Statement from Poland on providing airplanes to Ukraine(gov.pl)
gov.pl
Statement from Poland on providing airplanes to Ukraine
https://www.gov.pl/web/diplomacy/statement-of-the-minister-of-foreign-affairs-of-the-republic-of-poland-in-connection-with-the-statement-by-the-us-secretary-of-state-on-providing-airplanes-to-ukraine
19 comments
> The F-16 is likely to be well within their budget today
They already own ~50, so that's a safe assumption. I'd suspect this trade involves free replacements from the US, too.
They already own ~50, so that's a safe assumption. I'd suspect this trade involves free replacements from the US, too.
F-16 is the only other type of fighters that Poland has, but giving up on those MIGs will reduce the number of active fighters to just around 50, that's a nearly 30% reduction and fewer than Ukraine had before the war. Given the delays in F-16 deliveries to other NATO countries, it would likely take some time for replacement to come in.
The US has hundreds of F-16s mothballed in Arizona. I'd expect they're about to be busy reactivating a few dozen in the next couple of weeks.
Poland uses Block 52 F-16's which aren't mothballed at AMARC (yet) Subtypes and blocks differ significantly including logistic pipelines, training etc. So simply grabbing a few from Davis-Monthan won't do the trick.
The question is if they can be given, all F-16 sold by the US were export models, not domestic.
It's been done before. https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/bulgaria-to-r...
> get rid of hardware they can't really maintain any longer. Russia isn't going to be maintaining those fighter jets now that it knows all of Europe considers it a hostile power
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.
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.
What was this expected to accomplish beyond putting US in awkward position and further aggravating Putin? Why involve the US when that’s what triggered the war in the first place?
What was doing press rounds proclaiming you negotiated sending Mig planes with Poland and its a done deal while Polish politicians never heard from anybody but Blinken merely proposing such an idea meant to accomplish?
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.
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.
The US triggered the war?
What is the alternative?
What is the alternative?
I don't think Americans understand how Europeans are experiencing this attitude of appeasing. We have seen this story. It doesn't stop with Ukraine.
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!)
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 don't think Americans understand how Europeans are experiencing this attitude of appeasing.
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.
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.
>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.
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.
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.
> 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
...actively sabotaging NATO, so there was no time pressure motivating the high-risk strategy of invasion.
...actively sabotaging NATO, so there was no time pressure motivating the high-risk strategy of invasion.
> With Biden replacing Trump, Putin began spooling up the Russian war machine for the attempt.
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.
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.
> 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.
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?
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?
All of Europe?
Serbia begs to differ.
https://www.axios.com/united-nations-ukraine-russia-141-5587...
> 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.
> 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.
But Serbian president said we won’t impose any sanctions toward Russia. On the other hand, our president is not to be trusted with anything.
Guess it will be very hard for Serbia to continue doing business with a country that is about to be bankrupt in 8-12 weeks. Even a crime lord like Vucic will need to keep his gang fed. He has some hard decisions to make about whether backing RU because all their talks for EU membership will be in vain. This situation might force Serbia not to move forward with EU membership and EU themselves might become more aware of the Russian problem that manifest itself if Serbia would eventually join.
[1] https://balkaninsight.com/2021/02/16/in-serbia-states-ties-t...
[2] https://www.occrp.org/en/openlux/serbian-presidents-best-man...
[1] https://balkaninsight.com/2021/02/16/in-serbia-states-ties-t...
[2] https://www.occrp.org/en/openlux/serbian-presidents-best-man...
Talks for EU membership are not going anywhere for two decades. Not much to threaten Serbia with in this regard. I think Serbia's regime prefers this status-quo too, since it's easier to have authoritarian government without pesky EU rules about freedom of media, independence of courts, corruption, etc. Seems that EU prefers this status quo as well.
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.
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.
As an American I can relate the same feeling with our previous President. He was a dumpster fire.
On positive note, all other presidents in all other countries in the world suddenly looked more thoughtful and more reasonable while you had your 4 year show.
There's just that thing that had your previous president still been in charge we would most likely not be facing these problems right now. Most of your compatriots seem to agree with this statement [1], what do you think? Were the mean tweets a bigger danger to the world than what is waiting for us now?
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/26/poll-trump-r...
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/26/poll-trump-r...
Why do you think an opinion poll of the general public has any value here?
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.
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.
Because the general public is supposed to be the people who get to vote for your president? The US is, after all, supposed to be a representative republic - that "representative" stands for "representing the general public".
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.
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.
Polling the public is a great way to see who might win an election.
It’s an insanely silly way of assessing “what would Putin have done in an alternate timeline”.
It’s an insanely silly way of assessing “what would Putin have done in an alternate timeline”.
Has everyone here forgotten that the reason Trump was impeached was because he was withholding support from Ukraine to Blackmail Zelensky? Has everyone already forgotten that he has deep russian ties and admires Putin?
Everything written is in such contradiction to reality outside my window, I can't help but wonder what are you smoking?
Everything written is in such contradiction to reality outside my window, I can't help but wonder what are you smoking?
I don't think we would be facing these problems, but I'm also objective enough to admit that we would likely be facing others.
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.
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.
He would have been -more- likely to invade Ukraine as Putin knows that Trump barely cares about the NATO countries, he certainly wouldn't have cared about Putin razing Ukraine to the ground. I will agree that nuclear war is certainly less likely if you let Putin do whatever he wants.
If that was -more- likely to occur under Trump than Biden, why did it not? Based on actual historical evidence, Putin is more likely to invade Ukraine when Biden is in office (both as VP and POTUS) than when Trump was, regardless of whatever nonsense Trump was tweeting.
Since we're wildly speculating on N=1 scenarios with no control group...
Perhaps the invasion was planned for a second term, and COVID threw a giant wrench in the works.
Perhaps the invasion was planned for a second term, and COVID threw a giant wrench in the works.
Will four data points work?
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.
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.
> N=3, 2017-2021. No invasion of Ukraine
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.
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.
Alright, fair enough point. Belarus is safe for now.
Belarus is already occupied by Russians.
Serbia have never been terribly keen on NATO since they intervened in Serbian genocide.
Couple of notes:
1. This is kind of funny when you think about it. I mean is Russia going to all of a sudden be very confused and think that the Americans gave Ukraine MIG-29s? No. Poland did. What's the point of the roundabout way of doing this? Maybe Poland is worried about intermediate range missiles targeting Polish airbases. But that seems like an escalation that Russia isn't interested in, unless they're in it for all the marbles.
2. This is further severing of ties between Russia and NATO-aligned countries. I expect other former Soviet Union states to follow and also acquire U.S. aircraft. They don't want to be reliant on Russian parts or technical know-how, and this further strengthens NATO around common aircraft and components. Expect American defense contractors (and some European ones as well) go get more business from countries such as Poland.
As I am thinking about this I think #2 is really what this is all about, but that Poland doesn't want to deal with transferring the aircraft to Ukraine and the Americans are glad to do it.
1. This is kind of funny when you think about it. I mean is Russia going to all of a sudden be very confused and think that the Americans gave Ukraine MIG-29s? No. Poland did. What's the point of the roundabout way of doing this? Maybe Poland is worried about intermediate range missiles targeting Polish airbases. But that seems like an escalation that Russia isn't interested in, unless they're in it for all the marbles.
2. This is further severing of ties between Russia and NATO-aligned countries. I expect other former Soviet Union states to follow and also acquire U.S. aircraft. They don't want to be reliant on Russian parts or technical know-how, and this further strengthens NATO around common aircraft and components. Expect American defense contractors (and some European ones as well) go get more business from countries such as Poland.
As I am thinking about this I think #2 is really what this is all about, but that Poland doesn't want to deal with transferring the aircraft to Ukraine and the Americans are glad to do it.
My understanding is:
1. Ukraine forces know how to pilot MIG29s
2. Poland has MIG-29s, USA does not
3. Poland has time to retrain on newer equipment, Ukraine does not
4. Poland doesn't want to be defenseless, if it gives aircraft to Ukraine.
So Poland gives Ukraine exactly what they need right now... USA agrees to aid Poland in replacement aircraft.
This isn't about "USA didn't give Ukraine aircraft", Poland did! It's about getting Ukraine the aircraft they know how to use right now
1. Ukraine forces know how to pilot MIG29s
2. Poland has MIG-29s, USA does not
3. Poland has time to retrain on newer equipment, Ukraine does not
4. Poland doesn't want to be defenseless, if it gives aircraft to Ukraine.
So Poland gives Ukraine exactly what they need right now... USA agrees to aid Poland in replacement aircraft.
This isn't about "USA didn't give Ukraine aircraft", Poland did! It's about getting Ukraine the aircraft they know how to use right now
To add to this and the comment above: Poland also flies the F-16. There'd been some commentary earlier in which Poland said they'd be willing to divest themselves of their MiGs if they can get F-16s to replace them in order to maintain their force level requirements.
My guess is that this transfer of the MiGs to the U.S. is to facilitate this exchange in a rapid manner that would take too long through regular procurement processes.
My guess is that this transfer of the MiGs to the U.S. is to facilitate this exchange in a rapid manner that would take too long through regular procurement processes.
This is how I see it too. It'll be obvious to anyone where those aircraft have come from. Poland isn't going to deflect responsibility this way.
Poland can't afford to donate it's air power so readily, but the USA allows them to with this move. It will also shift their military to be more on spec with other NATO countries.
Poland can't afford to donate it's air power so readily, but the USA allows them to with this move. It will also shift their military to be more on spec with other NATO countries.
If Russia takes Ukraine, then Russian forces will directly adjoin the Polish border. It makes sense to attempt to reduce the pretext for any invasion of, or retribution on, Polish soil.
If the Americans give the Ukrainians jets and Russia has a problem with it, they can fight it out with the Americans. They're both further-removed and a much larger adversary. Furthermore, it says more-emphatically, "Poland didn't give them those planes, NATO did it together. Don't like it? Come get some."
If the Americans give the Ukrainians jets and Russia has a problem with it, they can fight it out with the Americans. They're both further-removed and a much larger adversary. Furthermore, it says more-emphatically, "Poland didn't give them those planes, NATO did it together. Don't like it? Come get some."
> I mean is Russia going to all of a sudden be very confused and think that the Americans gave Ukraine MIG-29s? No. Poland did. What’s the point of the roundabout way of doing this?
The point is that Russia has specifically threatened any country whose territory hostile flights are deployed out of and, implicitly, particularly the specific bases; in case the direct flight of the planes to Ukraine is viewed as hostile, Poland wants them deployed out of a US base in Germany, not out of Poland.
> But that seems like an escalation that Russia isn’t interested in, unless they’re in it for all the marbles.
Sure, but Russia being in it for all the marbles isn’t a possibility that can be ruled out, and neither is miscalculation if that is not the case, and neither (if you are Poland) can the possibility of a failure or insufficiency of NATO response to an attack on Poland be ignored.
The risk of Russia thinking they can get away with it, and the risk of an inadequate NATO response, and the risk to Poland in any circumstance are all mitigated by moving the focus to a US base in Germany.
The point is that Russia has specifically threatened any country whose territory hostile flights are deployed out of and, implicitly, particularly the specific bases; in case the direct flight of the planes to Ukraine is viewed as hostile, Poland wants them deployed out of a US base in Germany, not out of Poland.
> But that seems like an escalation that Russia isn’t interested in, unless they’re in it for all the marbles.
Sure, but Russia being in it for all the marbles isn’t a possibility that can be ruled out, and neither is miscalculation if that is not the case, and neither (if you are Poland) can the possibility of a failure or insufficiency of NATO response to an attack on Poland be ignored.
The risk of Russia thinking they can get away with it, and the risk of an inadequate NATO response, and the risk to Poland in any circumstance are all mitigated by moving the focus to a US base in Germany.
3. The Polish do not want to be involved and are forcing the Americans / Germans to initiate and back up their testy rhetoric.
The US state department is saying they were not informed of Poland's decision [1].
Poland has already called out the US state department for "fake news" when the US said Poland was sending those MIGs to Ukraine [2].
[1] https://news.yahoo.com/u-says-wasnt-pre-consulted-202635492.... [2] https://twitter.com/PremierRP_en/status/1500345167211114497
The US state department is saying they were not informed of Poland's decision [1].
Poland has already called out the US state department for "fake news" when the US said Poland was sending those MIGs to Ukraine [2].
[1] https://news.yahoo.com/u-says-wasnt-pre-consulted-202635492.... [2] https://twitter.com/PremierRP_en/status/1500345167211114497
> 1. This is kind of funny when you think about it. I mean is Russia going to all of a sudden be very confused and think that the Americans gave Ukraine MIG-29s? No. Poland did. What's the point of the roundabout way of doing this? Maybe Poland is worried about intermediate range missiles targeting Polish airbases. But that seems like an escalation that Russia isn't interested in, unless they're in it for all the marbles.
I'd guess the US is gonna put some resources into refurbing and arming these planes, so it's simpler to just give them to the US up-front and send them to a US airbase.
I'd guess the US is gonna put some resources into refurbing and arming these planes, so it's simpler to just give them to the US up-front and send them to a US airbase.
They're most probably already modified to use NATO armament.
If so, IMO that's where things get really interesting. If these things can equip modern NATO weapons, and (here's a big if) if they've been retrofitted with good enough sensor & comm suites to use them, then this transfer takes on a whole new dimension.
I've been assuming they're stuck on Soviet weapons and with upgraded, but still outdated, electronics, but if that's not the case, it changes things a lot.
I've been assuming they're stuck on Soviet weapons and with upgraded, but still outdated, electronics, but if that's not the case, it changes things a lot.
I believe the weapons are Soviet still, in fact they have been harder and harder to source, since Russia (surprise!) didn’t want to sell them to Poland, whose only conceivable aggressor is Russia itself.
Comms etc not sure, these must have been somewhat matched.
Comms etc not sure, these must have been somewhat matched.
I don't have a reference handy, but I recall reading that Poland had already begun to transfer R-73 air-to-air missiles to Ukraine. Those are Russian missiles designed for use on the MiG-29.
Poland is side stepping the blatant risk of escalating to a war with Russia and/or WW3 by trying to move the Migs into Ukraine itself, but it still wants the F16s that the US is offering. This way it moves the problem to the US by having the planes go West to Germany instead and let Biden figure it out. I'm interested in how the US plans to get Migs into Ukraine in a way that isn't an act of war.
> I'm interested in how the US plans to get Migs into Ukraine in a way that isn't an act of war.
This. Biden said on 24 Feb that the US will be 'involved' if [Putin] moves into NATO countries. Now we're to believe NATO wants to move Migs into Ukraine?
This isn't [yet] NATO vs Russia. Let's not make it that.
This. Biden said on 24 Feb that the US will be 'involved' if [Putin] moves into NATO countries. Now we're to believe NATO wants to move Migs into Ukraine?
This isn't [yet] NATO vs Russia. Let's not make it that.
US/UK/Germany/Sweden and many other EU/Nato countries already sent over 15,000 anti tank missiles and over 3,000 anti aircraft missiles to Ukraine. Including this week. But they sent in individual name, not in NATO name.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/06/us/politics/us-ukraine-we...
What do you think all those Russian tanks were blown with.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/06/us/politics/us-ukraine-we...
What do you think all those Russian tanks were blown with.
NATO already has been supplying advanced man-portable missiles, artillery, intelligence, firearms/machine-guns of all kinds, communications equipment, night-vision systems, etc.
From that angle, an aircraft is only a small step upward.
It really does make a difference who is flying the plane or pulling the trigger, in both real-world capability and scope.
From that angle, an aircraft is only a small step upward.
It really does make a difference who is flying the plane or pulling the trigger, in both real-world capability and scope.
> NATO already has been supplying advanced man-portable missiles, artillery, intelligence, firearms/machine-guns of all kinds, communications equipment, night-vision systems, etc.
Source?
A few days ago Zelensky was quoted as saying that "NATO [has] provided nothing but 50 tons of diesel"
Source?
A few days ago Zelensky was quoted as saying that "NATO [has] provided nothing but 50 tons of diesel"
NATO hasn't provided direct assistance to Ukraine; it's NATO members independently providing assistance, and they've provided considerable amounts. The same would be true for the MIGs--they'd come from Poland via the U.S., independent of NATO. However, because NATO would be required to defend Poland if Russia retaliated, NATO and other NATO members would have been involved in the discussions.
Zelensky is, of course, trying to goad NATO into directly intervening. Ukrainian messaging has been remarkably consistent and well orchestrated.
Zelensky is, of course, trying to goad NATO into directly intervening. Ukrainian messaging has been remarkably consistent and well orchestrated.
I agree. I don't like at all this "deal" - I see this as a huge risk of escalating things.
I'm happy that the americans are willing to help in general, but I don't like their direct involvement without being provoked (too scared of another total mess).
I'm happy that the americans are willing to help in general, but I don't like their direct involvement without being provoked (too scared of another total mess).
Poland got F'ed by US multiple times in the past when it came to military contracts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offset_agreement (/1) This way conditions are all in the open and there is no wiggle room for Blinken to "yes we said we would provide replacement planes, but it was just a preliminary idea blabla" down the road. Poland is next on the Putin list after Ukraine, right there with Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.
/1 When buying 48 F-16 in 2002 Lockheed Martin declared almost $10B cross military gear imports and technology transfers, then it melted down to $6B with minimal militry gear imports and zero technology transfer, and finally ended up with US taking over mayor Polish military aviation companies - PZL Rzeszow (parts) went to UTC/Pratt&Whitney, PZL Mielec (heli/light transport planes) again to UTC/Sikorski then Lockheed Martin with Poland being charged extra for service parts coming out of those factories.
/1 When buying 48 F-16 in 2002 Lockheed Martin declared almost $10B cross military gear imports and technology transfers, then it melted down to $6B with minimal militry gear imports and zero technology transfer, and finally ended up with US taking over mayor Polish military aviation companies - PZL Rzeszow (parts) went to UTC/Pratt&Whitney, PZL Mielec (heli/light transport planes) again to UTC/Sikorski then Lockheed Martin with Poland being charged extra for service parts coming out of those factories.
> Poland is next on the Putin list after Ukraine, right there with Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.
I would guess Moldova, considering that it's not a NATO member and Russia already has a presence as peacekeepers protecting the breakaway province of Transnistria. And Moldova is closer to the Balkan countries that Russia is keen on.
I would guess Moldova, considering that it's not a NATO member and Russia already has a presence as peacekeepers protecting the breakaway province of Transnistria. And Moldova is closer to the Balkan countries that Russia is keen on.
[deleted]
and 3. All of NATO has to agree to subsequently hand off the MiGs to Ukraine, so this is a visible commitment (and a free F16 upgrade!), but the jets are just going to sit on the tarmac in Germany for now.
It doesn’t look like it’s a “free” upgrade, Poland will still have to pay something to get F-16s. Let’s see what they settle on.
Poland is part of NATO. Doubtful that they would be targeted.
Poland has 23 flyable MiG-29s, some of which are trainer aircraft. Other EU operators of the MiG-29 are Bulgaria and Slovakia, who have another 15-20 combined.
For comparison, at the start of the conflict Ukraine had about 70 fighters and Russia about 900.
[1] https://defence24.pl/technologie/kto-przekaze-ukrainie-swoje...
[2] https://twitter.com/komadovsky/status/1498403101258231830
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Russian_militar...
For comparison, at the start of the conflict Ukraine had about 70 fighters and Russia about 900.
[1] https://defence24.pl/technologie/kto-przekaze-ukrainie-swoje...
[2] https://twitter.com/komadovsky/status/1498403101258231830
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Russian_militar...
> Ukraine started the conflict
Let's be precise here...
Let's be precise here...
Seems reasonable, considering how US officials have 'green lit' giving the planes to Ukraine.
The reluctance of Poland to do this directly is completely understandable, as it borders both Belarus and Russia,̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶l̶a̶t̶t̶e̶r̶ ̶h̶a̶v̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶s̶t̶a̶t̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶w̶o̶u̶l̶d̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶s̶i̶d̶e̶r̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶a̶n̶ ̶a̶c̶t̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶w̶a̶r̶ ̶(̶w̶h̶i̶c̶h̶ ̶c̶a̶n̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶i̶g̶n̶o̶r̶e̶d̶,̶ ̶e̶v̶e̶n̶ ̶i̶f̶ ̶R̶u̶s̶s̶i̶a̶'̶s̶ ̶o̶f̶f̶i̶c̶i̶a̶l̶ ̶s̶t̶a̶t̶e̶m̶e̶n̶t̶s̶ ̶s̶e̶e̶m̶ ̶l̶i̶t̶t̶l̶e̶ ̶m̶o̶r̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶n̶ ̶i̶n̶c̶o̶h̶e̶r̶e̶n̶t̶ ̶r̶a̶m̶b̶l̶i̶n̶g̶s̶ ̶a̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶p̶o̶i̶n̶t̶)̶.
Getting some replacement F-16s out of all this is also important: who in their right mind would want to reduce the air force just as three of your neighbors are at war?
The reluctance of Poland to do this directly is completely understandable, as it borders both Belarus and Russia,̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶l̶a̶t̶t̶e̶r̶ ̶h̶a̶v̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶s̶t̶a̶t̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶w̶o̶u̶l̶d̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶s̶i̶d̶e̶r̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶a̶n̶ ̶a̶c̶t̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶w̶a̶r̶ ̶(̶w̶h̶i̶c̶h̶ ̶c̶a̶n̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶i̶g̶n̶o̶r̶e̶d̶,̶ ̶e̶v̶e̶n̶ ̶i̶f̶ ̶R̶u̶s̶s̶i̶a̶'̶s̶ ̶o̶f̶f̶i̶c̶i̶a̶l̶ ̶s̶t̶a̶t̶e̶m̶e̶n̶t̶s̶ ̶s̶e̶e̶m̶ ̶l̶i̶t̶t̶l̶e̶ ̶m̶o̶r̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶n̶ ̶i̶n̶c̶o̶h̶e̶r̶e̶n̶t̶ ̶r̶a̶m̶b̶l̶i̶n̶g̶s̶ ̶a̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶p̶o̶i̶n̶t̶)̶.
Getting some replacement F-16s out of all this is also important: who in their right mind would want to reduce the air force just as three of your neighbors are at war?
> The reluctance of Poland to do this directly is completely understandable, as it borders both Belarus and Russia, the latter having stated that it would consider this an act of war (which cannot be ignored, even if Russia's official statements seem little more than incoherent ramblings at this point).
The relevant statement I'd read had to do with letting Ukraine operate from air bases in other countries, not with supplying aircraft, which seemed to be a carefully crafted statement to avoid calling aircraft transfers an act of war, since it came out right around the (second) time this started to be talked about. Was there another?
The relevant statement I'd read had to do with letting Ukraine operate from air bases in other countries, not with supplying aircraft, which seemed to be a carefully crafted statement to avoid calling aircraft transfers an act of war, since it came out right around the (second) time this started to be talked about. Was there another?
> The relevant statement I'd read had to do with letting Ukraine operate from air bases in other countries
That's already moot since Romania is letting Ukrainian aircraft come here. 1 Su-27 previously and 9 helicopters today: https://universul.net/update-ukrainian-helicopters-land-in-r...
That's already moot since Romania is letting Ukrainian aircraft come here. 1 Su-27 previously and 9 helicopters today: https://universul.net/update-ukrainian-helicopters-land-in-r...
> Russia on Sunday warned that any country offering its airfields to Ukraine’s air force attacking Russian targets will be considered as having entered the conflict, state news agency TASS reported.
From the article you linked. If that's accurate, the warning is very narrowly about letting Ukraine fly combat missions from other countries' airfields. They seem to have staked that out as their "OK, do what you like, but go past this line and we'll be big mad" position.
From the article you linked. If that's accurate, the warning is very narrowly about letting Ukraine fly combat missions from other countries' airfields. They seem to have staked that out as their "OK, do what you like, but go past this line and we'll be big mad" position.
Nobody yet sold heavy weapon systems to Ukraine, stuff like Patriot or Iron Dome anti aircraft systems. Or tanks/planes.
I think early reluctance had a lot to do with expecting anything advanced or large that was sent to be destroyed, or to be irrelevant by the time it could be brought into use (time to get it there, training time, then time to move it into a useful position). That they think Ukraine will still be able to field aircraft by the time this transfer is done, is itself interesting.
Tricky situation. One can assume that Russia is going to win this war with brute force. Then they will take whatever Ukrainian weapons they can before it's destroyed.
Secondly weapons are useless without trained operators. I imagine Ukrainian military does not have experience operating NATO weaponry.
Secondly weapons are useless without trained operators. I imagine Ukrainian military does not have experience operating NATO weaponry.
[deleted]
You're right, I was under the wrong impression that it was about the transfer of planes.
Funny that they wanted the MIGs to go to Germany first and then given to the USA, in exchange for replacement jets.
It looks like a very thinly veiled attempt at denying direct involvement. Everyone knows those MIGs are going to be given to Ukraine.
It looks like a very thinly veiled attempt at denying direct involvement. Everyone knows those MIGs are going to be given to Ukraine.
You can also interpret it as a way of saying "we're either in this together, or not".
They come from Germany in the first place, Germany wanted to get rid of migs in early 2000s so they donated them to Poland for 1€.
https://defence24.pl/technologie/kto-przekaze-ukrainie-swoje... says Poland is not going to give away the German ones:
> The former German planes are not only the most worn out, but also have been adapted by the Luftwaffe to the western standard, so it would be more difficult for Ukrainian pilots to control
> The former German planes are not only the most worn out, but also have been adapted by the Luftwaffe to the western standard, so it would be more difficult for Ukrainian pilots to control
That and the fact that the US statement was that it was a Polish decision as a sovereign nation to donate planes if they so choose, but the US would support whichever decision they took.
Nobody wants to technically be the excuse Putin needs to use his nukes or whatever he's going to do next. But what difference does it make, Putin is going to do whatever he wants, trying to tiptoe around these lines drawn in the sand isn't going to change things.
Nobody wants to technically be the excuse Putin needs to use his nukes or whatever he's going to do next. But what difference does it make, Putin is going to do whatever he wants, trying to tiptoe around these lines drawn in the sand isn't going to change things.
Poland learned how to deal with weasel US diplomacy. Nothing is set in stone, not even a signed piece of paper (Budapest Memorandum anyone?). Actions, not words matter.
When you read 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.
>The deal would involve Poland donating its old Russian-made MiG fighters to Ukraine, and then replacing them with the purchase of U.S.-made F-16 jets.
>“We are working with the Poles on this issue and consulting with the rest of our NATO allies,” a White House spokesperson said.
>Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Sunday confirmed that the discussions are underway but said the timing is still unclear.
and at the same time those very "talks" are Blinken merely suggesting the possibility of working something later down the road "but we must act now", and you already got screwed by US to the tune of $10B on military deals (initial F-16 purchase), then you know to tread carefully.
Not to mention surprised pikachu face https://mobile.twitter.com/ak_mack/status/150129250400772096...
>Undersecretary of State Toria Nuland, testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, just said this statement was not pre-consulted with the U.S. Seems to have come as a bit of a surprise."
So Biden officials leak "advanced talks" to the press while Undersecretary of State doesnt know anything about it and is not in the loop.
EDIT: And there it is https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/296018... here come the weasel words:
"We will continue consulting with our Allies and partners about our ongoing security assistance to Ukraine, because, in fact, Poland's proposal shows just some of the complexities this issue presents.
We will continue to consult with Poland and our other NATO allies about this issue and the difficult logistical challenges it presents, but we do not believe Poland's proposal is a tenable one."
Typical US goading others to do the dirty work, but when push comes to shove "its complicated and untenable"
When you read 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.
>The deal would involve Poland donating its old Russian-made MiG fighters to Ukraine, and then replacing them with the purchase of U.S.-made F-16 jets.
>“We are working with the Poles on this issue and consulting with the rest of our NATO allies,” a White House spokesperson said.
>Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Sunday confirmed that the discussions are underway but said the timing is still unclear.
and at the same time those very "talks" are Blinken merely suggesting the possibility of working something later down the road "but we must act now", and you already got screwed by US to the tune of $10B on military deals (initial F-16 purchase), then you know to tread carefully.
Not to mention surprised pikachu face https://mobile.twitter.com/ak_mack/status/150129250400772096...
>Undersecretary of State Toria Nuland, testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, just said this statement was not pre-consulted with the U.S. Seems to have come as a bit of a surprise."
So Biden officials leak "advanced talks" to the press while Undersecretary of State doesnt know anything about it and is not in the loop.
EDIT: And there it is https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/296018... here come the weasel words:
"We will continue consulting with our Allies and partners about our ongoing security assistance to Ukraine, because, in fact, Poland's proposal shows just some of the complexities this issue presents.
We will continue to consult with Poland and our other NATO allies about this issue and the difficult logistical challenges it presents, but we do not believe Poland's proposal is a tenable one."
Typical US goading others to do the dirty work, but when push comes to shove "its complicated and untenable"
Scenario: Previously-Polish now-Ukrainian MIGs sitting at an airbase in eastern Poland waiting to be picked up by Ukrainian pilots. Russia sends a few longer range cruise missiles at the base, destroying the Ukrainian planes. What is NATO's next move?
Putin wants to test boundaries to find spongy contours. The more clear cut a situation is, the better.
Putin wants to test boundaries to find spongy contours. The more clear cut a situation is, the better.
> Russia sends a few longer range cruise missiles at the base, to destroy the planes that were already part of the war.
And kill NATO personnel in the airbase. Russia has now murdered American and Polish soldiers on Polish soil. It's pretty clear cut what happens next.
And kill NATO personnel in the airbase. Russia has now murdered American and Polish soldiers on Polish soil. It's pretty clear cut what happens next.
At the very least, NATO would declare anything in the air within a few hundred miles of a NATO border to be a valid target, since they'd then have to assume it's a threat of attack against a NATO state. Instant de-facto no-fly zone over much of Ukraine. No way Russia's gonna do that, since even that kind of minimal response would be disastrous for them.
> It's pretty clear cut what happens next.
No, it's not. Does NATO let the ICBMs fly? Does NATO switch to conventional war mobilization and march into Ukraine? Shoot some conventional missiles at Russian targets in Ukraine? How about if Russia issues a statement that the strikes were against legitimate Ukrainian targets, they do not intend to attack any more NATO territory, and they will pay reparations for Polish casualties? If Russian military activity demonstrates an adherence to that statement, it technically renders article 5 mutual self defense less applicable.
To avoid escalation, there is give and take at any level of aggression, just as when a fighter jet violates airspace. A posteri the destruction of Ukrainian jets at a Polish airfield, the desire to avoid nuclear war remains the same. The best thing is to avoid getting into the situation in the first place - by making attacking the in-transit Ukrainian jets a direct attack on the largest NATO power, the US.
No, it's not. Does NATO let the ICBMs fly? Does NATO switch to conventional war mobilization and march into Ukraine? Shoot some conventional missiles at Russian targets in Ukraine? How about if Russia issues a statement that the strikes were against legitimate Ukrainian targets, they do not intend to attack any more NATO territory, and they will pay reparations for Polish casualties? If Russian military activity demonstrates an adherence to that statement, it technically renders article 5 mutual self defense less applicable.
To avoid escalation, there is give and take at any level of aggression, just as when a fighter jet violates airspace. A posteri the destruction of Ukrainian jets at a Polish airfield, the desire to avoid nuclear war remains the same. The best thing is to avoid getting into the situation in the first place - by making attacking the in-transit Ukrainian jets a direct attack on the largest NATO power, the US.
> desire to avoid nuclear war remains the same
If we apply this logic fully, Russia can invade Poland, Germany, France, all of Europe, and nobody will dare defend out of fear of nuclear war.
If we apply this logic fully, Russia can invade Poland, Germany, France, all of Europe, and nobody will dare defend out of fear of nuclear war.
If you shoehorn the scenario into binary reasoning, you can justify either extreme, yes.
Assuming that Putin will start nuclear war over 30 planes is also binary reasoning.
Yes, binary reasoning that you're continuing to engage in by framing it as Putin automatically starting a nuclear war. I know we want to think that NATO deterrence is absolute, but when it comes down to it any response will be moderated by possible counter-responses.
Yes minister relevant once again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o861Ka9TtT4
This is why France developed nukes. They weren't entirely convinced America would have the balls to commit mass suicide for Paris.
It's about plausible deniability from the chain of command. If bombs dropped on an airfield in Poland there is none.
> What is NATO's next move?
NATO reciprocates hitting back with cruise missiles the originating place.
NATO reciprocates hitting back with cruise missiles the originating place.
If Russia launches cruise missiles into Poland then their Ukraine effort will be immediately overrun with NATO and US troops, tanks, and aerial strikes and will have to retreat immediately. Russia can't win this unless they launch nukes and then it ends for all of us.
Ramstein is in Germany, not Poland.
Yes, my point is that the actual actions are to avoid the scenario I laid out.
NATO article 5 gets invoked, and we're all at war.
I wish my country, Romania, would do the same, but we're always last to do the right thing. We were the last eastern European country to close our airspace to the Russians.
Turkey still hasn’t closed their airspace, so you’re not the last, Bromania.
Also you guys only have MiG 21s and I think they’re looking for 29s.
Also you guys only have MiG 21s and I think they’re looking for 29s.
I’d imagine Poland’s motivation, certainly by the current government standards, are mostly to stick it to the Russians, maybe also swap some Migs for Fs.
As honourable as the current Polish support for Ukrainians is, I’m almost sure it would be different if they weren’t fighting Russia and instead, say, were affected by a famine.
As honourable as the current Polish support for Ukrainians is, I’m almost sure it would be different if they weren’t fighting Russia and instead, say, were affected by a famine.
They need MiG-29 or Su-27s. Romania only has MiG-21s but are doing maintenance on 14 Ukrainian helicopters.
You're probably aware, but others might not be - while the MiG-21 is an _ancient_ design by military standards, it's more of a "chassis" than a "design". The MiG-21 was introduced in 1955, manufactured until 1985, and upgrades and modifications are still being done.
The first MiG-21 that came off the assembly line isn't really comparable to the variants being flown by Romania today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-2...
The first MiG-21 that came off the assembly line isn't really comparable to the variants being flown by Romania today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-2...
Yes, it has been modified by Elbit Systems to use NATO equipment. However, in addition to being ancient their flight capacity has been almost entirely used.
I think a lot of people here didn’t comprehend this last paragraph:
“ The authorities of the Republic of Poland, after consultations between the President and the Government, are ready to deploy – immediately and free of charge – all their MIG-29 jets to the Ramstein Air Base and place them at the disposal of the Government of the United States of America.”
“ The authorities of the Republic of Poland, after consultations between the President and the Government, are ready to deploy – immediately and free of charge – all their MIG-29 jets to the Ramstein Air Base and place them at the disposal of the Government of the United States of America.”
So, Poland is giving the Jets to the US, and they are hosted in a German airfield, and probably be delivered to Ukraine from there.
If Russia wants to retribute, it will have to attack the US and Germany, which it ends up in ww3 territory.
Basically, any additional move, will end up being such escalatory, that it will have to think twice about it. Especially the lower level troops that will be ordered to carry any such attacks.
If Russia wants to retribute, it will have to attack the US and Germany, which it ends up in ww3 territory.
Basically, any additional move, will end up being such escalatory, that it will have to think twice about it. Especially the lower level troops that will be ordered to carry any such attacks.
> Basically, any additional move, will end up being such escalatory [..]
Deploying one single NATO aircraft from NATO territory into Ukraine is escalatory. It doesn't make any difference if it's a Mig or an F16, or whether it flew from an airbase in Germany or Poland.
Deploying one single NATO aircraft from NATO territory into Ukraine is escalatory. It doesn't make any difference if it's a Mig or an F16, or whether it flew from an airbase in Germany or Poland.
There is an almost paranoid fear of escalation. I understand nukes and all, but Russia started this war, and escalated many times. There ought to be a line somewhere.
Russia is shelling civilian buildings. I'm concerned that the line will be drawn at some point after the genocide starts. That's too late.
Russia is shelling civilian buildings. I'm concerned that the line will be drawn at some point after the genocide starts. That's too late.
Doesn’t matter which NATO country gives what to which other NATO country, it only matters where the jets are going to enter Ukraine from and we’re looking at Romania, Poland, Slovakia or Hungary.
If Putin attacks Germany it'll probably not involve lower level troops, but a inter-continental missile.
It would be interesting to hear reports of them being used.
"Two American MIG-29's intercepted a Russian bomber and escorted it out of NATO airspace today."
Just has a strange ring to it.
"Two American MIG-29's intercepted a Russian bomber and escorted it out of NATO airspace today."
Just has a strange ring to it.
Pretty brilliant donating them to the USA airbase in Germany.
As Pole - finally!
Might not be a done deal after all:
https://twitter.com/phildstewart/status/1501334216851828737
> BREAKING - Pentagon response to Poland's proposal on jets: "We will continue to consult with Poland and our other NATO allies about this issue and the difficult logistical challenges it presents, but we do not believe Poland’s proposal is a tenable one.”
- Phil Stewart (Military & Intelligence Correspondent@Reuters)
https://twitter.com/phildstewart/status/1501334216851828737
> BREAKING - Pentagon response to Poland's proposal on jets: "We will continue to consult with Poland and our other NATO allies about this issue and the difficult logistical challenges it presents, but we do not believe Poland’s proposal is a tenable one.”
- Phil Stewart (Military & Intelligence Correspondent@Reuters)
Standard US politics, lots of talking and hoping someone else will do your dirty work. Good thing Poland already learned how to deal with US as an ally after all previous broken promises.
[deleted]
Hopefully this means the Ukranian air force can start attacking the 60-mile-long Russian convoy that's backed up on the road to Kyiv. As has been mentioned in other comment threads elsewhere on HN, it seems like that backup would be both a high-value target and (currently) a turkey shoot, until it resumes moving.
They can't attack it due to heavy Russian air defense, not due to lack of fighters.
Surely some surface-to-surface missiles or long range artillery could reach the Russian column and break through the air defenses? It seems to me like both sides are holding back from unleashing the full fury of their power, for good reason.
Ukraine might get handheld anti-tank or anti-air missiles, but they don't get heavy equipment like long-range surface-to-surface or SAM missiles. If they use artillery, they risk counter-battery fire or air attacks.
Ukraine is pushing for a NATO-led no fly zone specifically for this reason. They can't attack this column without exposing their troops to counter-attacks from Russian aircraft.
For now, there is no functional difference between destroyed equipment and disabled equipment. Turning this disabled equipment into destroyed equipment carries risks for no immediate gains. (Granted, this might look like a poor decision in hindsight)
For now, there is no functional difference between destroyed equipment and disabled equipment. Turning this disabled equipment into destroyed equipment carries risks for no immediate gains. (Granted, this might look like a poor decision in hindsight)
https://nitter.nl/UAWeapons/status/1500942046009438208
IANA… not L, but anyway. Maybe they're trying to attack a few bits and pieces so the convoy locks up lots of Russians and their equipment and can't be either resupplied or moved. (Tankers and other trucks would need to refueld the entire convoy.)
IANA… not L, but anyway. Maybe they're trying to attack a few bits and pieces so the convoy locks up lots of Russians and their equipment and can't be either resupplied or moved. (Tankers and other trucks would need to refueld the entire convoy.)
Good to know, thanks!
I wonder how they solved the problem with the NATO MIGs having completely different systems than the Ukrainian air force? They must have either magically retrofitted the MIGs back with old Soviet tech, or they're transferring more than just jets to Ukraine.
Yes, this is a problem if they're to be delivered immediately, but there are a couple of machines (around 10 I think) that haven't been equipped with NATO systems plus some that are used for spare parts but are in a good condition. SO these could be sent soon, and the remaining part depends on the decision of the USA - if they want it, the NATO systems could be removed (it will take some weeks at least).
I’m curious if UKR has enough pilots for these?
Fighter jets are expensive beasts more so for smaller economies.
Small Air forces normally have multiple pilots on a training rota for each jet, the multiple can be several times over depending on how tight your air force budget is. So yes between active pilots and reservists they will most likely have pilots for all of them.
Small Air forces normally have multiple pilots on a training rota for each jet, the multiple can be several times over depending on how tight your air force budget is. So yes between active pilots and reservists they will most likely have pilots for all of them.
I recently read an article that stated that Russian anti-air can basically reach all over Ukraine. I wonder how effective these planes can be if they can be targeted from anywhere.
Russia is operating their Buk S-300/400 anti-air system in Ukraine. Unfortunately for Russia the Ukrainians have been prioritizing the destruction of these systems and they've destroyed a significant number. Here is an example: https://youtu.be/TdTGT1dLSKA?t=73
Buk and S300/S400 are different things. Buk is self propelled all-in-one system, which has four rockets and integrated radar [1]. Buk's rockets range is about 50km. While S300/S400 have mich bigger rockets thus range, 300 and 400km respectively [2].
1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_missile_system
2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-400_missile_system
1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_missile_system
2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-400_missile_system
[deleted]
I'm gonna guess that this is only true for the higher altitudes, simply due to the curvature of the earth and the inability of radars to target below a certain angle above the horizon.
That’s why “low-cost” drones would be useful. Ukraine needs more than a couple dozen MIGs. Dozens of UAV’s in the air at all times would be beneficial
This feels an awfully lot like the US taking advantage of the current war to sell some more guns and, while I definitely don't want people to be left defenseless, I dislike how exploitative the whole thing feels.
Not really, it feels like the US trying to help Ukraine get some planes but Poland doesn't want to give up its stuff so the US is promising more planes to replace the old Migs.
At least, given the statement, they're currently being redirected to Ramstein though - I wonder if that is for servicing before forwarding them to Ukraine.
Do you think Russian weapons magically appear ? Everyone’s buying and selling
ardit33(2)
How will these fighter jets will get into battle?
Won't Russia see any aircraft entering Ukrainian airspace as hostile and 1) Attack it 2) Attack wherever the aircraft came from?
Seems such a risky thing that really won't have much impact on the outcvome of the conflict :-(
Won't Russia see any aircraft entering Ukrainian airspace as hostile and 1) Attack it 2) Attack wherever the aircraft came from?
Seems such a risky thing that really won't have much impact on the outcvome of the conflict :-(
"A ship in harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are built for."
Dutch pilots sortied against the Luftwaffe. It was a not particularly glorious massacre but a point was made.
Countries that don't have people willing to die for them are just lines on a map.
Countries that don't have people willing to die for them are just lines on a map.
Russia doesn’t control Ukrainian airspace
I am sure you are right, but unless these aircraft are radar invisible or they put them in trucks won't Russia just see them and the country they come from as hostile?
If they fly low enough, I don't think radar will catch them. But I'm not an expert.
Mig-27s are fighters, they are of limited use in low altitudes.
And Russia does have systems to take down low-flying aircraft, it's just not very effective as you need to be in the right place at a right time. Mid-to-high altitude flights would be pure suicide against Russian AA systems.
And Russia does have systems to take down low-flying aircraft, it's just not very effective as you need to be in the right place at a right time. Mid-to-high altitude flights would be pure suicide against Russian AA systems.
This doesn't matter if the goal is just to sneak them into Ukrainian airspace to an airfield. The goal isn't to fight or engage AA, it's just to move them from NATO airspace into Ukrainian hands without being noticed.
They won't end the world for 20 MiGs.
Looks like there's a significant US lobby that want a hot war with Russia now
Doesn't it make sense to fight them before they eat up more countries and get stronger?
Thats horrifying if true :-(
Bad move. This opens up Polish airbases to retaliation by Russian ballistic and cruise missiles. If push comes to shove, NATO Article 5 will not be invoked for Poland’s sake (Western European nations, the UK, and the US will not be willing to risk WWIII for country east of Germany and Poland should understand this by now). Poland will foolishly be left smarting while Germany and the UK press for rational dialog.
>> Bad move. This opens up Polish airbases to retaliation by Russian ballistic and cruise missiles. If push comes to shove, NATO Article 5 will not be invoked for Poland’s sake (Western European nations, the UK, and the US will not be willing to risk WWIII for country east of Germany and Poland should understand this by now). Poland will foolishly be left smarting while Germany and the UK press for rational dialog.
There are US forces in Poland:
https://news.yahoo.com/us-fighter-jets-land-poland-173812228...
Poland is a member of NATO.
An attack on Poland would invoke NATO Article 5 without question.
There are US forces in Poland:
https://news.yahoo.com/us-fighter-jets-land-poland-173812228...
Poland is a member of NATO.
An attack on Poland would invoke NATO Article 5 without question.
Poland's history causes folks to be cautious about such statements. If you are not familiar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_betrayal
No, NATO has plenty of wiggle room to decide not to retaliate in order to prevent further escalation. And furthermore, you might see a flat out refusal to honor treaty obligations to avoid “the unthinkable”.
EDIT: and remember 1939. They can simply drag their feet on actual military retaliation until the immediate threat subsides. A Russian invasion of Poland is highly unlikely. It’s not an objective of theirs. And without the threat of an invasion that would directly threaten larger economic powers, is a conflict with Russia even rational? NATO will simply absorb the hit.
EDIT: and remember 1939. They can simply drag their feet on actual military retaliation until the immediate threat subsides. A Russian invasion of Poland is highly unlikely. It’s not an objective of theirs. And without the threat of an invasion that would directly threaten larger economic powers, is a conflict with Russia even rational? NATO will simply absorb the hit.
>> No, NATO has plenty of wiggle room to decide not to retaliate in order to prevent further escalation. And furthermore, you might see a flat out refusal to honor treaty obligations to avoid “the unthinkable”.
If Russia attacks Poland with ballistic missiles and cruise missiles and NATO failed to respond then it would effectively make the NATO articles nothing more than words on paper. An attack on any NATO member would cross the line. The NRF has been activated and stands ready to act:
"Following Russia’s unjustified and unprovoked attack on Ukraine, February 2022, and in line with its defensive planning to protect all Allies, NATO is taking additional steps to further strengthen deterrence and defence across the Alliance. This includes the activation of elements of the NRF for the first time in a deterrence and defence role. Allies have placed thousands of additional troops – along with armoured vehicles, artillery units, ships and aircraft – at high readiness earmarked for the NRF, ensuring that it continues to have the speed, responsiveness and capability to defend NATO territory and populations."
Source: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm
>> EDIT: and remember 1939. They can simply drag their feet on actual military retaliation until the immediate threat subsides.
2022 is not 1939. NATO did not exist in 1939.
>> A Russian invasion of Poland is highly unlikely. It’s not an objective of theirs. And without the threat of an invasion that would directly threaten larger economic powers, is a conflict with Russia even rational? NATO will simply absorb the hit.
Neither an invasion nor economic threats are required to trigger Article 5. Conflict with Russia is not rational, but neither is Putin's invasion of Ukraine.
If Russia attacks Poland with ballistic missiles and cruise missiles and NATO failed to respond then it would effectively make the NATO articles nothing more than words on paper. An attack on any NATO member would cross the line. The NRF has been activated and stands ready to act:
"Following Russia’s unjustified and unprovoked attack on Ukraine, February 2022, and in line with its defensive planning to protect all Allies, NATO is taking additional steps to further strengthen deterrence and defence across the Alliance. This includes the activation of elements of the NRF for the first time in a deterrence and defence role. Allies have placed thousands of additional troops – along with armoured vehicles, artillery units, ships and aircraft – at high readiness earmarked for the NRF, ensuring that it continues to have the speed, responsiveness and capability to defend NATO territory and populations."
Source: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm
>> EDIT: and remember 1939. They can simply drag their feet on actual military retaliation until the immediate threat subsides.
2022 is not 1939. NATO did not exist in 1939.
>> A Russian invasion of Poland is highly unlikely. It’s not an objective of theirs. And without the threat of an invasion that would directly threaten larger economic powers, is a conflict with Russia even rational? NATO will simply absorb the hit.
Neither an invasion nor economic threats are required to trigger Article 5. Conflict with Russia is not rational, but neither is Putin's invasion of Ukraine.
I think the Article 5 protection is exactly why Poland feels comfortable doing this. If they shared your concern they wouldn't have done it. And as other people have mentioned, it would be political disaster for Article 5 not to be invoked.
No, I don't think Poland feels comfortable in doing this. The West broke alliances with Poland over and over, as convenient, and just broke the Budapest Manifesto with Ukraine. See the Phoney War and the Warsaw Uprising for a good history.
Poland feels _more_ comfortable doing this than the alternative, though. If Russia stands unopposed in Ukraine, who do you think is next?
Poland feels _more_ comfortable doing this than the alternative, though. If Russia stands unopposed in Ukraine, who do you think is next?
> and just broke the Budapest Manifesto with Ukraine.
No they didn't. The only country that broke it is Russia.
No they didn't. The only country that broke it is Russia.
Yes. They did. E.g.
"4. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used;"
We've had plenty of nuclear threats at this point; fear of escalating to nuclear war is precisely what limits Ukraine's ability to get aid. A condemnation, as the US raised, is not "action."
"4. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used;"
We've had plenty of nuclear threats at this point; fear of escalating to nuclear war is precisely what limits Ukraine's ability to get aid. A condemnation, as the US raised, is not "action."
I find this thought of mine hard to explain to people because obviously no one including me wants WW3 and likely annihilation of our species. However, please note that in a hypothetical future where NATO doesn't even protect NATO soil (e.g. Poland) there will be no reason for Russia not to invade Baltic States, Poland, Romania etc. This effectively makes NATO non-existent and gives all the leverage and power to Russia. I understand this is a very sensitive issue, but from this perspective I believe NATO should immediately retaliate if Russia even dares to attack Poland.
Reasonable-sounding people in the West will — already are — argue that the combined economies of Poland, the Baltic States, Romania, etc. are not worth WWIII and that a comfortable and secure Russia will want to reintegrate into the global economy and can be reasoned with. From a purely rational perspective, they are not wrong. Even if it means the end of NATO, that’s preferable to Armageddon. The Germans have long belittled Poland, the Balts, etc. as irrational and irrelevant in their pursuit of a stable equilibrium with Russia. And the US? Even more removed from this conflict with an increasingly difficult set of its own domestic challenges and institutional decline.
You think that US is "removed from this conflict"? They don't send weapons to Ukraine, they don't share intel and advice with Ukraine, they don't train Ukrainian soldiers and they don't influence other countries to help Ukraine?
You think that Germany considers Russia a reasonable partner? German newspapers that used to praise Merkel now don't criticize her for making Putin stronger? The government doesn't drop plans with Nordstream 2, also no plans appear to search for an alternative to russian gas?
I'm sorry if the rhetoric I've chosen here sounds passively aggressive, but the "purely rational perspective" you described is very far from what I consider rational.
You think that Germany considers Russia a reasonable partner? German newspapers that used to praise Merkel now don't criticize her for making Putin stronger? The government doesn't drop plans with Nordstream 2, also no plans appear to search for an alternative to russian gas?
I'm sorry if the rhetoric I've chosen here sounds passively aggressive, but the "purely rational perspective" you described is very far from what I consider rational.
If Poland gets attacked over this, and NATO doesn't step in, then that's the end of NATO.
This is a really smart move to finally solidify the power of NATO - or get rid of it if it doesn't actually have that power.
This is a really smart move to finally solidify the power of NATO - or get rid of it if it doesn't actually have that power.
Poland is sending the aircraft to the largest American Airbase in Europe, located in Western Germany close to the French border. I’d assume that Ukrainian pilots will somehow transfer there to pick them up. The distances involved are not unmanageable - it’s around 1000 - 1500 km from there to Lviv, well inside Ukrainian territory. The ferry range of a MiG-29 is around 2000 km according to Wikipedia. Either Russia bombs Rammstein or they kill the planes when they land in Ukrainian space. Targeting Polish airfields makes no sense.
The planes themselves are irrelevant. Poland supplied them and retaliation would be punitive.
Why do you consider it certain that NATO guarantees would not apply? Ukraine is not in the alliance.
This could be difficult to understand but in Poland due to the history there is sentiment that country was betrayed or abandoned, not helped by allies at the start of WWII by Britain, France.
Of course it's not certainty as you wrote but the thought at the back of the head about history repeating itself and possibility of being considered as just the buffer zone and potential battle ground for western europe countries is there for many people - and that's why in addition to having borders with countries at war Poland may be perceived as treading twice as carefully in this situation.
Of course it's not certainty as you wrote but the thought at the back of the head about history repeating itself and possibility of being considered as just the buffer zone and potential battle ground for western europe countries is there for many people - and that's why in addition to having borders with countries at war Poland may be perceived as treading twice as carefully in this situation.
If Russia attacks Poland it's the same as directly attacking the United States (or any other NATO nation) and will be treated as such
AFAIK any NATO nation can invoke article 5. However, the other nations have latitude in how they respond
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.