They already own ~50, so that's a safe assumption. I'd suspect this trade involves free replacements from the US, too.
Poland has been quite successfully maintaining their MiGs, and even tried selling their services and hardware to other countries ( IIRC Croatia), and got sued by Russia for reverse engineering.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/biden-admin-talks-polan...
"The Biden administration is holding talks with Poland about a possible deal to help provide Soviet-era fighter jets to Ukraine, a White House spokesperson said."
Imagine being Polish politician and learning from US media you are in some kind of talks while none are taking place. US is making Poland look like a fool and forcing its hand. This is the result.
What is the alternative?
We have drastically increased our defense spending but it will take at least 5 years for Europe to be able to take on Russia by itself (with enough dominance that it will not destroy everything). Russia on the other hand is also not ready. And with the sanctions they can't afford to become ready.
Any American calling for appeasement or somehow suggesting this is all actually the US fault's. It's not at all. It's not about NATO, it's not about America.
It's about Russia being run as an authoritarian imperialistic etno state. The true demand is: we govern you and you join our war against the west: economically, politically and militarily. You either speak Russian or you die. You either become the property of the FSB, the oliargs and Putin or you die. Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakie, Latvia, Finland.. they are all next in line. And they are not making a secret of this!
The idea that there is anything but a full out war that will stop the Russians is ridiculous. We have no chill for more appeasement or supposed neutrality or diplomacy. You are not negotiating with a France or an America. You are negotiating with people who see any type of 'giving in' as weakness and encouragement to take more. We are not going to wait until the Russians our on our front doors as well.
At this rate within the next decade Europe will be spending more on its defenses than the US. That may be a good thing. But please, Americans, understand, this is a loyalty check for Europe and a strenght check for all your enemies. Don't blink. When talking about Russia only growl.
Everytime the US appeases, Russia is encouraged to do more violence, more aggression. The more clarity the US gives on when and how it will enter war, the less likely it is for the war to take place. And we really just need you guys to have the discpline for the next few years, and then we won't ever need US soldiers patrolling our borders, which seems fair and important (because there are more threats in this world than just the Russians!)
I think it depends very much on how interested they are in foreign affairs, and their particular political views.
I don't really fit "Democrat" or "Republican", but I definitely tend to lean more to the "Republican" side on this topic. Trump's platform included trying to get NATO members to "pay their fair share." Like most everything Trump says, that's unnecessarily confrontational, but the point is valid - Europe has been reliant upon US defense spending for decades. Because they know the US is there, they've cut defense spending. As you pointed out, that means they are currently incapable of effectively defending themselves without US intervention.
> It's about Russia being run as an authoritarian imperialistic etno state.
I think you're likely exactly correct here. More importantly, even if your analysis of Russia's motivations aren't quite right, you're "close enough." Their actions are consistent with this view.
> Everytime the US appeases, Russia is encouraged to do more violence, more aggression.
Because Russia currently sees the US as "Europe's military", you're absolutely correct.
> The more clarity the US gives on when and how it will enter war, the less likely it is for the war to take place. And we really just need you guys to have the discpline for the next few years, and then we won't ever need US soldiers patrolling our borders, which seems fair and important (because there are more threats in this world than just the Russians!)
Unfortunately, that's just not how the US political system works. We almost always have a fairly drastic change in leadership (and therefore foreign policy) every eight years. We often have it happen every four years.
There is a reason that Russia occupied Crimea in 2014, then didn't move on to annex more (or all) of Ukraine until 2022: the US had a leader that was unpredictable and relatively aggressive from 2016-2020. With Biden replacing Trump, Putin began spooling up the Russian war machine for the attempt. He'll take what he can take right now, then pause. He'll give Americans time for Ukraine to fade from the popular consciousness before our next election cycle. If Biden is re-elected, I expect he'll almost immediately move to take more territory. If it's someone else, he'll likely wait a few months to observer their policy decisions and decide whether to move or not in ~late 2025 and act in ~mid 2026.
Basically, Europe should plan on the US remaining passive until 2025 at the earliest. The only time you may have is while Putin is integrating Ukraine into Russia (or the "Russian sphere of influence", á'la Belarus). If I were the leader of a European power, I'd be putting defense at the highest possible priority short of a war footing. If I were the leader of an ex-Soviet state, I would be looking to build strong relationships with European states with stronger economies and militaries.
The 2020s are going to be rough for Europe.
Yeah, as a Dutch person, this always annoyed me to no extend. We have our wealthy liberal paradise, where spoiled pacifists spend their time making easy judgement about war decisions and sacrifices others make. Without any self realization that it is american troops and defense dollars patrolling the borders of our paradise enabling both the free speech & the prosperity to do so.
Thankfully, now that reality came knocking on the door, people realize and understand. But we do need to hold out a few years, before we have scaled it all up.
It definitely is the fault of governments and cultures like mine, but i'm going to give the Germans' a free pass on this, because their hesitation was more understandable. They can't invest in bombs without the world getting stressed and asking whom they are for. Now they can, because no one needs to ask.
>the US had a leader that was unpredictable and relatively aggressive
That made it harder for us to trust him as well, but yeah, in terms of dealing with foreign aggression, "crazy" is not a "crazy" strategy.
But please realize that much of the polarization within the US is of Russian design. Feeding into it is one way we all would loose. It is not just Europe that has an enemy here. Quite the opposite. We are just physically closer, but we don't live rent free in their FSB minds, the way the US does.
But this is not a war against NATO or even America. It is a war against Europe.
...actively sabotaging NATO, so there was no time pressure motivating the high-risk strategy of invasion.
Do people and pundits have memory of a goldfish?
Trump was literally impeached for blackmailing Zelensky, and witholding US arms and support, unless he opened an investigation into Biden (which Zelensky refused). If it wasn't for Trump, Ukraine would be better prepared today. There is also ample evidence of Trump's links to Russia that go all the way to the top, records of him admiring Putin, etc.
It should be obvious that the reason war started now is gas shortages in Europe - Puting thought EU would place their cozy safety over solidarity with Ukraine, and he thought the war would be over so quickly, the beurocratic sanction-machine wouldn't get a chance to get going. He miscalculated.
> Europe has been reliant upon US defense spending for decades.
This is a myth - Europe has more soldiers, planes, tanks and missiles than Russia. There is no asset except nukes where Russia has an advantage.
Russian military spending is 5% of Nato. Reminded that US spending is not 95% of nato. Their current issues in Ukraine should make it clearer for anyone who wasn't convinced.
Europe perfectly capable of holding it's own when it comes to defence - what's lacking is a unified military structure and command, as that was always done through Nato.
I was mostly on the same page until this part. I don’t buy this.
Like “Trump wouldn’t have let Afghanistan fall”. It’s being repeated often on the right without acknowledging the events of his admin that suggest otherwise or ignoring that administration’s possible contributions to the outcome.
Trump’s public-comments and actions would have seemed to encourage rather than discourage Putin.
Regardless, this explanation also feels too US-centric. Isn’t the election of Zelensky rather than a pro-Russian candidate among other things a likely reason for escalation?
> 141 countries vote to condemn Russia at UN
> Between the lines: Serbia, which has close historical ties with Russia, surprised many observers by voting in favor of the resolution.
[1] https://balkaninsight.com/2021/02/16/in-serbia-states-ties-t...
[2] https://www.occrp.org/en/openlux/serbian-presidents-best-man...
Trade with Russia is not that significant for Serbia, 5-8%. And we mostly import oil and gas. As long as EU keeps buying that from Russia there are no issues there. We export food to Russia, and we can probably have a barter trade if banking system is completely cut off.
All of this is pretty much insignificant and mostly about diplomatic "are you with or against us". Serbia is too small to make any kind of real difference either way.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/26/poll-trump-r...
Poll the public on general relativity or quantum physics and they’ll likely get it wrong. The same is probably true for complex geopolitical questions.
I thought that would be clear without the need for any explanation. Maybe the fact that explanation is needed gives an indication of the sorry state of the democratic process.
It’s an insanely silly way of assessing “what would Putin have done in an alternate timeline”.
Everything written is in such contradiction to reality outside my window, I can't help but wonder what are you smoking?
On foreign policy - specifically, with regard to the tone of the US's involvement in NATO - I believe Trump was much better than Biden. On other issues, Trump was often... "suboptimal".
The biggest issue I have with Trump is what the person you're replying to said: "He was a dumpster fire." It's difficult to lead a country when the very tone of your rhetoric angers half of it. He anger the Democrats enough that many voters would have elected _anyone_ to replace him.
On the other hand, Trump's bombastic personality and over-the-top rhetoric is probably the only way a Republican could have been elected in 2016. I'm not sure it was a solvable problem.
Perhaps the invasion was planned for a second term, and COVID threw a giant wrench in the works.
N=1, 2008. Russia invades/attacks Georgia[1]. US President: George W. Bush; US Vice President: Dick Cheney.
N=2, 2014. Russia annexes Crimea[2]. US President: Barack Obama; US Vice President: Joe Biden.
N=3, 2017-2021. No invasion of Ukraine. US President: Donald Trump; US Vice President: Mike Pence.
N=4, 2022. Russia invades Ukraine[3]. US President: Joe Biden; US Vice President: Kamala Harris.
Since Russia/Putin has attacked its western neighbors during three of the last four US president's terms, it appears Trump constrained Putin's expansionism, regardless of whether we liked Trump's manner of diplomacy or not. And Biden was in office during the annexation of Crimea, so he can be the "control group" for pre- and post-Trump policies toward Russia.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Ru...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukrai...
-edited for readability.
False; Russian forces were continuously involved in Ukraine (even outside of Crimea) in the Donbas war, with no significant, even transitorily successful, ceasefire until late 2020.
> Since Russia/Putin has attacked its western neighbors during three of the last four US president's terms, it appears Trump constrained Putin's expansionism,
Since in fact that happened in four of the four last presidential terms, that doesn't work even if you ignore that the logic here is simply very weak correlation even if the premises were correct.
They need to buy fighters not dependent on Russia and the US is a logical place to turn to. The F-16 is likely to be well within their budget today, since they plan to purchase F-35s in the future anyways.