France is NOT going to send troops to Ukraine - NO WAY Russia can make significant advances in Ukraine this year - Europe has ALREADY stepped up and made sure Ukraine has enough ammunition
France is NOT going to send troops to Ukraine - NO WAY Russia can make significant advances in Ukraine this year - Europe has ALREADY stepped up and made sure Ukraine has enough ammunition
First there are lots of claims that Macron is going to send troops to Ukraine. This makes no sense. Ukraine wants equipment, shells, missiles, fighter jets, tanks, infantry fighting vehicles NOT soldiers.
Macron will NOT send troops to Ukraine unless
1. Zelensky asks for them (he won’t) AND
2. all of NATO approve it (they won’t).
Zelensky recently said on French TV
"as long as Ukraine holds, the French army can stay in French territory."
Zelensky also said the situation on the front line is
"much better than during the last three months,"
and that
"Russia's advance has been stopped."
Graphic from: Volodymyr Zelenskyy in 2022
Quotes from the interview here, on BFMTV on March 11, responding to what Macron said: Zelensky: As long as Ukraine holds, French army can stay in France
France and other countries bluff vaguely about sending troops in the far future, do nothing,
Zelensky doesn't want their soldiers,
most NATO countries don't want to send them.
France is not going to send troops unless all of NATO agree
France, Lithuania, Poland etc do NOT want a world war they just are bluffing back to try to counteract Putin's bluffs
meanwhile they are building up the European defence industry to make sure Ukraine has the equipment it needs to fight this war.
You could go to sleep in the fall and hibernate all winter and come out of hibernation in the spring and nothing would have happened in Ukraine of any strategic significance just more slow attrition.
There is a huge amount of spin going on. Right now there are numerous articles and military experts claiming that Russia could quickly overcome Ukraine.
They never say HOW Russia is supposed to win against Ukraine.
The same military experts when asked to analyse the situation on the ground in Ukraine will say that Russia won’t be able to advance further after taking Avdiivka in Donetsk oblast, that they can only take small regions in the outskirts of Kupiansk in Karkhiv oblast and that they have no chance of crossing back over the Dnipro river in Kherson oblast.
Nobody even suggests that Russia has any chances of a counteroffensive in Zaporizhzhi oblast or southwards from Belarus to Ukraine.
So how is Russia supposed to suddenly take over vast areas of Ukraine?
You can quickly filter out political or military spin by looking out for the things they DON’T SAY.
It is spin (or else just someone who knows very little about the war) if your source:
doesn't mention the way Europe is stepping up to make shells and buy shells to supply to Ukraine
doesn't mention the numerous issues Russia has supplying the war from its side
doesn’t mention how vastly superior NATO equipment is to Russian equipment
doesn’t mention that Russian most modern air defences are vulnerable to decades old out of date NATO technology
tells you that Russia will suddenly take over much of Ukraine
but also tells you it can’t cross the Dnipro river or the Oskill river along the edge of Karkhiv oblast or move beyond Avdiivka in Donetsk oblast - or else just doesn’t discuss the detailed strategy at all
Try evaluating the articles that scare you by those criteria. If they miss out any of those things it is political or military spin.
On those last two points:
[Please click to unblur the graphics - these are just maps - Quora’s algorithm just seems to blur all graphics on some topics]
TEXT ON GRAPHIC How is Russia supposed to quickly take large areas of Ukraine?
Russia can’t cross the Oskill river to the main city of Kupiansk
Russia can’t push beyond Avdiivka
No way for Russia to advance here
Russia can’t cross the Dnipro river
See also:
CLAIMS THAT RUSSIA WILL TAKE OVER LARGE AREAS OF UKRAINE DON’T MATCH DETAILED PREDICTIONS FOR UKRAINE - RUSSIA CAN ONLY ADVANCE A FEW KILOMETERS IN TWO ISOLATED POCKETS AND MOST OF THAT ADVANCE IS ALREADY STOPPED
Going into this in more detail, if you check strategy analysts they make it very clear that
The Avdiivka advance is stopped and took 4 months for Russia to take a small pocket of 5 miles by 5 miles
The Kupiansk advance is about a small part of Kupiansk on the Russian side of the Oskill river and it is well fortified so Russia is not likely to make significant progress there
Russia has no chance in advancing at Kherson oblast
Nobody even suggests any Russian advances over the rest of the front line.
This is a short summary of the situation in detail along the front line, summarizing what strategy experts are saying about each region of the war:
Text on graphic: Russia is trying to take small villages on the outskirts of Kupiansk - not likely to cross river to main city.
Russia took Avdiivka after 4 months of fighting, 5 miles by 5 miles, losing nearly 400 tanks, losing 10 tanks for every 1 tank Ukraine lost
Ukraine kept both footholds across the Dnipro river here
Minefields washed away by Nova Kakhova flood not replaced
Ukraine kept its foothold behind the Russian front lines outside Verbove
Russia often loses fighter jets over Belgorod and occupied Ukraine
Russia can’t fly command posts over the Azov sea
Ukraine continues to keep the Russian Black Sea fleet out of Crimea.
Background: ISW interactive map for March 20, 2024
I hope you can see how this claim that Russia is going to suddenly take over large areas of Ukraine rings very hollow. It simply makes no sense.
The claim is that Ukraine has such shortages of artillery that Russia is going to advance suddenly and the Ukrainian defence will collapse. This does not match the reality on the ground. Ukraine is not dependent on the US for those shells.
It did have a temporary shortage but it wasn’t anything like as serious as the media made it out to be because Europe stepped up to fill the gap left by the US.
Europe alone will find it hard to keep Ukraine supplied through 2024 though by 2025 it will have built up the capacity to keep it going indefinitely. But Czechia has sourced artillery shells from other countries, likely South Korea, Pakistan or India or all three. Ukraine also makes its own shells.
RUSSIA HAS FAR MORE PROBLEMS WITH ARTILLERY THAN UKRAINE
First, some background. Russia is heavily dependent on shells to advance, it makes its way through cities like Avdiivka and Bakhmut by essentially bombing everything, the industry, houses, everything.
Ukraine also needs lots of shells but the way it uses them is far more precise, targeting tanks, command units, fuel dumps, supply lines like bridges and railway lines, and ammunition dumps. Russia has had very little success trying to target the Ukrainian supply lines.
So Ukraine needs less shells than Russia and Russia uses mostly dumb shells without precise targeting. Russia is able to produce lots of shells but not enough and it is managing so far mainly because of supplies of a million shells from North Korea but those will run out.
UKRAINE’S SUPPLY PROBLEMS FOR SHELLS IS ESSENTIALLY SOLVED NOW
Ukraine had a temporary shortfall of artillery shells because of the hold up of the Ukraine bill in Congress, but always had some.
Europe promised a million shells but was only able to produce half a million.
The problem is that it takes a year to 18 months for European companies to complete a new order for shells. They need to increase capacity but this takes time.
Europe will be up to 1.4 million a year by the end of 2024. Russian capacity is expected to reach 1.3 million by the same point in time, from Defense One who are a good reliable source on this sort of thing:
By the end of this year, Europe will be able to manufacture around 1.4 million 155mm rounds a year, Borrell added.
Once Congress approves funds for Ukraine, the U.S. will be able to manufacture 1.2 million 155mm rounds by October 2025.
Assuming a maximum production rate, the U.S. and EU would manufacture 2.6 million 155mm rounds per year by 2025. Russian production capacity for 152mm rounds, the Soviet equivalent to 155mm, is estimated to grow to 1.3 million by the end of 2024.
. It takes Europe at least a year to fill a Ukrainian order for artillery shells
So, in 2025 Ukraine’s situation will be far better even without the US bill. With the US support it will have 200,000 a month. Without it will have more like 100,000 a month.
That 1.3 million is now increased to 1.4 to 1.7 million by the end of 2024 and 2 million a year by early 2026.
A list of 31 projects was selected across 15 countries (mainly in Germany, Norway, France, Italy, Greece, Czechia, Finland), focused on five needs: explosives (processing chemicals and final product), powder, shells, missiles, testing, and reconditioning.
…
Shells: 600.000 shells/year, bringing the total shell production capacity around 1,4 to 1,7 millions a year by the end of 2024, and with the aim of surpassing the 2 millions / year early 2026.
So Europe is stepping up but it will take it through to the end of 2024 to reach 1.4 to 1.7 million a year, and then to reach 2 million a year through to early 2026.
But there are many other countries can make these same shells. The main sources are South Korea, Pakistan and India.
This is where Czechia comes in.
European Union members can also purchase 155mm shells for Ukraine from outside the EU. Pakistan, India and South Korea all make the shells.
However, it has been difficult to supply Ukraine with 155mm shells from outside the EU, Salm said. That’s due to the desire to buy European, a lack of European orders, and “another very large obstacle in the room: that is, the willingness of third countries to actually sell,” Salm said.
. It takes Europe at least a year to fill a Ukrainian order for artillery shells
Czechia has found a source for 800,000 shells of which it has funding for 500,000. Then it recently found a source for another 700,000. That means that if it gets the funding for all of those which is $3.2 billion, then Ukraine will have 1.5 million shells for this year.
“[Czechia] has sourced around 800,000 artillery shells from a diverse coalition of suppliers spanning the globe and identified another 700,000 that could be secured with extra funds,” the text reads.
Ukraine will be able to receive the first shipments of weapons in the coming weeks. By the end of the year, a total of 300 units of Soviet-caliber weapons and 500,000 units of NATO-caliber ammunition will be delivered.
“More shells will be available as funding comes in, the Czech government said. Altogether, Czech officials say around 3 billion euros, equivalent to $3.3 billion, would secure around 1.5 million shells—a fraction of the $60 billion aid package for Ukraine now stranded in the US Congress,” The Wall Street Journal writes.
The Czech Republic avoids making statements about the origins of the ammunition and the expenses involved in transactions for Ukrainian defenders to acquire shells. Reports suggest that some of the providers include allies of Russia.
Prague is set to broaden the initiative once funding for the first 800,000 shells is secured. This project is currently supported financially by Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Lithuania, France, Norway, Canada, Sweden, and Portugal.
Then Ukraine itself is making an unknown number of NATO callibre shells itself.
This plus everything else means the ammunition supply problem is essentially solved even if the US bill doesn't come through, easier if the US bill does come through.
OTHER FUNDING FOR UKRAINE
We have:
US found an extra $300 million for a new package for Ukraine including ATACMS.
US has $4.2 billion in presidential drawdown authority they can still use. They are reluctant to do it without funding to replenish the US military stocks they send to Ukraine. But many of the systems they send to Ukraine are out of date anyway and due to be scrapped in the near future. Pentagon considering tapping last source of Ukraine military funding as Congress stalls on additional aid | CNN Politics
Some EU countries have also found a way to get an extra $5 billion military funding. . EU and US find stop-gap funding for Ukraine weapons
France will give up to €3 billion in military aid for 2024. That’s well over $3.2 billion. Macron corners far left, far right with vote on Ukraine aid
Ukraine plans to spend $7 billion in 2024 on arms production, repairs, and purchases alone. Institute for the Study of War
Germany has allocated $7.1 billion for 2024 Military support for Ukraine | Federal Government
Adding that all up, it’s 0.3 + 4.2 + 5 + 3.2 + 7 + 7.1 = $26.8 billion in military funding for Ukraine for 2024 if the US uses all its drawdown authority. Leave out the US drawdown and it is 5 + 3.2 + 7 + 7.1 = $22.3 billion.
To that we likely add the $3.2 billion total of shells if countries come through on the Czechia funding for the extra 1 million shells likely sourced from India, Pakistan or South Korea or all three.
Europe is stepping up in many ways. The EU as a whole is committed to Ukraine for the long haul. As is
Germany
UK
France
Scandinavian countries
Baltic states
Poland
They are not going to reduce their commitment to Ukraine but will step up more and more to fill the gap left by the USA.
BLOG: Europe is actually the top supporter of Ukraine not the USA - and how European manufacturers are stepping up to support Ukraine with air defence, munitions etc to take the place of the USA](Europe is actually the top supporter of Ukraine not the USA - and how European manufacturers are stepping up to support Ukraine with air defence, munitions etc to take the place of the USA
RUSSIA’S RAPID ADVANCES IN SPRING 2022 WERE BECAUSE UKRAINE ONLY HAD ANCIENT SOVIET UNION EQUIPMENT, ALMOST NOTHING FROM NATO - IT CAN’T DO THAT AGAIN
In spring 2022 the issue was that it didn't have any modern equipment. Its most modern equipment came from the Soviet era from pre 1991. It didn't have modern anti-tank missiles except the few dozenJavelins it got from the USA, didn't have modern anti-aircraft defence apart from the small number of Stingers that Lithuania and Latvia sent it on the day before the invasion only useful for shooting down low flying jets and helicopters. It was making lots of military equipment but nothing even as modern as HiMARS.
But Ukraine had the scientists, engineers, factories etc. What it lacked was the knowhow and modern equipment. But now it has them, it is quickly tooling up to make modern equipment with the help of NATO countries to make NATO quality shells and howitzers etc of its own.
This is all in RESPONSE to Russia's invasion. If Russia hadn't invaded Ukraine all Ukraine would have today is a few dozen Javelin anti-tank missiles by way of modern equipment not useful except for preventing an invasion by tanks.
But because of Russia's invasion it is modernizing and it is shaping up to become another major military defense hub in Europe similarly to East Germany. It is also entering into partnerships with others in the industry throughout Europe and in the USA.
Another thing Ukraine is doing is its hugely ramping up on military production of small quadcopter drones.
These are turning out to be very important in the war. A small quadcopter drone costing hundreds of dollars can destroy tanks and advanced equipment that costs millions of dollars. Very asymmetric.
Ukraine is going to ramp up to a million of these small drones in 2024. Russia will only ramp up to 200,000.
Ukraine is now the leader in Europe on drone warfare indeed in the world. It is able to test new designs on the field and modify them in an active war against the Russian army, which no other country in Europe can do.
I go into some of the details here:
BLOG: Europe is actually the top supporter of Ukraine not the USA - and how European manufacturers are stepping up to support Ukraine with air defence, munitions etc to take the place of the USA](Europe is actually the top supporter of Ukraine not the USA - and how European manufacturers are stepping up to support Ukraine with air defence, munitions etc to take the place of the USA
UKRAINE IS NOT SHORT OF SOLDIERS - THE PLAN FOR 400,000 NEW SOLDIERS WHICH UKRAINE IS DEBATING IS TO REPLACE SOLDIERS ON THE FRONT LINE WHEN THEY RETIRE AFTER 3 YEARS OF WAR IN 2025
Yes Ukraine is looking to recruit 400,000 new soldiers (various figures) NO this does NOT mean they have too few soldiers to fight - they are replacements for spring 2025 onwards when soldiers complete 3 years at the front
Replying to Doomsday Debunked Facebook comment: Robert Walker
Russia has been using these human wave tactics all through the war and Ukraine has no problem holding them back. Zelensky did NOT say that recruitment is dire. Ukraine is carefully considering what happens when the first batch of soldiers complete 3 years. They think they should set a limit of 3 years of service but before they can do that they need to recruit more soldiers because it takes 6 months minimum to train a soldier to be ready for the front line. So they need to think now about what they will do when it comes to spring 2025 and the first soldiers will want to leave having spent 3 years on the front line.
It is NOT about any imminent shortage of soldiers - it can't be because it would be 6 months before any recruits could be ready for the front line and there is certainly no huge urgency about this bill which is slowly being discussed in the Ukrainian parliament and various alternatives looked at and this has been going on for months now.
Remember that if Ukraine trains 400,000 soldiers today, they won't be able to fight until at least 6 months from today as that is how long it takes to train a soldier so they can fight on the front line. By February 2025 the first of nearly a million soldiers will have been fighting for 3 years. If the proposal goes through that they can then demobilize at 3 years then Ukraine needs to find nearly a million soldiers as 2025 progresses, as they gradually come to the end of the 3 years from when they were first recruited - unless the war is over by then of course.
Also bear in mind that Ukraine might also want to increase the size of their army a bit, and that some tens of thousands have likely died or out of action by now. I don't think it is likely they are in the hundreds of thousands died or out of action, while the Russians might well be due to a clearly far higher number of Russians dying than Ukrainians whatever the actual numbers are. But they have likely lost at least 10s of 1000s which they need to replace.
So it may be a mix of
- replacement - wanting to increase the size of the army for major counteroffensives and in response to the Russian mobilizations. - getting ready for 2025 when according to the 3 year limit proposal hundreds of thousands of their soldiers ma stop fighting and they need to start training of their replacements at least 6 months before.
However it is not about soldiers for defending the front line this spring or through to summer or about counteroffensives, the earliest those soldiers could be ready for counteroffensive if they start recruitment today is in September. But they are not in any hurry to start recruitment of those 400,000 so they are surely thinking more about spring 2025 and starting to replace them from February 2025 at the end of the 3 year period of any who were recruited in February 2022.
This is reasonably recent on the mobilization but it's a fortnight ago don't know if maybe things have happened since then Revised mobilization bill seeks to reinforce conscription in Ukraine in 2024
WHY UKRAINE IS ON THE DEFENSIVE IN WINTER AND ONLY DOES ITS COUNTEROFFENSIVES IN SPRING TO THE FALL - FAR BETTER FIGHTING CONDITIONS IN SUMMER
The reason the Ukrainians tried to hold onto Avdiivka is because the defenders have an advantage. Usually 3 to 1. It seems to have been far higher in Avdiivka especially for tanks which are easily counted with open source intelligence. Russia lost 10 for every 1 tank the Ukrainians lost.
According to one very detailed open source intelligence source focusing on Avdiivka with links for every item destroyed, the figures were:
224 tanks lost by Russia for 21 tanks lost by Ukraine.
375 armoured fighting vehicles + infantry mobility vehicles lost by Russa, 25 lost by Ukraine.
6 anti-aircraft systems lost by Russian, none by Ukraine, and so on.
Others give higher figures for the tanks, probably looking at a larger region / longer period of time but what matters is the ratio.
I go into details here:
They know they will have to face the Russian equipment and soldiers at some point.
If they face the same tanks in a counteroffensive they can expect to lose 3 tanks for every 1 tank the Russians lose assuming they have the same types of tanks on each side (less if they have better tanks as they will do with NATO tanks).
If they fight the same tanks as defenders they are the ones with the advantage.
While if Ukraine was to attack in winter like Russia - it would have to drive its tanks on the main roads because of the mud season and might well lose 10 tanks for every 1 that Russia loses just like Russia does.
Since Russia has such large numbers of tanks or at least did before the war started the only chance the Ukrainians had was to tip the odds in their favour. They do that by setting up situations where the Russians are attacking all the time as well as situations where they can capture Russian tanks. They did that with Bakhmut in 2022-3 and the did that again in Avdiivka in 2023-4.
So - there is no way that Ukraine is going to do a counteroffensive in winter. It can’t sustain a loss rate of 10 tanks for every 1 tank the Russians lose. They don’t try. Their soldiers instead retreat very slowly and that way they destroy large numbers of tanks that they would otherwise have to fight in summer.
So that is how Ukraine thinks and why it has settled into this rhythm of retreating in winter and advancing in summer.
Ukraine could advance in winter during very cold spells when the ground is frozen. The issue is that their soldiers would be at high risk of frostbite and of hypothermia. Ukraine cares about its soldiers so it is not going to do that. Also it has fewer soldiers to lose than Russia.
See:
Ukraine could have fought far harder at Avdiivka and pushed the Ukrainians back but they preserve their strength for the fighting season in summer which starts in April.
In winter Ukraine focuses on the war of attrition. In process of losing Avdiivka for instance it also shot down several fighter jets, over all of Ukraine it shot down one a day on average for some time and it shot down airborne command units probably using Patriot. It sunk more of the Black Sea fleet which is now stationed the far side of the Black Sea from Ukraine.
Ukraine is in a very strong not a weak position and it got like that through this war of attrition where its best chances are through setting up situations where Russia loses far more than they do.
RUSSIA WILL CERTAINLY NOT INVADE NATO - IT IS FAR FAR WEAKER THAN NATO COUNTRIES
And no - Russia certainly is not going to invade NATO. It is incredibly weak. They are talking about possibly after the war is over and if it then focuses on rebuilding back to 2022 approaching levels of military capability as its top priority. Not now.
And it still wouldn't invade NATO the whole point is that NATO is too strong and they need to ensure it stays like that.
It is natural for military generals to prepare for the worst, that is what they are paid to do. But they are not necessarily very realistic scenarios. And NATO is preparing in many ways, it is preparing to be able to face even the Soviet Union at the height of its strength, seems like. There is no way even a Russia that prioritizes rebuilding its military can achieve anything like the capabilities of the former Soviet Union. It seems to be an over-reaction.
Russia has no chance of Kherson city or Karkhiv.
And remember the fighting season hasn't started yet and Ukraine does its advances in the fighting season not in winter.
THE VASTLY SUPERIOR NATO EQUIPMENT
We can see how vastly superior the NATO equipment is with for example the air defences and missiles.
The most modern Russian S-400 air defences were not able to stop the 1980s technology HiMARS missiles when the Ukrainians used them to attack the Antonovsky bridge.
Starting in fall 2023, Ukraine started destroying these systems and has destroyed several of them now.
The first report was in September 2023 when Ukraine destroyed units of an S-300 and of an S-400 in Crimea.
. Russian air defence system destroyed in Crimea, Ukraine says
Then it also did it in Luhansk:
The S-400 Triumf, which has the Nato codename SA-21 Growler, is a mobile surface-to-air missile system (SAM) that is capable of engaging 36 targets simultaneously.
This includes all types of aircraft from reconnaissance, strategic and tactical through to medium-range ballistic missiles.UK intelligence recently reported Ukraine had probably destroyed at least four Russian long-range air defence systems.
Amongst those destroyed were three of Russia's prized S-400 Triumf missile systems, which were destroyed in the Luhansk region, according to Russian media reports.
. S-400: Ukraine exposing weaknesses in Russia's most advanced surface-to-air missile system
Meanwhile the NATO Patriot system is able to shoot down 100% of the most modern Russian Kalilbr hypersonic missiles.
This started in May 2023 and is now a regular occurrence.
Tweet here:
https://twitter.com/DefenceHQ/status/1658715269361987589
Every air defence system can be saturated if you fire enough missiles at it, before it can reload with new interceptors fast enough. Russia saved up enough missiles to saturate the Patriot on December 29th 2023 but that was a one off it’s not managed to do that again. It likely saved up most of its missile production for several months for that attack.
So in a war with NATO, Russia would be able to saturate one Patriot air defence system every few months and get a few missiles through. Assuming that is all it did with its long range missiles. That is not enough to fight a conventional war with NATO.
But it gets far worse.
Remember NATO has mainly sent out of date equipment to Ukraine which it has in stockpiles that it is never going to use itself. Apart from the artillery shells. The cluster munitions were illegal for the US to use so it was never going to be able to do anything except dispose of them.
NATO’S FIGHTER JETS ARE 5TH GENERATION, RUSSIA’S BEST FIGHTER JETS ARE VASTLY INFERIOR GENERATION 4.5
The F-16s that NATO plans to send to Ukraine in the near future are out of date for NATO.
NATO now uses the F-35, a fifth generation fighter jet. Russia’s best fighter jets are generation 4.5 which is not a patch on 5th generation.
F-35s are built from ground up to be radar invisible, they can see Russian fighter jets or air defences that try to look at them from far too far away for them to see the F-35
Each F-35 is its own airborne command station - it doesn’t need help of any other resources to do the acquiring of targets, and firing of missiles. It uses its own radar systems, doesn’t need help from any other radar systems on the ground or in the air.
F-35s have been likened to an invisible team in a game of football. If one team is invisible it has a huge advantage
Russian scientists have the knowledge to build a 5th generation fighter jet, what they lack is the funding - the F-35 was very expensive to develop. Russia has a far weaker economy and its oligarchs also syphon away a lot of the funding that is meant for defense
Russia’s 5th generation fighter jet is not combat ready, nowhere near, and may never be.
magine if your team was invisible., how easily you could win a game of football. Tht is how much better the NATO F-35 jets are than anything Russia has Background image: File:US Navy 090608-N-3283P-018 The Yokosuka Seahawks face off against the Yokohama Harbors during the U.S. Forces Japan-American Football league at Yokosuka Field.jpg - Wikimedia Commons
Russia’s only 5th generation fighter, the Su-57 is not yet ready for combat and may be never be. Its best fighter jets are equivalent to the now decades old NATO F-16 in capability. . Fifth-generation fighter - Wikipedia Russia's best fighter jets are fourth generation or 4.5 . Fourth-generation fighter - Wikipedia They aren't a patch on the F-35 and would just have to fly away to get out of its reach.
This is Billie Flynn an F-35 test pilot interviewed by Aviation Today in April. He talks about how if F-35s were used in Ukraine, in a parallel world (not going to happen in this one) they would completely destroy all the Russian ground to air and air assets because they see the Russian assets before Russia can see their planes. They would quickly give Ukraine air dominance so it can attack Russia at will from the air with no opposition. That would end the war instantly, Russia would have no choice but to leave Ukraine.
F-35 would see all the enemy air-to-air threats and kill them all, plus completely neutralizing the surface-to-air missile threat to achieve air dominance. From that point, the forces can conduct their air-to-ground war. That’s what the F-35 was meant to do. So, in a parallel world, because we do not want to be dragged into the Ukraine, the F-35 would completely destroy the Russian forces
…
The F-35 is exceptionally capable at executing the Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses mission set. It would go in and kill every surface-to-air missile threat that was out there, and neutralize all the threats on the ground, and achieve air dominance because it would kill all the air-to-air assets also. Remember: we see them, they don’t see us.
It’s like playing football, when one team’s invisible, and the other team is not with a gross advantage on behalf of the F-35. F-35 would see all the enemy air-to-air threats and kill them all, plus completely neutralizing the surface-to-air missile threat to achieve air dominance. From that point, the forces can conduct their air-to-ground war. That’s what the F-35 was meant to do. So, in a parallel world, because we do not want to be dragged into the Ukraine, the F-35 would completely destroy the Russian forces.. F-35: Capabilities, Missions, Kinematics, Role In Ukrainian Crisis And Beyond. Interview With Billie Flynn
See my
UKRAINE KEPT RUSSIA OUT OF ITS AIR SPACE WITH FAR FEWER VERY ANCIENT MIG-29S - BECAUSE THE RUSSIAN PILOTS ARE JUST NOT TRAINED TO FIGHT AGAINST A COUNTRY THAT HAS FIGHTER JETS OF ITS OWN WITH WELL TRAINED PILOTS
But NATO is only sending Ukraine its decades old F-16s - and look at how nervous Russia has been about those.
The background here is that on paper Russia should have easily taken over the entire Ukrainian air space in 2022. It had several hundred fighter jets and 4000 military aircraft in total at the start of the war.
Ukraine had only a few dozen.
Russia had its most modern Russian fighter jets. Ukraine only had the Mig-29 left over from when it was part of the Soviet Union decades ago.
The experts I read before the war started all confidently predicted that Russia would take over the Ukrainian air space in the first couple of days before starting a land invasion if they did invade - even then they said that Russia wouldn’t be able to take Ukraine, even with its capabilities way back then in 2022.
But they were shown wrong for two reasons
Russia didn’t try to destroy the Ukrainian air force - it did a short half-hearted attempt at destroying fighter jets on the ground and then immediately sent in its own soldiers and tanks
Then as the war continued the Russian fighter jets turned out to be rubbish at taking over air space
The Russians had only fought countries without fighter jets as in Syria and they simply weren’t trained to take over enemy air space. They fought like pilots in WW2, point to point missions.
As professor Phillip P. OBrien put it in this article in the Atlantic in 2022:
“Airpower should have been one of Russia’s greatest advantages over Ukraine. With almost 4,000 combat aircraft and extensive experience bombing targets in Syria, Georgia, and Chechnya, Russia’s air force was expected to play a vital role in the invasion, allowing the Russian army to plunge deep into Ukraine, seize Kyiv, and destroy the Ukrainian military.
But more than two months into the war, Vladimir Putin’s air force is still fighting for control of the skies. The Russian air force’s failure is perhaps the most important, but least discussed, story of the military conflict so far. Ukrainian forces showed surprising strength in the air war, and adapted as the fighting progressed. But either side of this war could still gain air supremacy—and fundamentally change the course of the conflict.”
Of course Russia never achieved air supremacy, and now Ukraine has the Patriot air defences the Russian fighter jets even have problems approaching close to the front lines.
The reason is that the Ukrainians were far better pilots than the Russians. None of the experts expected that!
They were much more flexible, individual pilots able to make their own decisions on the spot. Russian pilots have to be told what to do by their generals. They fly to achieve an objective and drop their bombs and fly back like pilots in WW2. It is decades old strategy and this works fine if you are fighting an enemy without a modern airforce but it is far less effective against Ukraine.
They also quickly ran out of precision munitions. So they couldn’t target things like convoys or bridges.
Russia mainly used its fighter jets for bombing cities and for firing missiles at Ukraine from a great distance and more recently for glide bombs but the Patriot is now keeping the fighter jets so far from the front line the glide bombs, which are very precise are far less effective.
RUSSIA CAN’T WIN A WAR WITH NUKES AS A FIRST STRIKE
If you work through the figures Russia simply has nothing like enough nukes to win with a first strike. NATO would still have vast numbers of soldiers, fighter jets, missiles etc even if Russia used all its nukes against just military facilities. It doesn’t have enough for even one nuke for every US and UK air base never mind the destroyers, fighter jets and all the other countries in NATO.
NATO would still have its nuclear deterrent - no way a first strike can destroy that either, they don’t have enough nukes to destroy all the ICBMs and then they can’t target nuclear subs at all.
But NATO wouldn’t need it, it wold just use its vastly superior conventional forces.
And in a situation like that NATO’s first priority would be to stop Russia firing more nukes and it has that capability
EXAMPLES OF DIPLOMATS / GENERALS SAYING THAT THERE ISN’T A RISK OF A WORLD WAR
The EU’s chief diplomat Josep Borrell has taken a side swipe against anyone who suggests that Europe is on the verge of war.
“The calls for European leaders to be aware of the challenges they are facing are good but we don’t have to exaggerate either.
“War is not imminent. I’ve heard certain voices say war is imminent. Well, thank God it is not imminent. We live in peace, we support Ukraine, we are not part of this war we just support Ukraine and we have to prepare for the future, augmenting the defence capacity of our industry, but don’t frighten people unneccessarily, war is not imminent. What is imminent is the need to support for Ukraine,” he said.
His remarks come after the president of the European Council Charles Michel told leaders in a letter that “it is high time we take radical and concrete steps to be defence-ready and put the EU’s economy on a war footing.”
From: EU leaders call for ‘immediate humanitarian pause’ in Gaza – as it happened
Admiral Radakin, head of the UK armed forces:
ADMIRAL RADAKIN: First, let me scotch some of the more sensationalist headlines of late.
We are not on the cusp of war with Russia.
We are not about to be invaded.
No one in the Ministry of Defence is talking about conscription in any traditional sense of the term.
Britain is safe.
We are safe because we are part of NATO, the world’s largest and strongest alliance and also because we are a responsible nuclear power.
The inescapable fact is that any Russian assault or incursion against NATO would prompt an overwhelming response.
The thousands of Allied troops currently stationed in Poland and the Baltic states could draw on the 3.5 million uniformed personnel across the Alliance for reinforcement.
NATO’s combat air forces – which outnumber Russia’s 3 to 1 – would quickly establish air superiority.
NATO’s maritime forces would bottle up the Russian Navy in the Barents and the Baltic, just as Ukraine pushed the Black Sea Fleet from Crimea. NATO has four times as many ships and three times as many submarines as Russia.
Britain would be at the heart of this response, contributing 25% of Alliance strength at sea, and 10% of land and air, plus our cyber and space capabilities, and our Special Forces.
This is an Alliance that is becoming stronger all the time. Growing from 30 to 32 nations. With a collective GDP twenty times greater than Russia. And a total defence budget three-and-a-half times more than Russia and China combined.
Plus NATO has the additional strategic depth of a population of over 1 billion. And sitting above all of this is NATO as a nuclear alliance.
The biggest reason that Putin doesn’t want a conflict with NATO is because Russia will lose. And lose quickly. ...
Secondly, can we take some time to pause and reflect on Russia’s so-called ‘Special Military Operation’ in Ukraine? It was supposed to take between 3 days and 3 weeks. It was supposed to subjugate Ukraine’s population. It was supposed to take about two thirds of Ukraine’s territory. It was supposed to stop Ukraine joining NATO and the EU.
Putin has failed in all of these strategic objectives. At the operational level, Russia has demonstrated its continued inability to fight in a joint way. Its Air Force has failed to gain control of the air. Its Navy has seen 25% of its vessels in the Black Sea sunk or damaged by a country without a Navy and Ukraine’s maritime trade is reaching back to pre-war levels. Russia’s Army has lost nearly 3,000 tanks, nearly 1500 artillery pieces and over 5,000 armoured fighting vehicles.
At the tactical level, Russia gained Bahkmut – an area just over 40 square kilometres - after 9 months of fighting. Avdiivka is about 29 square kilometres. That has taken 5 months and some 17 thousand Russian lives and over 30 thousand injured.
To pose a realistic threat to NATO’s Eastern flank within the next 2-5 years, Russia will need to reconstitute her tanks and armoured vehicles, rebuild her stocks of long-range missiles and artillery munitions and extract itself from a protracted and difficult war in Ukraine.
I am not saying that Russia is not dangerous. It has demonstrated that with the aggression it employs both domestically and internationally.
But at the same time it is also significantly less capable than we anticipated following its disastrous illegal invasion into Ukraine. And it faces an even stronger straitjacket with the introduction of Finland and Sweden into NATO. Both theses are true and can exist at the same time: a Russia that is more dangerous and less capable than we thought. And it is the more dangerous Russia that we and NATO are responding to.
Consequently, my third point is that recent talk of a Britain that is undefended, and an Armed Forces chronically imperilled, is way off the mark. ... Y
es, we have issues and problems that we need to get after. We need deeper stockpiles of ammunition. We currently spend over a billion pounds a year on munitions procurement and repair, and plans are in train to increase this substantially.
There are always challenges in running a large organisation that conducts worldwide operations and is as sophisticated as our modern military. Things will go wrong and they will also go right. We are always looking to do better. These kinds of challenges apply to militaries everywhere. But we have the finest people and some of the best equipment. ..
. Chief of the Defence Chatham House Security and Defence Conference 2024 keynote speech
About general Radakin Admiral Sir Tony Radakin KCB ADC
Exactly what I've been saying in my blog posts but as far as I know this is the first NATO officer to out and say it explicitly and clearly, how much stronger NATO is.
On air superiority he is still underplaying it. NATO have far more than a 3 to 1 superiority. As I explained, jets are mainly fifth generation fighter jets, the F-35
But NATO are like that. We found in the Ukraine war. NATO constantly under-state their capabilities. Their missile systems and air defences perform far better than expected, typically have longer range, higher capabilities etc.
While Russia over promise and under deliver. Their missiles don’t work as well as intended, they are less precise than they should be, their air defences don’t work as well as they should.
It’s been like that all the way through the war. As you will have seen in this blog post.
Hope this helps some of you to be less scared.
WHY IS NATO SO DOWNPLAYING ITS ABILITIES TO HELP UKRAINE?
It is really hard to find anyone who says what I’m saying here. There are plenty of good sources for all the details but I mean the larger picture that emerges from it.
But if you test the sources for spin the spin is really really clear. They simply don’t mention lots of things that make it clear that Russia is far weaker than they claim.
Why? Why don’t they mention this stuff?
I think there are four reasons
Ukraine wants Russia to be over confident and to attack in Donbas. The last thing Ukraine wants is for Russia to go on the defensive and reinforce its front lines at Verbove and along the Dnipro river. This way it gets Russia to lose lots of tanks at a high attrition ratio and it means Russia doesn’t pay much attention to protecting itself.
Ukraine doesn’t want to over promise
In 2023, Ukraine over promised because the mine fields turned out to be
Far wider than expected, too wide for the NATO equipment to be able to bridge them in one go
Far more densely packed with mines than expected
Closely monitored so that Russia can respond to an attempted breach in minutes not tens of minutes
Russia is able to lay mines from the air behind any advancing mine clearing operation
NATO doctrine was useless, all the mine clearing equipment they had simply wasn’t up to the task.
Ukraine ended spending the entire summer of 2023 clearing the mine field by hand opposite Verbove. Lots of platoons of a half dozen soldiers demining by hand then rapidly retreating, over and over until they got all the way through after doing that for months.
Very patient, very dangerous work but they got through.
Ukraine has kept that outpost at Verbove ever since.
UKRAINE’S VERY OBVIOUS COUNTEROFFENSIVES
Zelensky says he plans counteroffensives in 2024. We can expect Ukraine to surprise us.
But these are very obvious ones that are talked about endlessly on Twitter by military experts.
The main point here isn’t to try to predict what Ukraine does. They are very innovative and most of the big advances have been impossible to see in advance - or rather - the experts who did anticipate them, I expect some did, didn’t share them openly for everyone to read.
This is not in any way any suggestion for the war and not in any way anything new.
It is rather to show to you that Ukraine is well set up for many different options in 2024 based on things often shared online in Twitter conversations by experts.
COMMENTS DISABLED FOR A FEW HOURS TO A DAY OR TWO AFTER POSTING - CONTACT ME VIA PM OR ON FACEBOOK OR EMAIL THE BEST WAY TO CONTACT ME AS I DON’T GET NOTIFICATIONS FOR MANY COMMENTS ON MY POSTS
I may be wrong, it’s gray area, but this post seems likely to lead to dumb comments by people new to the blog.
Those comments I get in the first few minutes or hours often are by people who haven’t read the post and just respond to the title and comment saying they don’t believe the title, - with many mistakes in their comments due to not reading what I said.
I write these blog posts to help the vulnerable scared people who are my main audience, otherwise I wouldn’t ‘care about the dumb comments. But hey scare the vulnerable people I am trying to help especially when I haven’t seen them yet and so haven’t answered. So I have to monitor the post and answer every comment which takes up a lot of time - and the comments scare people even when I have answered them as the first thing they see is the scary comment before they see my fact check which debunks it. Some of the people i help are very easily triggered and are doing their best to reduce their exposure to the triggers that lead them to panic attacks and even suicidal thoughts and intentions.
Do say if you find anything in this I need to correct, any mistake any question etc via private message or direct message or in comments in the Facebook groups when I share it there.
If you need to talk to me about something do contact me it is often far better to do so via private / direct messaging because Quora often fails to notify me of comment replies.
You can Direct Message my profile (then More >> messages).
Or better, email me at support@robertinventor.com
Or best of all Direct Message me on Facebook if you are okay joining Facebook. My Facebook profile is here:
I usually get those messages much faster than on the other platforms as I spend most of my day there.
I sometimes forget to enable comments. If you want to comment on a post then do send me a private message via Quora - or you can reach me faster if you send me a private message on Facebook.
FOR MORE HELP
Want a story debunked? Post to our Facebook group
Also do join our facebook group if you can help with fact checking. Please look over the group rules before posting or commenting as they help the group to run smoothly
Facebook group Doomsday Debunked
To find a debunk see: List of articles in my Debunking Doomsday blog to date
SHORT DEBUNKS (NEW)
I have just started a new page called “short debunks”. This has all the substantial debunks I do for the Facebook group. As you see I do many more of these, often ten a day, far too many to write them all up as blog posts., It only has the most recent short debunks, it would take ages to update it with older ones.
But if there is something scaring you in the news you may find I have debunked it here already.