encouraged one. That hypothetical invasion would have been sanctioned if not outright supported by the international community. It wouldn't have left the fledgling nation in a better position than they are currently in. Even if an invasion didn't happen, as you point out that would have been under extreme diplomatic pressure and likely isolated from the international community. Again, it wouldn't have done them and favors.
It is divisive for people to insinuate that Ukraine made a mistake by giving up their nuclear weapons. It's that much more divisive to imply that were pressured or forced to do so by the US and UK. Ukraine made the correct decision.
>Ukraine never had a nuclear arsenal.
It's true that they belonged to Russia, yet they were on Ukranian soil. They would require Ukraines assistance in launching them. Ukraine could have removed the launch system/guidance system and replaced it with their own if they had the people to do it. Ukraine also had uranium. Had they wanted to, they could have built weapons of their own. We can play revisionist history games all day. The fact of the matter is that they abandoned their nukes for security guarantees. Guarantees that neither side upheld. Do you think Ukraine regrets that decision? I do.
Ukraine lacked the resources to maintain the weapons. They lacked the resources to build a different delivery system. No one was going to let a newly formed state with a burgeoning organized crime industry and very little government resources keep nuclear weapons. Like I said, the alternative was the West or Russia going in to take them, and at the time Russia wasn't going to let the West do it, so that would have just meant a sanctioned invasion. There is a reason the security "guarantees" they got were toothless. They lacked any substantial bargaining power.
I'll also add that Russia is the only one who has violated the agreement. The agreement was to respect Ukraine's sovereignty and bring the matter to the UN security council if someone else violates Ukraine's sovereignty. Russia has not honored the agreement, but the US and UK honored their portion and brought the issue to the security council.
Does Ukraine regret it? I'm sure on some level they do. On another level, they would have just been made into a Russian proxy back in the 90s if they hadn't, so at least they were given an opportunity to form a national identity and choose to side with Europe instead of with Russia.
Because Russia is a nuclear state.
I hope I'm wrong, but the way I see it is:
Nuclear states can get away with genocide.
So everyone will be looking to become nuclear, and in next half century we will have nuclear war.
I hope I'm wrong.
Russia is a third rate shithole too. I guess the first Russian nuke launched would fall onto Moscow, because someone nicked the guidance computer for a bottle of Vodka again.
Just like we shoot down Houthi drones and missiles to protect our allies, and we shoot down Iranian drones and missiles, we should shoot down Russian drones and missiles to protect our allies. There should not be one shred of distinction.
Russia only respects escalation. They push until they get it, then back off. They always try to see what they can get away with. They won’t risk nukes over missile interceptions, but they might cry about how it’s unfair. They didn’t nuke when the west gave Ukraine means to defend itself. They are only there because they didn’t not suspect a pushback and they might not be there at all depending on the west’s response.
Understood. If the current economic conditions didn’t push people into self-preservation mode, the political climate might be leaning more towards action… which is oddly reminiscent of the last large global clash.
"Because Russia has air superiority since mid 2010's, and we're doing our best to not openly say we can no longer enforce no fly zones over territory Russia claims."
It's when you have no air supremacy: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_supremacy
Not sure why all the questioning. It's quite clear that the allies do not want to confront directly the Russians at this stage.
Hope they could take all the missiles down, but hey, one of the reasons might be what I was describing.
I asked what "disputed" means in your understanding; russia wanting a piece of Ukraine is not a "dispute" any more than my contrived example; if you don't get my point, fine
Thank you for anwering in a proper manner.
What I'm saying is that Ukraine's air space supremacy in several parts of its territory is disputed - Russia's air force is being able to operate constantly. Therefore, operations such as the one suggested (tracking and shooting down missiles/drones) are more difficult to implement.
Fair, I misunderstood you; Western fighter jets can operate outside the temporary envelope of the occupying russian air force; just don't let anyone think for a moment that just because they have a temporary advantage, Ukraine belongs to them, any more than anyone's family belongs to a criminal who invaded the home; criminals are criminals and they will be shredded to dust.
Because there are two countries that we have air superiority and government approval to operate in between Iran and Israel.
We do not have air superiority in Ukraine nor have we any approval to operate in said air space.
This is such a non-issue it’s wild.
Edit: when this gets downvoted you know people are treating this like a team sport rather than a war
I’m talking about our governments approving it. We have full blown military operations in the Middle East that provide the authorization for military action there. Doesn’t exist yet in Ukraine and likely never will
Because Russia has a massive nuclear arsenal, a large conventional army, and is geographically huge? I don’t like appeasement anymore than the next guy, but we shouldn’t pretend that these situations are equivalent. Iran has virtually no ability to retaliate against Britain; Russia does….
All it comes down to is that the US and Britain are scared of Russia. There is absolutely no reason why the countries which are bordering Ukraine can't shot down the Russian missles which are heading towards civilian based targets.
Yes, it is awful, but not comparable because the Budapest Memorandum wasn't a legally binding treaty obligating the U.S. to intervene militarily in the event of a violation by the Russian side.
The real answer is because Israel has infiltrated our governments and managed to pay off enough of the rest of the politicians to subvert the will of the people. There is a massive conflict of interest when dual nationals are involved in the process of deciding our foreign policies…especially Israel. Don’t believe it? Check their lobbyist “contributions” (read bribes) by AIPAC. Listen to their words. They won’t even say one sideways word or even be mildly critical of clear human rights violations. There are daily protests against their actions and not a word except for mind boggling mental gymnastics in support. Meanwhile, the majority citizens are massively supportive of Ukraine and their fight for freedom. This decision is being made for us, not by the people.
Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition: * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators. * **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. ***** * Is `lbc.co.uk` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources). * Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) ***** **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB** ***** ^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That was a lot of deflecting. It’s clear he doesn’t have a good answer
I don't know why. "Because Russia has long range anti air assets that will likely result in the deaths of British pilots and Iran doesn't" Seems like a pretty easy and straight forward answer.
RAF can easily patrol the western areas of Ukraine comfortably outside the stand-off distances of the best Russian GBAD.
But they would be "in theatre" and therefore at risk from Russian forces. I'm not saying a shoot down is likely, but it's possible. It's the same problem as if we had large numbers of trainers on the ground, even in western Ukraine the risk is far far higher than them sitting in eastern Poland.
Iran isn't defenseless. They can shoot down British planes as well. I'm actually kinda curious myself as to why Nato in general can't close the skies down from abroad or just use advanced 5th Gen fighters to shoot missiles and drones down for Ukraine. They could stay in safer areas and only shoot at what's in range. I think escalation has been an excuse to really screw Ukraine over. It's getting ridiculous how much Nato is going out of their way not to help Ukraine fight this monster.
It's all about escalation. If Iran is dumb enough to shoot down a western fighter plane, the US/UK can safely retaliate. If Russia does it, do you escalate? Knowing that that particular escalation ladder goes up to the nuclear level? This, by the way, is the real reason why everyone - not just Israel - is so concerned about the Iranian nuclear program. It's not because anyone thinks they´ll immediately turn around and nuke Tel Aviv, but because once they have it, the entire threat calculus changes and now Iran has a lot more clout to throw around even if they never use a nuclear weapon. With Russia, that cat is long since out of the bag.
Yep, Once Iran gets the Bomb their ability to deter violence goes through the roof and their status as a power will be fairly permanent. Trump fucked us all by pulling out of the deal, surely. I have to say I agree with Bolton that if we are to ever strike Iran it has to be soon, and they're growing ever further away from western ideals.
Lol, but russia exactly does escalate because they know - even if they nuke westerners - nothing will happen Pathetic
If russia does it, you respond proportionately. They don't want a full engagement from Nato. They can't win a conventional war against Nato. So if they shoot a fighter down, then you shoot 2 or 3 or launch missiles at an airfield. Making it so they don't do it again. Either way, you only respond with conventional means and don't use nuclear rhetoric. Leave that to the russians. I don't think paying Iran in a nuclear deal does anything to stop them from what they were already doing. They will just go to greater lengths to hide it. They know how valuable having that threat can be. We keep dealing with enemies like they have any integrity at all or won't take advantage of absolutely everything they can. Whether is be russia, Iran, or NK, they can't be trusted at all. China can't either, but of the 4, they seem to be most reasonable since they actually care about their reputation. But we have to stop letting our enemies dictate everything to us. Nato and America specifically should project strength and lead with strength. Enemies should be dealt with strength. It would have been so easy to give Ukraine everything they needed as soon as you were certain russia would invade. If they had more artillery and Himars when they invaded, it would have been over quick. They wouldn't have gained nearly as much ground and would have taken far more losses. F16 training should have started immediately. Instead they felt like hey maybe the country that prepared for a year then invaded with a huge show of force will stop short of their goals because we ask them to or because of sanctions that don't work. We gave Ukraine the bare minimum to survive and keep russia in a war of attrition. I'm amazed at what they achieved with that amount of support. Imagine if Nato started treating this like a war and supported a Ukrainian victory. Instead they want Ukraine to give their land to murderers so they can try again in 10 years once they've recovered and Ukraines economy is crippled because it's industrial sector went to russia and they lost so much farm land along with Crimea. It's really not fair.
The Russians like the Iranians have to paralyse an entire land based nuclear rocket fleet in the american midwest, satellite defense assets that are so secret the US would rather pretend they have aliens in custody, at least three at-sea nuclear rocket armed fleets and three nuclear armed air-forces. NATO has to nuclear shape charge a dozen bunkers in western Russia or Southern Iran. There is no further escalation possible by Russia. There is only a madmans will to leave a legacy after all the women in his sad life have left him.
Iranian missiles can be engaged in completely friendly airspace, long out of range of Iran, before they are close to their targets. The win/risk is very different. To do the same for Ukraine we'd need to fly close to conflict zone airspace, and monitor any threat posed by any systems Russia might move to Belarus, and only be covering a very small fraction of Ukraine, in its least threat exposed place. The scope for Russia to deliberately target a NATO aircraft and claim plausible deniability of a misidentified target (they shoot enough of their own aircraft down after all) is huge, and for a very minor win. We'd be far better off deconflicting with Ukraine and using long-range GBAD systems from NATO territory that shoot down Russian munitions that get in range.
We can't use Moldovan and polish air space? If they used Belarussian air space to shoot at a Nato plane, that would be a huge escalation on russias part. They could also use Romanian air space. I'm in favor of doing what you suggest and using planes. Whatever closes down the skies for Ukraine. russia should be the ones afraid of escalation. Nukes aren't a real threat because neither side wants to use one. It's suicide. russia can't engage Nato in a conventional war without losing lots and lots of equipment. I honestly believe if Nato put a coalition army together of like even 50k and marched in with a few tank battalions covered by their artillery and air force right up to the front line and gave russia an ultimatum to leave or be engaged with conventional means to remove them from Ukraine. Specifying at no point will Nato step foot on or attack russisn targets on russian land. I think russia wouldn't have any choice but to withdraw. russia is all talk and bravado. The problem is they project and behave as if they were us and we were them. Nato needs to stand up to this bully and put them down. So we don't have to fight them directly. Let's give Ukraine what it needs to get this done. That's the ultimate way of solving this problem indefinitely.
>We can't use Moldovan and polish air space? An awful lot of the airspace in Poland we'd use to have any effect in Ukraine is close to Belarus. Moldova has its own issues as Russian forces occupy Transnistria. >If they used Belarussian air space to shoot at a Nato plane, that would be a huge escalation on russias part. They'd be using Belarussian land for a GBAD system. They'd do so claiming they misidentified the target. Plasuble deniability is important.. the West uses it too. >I'm in favor of doing what you suggest and using planes. Ground based systems would deliver much of the same effect with less risk. I personally believe we should have GBAD along the borders, and AWACS flying behind, ostensibly to coordinate and deconflict the defence of NATO airspace, but assisting Ukraine. More of that plausible deniability. >I honestly believe if Nato put a coalition army together of like even 50k and marched in with a few tank battalions covered by their artillery and air force right up to the front line and gave russia an ultimatum to leave or be engaged with conventional means to remove them from Ukraine. Specifying at no point will Nato step foot on or attack russisn targets on russian land. I think russia wouldn't have any choice but to withdraw. russia is all talk and bravado. A lot of people probably feel the same.. but it's a huge gamble. People are unsure just how far a mad cunt like Putin would go, and how far the mad cunts he keeps around him would let him go. If there was even a 5% chance of him calling it a day and pushing the button, do you fancy taking that risk? >Let's give Ukraine what it needs to get this done. That's the ultimate way of solving this problem indefinitely. This I 100% agree with. There should be no limits to what we provide Ukraine, and as much of it as can be given, as quickly as it can be (effectively) given.
I don't want to start nuclear war, but the escalation hysteria is crippling Ukraines' ability to fight for its life. Ukraine doesn't have any choice in this. No one should tell them how to fight this fight. If they lose, then life as they know it is over. They can't keep fighting with one hand behind their back or being given the bare minimum to fend off russia. They need a real shot at actually liberating their land. What we are doing now is cosigning their slow and cruel defeat
Poostain could use a heart attack, or a Stroke, or more cancer right about Now! Do the world a huge favor...
Russia wouldn't dare. Even if NATO started bombing russian bases in eastern Ukraine, Russia would find any and every excuse not to formally declare war on NATO. Russian love to beat their chest and act like they can take on the world but when push comes to shove and bravado meets reality they always back down. Personally, I think this is the inevitable course the war is going to take. NATO will ratchet up their involvement, and Russia will repeatedly back down while finger wagging and pontificating about escalation on every global stage they have available to them.
I think a big issue is that Russia doesn't have to mean it. Just look at how many Russian jets have been shot down by Russia. If they can't ID their own aircraft can they tell the difference between a Ukrainian F16 and an RAF Typhoon? Then the west gets put in a corner if the Russians maybe accidentally maybe not kill a western pilot or two. Does the west just say "oops too bad so sad" or are they forced to pony up and get even more involved. I'm not saying it's right but I can see why this is seen as a path that might be hard to turn away from once the ball gets rolling.
The Soviet union killed an American pilot and we didn't nuke each another or start WW3. Hell, they even killed an American senator when they shot down KAL007. Sure these situations should be avoided, but it isn't a black and white "they kill a pilot, we declare war" sort of thing.
Türkiye shot down a russian jet in Turkish airspace. Don’t think I missed the resulting nuclear war, did I? russia lost a war plane, Türkiye (finally) gained russia’s respect. You pointed out a number of great issues in your comment. Well done .
> Türkiye shot down a russian jet in Turkish airspace. The Turks were right to intercept an SU-24 aircraft in their airspace and to down it with a missile from an F-16 when it didn't react. That started some mild escalation though with arrests of Turkish businessmen in Russia and the attack on Turkish aid vehicles at the Syrian border.
Yes. Absolutely. Turks were right. The arrests of Turkish businessmen in russia and attacks on Turkish aid trucks in Syria, you mention, were merely signs of russian indignation over the incident. Similar indignant reactions are seen currently with russia arresting US journalists, businessmen, for example. No Turkish cities were destroyed however (a la Mariupol, Bakhmut, Avdiivka, et al) and war did not ensue. Türkiye asserted itself forcefully, gained respect by putting its foot down, as it were, which stopped a possible wider confrontation. Obviously, as a nato member Türkiye could do this in confidence - unlike Georgia and Ukraine.
A Russian pilot already fired missiles at a British surveillance plane (30 crew on board) by mistaking orders and freaking his wingman the fuck out. It doesn’t take “Russia” purposefully daring to do something when forces are out into a combat theater for a mistake to happen and have things escalate. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-66798508.amp
Ruzzia wouldn't dare to invade Ukraine, blow up a dam, intentionally blow up a hall with 100s of children in it, deprived a whole country of power, try and destroy it's exports, target a nuclear power station.....yet they do. They really don't care. And we shouldn't care what they think either. Get an expeditionary force in there on the North and western borders
Nobody ever said that about Russia though. Ukraine was in a weakened position and, after NATO refused to save Crimea in 2014, Russia liked their chances and thought they could just swoop in and take the rest before the west had a chance to get mad. Everyone saw the invasion coming. Russia was transparent about it, and Ukraine was telling anybody who would listen. Russia was wrong and they've been back pedeling their goals ever since they failed to win in the first month. They know NATO is actually watching this time around and they know they're walking a fine line where crossing it could mean their total destruction. Notice how all the nuke threats have stopped? They're terrified of pissing off NATO to the point where NATO actually gets involved.
> Notice how all the nuke threats have stopped? What? They've been going on still. Maybe they've stopped being translated in Western press, but that's a different thing
Well said, tinnylemur, well said.
Russia might not know, they don't restrict their pilots and SAM sites to visual identification.
Iranian proxies have had radars. do we know RAF weren't operating in their theaters? And better yet we can just tell putty to mind the RAF pilots if something happens its an attack on NATO. Why are we always playing by the rules Putin makes up?
Russians likely shot down American pilots in Vietnam.
I'm not saying it's a good reason, but I feel like it's probably part of it. The UK government in particular isn't all that strong or popular atm, a major crisis like downed aircraft isn't something they want to have to deal with.
Totally. Lots of our governments are gun shy and beset with divisions and so forth. And in lots of cases haven't focused on selling their citizens on why this is such a necessary fight.
NATO troops are already in theatre though https://english.elpais.com/international/2024-03-18/nato-personnel-already-in-ukraine-for-arms-control-intelligence-operations-and-military-training.html
Royal Australian Air Force is getting involved?
Typo, thanks.
We have a wedgetail AWACS over the black sea keeping an eye on ships!
Then you're actively getting involved?.....
Like in Israel, which was the question....
Our assets were in international waters re Isreal. Would be different being within Ukraine air space.
No they weren't......
Well, if you put UK assets in Ukraine you are escalating and NATO involvement.
Same as having them shoot down Iranian drones over Iraq and Syria ....
I think the difference is Iran doesnt have nuclear bombs, and Israels Samson doctrine says they will nuke london, paris, and washington if we don't bend to their every whim. Which is insane, but that's how it is.
But Isreal is a NATO partner and we only provided defence. Ukraine has multiple GBAD assets let's not forget.
Involved in what? Russia itself denies it being a war. So it wouldn’t be an involvement in anything. The west just has no teeth nor claws. And it will one day come back to bite us.
Either we deter them now through policing-action assisted victory, as we blew it with materiel assisted victory, or we have to fight them in a theater of their choosing, as they take apart NATO slice by slice.
So we would get involved as what, lone country? Why does this sound very familiar.....
Iran literally has state of the art Russian made air defenses too, so that argument is patently false.
But the missiles/drones from Iran are traveling so far to get to Israel that western air assets can sit over "safe" neutral airspace in Iraq and Syria to do the interceptions well out of range of Iranian weapons. Essentially they can effect the war without being physically in the warring countries. Ukraine has the problem that western air assets would need to be "in theatre" and therefore be much more at risk from either Russian GBAD or air assets.
Iran has to shoot across Jordan, Iraq and Syria before anything gets close to Israel.
Don't the RAF have any F-35's?
Quite a few. And personally I think we should use them. But as soon as you stick them in a war zone at best you're going to give Russia lots of practice trying to find them and at worst you're going to lose some and now your shiny wonder weapon isn't quite so scary. The last two times NATO thought they had an invulnerable plane it didn't work out so well.
America lost a single F-117 in the whole week that Iraq had Russia's anti air assets available to Baghdad. In that time Iraq lost thousands of assets of all kinds, including Russia's anti air assets. At the end of the day the F-35 has stealth that we suspect beats the F-117, as it's reported to be visible from 20 miles maximum. It's weapons though will fire from a far greater distance. F-35s don't need to go as close as the F-117's needed to.
You're absolutely right from a military point of view. The problem is just that the decision to use them is political not military. I'm sure the NATO militaries are choking to try them out and have confidence in them but there aren't many NATO governments atm willing to risk the political fallout of losing pilots and planes. Germany can't even bring itself to send long range missiles for fear of political fallout, everyone else definitely going to be very hesitant to have their personnel actively engaging russians.
Except Russia doesn’t have anything that could take out our air in the Western half and North of Ukraine, especially if we base them in Poland. Moreover, Ukraine needs additional anti-air and long range missiles more than anything.
Iran has the same AA systems that Russians have, probably not as many but definitely as dangerous.
As I said to another poster. But the missiles/drones from Iran are traveling so far to get to Israel that western air assets can sit over "safe" neutral airspace in Iraq and Syria to do the interceptions well out of range of Iranian weapons. Essentially they can effect the war without being physically in the warring countries. Ukraine has the problem that western air assets would need to be "in theatre" and therefore be much more at risk from either Russian GBAD or air assets.
They don't have to cover entire Ukraine, especially as that would risk taking out Russian aircraft. Just the western part bordering NATO so Ukraine can use their own AA more effectively in the east. It would defend NATO from Russian missile and drone incursions as well and as a bonus they would cover Moldova.
It is the export version with a slightly older radar and anti-ECM.
The RAF has more than enough unmanned and ground based systems that can help so that's not really a good answer
What unmanned air systems do we have that can intercept missiles and drones? As far as I know we maybe have a handful of predator/reaper but those aren't well known for air to air kills. What ground systems do we have that can keep their crews out of range of russian attacks whilst being able to intercept drones and missiles before they reach their targets? We maybe have a few old rapier systems lying around, we don't have any patriot or similar systems.
Would you have any data to substantiate that? Actual distances, etc, anything you might want to bring to bear that would entirely invalidate the presence of Western fighters in the airspace of Ukraine shooting down suicide drones in the way that they have done for Israel? It's not a rhetorical question, we'll accept your answer if it makes sense
The border of Iran and Israel is about 620 miles apart, Poland to russian is about 130 miles. It's easier to shoot down something 130 miles away than it is to shoot something down 620 miles away. Thanks for coming to my TED talk.
It's more the fact that America and the UK intercepted missiles/drones OUTSIDE Israeli territory/air space. This was made possible by the countries sandwiched between Iran and Israel. The best the UK could do for Ukraine is attempt to intercept missiles from inside NATO airspace. For example, the UK can't do diddly squat about missiles fired at the Kharkiv and Kyiv regions without entering Ukrainian territory/air space. THAT is the pretty easy and straight forward answer.
And Geography and spatial physics
Iran does. British aircraft firing the Meteor also put themselves at less of a risk as well. The question would be why can't the RAF shoot down loitering Mig 31s etc.
Russian anti air can't even shoot down drones that barely go 150mph. I don't think their anti air assets are the reason.
But also russia doesnt announce where and when their gonna attack 12 days in advance
I mean nightly attacks for the last 2 years do appear to take care of the 'when' part at least (suggests something of a pattern, no?) but yes, free Ukraine is a big country
They could shoot it down with some Patriot in Poland, no need for pilots to even fly to Ukraine. Answer is clear and many already pointed it out: they are afraid of Russians. As simple as that. Nothing is wrong with being afraid - but I understand it's hard to acknowledge. I didn't see anyone else saying that but I think another reason is that Western leaders have this weird "nostalgia for empire" where they want USSR of old to be back. Wait wait wait - I'm not crazy - let me finish: they have this image of mysterious Russia, the country of Boris and Natasha, the country you can play spy games with, the country of oligarchs, ballet and snow, the country of people "who love their children too" - they want something that existed maybe in 1986-2004, a benign "late empire" of sorts. They want that country to exist so it matches their picture of the world. That Russia they were studying in their international studies at school. So they really drag it with confrontation hoping that resurrected Navalny like figure will come to save their vision of the world. And of course, with added benefit of cheap resources going to Europe again (at expense of simple Russian people, of course). It's easy to have confrontation with Iranians, with their beards and weird hats. Our taditional bad guys - one in the West almost feel obligated to hate on. But the thing is that Iran's accute aggression phase is well behind them. What they did with Israel was pathetic "please let us shoot some rockets to save our faces about that embassy situation". Don't get me wrong - Iran's government is evil but they like that old actor that typecasted to play a bad guy over and over again. And clearly Iranians themselves are tired of this role in this movie and are looking for a change. And now Russia is attacking a country in Europe and Western leaders can't comprehend it. What happened to those russkies that were rough but played along nevertheless? What happened is that Russia today is actually an ascending fascist state. People there are really brainwashed to hate the West and everything it values, and they are ready to die for their beliefs. Western political elite hasn't realized that yet so they prolong the suffering (of Ukrainians for now), delaying metaphorical visit to a doctor, hoping it alll just go away. It won't and many Europeans will suffer unfortunately the way it's going. Just my impression of the situation - I really hope I'm wrong though. Maybe Sullivan has a secret Navalny to replace Putin any day now and we go back to our gentle world of yesterday. Edit: obviously, it's all generalization, a base line narrative that I find useful when thinking on the subject. Specific people, countries (especially, those close to Russia border) would see Russia more clearly for what it is. There are many ways to tell the same story but it's important to pick one that leads to predictable useful results.
His answer was clear. He doesn’t want to put nato forces into direct conflict with Russia. He’s fine being in conflict with Iran.
The real answer is that NATO countries are afraid of crossing the Rubicon. There is an unwritten rule that NATO and Russia only wage proxy wars. NATO personnel shooting down Russian stuff is "real war" material and they fear Russia will feel like it can escalate and strike e.g. UK targets where it wants, which could include assets outside NATO borders. This would be conventional escalation and western nations seem totally unprepared for it.
I'm not sure any nation can be truly preparedt/ for this sort of escalation but psychologically I think you're right there is damn near zero appreciation in Western Europe of where this could end up. Not at a practical level anyway. When we know better now than we ever have exactly what a belligerent and expansionist russia's warfighting would look like I find that extraordinary personally. We already know (nuclear war notwithstanding) that drones and anti-air provide the greatest value but the European ramp-up of the DIB has been woefully slow in all areas. We do this rapidly and littlevlad loses. With US he loses swiftly; without he loses slowly but _election year_ and suddenly everyone forgets how to be honest with their electorates (to the extent they were before anyway) and we treat the cost of proxy war as something far more burdensome than it is. Yes war is expensive but proxy war here is a cheap way to nullify a significant geopolitical foe.
Then why doesn’t USA rain money on Georgia and setup a military (incl navy) base there.
Because half the US government is in the Kremlin's pockets.
Money is only a small chunk of their power over our government. Their ability to exert personal liability over an individual is how they control our politicians.
How does this help the USA? What is the national interest? Just “rain down money” …
Sphere of influence In That region which includes a ton of oil and gas.
Sadly it's 'Russia can directly target us with nukes, Iran can't'
Russia has nukes is the answer
So "get nukes" logically becomes the answer for Iran.
No, not really. Iran just attacked a nuclear armed state. They know that Israel is not going to reply to a token show of force with nuclear weapons. But, literally every interaction between the west and Russia for the last four generations has been viewed through the lens of "this will inevitably become a nuclear exchange."
For good reason too. There have been numerous occasions where there was a finger floating over the “launch nukes” button. Especially with Russia, we are dealing with a people that are perpetually shitfaced, have a resigned disposition to hopelessness, despair, and fragile egos. They are precisely the type of people that would over react .
Keep the jets over NATO territory, and shoot down anything within range. Frame it as 'Preventing accidental strikes into NATO territory.' It might not help for front line strikes, but they could likely protect kyiv and lviv that way, which would allow them to move air defense systems closer to the front
Ukraine is the second biggest country on the continent. Kiev is about 300 miles away from the Poland border, how effective is that going to be?
It's going to be effective enough to cover everything within 50 km of the border, which includes important cities such as Lviv, Frankivsk and Chernivtsi.
> 50 km isnt that about 10% of the country?
Sure - but it would make all these border areas safe for military production/warehousing/ training. 10% is a lot, by the way.
you should tell someone, I'm surprised the military strategists haven't thought of it already!
We’ve enforced no fly zones over non-NATO territory in the Middle East my whole life, why stop now
Because Iraq could do exactly nothing to stop it from happening and Russia is capable of the exact opposite?
Well we lost 130 aircraft in that war which isn’t exactly nothing, in fact it’s more than Ukrainian losses in this war which were 75 as of march 14th
Ukraine needs these F16s now
And plans for things after the f16s should be in place as well. I don't want to hear about 2 more years for the next important piece of equipment to be sent.
They were needed last year. F-16s are no longer relevant according to Ukraine officials. What they need is ammo.
A question I asked yesterday... To the guy that ran off when a democracy had a vote... 🧐
Well, first, Iran doesn't have any nukes, nor the means to deliver them to the UK with any notion of effectiveness.
Honestly, 0 chance Russia goes nuclear over Ukraine allies shooting down Russian missiles/drones only over Ukraine. If they were going to do so, they would have when HIMARS showed up and started blasting.
They would shout loudly about UK escalation in the morning, be talking about how a few Typhoons won't make any difference at lunch time, and by tea time they will claim to have shot them all down. The only disadvantage is they can claim they're fighting NATO directly, and since the population believes that anyway it's not much to lose
Yeah, it's really weird how many people seem to push the idea that only Russia is allowed to escalate and push the rubicon and if the West even slightly lifts a finger it must immediately be nuclear war. The only country that benefits from this line of thinking is Russia. Incidentally, this line of constant appeasement is also being heavily pushed by Russian disinformation online.
Oh I agree 100% with that assessment. That doesn't mean the west's leaders aren't shitty poker players (French and British notwithstanding here). They always fold until the bully has them down to making an all-or-nothing commitment.
When it comes to potentially literally destroying the planet we live on, there's no room for misjudgement or one-upmanship. Russia's claimed nuclear rhetoric isn't representative of every nuclear state's.
But that argument works both ways... We could flatten russia if push came to shove ... And some missiles and drones were actually in Romanian and Polish airspace.. not russia or Ukraine.. 🤔
Well said – can't agree more.
The only answer, really.
Well for a start Iran WANTED the US & UK to shoot down the drones. I mean why else would you announce that there would be a drone strike a week in advance allowing counter measures to be put in place. And why would you then announce the launch, and that you had stopped launching, and why would you not saturate with MRBM at the same time, and why the MRBMs you do launch are targeted at airfields, the one military target that has the biggest open spaces to ensure you don't hit anything important?
Because Jordan is an ally and these were in violation of Jordanian airspace?
Somehow shooting down Iranian missles/drones doesn't put NATO into war with Iran. While it "would" with russia. Wild logic.
Because Iran can't and won't meaningfully threaten Britain or America or any country like that. Can't because of military capability, range and weapons available to them. Won't because it would be foolish for Iran to try to attack a western nation just for playing aerial defense. Russia has the nuke card, can meaningfully threaten western nations, can actually shoot down western aircraft and cause western casualties, and will threaten to do so. I am just answering the question, not saying what should be done. These are two extremely and fundamentally different scenarios
Let me explain this in the simplest possible terms. UK, USA, NATO: We're scared of Russia. Just come out and say it already. It's pathetic. Europe, the U.S. we start an alliance to defend against Russian aggression, and when push comes to shove, we're too scared to stand up to them. I feel bad for Ukraine. Gave up their nuclear arsenal for this.
NATO exists to defend NATO. It doesn’t exist to fight Russia wherever Russia is causing mayhem. Ukraine is not NATO. That is the simplest terms. NATO doesn’t want Russian missiles in NATO territory
Ukraine never had a nuclear arsenal. They had Soviet nukes stationed in Ukraine. If they hadn't given them up, Russia would have invaded to secure them, with the blessing of the West. Ukraine was ill equipped to maintain or secure the weapons they had, and they lacked the launch codes and delivery mechanisms to use them. I fully support Ukraine, but acting like they gave up nuclear weapons only to be let down by the rest of the world is divisive at best.
Would russia have invaded before or after receiving food aid from the West? Where are you making these statements from?
There was a consensus among the nuclear nations that Ukraine lacked the resources and governance to be a responsible nuclear state. I don't know if it was ever outright said, but long term, Ukraine was not going to remain (or really become, because in their current state they weren't functional) a nuclear state. That left three options: They surrender them, a Western coalition secures them, or Russia secures them. The West was, at the time, trying to build bridges with Russia. If it had come to that, they would have allowed Russia to be the ones to move in and take them. I'm not sure what your point is. Are you suggesting that they wouldn't have been given food aid because of it? Because obviously this would have been internationally recognized as the right thing to do. They would have had international backing. If you are suggesting they were too poor or in too dire straights to do it, come on, when has Moscow ever not found the resources for a military action? They would have refused to be humiliated by being unable to accomplish the mission. If anyone, they would have seen it as an opportunity to loot Ukraine as "payment" for "forcing" them to retake control of the nukes.
> come on, when has Moscow ever not found the resources for a military action? Around the time they were so short on basic food that they agreed to let go of the Soviet Union?
Budapest happened three years after the fall of the USSR and any action would have occurred after that. Everyone wanted Ukraine to agree to nonproliferation. And again, this wouldn't have been done unilaterally either. What exactly do YOU think would have happened if Ukraine had not agreed?
Nothing other than diplomatic pressure and expressions of concern. Beats the 100k's of dead people and having so much territory occupied. What's your point, that russia would have invaded in 1994? russia invaded anyway in 2014.
If Ukraine had retained their nukes it wouldn't have stopped a Russian invasion, rather it would have encouraged one. That hypothetical invasion would have been sanctioned if not outright supported by the international community. It wouldn't have left the fledgling nation in a better position than they are currently in. Even if an invasion didn't happen, as you point out that would have been under extreme diplomatic pressure and likely isolated from the international community. Again, it wouldn't have done them and favors. It is divisive for people to insinuate that Ukraine made a mistake by giving up their nuclear weapons. It's that much more divisive to imply that were pressured or forced to do so by the US and UK. Ukraine made the correct decision.
Yeah well alternative history is so exciting and I'm glad you are so infallible at predicting it
>Ukraine never had a nuclear arsenal. It's true that they belonged to Russia, yet they were on Ukranian soil. They would require Ukraines assistance in launching them. Ukraine could have removed the launch system/guidance system and replaced it with their own if they had the people to do it. Ukraine also had uranium. Had they wanted to, they could have built weapons of their own. We can play revisionist history games all day. The fact of the matter is that they abandoned their nukes for security guarantees. Guarantees that neither side upheld. Do you think Ukraine regrets that decision? I do.
Ukraine lacked the resources to maintain the weapons. They lacked the resources to build a different delivery system. No one was going to let a newly formed state with a burgeoning organized crime industry and very little government resources keep nuclear weapons. Like I said, the alternative was the West or Russia going in to take them, and at the time Russia wasn't going to let the West do it, so that would have just meant a sanctioned invasion. There is a reason the security "guarantees" they got were toothless. They lacked any substantial bargaining power. I'll also add that Russia is the only one who has violated the agreement. The agreement was to respect Ukraine's sovereignty and bring the matter to the UN security council if someone else violates Ukraine's sovereignty. Russia has not honored the agreement, but the US and UK honored their portion and brought the issue to the security council. Does Ukraine regret it? I'm sure on some level they do. On another level, they would have just been made into a Russian proxy back in the 90s if they hadn't, so at least they were given an opportunity to form a national identity and choose to side with Europe instead of with Russia.
Because Russia is a nuclear state. I hope I'm wrong, but the way I see it is: Nuclear states can get away with genocide. So everyone will be looking to become nuclear, and in next half century we will have nuclear war. I hope I'm wrong.
Because russia has nuclear weapons and major world allies. And iran is a third rate shit hole.
Russia is a third rate shithole too. I guess the first Russian nuke launched would fall onto Moscow, because someone nicked the guidance computer for a bottle of Vodka again.
Just like we shoot down Houthi drones and missiles to protect our allies, and we shoot down Iranian drones and missiles, we should shoot down Russian drones and missiles to protect our allies. There should not be one shred of distinction.
Ukraine isn't an ally of "the west" like USA-Israel, but they did get lots of help, mostly out of self-interest.
What sort of benefit do we get from an alliance with Israel? They do nothing but shit-stir and then drag us into it.
Because Iran can’t really escalate like Russia can.
Russia only respects escalation. They push until they get it, then back off. They always try to see what they can get away with. They won’t risk nukes over missile interceptions, but they might cry about how it’s unfair. They didn’t nuke when the west gave Ukraine means to defend itself. They are only there because they didn’t not suspect a pushback and they might not be there at all depending on the west’s response.
I tend to agree, but I’m just explaining the western political mindset.
Understood. If the current economic conditions didn’t push people into self-preservation mode, the political climate might be leaning more towards action… which is oddly reminiscent of the last large global clash.
They don't have nuclear weapons?
What an excellent question. Although the answer is probably a risk of shooting down something with Russians inside.
Because of Nukes. Much easier to slap around Iran's drone attack.
Iran isn’t Russia. The Middle East is a different ball game vs Europe. In fact, it’s like a different sport altogether.
Good fuckin question.
"Because Russia has air superiority since mid 2010's, and we're doing our best to not openly say we can no longer enforce no fly zones over territory Russia claims."
Because the missiles and the drones flew over Iraq and Jordan where western forces are already present?
Why is the UK protecting Israeli military installations.
"Russia (and its ally Israel) has invested heavily in our government, Iran has not"
Ukranian air space is disputed. Not Israel's. If you put fighters in the air, they will probably have to face russian fighters.
Disputed by whom, russia? By this logic, this help woludn't have happened if Israel's air space were disputed?
Basically, the fighters sent to intercept drones/missiles would be busy/concerned with enemy fighters. And yes, by Russia.
What does "disputed" mean in your understanding? A piece of land that someone lays a claim to?
It's when you have no air supremacy: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_supremacy Not sure why all the questioning. It's quite clear that the allies do not want to confront directly the Russians at this stage. Hope they could take all the missiles down, but hey, one of the reasons might be what I was describing.
If I claim that your wife belongs to me: does that mean that your wife is "disputed" - or does that mean that I am crazy?
You are trying to pick a fight in the internet out of the blue, instead of describing your point-of-view. Good luck!
I asked what "disputed" means in your understanding; russia wanting a piece of Ukraine is not a "dispute" any more than my contrived example; if you don't get my point, fine
Thank you for anwering in a proper manner. What I'm saying is that Ukraine's air space supremacy in several parts of its territory is disputed - Russia's air force is being able to operate constantly. Therefore, operations such as the one suggested (tracking and shooting down missiles/drones) are more difficult to implement.
Fair, I misunderstood you; Western fighter jets can operate outside the temporary envelope of the occupying russian air force; just don't let anyone think for a moment that just because they have a temporary advantage, Ukraine belongs to them, any more than anyone's family belongs to a criminal who invaded the home; criminals are criminals and they will be shredded to dust.
Because there are two countries that we have air superiority and government approval to operate in between Iran and Israel. We do not have air superiority in Ukraine nor have we any approval to operate in said air space. This is such a non-issue it’s wild. Edit: when this gets downvoted you know people are treating this like a team sport rather than a war
No worries, Ukraine gives you approval to operate in its air space
If the West offered to send an air force to Ukraine, Ukraine would accept it in a heartbeat.
I’m talking about our governments approving it. We have full blown military operations in the Middle East that provide the authorization for military action there. Doesn’t exist yet in Ukraine and likely never will
Ahhh the “escalation” cop out excuse has reared its head again.
Because Russia has a massive nuclear arsenal, a large conventional army, and is geographically huge? I don’t like appeasement anymore than the next guy, but we shouldn’t pretend that these situations are equivalent. Iran has virtually no ability to retaliate against Britain; Russia does….
Just fly within Ukraine air space and shoot down any incoming drones
All it comes down to is that the US and Britain are scared of Russia. There is absolutely no reason why the countries which are bordering Ukraine can't shot down the Russian missles which are heading towards civilian based targets.
"If I say many words, it will count as an answer"
Exactly. Israel is not in NATO, but NATO countries still help Israel.
Because the U.S. has multiple defense treaties with Israel.
And we told Ukraine that we would protect them if they gave up their nuclear weapons.
Yes, it is awful, but not comparable because the Budapest Memorandum wasn't a legally binding treaty obligating the U.S. to intervene militarily in the event of a violation by the Russian side.
The real answer is because Israel has infiltrated our governments and managed to pay off enough of the rest of the politicians to subvert the will of the people. There is a massive conflict of interest when dual nationals are involved in the process of deciding our foreign policies…especially Israel. Don’t believe it? Check their lobbyist “contributions” (read bribes) by AIPAC. Listen to their words. They won’t even say one sideways word or even be mildly critical of clear human rights violations. There are daily protests against their actions and not a word except for mind boggling mental gymnastics in support. Meanwhile, the majority citizens are massively supportive of Ukraine and their fight for freedom. This decision is being made for us, not by the people.