USA Flip Flopping on Fighter Planes for Ukraine

The USA is reported to be working to assist Poland in sending fighter planes to Ukraine. Poland has Mig 29 planes which are ones used in the Ukrainian Air Force. The USA would resupply Poland with F16 planes.

US Secretary of State Blinken says NATO countries have the greenlight to send fighter planes to Ukraine.

UPDATE: The Pentagon is saying that this transfer of planes is not tenable. Poland is angry at the USA. Various military experts say that a transfer of planes would logistically take at least 6 months. It would be more practical to provide more Stinger missiles to put Russian planes at even greater risk. There are reports that Ukraine now has 17000 anti ground vehicle Javelin single person fired missiles. 200 Russian tanks have been disabled, destroyed or captured. This leaves 1000 inside Ukraine. This means there are 17 Javelin missiles for each Russian tank.

If the Ukraine has an effective airforce then this will make it very difficult for Russia to meet its military objectives. It would a long and punishing ground war and urban fighting. It would become far more difficult to effectively hold the sieges of large cities.

There were reports that Bulgaria, Poland and Slovakia had been trying to arrange for planes to go to Ukraine.

SOURCES- Face the Nation
Written by Brian Wang,

134 thoughts on “USA Flip Flopping on Fighter Planes for Ukraine”

  1. Are there a surplus of pilots available for these extra planes anyway? If they delivered that is.

  2. America did invade Ukraine first — through a coup — a Capitol Insurrection in 2014.

    That's what's led to Putin's invasion now.

  3. Everything is Russian propaganda to you. I think you need to be concerned about Ukrainian propaganda as well as Neo-Con propaganda.

  4. "Russia shifted its stance over the bombing of a Ukrainian hospital in the city of Mariupol" They are losing control of their own lies. Neurotic power addiction, being an addiction, is thus a symptom of mental illness, repression. Repression is inherently self destructive, being repression of one's own childhood experience. As it fails, neurosis slips into a grasp at straws desperation. Some are beginning to question Putin mental state.

  5. It is Biden who keeps Polish Migs from going to Urkraine,I voted for Joe but he's a cowardly traitor.

  6. Yes,Biden strongly supports Putin,he won't allow aircraft to stop russian aircraft from destroying maternity hospitals, it is all part of his green agenda reducing the population,yet begging tyrants like Putin,Maduro and Iran for oil.
    The dems in the senate will make sure US oil production does not increase they want to tax "windfall profits" The should tax Tesla Space X and Elon.

  7. No,in fact NATO completely crumbled and the once great United States cowers before the tiny Putin,th US and UK made solemn vows to protect Urkraine from Russia ,but we know neither of those countries can be trusted with their current leaders.
    Where is France? They always talk tough they aren't in Nato,they go around Africa but because they don't want to upset all the Russian mob money in France and they are scared to fight a third rate power in Russia,they cower like the rest.

  8. There is NO flip flopping !! President Biden has supported Russia all the way, from promising no US or NATO intervention to quashing the idea of giving Polish Migs to Urkraine,instead of jets he sent Karmella Harris who said the Russians were bad.
    I know you mean well Brian ,but you do not live in a country led by a man who cares about freedom, in fact he is doing everything possible to make sure the baby killing increases,BBK= Biden Baby Killer.

  9. In fact, Russia has invested a lot of Rubles in promoting corruption in Ukraine, and your 'civil war' was just a component of Russia's war with Ukraine.

  10. NATO used air strikes against Serbia because Serbia was committing "ethnic cleansing", no NATO troops set foot in Serbia.

  11. "No. It was provoked."
    By Ukraine sticking within its own borders and not bending over for Putin to rape.

    "No. Only 5% want to fight."
    Obviously untrue, unless the Russian army is 10 times more incompetent than even the latest estimates of their capabilities.

    in 1991 92.3% of Ukrainians voted in a referendum for independence from Russia, Russia agreed to Ukraine independence, now it'd be even closer to 100% in favor of independence.
    Even in Crimea and the Donbas regions there was majority support for freedom from Russia, a fact few today realize given the widespread lies of Russian propaganda.

    "Ukranian government is a puppet."

    Ukraine had elections in 2014 and 2019, the winners of both of those elections now stand with their people against the Russian invaders. Ukrainians are supporting their leaders, and those leaders don't need to control the information available to the people as Putin does.
    It's no surprise that Ukrainians, like all the other countries formerly under the thumb of the Kremlin, much prefer to be free as Western Europeans are rather that Kremlin puppets.

    Russia is a corrupt state run by a thug who lies and murders his own people without any signs of having a conscience.

  12. So what IS the line on what weapons can and can't be given to Ukraine?

    Something like "Anything that can make the Russians pay a higher cost in Ukraine, but not practical to counter-attack into Russia directly" (as might fighter jets)?

  13. > Did Russia launch an unprovoked attack on Ukraine?
    No. It was provoked.

    > Are Ukrainians united in fighting back in order to preserve their independence from Russian control?
    No. Only 5% want to fight.

    > Should a sovereign country get to choose which countries they have economic and military ties with?
    Ukranian government is a puppet. Puppets can't choose anything. There is an American hand in their bottoms.

  14. And you are not dealing with any of my points or questions. I'll let the Primal Revolution hit you later. Fees as in the context of George, remember him? "wouldn’t advocate coercion or penalties to prevent free riders enjoying the benefits without paying" if you have that idea, no wonder you can't figure things out. No theft allowed. Glad you realize that "socialist" is a thing to avoid being! Do you deny socialist propaganda exists? And finally, the fact that Nobels are around when the defs in Physics change, that does not apply to common defs such as your "socialist". To claim it is like a Physics equation is the most outlandish equivocation I think I have ever seen. A main reason for solid defs is to catch such manipulative equivocations. All healthy people are libertarian.

  15. Hard to guess what this administration is going to do next.
    Get ready for war.
    I guess.

  16. Interesting that people are trying are trying to cancel him for going on RT tv, and calling out he's a twice arrested/imprisoned pedophile…

  17. No disrespect intended, but you’re not selling your niche and irrelevant opinions well. Focusing on outdated psychology that fell from favour when I was a kid, and using entirely made up words, does not provide much hope. “Fees for use” is just a joke way to avoid using the term “tax”, especially as you wouldn’t advocate coercion or penalties to prevent free riders enjoying the benefits without paying. But the cherry on the cake is reverting to childish insults “you socialists”, which just makes the point that you’re so far down your rabbit hole, you’re best left alone.

  18. Hah, now Poland tried to hand off the hot potato to the US by saying "No, we'll just leave them here, over at Rammstein Airbase in Germany, with the engines running, the US can do what it wants…" making the US look bad publicly. It also somewhat otherwise mitigates the issue of handover happening directly in Poland, which creates the fig leaf of not being responsible for what happens next (ostensibly since NATO is a defensive treaty, so Poland can't outwardly make any move that directly implies attacking Russia or else they can't invoke article 5)

    There is the practical issue that NATO gear (including the radios) would need to be removed before handover, which is a real logistics problem (ukrainian or ex-USSR radio spares to slot in may be unavailable)(with no installed radios, how are the pilots supposed to communicate during transfer transit and in combat, use portable handheld ones?).

  19. You may earn up to 5000 rubles a week, but they are only exchangeable for other rubles.
    Have a potato and an onion. Enjoy the feast.

  20. I mean, you do know Putin invaded the Ukraine and not America right?
    And you do know his forces has stalled out and may begin getting pushed back?
    And this could be a disgrace so vile that Putin's own people may just "Hillary" him out of office? This is hardly winning.

  21. “all mentally healthy people are libertarian” is my formulation of Janov's observation that those successful in Primal Therapy have a "live and live" attitude and are competent in meeting their own needs. Neither aggressive nor dependent, at least in a sick way. It has absolute science behind it. Primal Science has direct experiments that are far more explicit than Physics experiments. Most can do the experiment and the results are in the body for good, for all to see.

    Too bad words are negotiable, or "liberal" would still mean "anti-monarch libertarian" in our current terms. Your defs prevent meaningful discussion of whether one is dealing with a large group of common criminals, forcialists or peaceful people. See Rothbard "For a New Liberty" for the scoop on welfare history, private v public. Ouch! Fees for use, or taxes? Prevention of crime, or random regulation? You socialists keep it all mixed up. Do you believe in or advocate the initiation of force or fraud to achieve political or social ends?

  22. Sending weapons to Ukraine is an immensely bad, and destabilizing idea. The best thing that could happen, is if lands east of the Dnieper river are used to form a buffer between the EU/NATO and Russia.

  23. Russia can't launch nukes, their military would not obey orders just as the pentagon said they would only obey lawful orders to launch in th waning days of Trump.
    Each military would retaliate, but they will not go first. Putin even had his spokesman back way down after he had threatened Europe with nukes.
    Even if w had a world where we each launched two or three nukes at each other every day, life would go on.
    What we can't have is more oil burning as Greta has warned us we have less than 10 years left.

  24. Brian you have hit the important issue,as usual. Countries are willing to help but Putin has a key ally in Joe Biden,who is blocking all attempts to help Urkraine with Polish Migs.
    The world would be better off without Putin and Biden. Joe slept while Ukrainian babies are murdered by Russian artillery strikes, let you representative know we want Migs to Urkraine,and the US must help.

  25. Sorry Dan, but it makes no difference what subject you study. A word has a meaning. It’s not negotiable or language has no meaning. I’ve studied Physics at University level too, and there is no debate about the definition of words in physics, even if there is plenty of debate about some of the areas of study. 
    As for your assertion that “all mentally healthy people are libertarian”, well that’s your opinion, and nothing else. It has no empirical basis in science. I’ve had plenty of debates with libertarians about economics before. The last one calling all taxes, regulation and welfare “evil” and “inhuman”. That’s a pretty extreme view. Is that yours too?

  26. If you had studied Philosophy and Physics instead of Econ, you would know the definition is the starting place for serious discussion. And that your *common* one is unusable. What is your word for the libertarian definition of "socialist" I gave, call it "forcialism"? Then, we can call libertarian capitalism "free market capitalism" which is already done, altho inaccurately quite often. And not all libertarians are capitalist, some can be communalists. And your capitalism definition can be "force capitalism". Try to describe your claim of mixed capitalism and socialism with these words, which keep the use of force or fraud out in the open. Something socialists just hate. And remember, all mentally healthy people are libertarian, which has a fixed definition. Your final descriptions are examples of how your definition does not work, btw. This same confused mish mash happens when socialists talk about the War on Drugs. Is it economic? Is it gov?

  27. You may have a problem with the definition based on your strong libertarian outlook, but the rest of the world, including all mainstream economics academia, uses the definition I use. You’re entitled to believe in libertarian values, and you and I live in countries where we can express them freely if we wish. But, you unfortunately don’t get to redefine the meanings of words to suit your argument. In practice, virtually all modern economies are mixed, including those at the more capitalist end like the US, and those at the more socialist or communist end, like Cuba. Authoritarian states can be capitalist, socialist or communist, and their economic models may change even if their system of government does not, as China has demonstrated. Equally, an economic model may remain fairly constant while its government becomes more authoritarian, as Russia has demonstrated.

  28. No more than Russia was in the fight against us in Afghanistan due to them supplying the Taliban

  29. Where would the planes be based? Can't launch from a NATO country. The planes would have to be fueled and housed somewhere.

  30. You're the troll, falling back on petty McCarthyite tactics. Joe McCarthy must be gleefully chortling from hell, right now.

  31. The problem with that definition is that there are so many things it does not define. Is it capitalism or socialism that each living individual has an ownership of his share of the natural resources of the planet, such things as land, air, minerals, etc? Things that, following Henry George only in this observation, cannot be property because they have no clear title. Everything was stolen in the past. What about things I create by work? Does everyone own a share of that, actual property? That is the first sentence in the cite. On and on. By ignoring the initiation force or fraud, it is quickly a mess. Most welfare considerations are met by simply paying the rent to those who use little of what they own, by those who use a lot more. Of the natural stuff.

    The more practical problem is that socialists are insane. The need to initiate force or fraud to get something 50% or more of the people want is absurd. Or is this an authoritarian socialism we are considering. You may want to check your logic that true free market interactions somehow are deficient in meeting overall social good. Who decides? How much do socialist bureaucrazies charge, for their own good, to do this deciding for me? Even the very rich had to do useful things to get their money, or they initiated force or fraud, happens all the time in a non libertarian World.

    And from the outside, Primal Science has conclusively observed that all healthy people are libertarian.

  32. I'm more interested in issues like:
    Did Russia launch an unprovoked attack on Ukraine?
    Are Ukrainians united in fighting back in order to preserve their independence from Russian control?
    Should a sovereign country get to choose which countries they have economic and military ties with?

    How are those things being lied about in the Russian media?

  33. If I were Putin I would bomb any Polish airfields supplying aircraft. I don't think he has another choice.

  34. What is coming is the end of Global Supply Lines and the Global Economic Order. The US will go back to carrying about North America. And, to the rest of the world it will be AMF-YOYO.

  35. They need not mke air strikes to be useful.

    All they need to do is keep Russian air forces from achieving superiority over Ukrainian territories.

  36. You’ve picked the very narrow definition of socialism as defined by a libertarian or laissez faire economist. I prefer the broader, more widely accepted definition of socialism such as that in Britannica below. As viewed by an economist (such as I), almost all of the world now live in predominantly capitalist economies in so much as the majority of economic activity is privately owned and driven primarily by the motive of making profits rather than for the social good. By this definition, Russia is primarily capitalist, as is China, even though they are ruled by a “Communist” party.

  37. So, if the pilots actually are Ukraine, and we are for reasons beyond this topic shipping arms to Ukraine, the fact that they are flying *into* Ukraine rather than from NATO into Russia makes it quite fine. "the strikes originating from Poland" and "attacking Ukraine territory" is the distraction. These are strikes/attacks into their own territory. Otherwise, we are closing the border to Ukraine? Really? I guess so, as 80 year old protesters are a true threat too. Really!

  38. Start with definitions. "Socialist" is one who "believes in or advocates the initiation of force or fraud to achieve political or social ends", as additional to doing such initiation for private ends, a common criminal. A libertarian is a NOT socialist. And, of course, not a common criminal. Similar def for "capitalist", one who uses accumulated money to do big projects. *Unless* he is a common criminal in getting the money, or a socialist. Here in US, we have socialist "welfare for the rich and connected", called mistakenly capitalism. But also some real capitalism. So, by the common mis definition of capitalism, all that you mention are various socialists.

    This is important because the first trick of socialists is to divide into two camps who each want power, socialism, and threaten you with the other if you do not give them power. Thus, you get to give someone power. No Liberty is involved, just more power. Sick.

  39. To be fair, the Russians aren’t socialists, they are capitalists. Autocratic and nationalistic, absolutely.

  40. If Russia fully controls the skies over Ukraine, why does it continue to lose aircraft at a steady rate? Simple answer, because it doesn’t. Ukraine has an increasing number of stingers which they are using to make a mockery of Russian air power over Ukraine.

  41. NATO invaded Serbia, and also carried out numerous air strikes in Libya. This is contrary to its original founding charter as a defensive organization which only fights on the soil of its member states. That defensive aspect has now been discarded.

  42. NATO invaded Serbia in 1999, in violation of its defensive charter, which says that it can only fight on the soil of member states. NATO even carved out the territory of Kosovo from the sovereign country of Serbia. It's very telling that these events don't even register in your memory. NATO is no longer a defensive organization, but an expansionist organization, which has steadily expanded eastwards. NATO expansion has not only resulted in regime change operations in other countries, but has even resulted in attempts at regime change in the United States, such as the Russia Collusion Hoax against the previous US president. The regime change attempt was triggered by Trump's comment that NATO countries ought to pay their fair share in relation to what the US was paying. This intensely angered the NATO lobby, and motivated them to attempt regime change inside the United States. Within hours of Trump's comment, NATO shill Madeleine Albright appeared on MSNBC nightly news, emphatically stating her deep alarm at Trump's comments, calling him crazy. Mere days later, accusations were suddenly raised against Trump's campaign manager Paul Manafort, accusing him of having worked for Russia (Democrat consultants had also done this, and plus he'd worked for Ukraine too). Trump himself was quickly targeted directly, with allegations about his hotels in Russia, and soon the infamous Steele Dossier with 'Pee Tape' nonsense was trotted out. The Russia Collusion spin was put into high gear.

  43. Article 5 is a defensive clause – a response to an attack. Justified in the case of Afghanistan.

    NATO did not invade Iraq. That was the US only. NATO provided some "training support" for the new Iraqi military later.

    That said, Russia has nukes. If they did not, I can understand how they might fear some future military intervention from NATO. But they do have nukes. Lots of them. It is impossible to think of invading them. Their aren't scared for their geopolitical defensive position. They're scared that they're fading into irrelevance and they want to be a great empire again.

  44. I love it when socialists start telling what other peoples' motives and plans are. It shows that they cannot deal with the reality, so make one up for themselves to believe. Grasping at straws. Neurotic socialists. Going down, into insanity, power addiction.

  45. Use common sense with Twitter. It is not official. Are you trying to make a distraction? edit: Yes, with Ukraine pilots. They are not flying over Russia, just their own country, from another.

  46. There are things on Twitter that you cannot trust entirely, you have to think first. See what the people involved say. Otherwise, you get distracted. Or is that the point? edit: Yes, they are talking Ukraine pilots flying over Ukraine. Not a problem legally. Naturally, if 80 year old protesters are a danger to you, that is certainly a threat.

  47. The planes are Russian ones the NATO countries already have, moved to Ukraine, flown by Ukrainian pilots who are familiar with them. The NATO guys get replacement US planes in the deal. I think! edit: the Ukraine pilots would be flying the planes, even if from Poland. Pretty sure that is allowed, else Russia is very bad violator.

  48. A couple obvious problems here.
    1. Planes launching from Poland. This would be impossible for Russia to differentiate from a NATO country (Poland) attacking Russian assets.
    2. Pilots. Are there Ukrainian pilots in Poland? If not, that means Polish pilots flying Polish planes, attacking Russian assets. How is this not NATO attacking first?
    3. Planes. How are Polish pilots supposed to train up on F-35 aircraft overnight?

    I *LOVE* the idea of these countries selling Ukraine some heavy air power, but there has to be a smarter way to do it.
    This is provocation for WW3. Plain and simple.

  49. I'm sure both sides are crazy. So, start by eliminating censors on all populations, then we can talk. Until then, we fight. Once understood, the System must be destroyed. Censorship is the most disgusting form of power addiction, an admission of being weak and wrong in and of itself.

  50. I see no realistic way for the Russians to disambiguate Ukrainians flying from Poland to make air strikes, with Polish fighter pilots flying from Poland to make air strikes.
    They should have done this early on when Ukraine still had some viable air fields, and then the strikes could have come from there.
    This crosses the line. We might all feel proud of ourselves for "helping" but Russia would rightly see this as an attack from NATO.
    And wouldn't that retro-justify Putin's claim that NATO was out to get him?

  51. So one guy does something, that leaves the other socialist free? Because you like him? Oldest trick in the book, dude. Did you fall for it, or just intellectually corrupt?

  52. Indeed, neurotics all around. That is the key understanding that is only 50 years old. However censors are tagged for elimination. This happens first, before the serious discussions can even start.

  53. Agreed. I was down for all this until I saw the part about the strikes originating from Poland, a NATO country.
    This is provocation. So far, technically, NATO isn't in this war. I hear a whole lot of jingoists demanding we enter the war immediately for "democracy".
    More like lunacy. Russia is a nuclear power.

  54. He fails to mention that there is more fake news in some news than in no news. All mentally healthy people are libertarian. Destroy all censors.

  55. See how "Russian" did not deal with the issue? Liberty means nobody else decides, not him instead of someone he sez is worse. All mentally healthy people are libertarian.

  56. I doubt any side is truthful at this point and I dont think any of us can say how many soldiers died. But yes, the bombing of the NPP was a fake and it was interesting how quickly Selensky gave a speech and how quickly this spread.

  57. Chris68, you remember the Cuba crisis? If Nato has missiles in the Ukraine, they take 4 Minutes to moscow.
    If China supported putschists in Mexico and held military drills, would the US sit still?

  58. No need to bring Trump into the game – the involvement of Bidens son, Nuland and others in the Ukraine started a long time ago. Otherwise I agree.

  59. They joined the EU because they wanted the money. In fact, the EU aleady pumped money into the Ukraine. The Ukraines GDP/capita is 40% that of Russia and it is pretty high on the corruption index. They had a civil war inside their country that has cost 14000 lives. It is not that good is fighting against evil here.

  60. Ukraine has no wing assets. Russia fully controls Ukranian skies. That is why ukranian president squeals like a pig – asking for new planes even though they have no airports and fuel to fuel them and probably no pilots. If they have so many planes why he is asking NATO to close ukranian skies.

  61. I read and watch ukranian/western and russian news and I see that much more fakes are coming from western/ukranian side. For example snake island, ghost of kiev, russia shelling nuclear reactors, 10000 dead russian soldiers, etc. Russian news is much more truthful.

  62. Not a gamer, but soundz like Rambo type. Naturally, it is the longer term effects of these events that was good, not the things isolated. Your prediction is looking better all the time, fingers crossed.

  63. Dude, I'm as serious as heart cancer. Have you read a single book by Arthur Janov? If not, primaltherapy dot com NOW!!! Given your level of interest, "Versailles" for ex, I have to assume you have read Alice Miller "For Your Own Good". Once you understand the Science of Repression and Neurosis from Janov and apply the situation Alice Miller describes, you will understand how serious this is. How serious the Primal Revolution is. How serious and eternal Science is. Welcome to the Plains of Armageddon.

  64. So why is NATOS expansion a problem? NATO does not invade other countries, it's a strictly defensive pact. So why would it be a "provocation" to Russia? Because they want to be able to invade other countries at their whim?

  65. Is Putin really so bad at propaganda that the US is winning that war? Or is it just that Ukrainian's much prefer to live in freedom rather than under the thumb of the thug in the Kremlin? Please don't label the Ukrainians as stupid, unlike the Russian people their news isn't completely controlled by the state.

  66. It is funny how late we get our news in the West from other parts of the world. Non Western Media sources have informed today that other East European countries are not sending fighter jets to Ukraine after all for fear of provoking Russia and because they did not reach an agreement with Washington on getting a replacement. This may change again of course in the coming days.

  67. That is right. How can they decide their foreign policy if they are fully controlled by a certain humburger loving country ?

  68. Russian and the US should not get to decide Ukraine's foreign policy, Ukrainian's think it's they who should have control over their own country, not the thug in the Kremlin.

  69. What about Leeroy Jenkins?? xD

    Sorry, I know your post wasn't meant to be funny, but I couldn't help it LOL.

  70. No, that pullout threat was pressure on Germany to abandon Nord Stream — the very thing that Putin would use as an insurance policy to keep a hold on Europe.

  71. auchoAre they out of their minds attacking Ukraine territory from Poland bases. As if Russian will not take out those bases thus dragging NATO into a shooting war.

  72. You can very easily, however, let them continue to pridefully humiliate themselves. They don't even realize they are neurotic. Yet. Power addicts cannot tolerate people knowing they are mentally ill. They lose power.

  73. retired Col. Douglas Macgregor — who then-President Donald Trump appointed as a senior advisor to the secretary of defense "The kind of appeasement talk that Col. Doug Macgregor, who should know better — when he was in government, he was the one who was advising Trump to pull all US troops out of Germany,"

  74. The territory terrorism inherent in the Club of Rome "Small World" bad info is a big part of the problem. What if Russia understood Konstantin Tsiolkovsky and O'Neill?

  75. I strongly disagree with you. NATO has continued to expand eastward, and Ukraine was well-known to be a clear red line for Russia. Why is it important to get Ukraine into NATO? Kyiv might indeed like lots of cash from being in NATO, but there's no obligation to admit them. Many senior policy experts have clearly expressed their misgivings about such a triumphalist advance. Russia was increasingly dismayed by NATO eastward advance. Who was it aimed at? It was aimed at Russia. NATO is not a charity organization – it's an organization designed to fight war. What was the need to not only keep it around but even expand it, after the Cold War was supposed to have ended? It should have been replaced with the OSCE. Keeping NATO around has only led to a revival of the Cold War. NATO did indeed discard its defensive charter by invading a non-member nation during the 1990s under the Clinton whitehouse.

  76. So, doesn't this mean that the U.S., Poland, and NATO are in the fight. If I were Russia, I would certainly conclude that.

  77. Yes, the power realist people are apparently power addicts too, that is all that matters to them mechanically. Much like Nature people think only of genes. Joining a defensive coalition is a right. Helping people who are being denied info is a duty. Censors are to be destroyed.

  78. Lots of disinformation in your post. How exactly was Russia backed into a corner? No one was threatening it. No one was invading it. Russia was fine with other countries joining NATO during the 90s. And then Putin comes along and all of sudden Russia is "threatened". It's not Russia that's threatened. it's Putin. All dictators feel threatened by freedom and democracy. It's the bane of their existence.

    NATO has never discarded its defensive charter. Its charter has remained the same since it was created. Why keep it around after the Soviet Union broke up? Because it worked. And because all the eastern European countries still feared Russia. They had no desire for another occupation by Stalin and his successors.

  79. Ai actually agree. I actually don't see this ending badly. It's actually going to end without the use of nuclear weapons and without any further incursions into any other countries, and it'll be the death knell for imperialism and the beginning of countries forming a larger alliance which will include the West and East.
    That's an unpopular outcome because there's less drama in it and less options for trying to punish each other for the past.

    But that's what's coming.

  80. As libertarians point out, "War is the Health of the State". One side being neurotic does not mean the other is not! Putin is not Russia.

  81. This amounts to backing Russia into a corner, just like that idiot Woodrow Wilson did in creating Versailles. How are issues between Russia and its neighbors then America's fight? It looks like triumphalist expansionism. NATO was originally created as a defensive organization, and yet it's been turned into an instrument for expansionism, having discarded its defensive charter. NATO was designed to fight the Soviet Union – so why keep it around after the breakup of the USSR? NATO should have been replaced the Organization for Security & Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). By not only keeping NATO around but even further expanding it, this has guaranteed the revival of the Cold War.

  82. This points out the problem with appeasing Putie Poo, he is cray cray. Like the naught see, you know. All mentally healthy people are libertarian.

  83. When one side can employ overwhelming airpower the other is better keeping its planes hidden rather than risking battles where they're out gunned.

  84. NATO didn't force these former Russian republics to join. They joined the EU and NATO because they wanted freedom while they saw Russia turn into a dictatorship under Putin. And most countries fear being under the control of a ruthless dictator. And now the world sees why!

    Here is the short story of Putin's ruthless rise to power.

  85. Poland still appears to be saying no to sending theirs (until they say yes at least). Slovakia is dependent on agreement with Poland to have them defend Slovakian airspace. Hungary is also still saying no (until they yes at least).

    Ukraine still has most of it's fixed wing assets intact and usable still though. And ukrainian AA and MANPADS is still utterly wrecking RuAF aircraft and helicopters.

  86. We have been in the Apocalypse for 7 million years, our children's souls predated by our neurotic System. We entered the Plains of Armageddon in 1970, with the discovery of repression and the nature of mental illness, such as power addiction. The final battle between the System and Love. Welcome!

  87. Nitpick indeed. Neurotic power addiction is the problem, big time. Using the existing power rather than the libertarian qualities of the *sides* to judge who is to *blame* is for point missers. This is particularly true if there is any censorship, which destroys all legitimacy of any who dare such an abomination. Pope Simplicio on down. The cold war was lost by power addicts of the current extreme ilk, and all of this would have been long over without censorship in their retreated positions. Time to finish the job. Hope the Russian people can get the message in time.

  88. Why can't we also lob nukes at each other, as long as they're not armed for detonation? This can help us to at least symbolically express our desire for armageddon.

  89. What if the planes are based in Poland, where the only thing Ukrainian is the pilot? Russia is flying from Belorus, so might be OK…

  90. Surprisingly for many, it's not casus belli to sell or provide weapons to a country trying to defend themselves against aggression from another.

    Putin would like they stop for sure, and has made menaces against those helping Ukraine (menaces he might act upon or not), but it's in the previous international agreements almost everyone agreed on, including Russia.

Comments are closed.