world

Russia says F-16 transfer to Ukraine would raise questions of NATO's involvement

62 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Thomson Reuters 2023.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

62 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

NATO to Russia. Bite me (us).

It's not like you are going to start lobbing missiles at civilian targets. You do that already.

You certainly are not going to war with NATO. You would lose and you know it.

Nope, the bloom is off the bud as it were. Putie could roll out all the super-duper undefeatable wonder-thunder weapons videos he wanted even though he knew it was bunk.

Well, now we know too.

Planes that don't fly, ships that don't float. Tanks that double as jack-in-the-boxes (If Jack got incinerated).

3 NATO-facing Armies functionally destroyed and no a single NATO soldier has been committed to the fight as of yet.

So huff and puff. The Vipers are inbound to Ukraine (eventually... We should have done this a long time ago.)

10 ( +23 / -13 )

Before everyone starts playing video games or watching Top Gun, consider reading below, actual pilot's view based on his real wartime experience.

Air Defense on both sides has rendered aircraft very marginal at best, too dangerous.

Former F-16 Pilot Says Aircraft Have 'No Fighting Chance' Over Ukraine (businessinsider.com)

1 ( +13 / -12 )

if they fly from EU bases, and attack Russia, Russia has the right of self defense to attack these bases, even in NATO land.

-18 ( +10 / -28 )

NATO can pre-emptively attack Russia,

But will it.

-11 ( +5 / -16 )

this is in fact a NATO escalation to even consider this.

-17 ( +10 / -27 )

Might raise questions, but no, not really. NATO has drawn certain lines in the sand.

Ukraine gets a bunch of updated(?) toys, 40-year-old aircraft which are not really suited to the conditions there, a few months down the line. Might help with Ukraine's future integration in a mutual defensive pact, though. Russia seems to be pushing more and more nations to join it. Why?

10 ( +13 / -3 )

The hypothetical question, is how would Trump respond to this Russian threat?

Which is purely hypothetical because Russia never pulled this when Trump was in office.

But going forward, this might be an issue Trump has to deal with.

-16 ( +4 / -20 )

The transfer of F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine would raise the question of NATO's involvement in the conflict, Russia's Ambassador to the United States Anatoly Antonov said

Then go ahead and attack a NATO country. See what happens.

16 ( +21 / -5 )

this is in fact a NATO escalation to even consider this.

not even close, its giving Ukraine the weapons they need to defend themselves.

Give Ukraine the airpower theyre severely lacking.

where was you outrage when Russia was supplying the Afghans weapons to kill Americans in Afghanistan

13 ( +19 / -6 )

OssanAmericaToday  01:25 pm JST

The transfer of F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine would raise the question of NATO's involvement in the conflict, Russia's Ambassador to the United States Anatoly Antonov said

Then go ahead and attack a NATO country. See what happens.

Exactly, so even why play with Insane Global Chaos as no military solution exists?

Encourage all to read highly vetted liberal professional MSNBC recent reporting below, scary escalation stuff.

MSNBC

Zelenskyy has a bigger and more alarming appetite for risk than we thought

Opinion by Zeeshan Aleem

-15 ( +5 / -20 )

Kind of like the transfer of kamikaze drones and missiles to Russia from Iran and North Korea may lead to questions of their involvement.

15 ( +19 / -4 )

not even close, its giving Ukraine the weapons they need to defend themselves.

Give Ukraine the airpower theyre severely lacking.

and when these planes take off from air bases in NATO countries?

then that is NATO attacking Russia.

They wont be based in Ukraine, correct?

-19 ( +3 / -22 )

But going forward, this might be an issue Trump has to deal with.

he wont deal with anything, since 2014 Ukraine has been fighting Russia in Ukraine, what did Trump do to stop it, yeah nothing. Even Zelensky said surrendering 15% of Ukraine for a cease fire isn't an option. Trump said he could end the was within 24hrs, whats he going to do other than throw Ukraine under the bus, pull the US out of NATO. The only way for Trump to fix this is to surrender to Putin

Trumps done maga just havent come to terms with it yet

12 ( +18 / -6 )

how would one confirm that every attack launched from a NATO base are "Ukrainian" planes flown by "Ukrainian" pilots?

dangerous escalation of this conflict. If you attack me from a NATO base, can I not respond and destroy the "Ukraine owned" part of that base.

-14 ( +3 / -17 )

NATO can pre-emptively attack Russia, But will it.

not even remotely true, go and read the charter,

NATO members are only required to support other NATO members if theyre attacked, If any NATO member unilaterally strikes first other members have no obligation to defend them.

11 ( +15 / -4 )

how would one confirm that every attack launched from a NATO base are "Ukrainian" planes flown by "Ukrainian" pilots?

In the absence of Russian-instigated hostilities, NATO wouldn't be launching attacks from NATO bases.

And NATO aircraft are not based in Ukraine.

But way to argue the fascists talking point.

Jeez, talk about an idiotic argument.....

1 ( +11 / -10 )

and when these planes take off from air bases in NATO countries?

then that is NATO attacking Russia.

yes they will be based in Ukraine, if you even listened to Biden he said he got an agreement from Zelensky that F16 would not be used to attack targets on Russian soil, only Russian targets in Ukraine. No illegally annexed land in Ukraine by Russia, isnt Russian land.

got to stop watch FOX, OAN, they wont report the actual facts

8 ( +14 / -6 )

These NATO Muppets really want to start WW3! Meanwhile the yanks will just sit back and watch Europe burn! Absolute insanity!

-10 ( +10 / -20 )

In the absence of Russian-instigated hostilities, NATO wouldn't be launching attacks from NATO bases. 

And NATO aircraft are not based in Ukraine. 

But way to argue the fascists talking point. 

Jeez, talk about an idiotic argument.....

Well, maybe with this move Putin might shake a tad, as for the fear factor, I doubt it

-11 ( +3 / -14 )

It’s a perfectly valid point. If they use NATO bases for direct offensive operations, they become legitimate targets in self defense.

-6 ( +6 / -12 )

It’s a perfectly valid point. If they use NATO bases for direct offensive operations, they become legitimate targets in self defense.

Exactly.

-11 ( +5 / -16 )

so the F-16s will be based in Ukraine, really?

I had not heard that.

if so, then fine.

-8 ( +5 / -13 )

he wont deal with anything, since 2014 Ukraine has been fighting Russia in Ukraine, what did Trump do to stop it, yeah nothing.

Ukraine was fighting Russia, yes. But Russia was not invading Ukraine during Trump's term.

Factamundo.

-8 ( +3 / -11 )

And another issue that arises is this scenario - an old F16 is on a sortie but gets intercepted and pursued by some Sukhoi’s, and proceeds to flee over the NATO border.

what if a A-to-A missile is launched in airspace of the Military Operation but crosses over into NATO airspace because a UAF bogey inevitable flees..

NATO countries would be obligated to impound the aircraft and pilot under the rules of war to maintain neutrality (Switzerland did this in WWII).

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

NATO can pre-emptively attack Russia, But will it.

not even remotely true, go and read the charter,

NATO members are only required to support other NATO members if theyre attacked, If any NATO member unilaterally strikes first other members have no obligation to defend them.

Your turn to read the Charter.

There is a limited right of pre-emptive self-defence under customary law. Its continuing permissibility under the Charter hinges on the interpretation of article 51. If it permits self-defence only when an armed attack has occurred, then there can be no right to pre-emptive self-defence. However, few observers really think that a state must wait for an armed attack to actually begin before taking action. A distinction can be drawn between "preventive" self-defence, which takes place when an attack is merely possible or foreseeable, and a permitted "interventionary" or "anticipatory" self-defence, which takes place when an armed attack is imminent and inevitable. The right to use interventionary, pre-emptive armed force in the face of an imminent attack has not been ruled out by the ICJ. But state practice and opinio juris overwhelmingly suggests that there is no right of preventive self-defence under international law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force_in_international_law

-9 ( +2 / -11 )

just like the Patriot battery wherever these planes are put within Ukraine will become an instant target.

How many airbases does Ukraine even have that could host these F-16s and also have maintenance and armament capability?

When I Google, its lists 49 air bases in Ukraine. but when you start looking closely most of their wikipedia entries start with "former" or "abandoned" air base or starts talking about that its an "airport" instead.

-15 ( +3 / -18 )

Any token number of F-16s gifted will be probably older models. And any modern sensitive electronic systems will be stripped, much like the M777 howitzers had the digital fire-control system removed. Hardly a game changer and probably 6 to 9 months away.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

this is in fact a NATO escalation to even consider this.

Oh dear, the country threatening to drop nukes on everyone is upset about escalations is it?

Russia doesn't want to know what F-16s can do to whats left of its forces? Russia knows where the exit from Ukraine is.

10 ( +15 / -5 )

Alone the formulation ‘would raise questions about involvement’ indicates that they don’t give much to it or might see it a potential threat. The words used were much harsher when it was about HIMARS, Leopard tanks etc. I guess it’s already priced in, that a few jets could appear in the sky here or there, but it’s by far not considered any substantial threat or game changer as the air superiority is surely obvious and widely undoubted.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

So what?

Suck it up buttercup PUTAin and associates!

You asked for it when invading Ukraine, a sovereign state!

Most of the world stands with Ukraine, as long as it takes - and even beyond that!

Ukraine prevails!

9 ( +14 / -5 )

Will the planes be based outside of Ukraine? HIGHLY unlikely.

Are they older models that will be susceptible to Russian sams? no doubt, but also doubtful they would be used for missions that would put them at higher risk.

Russia would need to move air defense systems closer to the front, putting them at risk of being targeted.

Will the more modern Russian planes engage them? The Russian planes would have to leave their protective bubble to engage, putting them at greater risk.

14 ( +15 / -1 )

Ukraine, the Russian Government invasion, provoked, loosened the lid on Pandora box.

Now Europe must respond.

NATO involvement is dependent on how Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity within its internationally recognized borders is defined under international law.

Also how and what is counted as 'legitimate targets'.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

U.S. President Joe Biden on Friday endorsed training programs for Ukrainian pilots on F-16 fighter jets and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy assured Biden that the aircraft would not be used to go into Russian territory.

And the U.S. is not in a war with Russia. They love gaslighting their citizens.

if they fly from EU bases, and attack Russia, Russia has the right of self defense to attack these bases, even in NATO land.

Same with The US bases in Ryukyu in case of war in the Straights. Any base US sends their support to defend Taiwan will be fair game. China is itching to bomb Japan. Don’t give them the justification. Japan may become another Ukraine.

-11 ( +3 / -14 )

The F-16 must be the most beautiful airplane in the world except for the Spitfire.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Antonov said that any Ukrainian strike on Crimea would be considered a strike on Russia.

Delusion Russians, once again imagining that anything which had once been part of their faded empire remains their property. I think the CCP nabobs would also like to take slices from Crimea, knowing it's got lots of valuable real estate, the CCP bosses probably see Crimea like they do Vancouver, just another place to buy and sell property.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

The transfer of F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine would raise the question of NATO's involvement in the conflict, Russia's Ambassador to the United States Anatoly Antonov said in remarks published early on Monday.

Really Ambassador? What about those Iranian drones you use? The nKorean artillery rounds? The Chinese bullets?

Your "7-day war" is now on Day #454...you've lost over 20K soldiers...you've depleted your tanks by 70%...your private Army is mutinying...

Maybe its time for that tried and true Russian way out - the "palace coup"...

Are you interested in being President?

7 ( +10 / -3 )

That's great and all. Russia knows where to file their complaints.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

The hypothetical question, is how would Trump respond to this Russian threat?

Which is purely hypothetical because Russia never pulled this when Trump was in office.

But going forward, this might be an issue Trump has to deal with.

That's easy: he would surrender. He said he would end the conflict in 24 hours and the only way to do that is to cut and run.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

it means that NATO wants attack Russia...same thing...just using Kiev regime guys in charge...as proxy field.

action-reaction.

keep it in mind dear Joe.

-13 ( +2 / -15 )

The question remains, “What would the Russians do about Ukraine taking F-16s into their inventory?”

And the answer is, beyond what they are doing now, “Not a damn thing.”

They don’t hit airfields now because they cannot. They are incapable of establishing air superiority, much less air dominance. They are not going to go to war with NATO because they will lose, and they know it.

They are not going to nuke Ukraine because they know what happens because we have told them and they know we mean it.

The farcical idea that either NATO would allow strikes on Russia from NATO bases, or that NATO would base coalition aircraft in Ukraine this somehow “confusing the Russians and causing a war” is so hair-brained, so beyond the scope of rationality, that it makes one wonder about the basic cognitive function of those who propose it as a straw man argument.

So they lob missiles? They’re doing that now. They target the patriots? They’re failing at that rather spectacularly. They launch some type of offensive? Quite literally “with who’s army”? Certainly not their own.

So somehow they are free to acquire 3rd party arms in their war off aggression, but Ukraine acquiring arms to defend themselves is “an escalation”?

Here’s an idea: Go home!

Otherwise stop your fascist whining because ya done cried wolf too many times

And stop making pathetic bad-faith arguments for an objective fascist

7 ( +10 / -3 )

The question remains, “What would the Russians do about Ukraine taking F-16s into their inventory?”

> And the answer is, beyond what they are doing now, “Not a damn thing.”

Then why is NATO scared to commit?

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

The usual suspects who can't read. It clearly says 'the transfer of F-16's to Ukraine' nowhere did it say that the F-16's would operate from NATO countries. Further it says that Ukraine F-16's would not enter Russian airspace.

10 ( +11 / -1 )

And the answer is, beyond what they are doing now, “Not a damn thing.”

Then why is NATO scared to commit?

They aren’t. Thus the article. I wish they’d done it earlier. But they’re going to do it now.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Do what

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

They target the patriots? They’re failing at that rather spectacularly.

did you see that explosion where the Patriot was "damaged"?

Have you seen it firing since?

-13 ( +2 / -15 )

Have you seen it firing since?

Have you seen the Russian invaders launching missile volleys since?

9 ( +11 / -2 )

nowhere did it say that the F-16's would operate from NATO countries.

Nowhere did it say they wouldn’t.

Since when does Ukraine have pilots, ground crew, maintenance, repair and ordinance capabilities inside Ukraine.

Nato gonna put those crews in Ukraine for them?

-14 ( +1 / -15 )

The F16's are not the decider, just cards on the table to show political support, to force a final stage conclusion.

The Government of Russia ran out of road when the invasion was met with unprecedented extreme prejudice.

Now the involvement of the Government of China has been met with a number of outcomes that could escalate way beyond intentions.

10 ( +12 / -2 )

Nowhere did it say they wouldn’t.

What an absurd conclusion to leap to? "Well, the article doesn't explicitly say otherwise, so I'm just going to assume what I want to be true is true." Really.

Do you have any idea how large Ukraine is? Do you have any idea how difficult it would be to fly sorties out of say, Poland, and send them all the way over to east or even central Ukraine? That's hundreds of kilometers.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

Have you seen the Russian invaders launching missile volleys since?

Yes I have and the media reported such.

-12 ( +2 / -14 )

What an absurd conclusion to leap to? "Well, the article doesn't explicitly say otherwise, so I'm just going to assume what I want to be true is true." Really. 

no, more like that Ukraine has no such facilities of their own for these F-16s. And the article failure to mention clearly where they would be based.

so it’s not absurd at all if one considers they don’t have the support facilities.

-16 ( +1 / -17 )

no, more like that Ukraine has no such facilities of their own for these F-16s. And the article failure to mention clearly where they would be based.

According to whom? Google? I'm sure military leadership in the US and Ukraine are fully aware of what the Ukrainian military is and isn't capable of.

so it’s not absurd at all if one considers they don’t have the support facilities.

It is when you take a look at Google maps and figure out an f-16 would burn through over half it's fuel flying from the nearest NATO base to the front!

7 ( +8 / -1 )

That's hundreds of kilometers.

good thing F-16s have a range of 800-900 kilometers.

Also prevents them from going rogue and trying to fly into Russia if the launch from Poland not Ukraine. Then NATO also maintains physical control of those and they also aren’t captured by the Russians.

-14 ( +1 / -15 )

Eastman

it means that NATO wants attack Russia...same thing...just using Kiev regime guys in charge...as proxy field.

action-reaction.

keep it in mind dear Joe.

How is it any different from Europe and the US sending any other arms? Nothing.

Russia is the aggressor here; don't forget that.

9 ( +11 / -2 )

good thing F-16s have a range of 800-900 kilometers.

Lol they don't have a range of 800km. Also, factor in the fuel needed to return. This is very silly argument.

Have you seen anyone anywhere make the claim that the Ukrainian military was going to fly sorties out of any NATO military? I certainly haven't.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

Blacklabel

no, more like that Ukraine has no such facilities of their own for these F-16s.

How do you arrive at that conclusion?

And the article failure to mention clearly where they would be based.

So thats an invitation to jump to conclusions?

9 ( +11 / -2 )

Lol they don't have a range of 800km. 

Somebody better tell the US Air Force then:

In an air-to-surface role, the F-16 can fly more than 500 miles (860 kilometers), deliver its weapons with superior accuracy, defend itself against enemy aircraft, and return to its starting point. 

they even helpfully said “and return” just for you.

lol indeed.

-10 ( +2 / -12 )

How do you arrive at that conclusion?

the same way you arrived at the conclusion that they do?

and the same level of speculation that you have when you say they won’t be hosted at NATO based.

has anyone or any media said where they will be hosted?

-16 ( +1 / -17 )

Somebody better tell the US Air Force then

I'm not the one second guessing the US military.

> they even helpfully said “and return” just for you.

That's still not enough range to fly sorties out of Poland into combat in Eastern Ukraine, and then return to Poland.

Again, has anyone anywhere in the media claimed the f-16s were going to be flown out of foreign countries into the Ukraine theater?

10 ( +11 / -1 )

Blacklabel

How do you arrive at that conclusion?

the same way you arrived at the conclusion that they do?

Ukraine already has an Air Force. Did you not know that?

11 ( +14 / -3 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites