U.S. Response to Russia's Invasion of Ukraine

[tbm3fan]

Also, when and how, exactly, did Trump "[rebuild] our whole nuclear arsenal, stronger, bigger, better than ever before"?

That was about the time that he made New York City, stronger, bigger, and better than ever before. It was also around the same time he made the USFL stronger, bigger, better than ever before. You don't recall that time? You know it was back when ...

[tbm3fan]

The 26-year-old Cawthorn’s statement is a deviation from mainstream Republican support of Zelensky and the Ukrainian people as they defend themselves against the Russian invasion, but it echoes comments made at the first impeachment trial of then-President Donald Trump.

Someone needs to give that 26 year old twerp a good punch in the mouth

[statquo]

GOP senators urge Biden to expedite transfer of airpower, air defense systems to Ukraine

More than 40 Republican senators called on President Biden to speed up the transfer of air power and air defense systems, among other support, to Ukraine after the Pentagon announced on Wednesday that the U.S. did not support transferring Polish fighter jets to Ukraine.

“While we commend the lethal aid that your Administration has sent to Ukraine thus far, we strongly disagree with your decision to delay and deny Poland the option to transfer fighter jets to Ukraine,” the senators wrote.

“Your Administration champions the $1 billion in defense articles provided to Ukraine over the past 13 months and has definitively stated there are no restrictions in your current suite of authorities to adequately respond to Russia's lawless and bloody invasion of Ukraine,” they continued.

“We implore you to direct your Department of Defense to facilitate the transfer of aircraft, air defense systems, and other capabilities by and through our NATO partners immediately," they said.

The letter to Biden was led by Sens. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) and Mitt Romney (R-Utah) and included most of their Republican Senate colleagues, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and the upper chamber's No. 2 Republican, Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.).

The development comes after Poland earlier this week offered to send all of its MiG-29 fighter jets to an American air base in Germany so the U.S. could facilitate their transfer to Ukraine. But the Pentagon explained on Wednesday that the U.S. government did not support their transfer at the moment, worrying the move could be perceived as escalatory.

“The intelligence community has assessed that the transfer of MiG-29s 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,” Pentagon press secretary John Kirby told reporters.

“Therefore, we also assess the transfer of the MiG-29s to Ukraine to be high-risk,” he said.

Kirby also told reporters that the U.S. was continuing to send Ukraine weapons.

"We believe the best way to support Ukrainian defense is by providing them the weapons and the systems that they need most to defeat Russian aggression. In particular, anti-armor, and air defense. We along with other nations continue to send them these weapons and we know that they're being used with great effect," he said.

In addition to Kirby's comments, the White House referred The Hill to a statement European Command Commander Gen. Tod Wolters issued on Thursday.

"We believe the most effective way to support the Ukrainian military in their fight against Russia is to provide increased amounts of anti-tank weapons and air defense systems, which is on-going with the international community. The Ukrainians are making excellent use of these weapons now," Wolters said.

Ukraine has urged for the establishment of a no-fly zone — which has been met with resistance from the U.S. and international allies — and the transfer of MiG-29s, which Ukrainian pilots have already been trained to use.

— Updated at 11:48 p.m.

Call me cynical, but it feels like some of these Republican politicians are trying to goat the Biden admin into WW3 or some type of direct escalation so they can blame them for it... I mean we've been through this countless times on this board why it's problematic and highly risky to transfer jets from NATO countries into Ukraine. These senators and politicians should know this as well. So why do they keep bringing this up? Or if they do know it, what is their alternative?

[zraver]

Call me cynical, but it feels like some of these Republican politicians are trying to goat the Biden admin into WW3 or some type of direct escalation so they can blame them for it... I mean we've been through this countless times on this board why it's problematic and highly risky to transfer jets from NATO countries into Ukraine. These senators and politicians should know this as well. So why do they keep bringing this up? Or if they do know it, what is their alternative?

Biden thinks he has to say no, so he says no. This let's GoP portray him as weak headed into the mid terms. It's aimed at domestic goals not starting WWIII.

I don't think it would start WWIII. Soviet VVS pilots took an active role over Mig Alley and against IAF in Egypt. Soviet SAM operators were active in Vietnam and the ME. The USSR shot down multiple recon aircraft...

[Officer of Engineers]

Biden thinks he has to say no, so he says no. This let's GoP portray him as weak headed into the mid terms. It's aimed at domestic goals not starting WWIII.

I don't think it would start WWIII. Soviet VVS pilots took an active role over Mig Alley and against IAF in Egypt. Soviet SAM operators were active in Vietnam and the ME. The USSR shot down multiple recon aircraft...

Plausible deniability.

[statquo]

Biden thinks he has to say no, so he says no. This let's GoP portray him as weak headed into the mid terms. It's aimed at domestic goals not starting WWIII.

I don't think it would start WWIII. Soviet VVS pilots took an active role over Mig Alley and against IAF in Egypt. Soviet SAM operators were active in Vietnam and the ME. The USSR shot down multiple recon aircraft...

Oh I know a lot of it is playing to the domestic front. It's just annoying. Like there was an outcry to sanction Russian oil and gas. Well everyone is already complaining about high gas prices (rightfully so). Sanctioning Russian oil and gas will make the prices go up more. So they sanction Russian oil and gas. Prices go up higher. Same people who were calling for it are complaining that prices went up again.

I don't really think it would start WW3 either.

[Officer of Engineers]

I don't really think it would start WW3 either.

Really? Ukrainian piloted planes are fair game under the GC. The Russians can well exercise hot intercept. That means it is perfectly legal for the Russians to shoot down Ukrainian piloted warplanes inside NATO airspace. What should our response be? Do we provide a safe haven from which the Ukrainians can conduct military operations ... which would make us legal combattants in this war ... and there is zero plausible deniability here.

It is NOT a good idea. The only way we can give Ukrainian warplanes is that we truck them to the border and they take over from there.

[Monash]

Biden thinks he has to say no, so he says no. This let's GoP portray him as weak headed into the mid terms.

From the perspective of the GOP anything Biden does at this point will be described as either timid or reckless. Don't sanction gas 'timid'. Do sanction gas 'reckless'. Don't send in US forces 'timid'. Do send in US forces' reckless. Its how politics is played. Everything your opponent does is wrong and if you win and end up doing exactly the same thing? Well that's because the 'circumstances have changed' not because experts in the area concerned have recommended exactly the same options they gave your predecessor.

[statquo]

Really? Ukrainian piloted planes are fair game under the GC. The Russians can well exercise hot intercept. That means it is perfectly legal for the Russians to shoot down Ukrainian piloted warplanes inside NATO airspace. What should our response be? Do we provide a safe haven from which the Ukrainians can conduct military operations ... which would make us legal combattants in this war ... and there is zero plausible deniability here.

It is NOT a good idea. The only way we can give Ukrainian warplanes is that we truck them to the border and they take over from there.

I've read it in the other thread, I understand.

I wasn't implying it's a good idea for NATO, But I'm trying to judge the Russian's risk as well. I mean the risk goes both ways. Is Russia willing to risk WW3, even if it's in their right, to shoot down Ukrainian jets in NATO airspace? If the Ukrainians are running sorties out of NATO airbases? Probably.. But using NATO airspace to transit to Ukrainian airstrips in the west so they can be used from there? Is it WW3, when an alternative is the Russians could/should be able to just shoot them down conventionally in Ukraine skies anyways? Is that really their line in the sand?

And hasn't plausible deniability been thrown out the window yet? NATO and EU countries aren't even pretending to hide sending weapons and equipment. We're publicly debating sending jets.

I have a question based off of my ignorance though. If Ukrainian piloted planes are fair game under the GC, and it is legal for the Russians to shoot them down over NATO airspace, is it the Ukrainian pilot or the plane that makes it a legal target? Because if it's the pilot, can't we just use 'volunteer' pilots to transit them then?

[Double Edge]

US response to Russia invasion of Ukraine ?

Just one word. CIA.

Impressive work. Will Americans acknowledge this ?

The info ops and outing all the Russian movements are the only thing delaying a capitulation of Kiev

They've done this before IIANM. the '73 Arab - Israel war comes to mind.

[Officer of Engineers]

I wasn't implying it's a good idea for NATO, But I'm trying to judge the Russian's risk as well. I mean the risk goes both ways. Is Russia willing to risk WW3, even if it's in their right, to shoot down Ukrainian jets in NATO airspace? If the Ukrainians are running sorties out of NATO airbases? Probably.. But using NATO airspace to transit to Ukrainian airstrips in the west so they can be used from there? Is it WW3, when an alternative is the Russians could/should be able to just shoot them down conventionally in Ukraine skies anyways? Is that really their line in the sand?

During the Korean War, MacArthur wanted to attack airbases inside China for launching aistrikes into Korea. Truman said no. You think Putin has the same restraint as Truman?

And hasn't plausible deniability been thrown out the window yet? NATO and EU countries aren't even pretending to hide sending weapons and equipment. We're publicly debating sending jets.

I was stating why we didn't start WWIII during those events in question. We were not sure who was flying those planes or manning those rockets until months/years after the fact.

I have a question based off of my ignorance though. If Ukrainian piloted planes are fair game under the GC, and it is legal for the Russians to shoot them down over NATO airspace, is it the Ukrainian pilot or the plane that makes it a legal target? Because if it's the pilot, can't we just use 'volunteer' pilots to transit them then?

It's the plane. Volunteer pilots are mercs and subject to criminal code, not military code, meaning they can be shot on the spot when captured.

[Monash]

US response to Russia invasion of Ukraine ?

Just one word. CIA.

Impressive work. Will Americans acknowledge this ?

The info ops and outing all the Russian movements are the only thing delaying a capitulation of Kiev

They've done this before IIANM. the '73 Arab - Israel war comes to mind.

I would suggest that while the CIA is no doubt playing a role the lions share of the credit for tracking Russian deployments and intentions has to lie with other agencies, particularly the NRA, DIA and those branches of the military doing all the heavy lifting on real time communications interception. The CIA will be busy trying to lift Putin's skirt and see whats going on underneath.

[zraver]

Biden Admin deserves a lot of credit pre-invasion for destroying the Russian narrative through frequent and factual revelations about Russian intentions.

It backfooted the Russians inside Russia. Russia still has protests going on.

[tantalus]

https://twitter.com/oryxspioenkop/st...42116016128005

Not bombing nuclear facilites is a good idea so encouraging a ceasefire to avoid such an event is on face value obvious.

Is it basically the same with Tulsi above. Warzones in countries with bio labs is bad and she has a strong bias to speaking about that particular tail risk due to her world view.

Am i missing something important?

[tantalus]

Biden Admin deserves a lot of credit pre-invasion for destroying the Russian narrative through frequent and factual revelations about Russian intentions.

It backfooted the Russians inside Russia. Russia still has protests going on.

Also carried politcal risk if the russians backed down they would look foolish although perhaps intel convinced the biden admin that was a low probability so it possessed the opposite, an actual upside/reward asymmetrical political bet by being first and open...