No idea what Ukraine is planning, but I hope it isn’t a counteroffensive (unless it’s limited in nature and designed to keep Russia off balance before its own spring offensive). I would be advising to let Russia’s offensive culminate before striking back.
NATO is already on an offensive via proxy at this point. But the reason I believe it will progress beyond that if Ukraine falters is because if you think NATO is sending all this military aid to Ukraine for free, you will find out differently in due time.
I actually agree with you here. Every seized Russian asset should go through forfeiture proceedings to help rebuild Ukraine and reimburse NATO members.
No. NATO is not on the offensive via proxy. What an absurd statement. NATO was NEVER going to attack Russia. Ever. In the struggle between Ukraine and Russia, there has only ever been one aggressor - that is Russia.
Excellent news. Get them as many jets as they have pilots to fly them, train as many new pilots as NATO has available jets to spare.
Not a bad idea, but there won’t be enough Russian seized assets to rebuild Ukraine, let alone reimburse NATO members. Even if Ukraine had the Russian army fully encircled today, there wouldn’t be much at all NATO would reap asset wise.
A state or alliance of states need not be the aggressor to become involved in a proxy war. Those are not mutually exclusive.
Sure you can be in a proxy war. Of course. But nato is on the defensive. If they were on the offensive long range missiles would be raining down all over Russia hitting infrastructure and military production. That’s not what’s happening…
You are bristling as if somehow “proxy” is a dirty word that should cause us shame. Think of it this way: “proxy” is the Russian excuse for why their war — which was supposed to last no more than two months, showcase how superior their armed forces were to the world, and frighten NATO into abandoning Eastern Europe — has turned into a political and military disaster. We’ve given Ukraine weapons is all. They’ve done all of the fighting. At the very least this war has demonstrated that the gap in technology between Russian and NATO weapons is a lot larger than anyone anticipated. We had all bought into this myth about how tactically and technologically proficient the Russian armed forces had become under Putin. I believed it. Apparently, Putin believed it, too. Instead of military competence we’ve been treated to a list of whining excuses why Russia can’t decisively beat a country a fraction of its size: “We aren’t fighting Ukraine. We’re fighting a NATO proxy army.” “We can’t achieve air superiority because no one can anymore.” “We didn’t take Kyiv because we didn’t really want to.” If Russia and their useful idiots want to think it’s some kind of insult to point and whine “proxy!” then I say just let them.
I think the F-16's would do well enough against Russian jets. Not sure about the S-300/S-400 anti-aircraft missile batteries. Only one way to find out, though. If the Russian missile batteries don't knock the F-16's out of the air on the first try, they may not get a second try.
I wish we had given Ukraine A-10 Warthog jets when the war first broke out. Especially with the long lines of tanks and trucks driving to Kiev. Talk about shooting fish in a barrel. The war would have been halfway over before the end of the first week.
You need to be free of prohibitive interference from enemy radar threats for A-10s to be effective. I’m not even optimistic about F-16s in close proximity to the front, but the decision makers on that probably know a lot more than I do. My strong impression is that we already have accumulated enough data on the Russian IADS to know that it would not be effective against our stealth aircraft, but maybe we have also learned enough about how to effectively employ conventional fighters as well. We will see.
(shrugs) I guess one could argue that since Ukraine has conducted two successful counteroffensives that put Russia to flight in an embarrassing manner, and since Ukraine is a “proxy” army, it follows that NATO has conducted “proxy offensives,” blah blah blah. My answer to that is, “So?”
fair enough. It just bothers me when I see even the faintest hint that someone is painting nato as an aggressor. Because it just ain’t so in this case. So fine. Counter offensive proxy lol
I mean you just got done talking about Ukraine’s “counter-offensive.” An offensive largely girded with NATO weaponry. NATO is 100% going on the offensive in a proxy war. That, in of itself, is not necessarily morally wrong. But I will take it one step further and say that NATO is not doing it out of the kindness of their hearts. There’s a reason we’re sending billions in military support to Ukraine and my gut tells me if NATO doesn’t achieve their ends, it will escalate further. Again, I am not criticizing NATO’s position. I’m just telling it how I see it. NATO got their Maidan. Putin reacted with “little green men.” NATO began arming Ukraine. Here we are.
As long as those ends are restoring Ukraine’s 2014 borders and denying Russia’s ability to normalize conquest whenever a stronger country declares “That used to be mine, and I want it back!” then I support whatever escalation is necessary.
