Spyke
lemmy.world

Perhaps provide some air superiority to back up those suggestions of force concentration?

55
SkyezOpenreply
lemmy.world

From scratch, sure, but surely am already trained pilot would take significantly less time to learn a new airframe?

7
sunbeam60reply
lemmy.one

It isn’t just about flying a plane.

You’ve got to be certified in each weapon the planes are supplied with. You’ve got to learn the doctrines, then shift to the doctrines, that the planes were built for.

Then you’ve got to resupply the planes. Maintain them. Fix them. Service them. Store them. Debug them. Keep them in the air.

There’s a massive logistical challenge to integrating F-16s into Ukraine.

7
bouhreply
lemmy.world

Not so much. The doctrine won't be that different. The most pressing matters are air superiority and bombardment. Bombardment they can already do it actually. They can train for the new air superiority tech and see for the rest later.

The mechanics are probably the hardest to train.

2

Who knew it would be so difficult and time consuming to learn how to fly around and do a bit of pew-pew. I thought it was more like getting in the car and driving to the shop, but with bombs.

1

From scratch it would take several years. At least in my country, to train a pilot you have to go to the Military Air Force School to complete an 8 semester long career that won't necessarily grant you a position as a pilot. Of course, with constrained times of war, this can be achieved in less than 4 years, but 1 year seems like a stretch. Now, if you have a vast disposal of trained pilots, I guess you can make it in one year or even less, depending on several factors. The problem is I don't find stats about this case, and even if there are a lot of Ukrainian pilots ready to fly, they are probably not seasoned in combat.

2

Which is why it's shameful that they didn't start training programs last year.

6

I'm going to go off on a limb and say they wouldn't be if it weren't already well known by the enemy

18

U.S. Officials Say they Misallocated Ukraine’s Forces and Firepower

Title without the passive voice.

3
severienreply
lemmy.world

This article reminds me how Russia could prevent the war by not invading. They can also stop war any time by simply going home. We should be clear on the fact that Russia is solely responsible for every single second of this war.

38
lemmygrad.ml

History started Feb 24th 2022 and nothing had ever happened before then.

"they can just go home" genius brilliant take.

-7

Things happened, yeah, Russia invaded Ukraine twice before - in 2014 and 2015. Not sure what's your point, though.

10
Siroskyreply
lemmy.world

Unnecessarily reductionist/antagonistic. If you had read the article, you would've known that the Ukrainians themselves agree with the point. And despite what the title says, the U.S. isn't the only of Ukrainian's western partners that thinks a change of strategy in order. This war might be fought primarily by the Ukrainians, but it's also very clearly a collective responsibility of the western world order.

62
lemmy.world

The truth will never be reductionist.

collective responsibility of the western world order.

ie- capitalist imperialism.

-54
Siroskyreply
lemmy.world

Such a bog-standard whataboutism that I couldn't even be bothered to roll my eyes anymore. Thanks for showing your true colors.

50
lemm.ee

Defending those colors means defending against Russia as well

7
lemmy.world

Yep. I’m against all capitalist imperialism, even China’s. It’s almost like those supporting NATO aren’t really socialists.

-4

I've read those people have a thought called "critical support" where they're critical against NATO but it's the only logical lifeline for Ukraine and Europe to end the war some day and prevent similar situations.

Personally; I guess that's a theory, who knows 🤷

2
yatareply
sh.itjust.works

Those colours doesn't seem to go all the way through though. Scratch them for a moment and you will see the colours of the Russian flag appearing.

7

I don’t give an F about Russia. China could swallow it tomorrow. This enemy that liberals have invented doesn’t exist. You make everything a binary choice. Russia or NATO. China or America. The world is more complicated, but you’re not equipped to understand that.

-3
lemm.ee

Both, and Europe's.

Break the peace of Europe and it's an issue for everyone.

29
lemmy.world

I’m watching Putin’s speech at the BRICS summit. The economics of the world is about to change and the American government is about to shutdown. Ukraine is about to be the least of America’s worries.

-42
BitPiratereply
feddit.de

Mr Ruble-Nosedive shouldn't give talks about economy.

24
yatareply
sh.itjust.works

Well, that says a lot about you, but nothing at all about actual things happening in reality.

19
lemm.ee

I’m watching Purim’s speech at the BRICS summit. The economics of the world is about to change and the American government is about to shutdown. Ukraine is about to be the least of America’s worries.

Also, he's dating a supermodel, you wouldn't know her, she goes to school in Canada.

15
lemm.ee

I give you credit for bravery, my friend, I wouldn't be anywhere near where you are without satellites broadcasting /s around me.

3

People take life too seriously. Someone posting today on here will probably bite it before tomorrow. We should enjoy each other while we have the chance.

0
lemmy.world

The world bank? Now add the other 40 countries that want to join including Saudi Arabia. When the petrodollar goes, so will that GDP.

-3

I didn’t know that GDP is constant and can’t change. Surely nothing will change in the future. The PetroYuan is definitely not a possibility if Saudi Arabia joins BRICS. And that definitely won’t hurt America’s economy, reducing it’s GDP. America will always dominate the world. /s

0
lemmy.world

That could lead to WW3. Just hope that Russia destabilizes and Putin expires.

-12
lntlreply
lemmy.ml

Fortunately or unfortunately, a destabilized Russia would not be safer for the world than a stable Russia.

10

Well, to be precise, it could lead to war with Russia. I doubt that would spill over to the whole world.

That prospect is terrifying enough given Russia’s nuclear weapons, so I’m definitely not arguing that “this is fine”.

I just think we need to be precise. Russia is not the Soviet Union - they don’t have 50 proxy states around the world.

4

That could lead to WW3.

Only very briefly.

You have to leave the precedent that the peace of Europe will be preserved, that's how we made it the last 80 years without a world war.

4
lemmy.ml

Why is NATO helping these guys if they can't get their shit together?

-53
yatareply
sh.itjust.works

"These guys" held their own against the supposedly second largest army in the world for quite some time before receiving any significant help, and has now, despite all the headlines, regained quite a bit of their own territory which was lost to the Russian invasion, despite the fact that current military technology clearly favours defense over offense (in a scenario without air superiority).

They have also severely depleted the Russian military capability and most likely hindered Russia in invading and bullying their other neighbours for a long time. All for the price of some old hardware that was gathering dust anyway as well as a fraction of a bloated US military budget.

24
lntlreply

There are better ways to spend the budget.

-4
Jumireply
lemmy.world

Why did the US support the Allies in early WW2 when France was overrun in 6 weeks and allied convoys got wrecked in the Atlantic?

19
lntlreply

Because the Allies paid the US with money for their arms? If NATO was selling arms to Ukraine, that'd be totally different.

0

Ask yourself what the alternative is and what a successful outcome for Russia will enable for Putin! Then ask yourself what that means for Europe. Finally ask yourself what upheaval of a European market will do to an American economy and America’s ability to make its influence felt across the world.

Helping Ukraine is far cheaper.

13