It seems F-16’s with nuclear weapons will be Ukraine’s ultimate goal. A deterrence against frustrated Putin use of nuclear weapons on Kiev. Yes, it would be better having Ukraine then under NATO umbrella.
Michael, excellent comments and analysis on the US approving F-16 for Ukraine. Several questions on my end. The US only approved for NATA allies to send F-16 to Ukraine, why isn't the US sending the F-16. Is our only equity in the deal is to train the pilots and the US will replace the F-16 to the NATO counties that gave them up. I was not familiar with the wording NATO partner vs NATO membership, what is the difference between the two, when it comes to protecting an attack on a partner. Are the planes being given with the understanding they will be used only defensively, or can Ukraine use them to attack deeply into Russia to attrite their supply lines?
Michael, have the French been approached about also selling Storm Shadow? My info is a bit dated, but I know that only a few years ago they had substantial numbers of this missile.
Mr. McFaul, I enjoy reading your posts and articles because they make sense. Most of us don’t have your diplomatic background, knowledge, and first hand information, but by daily following the news, and a bit of common sense we figure out the right path to follow. Your explanation is a clear and logical picture of what should be done to end this conflict, and avoid future similar situations. There is no doubt that because being afraid of crossing the ‘red line’ we are always late providing Ukraine with its military needs. The key to stop Putin is keeping the West united, backing up Ukraine on time, and being well, very well prepared for the worst.
One thing that disappoints me is that we haven't seen more pressure for direct cyber-attacks against Russia. OK, who knows what is going on covertly already, and the wisdom of the current compromise is obviously incredibly difficult to judge from a public perspective. But as a complete outsider I would have thought it'd be relatively easy to cause absolute catastrophic chaos throughout all of Russia's economy and bureaucracy.
At a diplomatic level they are free to interpret it as an armed attack if they want a war, but they wouldn't seem to be forced to; it's far more likely that they'd hack back weakly and fail to make much of an impression (at least in my completely untrained opinion.)
At a legal level, even if it were an armed attack, it wouldn't actually violate IHL if tied to a credible plan to force an international law-based settlement to the conflict.
So why not start throwing some punches? Or at least start a debate about it?
Excellent article, very thorough!
It seems F-16’s with nuclear weapons will be Ukraine’s ultimate goal. A deterrence against frustrated Putin use of nuclear weapons on Kiev. Yes, it would be better having Ukraine then under NATO umbrella.
Michael, excellent comments and analysis on the US approving F-16 for Ukraine. Several questions on my end. The US only approved for NATA allies to send F-16 to Ukraine, why isn't the US sending the F-16. Is our only equity in the deal is to train the pilots and the US will replace the F-16 to the NATO counties that gave them up. I was not familiar with the wording NATO partner vs NATO membership, what is the difference between the two, when it comes to protecting an attack on a partner. Are the planes being given with the understanding they will be used only defensively, or can Ukraine use them to attack deeply into Russia to attrite their supply lines?
Michael, have the French been approached about also selling Storm Shadow? My info is a bit dated, but I know that only a few years ago they had substantial numbers of this missile.
Mr. McFaul, I enjoy reading your posts and articles because they make sense. Most of us don’t have your diplomatic background, knowledge, and first hand information, but by daily following the news, and a bit of common sense we figure out the right path to follow. Your explanation is a clear and logical picture of what should be done to end this conflict, and avoid future similar situations. There is no doubt that because being afraid of crossing the ‘red line’ we are always late providing Ukraine with its military needs. The key to stop Putin is keeping the West united, backing up Ukraine on time, and being well, very well prepared for the worst.
Yep Prof McFaul. When it comes to geo-politics Putin is really bad at it.
One thing that disappoints me is that we haven't seen more pressure for direct cyber-attacks against Russia. OK, who knows what is going on covertly already, and the wisdom of the current compromise is obviously incredibly difficult to judge from a public perspective. But as a complete outsider I would have thought it'd be relatively easy to cause absolute catastrophic chaos throughout all of Russia's economy and bureaucracy.
At a diplomatic level they are free to interpret it as an armed attack if they want a war, but they wouldn't seem to be forced to; it's far more likely that they'd hack back weakly and fail to make much of an impression (at least in my completely untrained opinion.)
At a legal level, even if it were an armed attack, it wouldn't actually violate IHL if tied to a credible plan to force an international law-based settlement to the conflict.
So why not start throwing some punches? Or at least start a debate about it?