I just don't get this about the USA response to the Ukraine situation:

I don’t understand the hot-potato game being played over MIGs.

From the linked article:

“The Pentagon has closed the door on a proposal to provide Ukraine with fighter jets, explaining that the transfer would risk escalating the war and the focus should be on supplying more useful weapons to fend off Russian forces.”

How do “more useful” weapons NOT escalate the war? What makes the jets different?

We’ve already delivered missiles (and they are already taking out tanks and Russian jets). How are MIGs any different?


They’re trying to make distinctions between offensive and defensive weapons. So anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles are okay, but jets could be used to go on the offensive in Russia, so not okay. It’s a fine line they’re attempting to walk.


Send in the IED’s!!!


They already sent in the chechens they just forgot to tie the ied’s on them


Explode the goats!!!


An even better question is why zelensky was begging for planes when, according to all of the analysts on television yesterday, “the ukranian air force is mostly intact.”

I’ll let others answer that one.

1 Like

That phrase describes a worthless source.

There were people all over the news saying it yesterday.



Even the Pentagon was saying it.

likely they need more so they’re not so outnumbered in the air that the airforce wouldn’t last long.

1 Like

The remaining Ukrainian planes on the ground is a rathole to my question.

I’ll repeat:

Especially the bolded part.

More from the article:

"Finally, the U.S. intelligence community has assessed that transferring MiG fighters to Ukraine “may be mistaken as escalatory” and “could result in significant Russian reaction that might increase the prospects of a military escalation with NATO,” Kirby said. “Therefore, we also assess the transfer of the MiG-29s to Ukraine to be high risk.” "

I’m trying to see how missiles are not considered escalatory, but planes are.

i believe its for two reasons

  1. even with the additional planes they could not establish air superiority. they would still be vastly outnumbered.
  2. they could actually attack in russia

to which i say, give them the planes and let them worry about it.

I doubt anyone one any side of this question believes that Ukraine is looking for air superiority.

I kind of believe Zelinsky when he says they need planes. Maybe we all should.

Heck, one day’s work of strafing the 40-mile russian motorcade would go a long way toward securing some semblance of citizen safety in the cities that are at risk of siege. Ukraine could even return the planes once they finish that task.

I wouldn’t begrudge them flying out to take out the missile launchers. Nobody should.

i don’t. no war ever fought defending only has ever been won. ukraine not having offensive capability is a recipe for their eventual defeat no matter how badly russia’s invasion is executed. they need the ability to attack russian troop formations and airstrips in russia

The missile systems we have given them are defensive weapon systems. Aircraft can be used to attack, that convoy for example. With jets they can mount an air offensive to take them out. That is how I see it.

Missiles we have given them are also for targeting ground vehicles.

Attacking the convoy is defensive, whether done with broad and effective strafing runs, or one tank at a time with javelin missiles. Right now the threat of siege is a major problem. Your suggestion insinuates that NATO and USA leaders won’t allow Ukraine to defend against it effectively.

Actually hitting that convoy is an offensive operation. They are not actively attacking, I see where your logic is coming from, but, they are stationary, so any attack on them is considered an offensive attack.

Oh, come on. :roll_eyes:

They are invading the country. I see it as a defensive move to save their country. And I am surprised that the convoy has not been hit yet.

That does make a lot of sense.