The US has been pushing hard for this for a while now. Still going to be up to the Polish, who are the only ones I know of seriously discussing transferring these to Ukraine so far.
Here is a statement from Blinken about the ‘green light’.
Blinken says Poland sending fighter jets to Ukraine gets a ‘green light’ from US | TheHill
I’ve begun wondering how many more troops the Russian army can afford to commit. Yes, they have one of the biggest armies in the world – BUT there’s no way that they can leave their long border with China undefended. Not to mention that if Putin does decide to declare martial law, that’s going to demand troops as well. And then there’s the nuclear forces, who by their very nature cannot be used as invasion troops.
And against the atrocities that may be committed against their families if they desert.
One hell of a position to be in.
I don’t know how many more they could commit, or support. It would take some time to get them there and get the additional logistics in place to move them forward. Certainly, there are going to be hard limits on committing additional forces because of their other security concerns.
I have been watching the red lines move closer to Kyiv today. To me, it looks like the Russians will be in position for a major assault in the next 2-3 days. It looks like the eastern elements are in position now to start seriously pounding defenses, with the northern force ready to do the same. I expect scouting or even heavier elements to start seriously going in tomorrow (in fact, we’ve already started to see this today). The southern prong still seems like it’s lagging, though they are making progress…noticeable today. And the number of engagement icons are all over the place.
As are the mounting civilian losses. 
ETA: One thing I haven’t seen brought up in these discussions much, but one I’d be keeping my eye on, is Odessa. I expect the Russians are going to go for that as well in the near future, probably a few days.
Much thanks. Like you noted, it’s not a done deal:
From U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken. Note the words I’ve highlighted. Decision is still the Poles. They have no love for the Rus, but also a history that has led to Russia controlling much of Poland (and I don’t mean the past century–we’re looking farther back that that).
Interesting times…
Definitely. Just because there is a green light, doesn’t mean an agreement has been reached or that Poland is transferring the planes right now. It still might not happen. But, NATO at least, isn’t going to block it, which is a good thing.
I’ve got to think that if the main thing keeping your conscripted army soldiers loyal is that you are holding their families hostage…. You’re not going to get a lot of motivated soldiers. You are more likely to get soldiers who will fuck up their own battalions first chance they get.
Seems to be some evidence that that’s what’s happening.
Of course, some of that “evidence” may be manufactured. Hard to tell right now.
– and that may not be the “main thing” keeping the Russian soldiers loyal; but it may nevertheless be a reason why outright visible deserting isn’t as simple an option as it might seem at first glance.
So, a purely hypothetical question:
Let’s say that, in the weeks ahead, Russia starts using chemical weapons like sarin against Kyiv and other cities and kills many thousands. Is, or should, that be enough to trigger US/NATO direct intervention?
I ask because so far, all the appeals about “war crimes” and human-rights abuses or death of civilians or “humanitarian” has largely fallen on deaf ears with US/NATO leadership, due to fear of a nuclear WW3, but I’m guessing there is still a certain trigger point at which the threshold would be considered to be crossed. Would non-nuclear WMDs suffice?
I think this would trigger under the use of WMD on a civilian population…although, I believe Saddam (and maybe Assad on his own population as well) used sarin on the Kurds without triggering it, so not sure. It would certainly trigger a very harsh reply on the sanction side, similar to what would happen if they exploded a nuke. I believe that even the countries on the fence would have to get off of it or face extreme secondary sanctions if they continue to buy Russian goods or services. But a direct intervention? I think it might, but…I’m not sure.
At least as far as the US is concerned, WMD are WMD, whether they be nuclear or other. I think this is NATOs stance as well as most of Europe.
One thing I think…. Absent a large nuclear arsenal, from what we’ve seen of Russia’s army so far…. NATO would be knocking on Moscows door today
Those actions were carried out within internationally recognized borders; CS/CN gas, for example, is illegal on the battlefield but not prohibited for use on one’s own citizens. Ukraine is not currently recognized as being inside Russia.
The Russians are much likelier to surround Kyiv and blast/starve it out.
30-40% of those losses is a much more likely truth. That’s typical of these sorts of things.
If it weren’t for the threat of nukes, NATO would wipe out the Russian army in Ukraine in half a day, and that’s not an exaggeration.
The use of sensor-fuzed munitions such as the CBU-105, for instance, would totally wreck the convoy near Kyiv. Each CBU-105 contains forty smart skeets that individually hunt down and strike enemy armor, and so a single American B-1 Lancer bomber carrying thirty CBU-105s would destroy over 1,000 Russian vehicles/tanks in a matter of minutes.
Ten B-1 bombers carrying hundreds? …Russian armor/convoys would be nonexistent in Ukraine by the end of the day.
This will probably get lost in the pile, but that’s OK. It’s probably the best commentary about the conflict, and our response to it, that I’ve seen, especially by a layperson.
It is a huge exaggeration. Even if a war stayed completely conventional, there is zero chance NATO could defeat Russia and its military in a half a day…maybe not even in half a year. There would be similar logistics issues for NATO trying to push into Russia, and, frankly, NATO isn’t in any position to do offensive operations. Only the US and, perhaps France has any ability to project real force beyond its borders, and it would take months for the US and NATO to stage up to even try. Germany has drawn down its military to the point where it’s not even able to exercise fully with the other NATO members, and I don’t know how long it would take (or what it would cost) to bring them back up to anything useful, even in defense. Most of the other NATO allies are in a similar boat, aside from France and the US none of them could provide much for offensive operations. And the US can’t do it all alone.
Plus, I think you’d find a completely different mindset of the Russia people from trying to conquer Ukraine to defending their own homes and nation. Russia would also be operating inside of their logistics system and inside one of the best anti-air defenses in the world, and operating locally. There is a huge difference between fighting in your own country and within your logistics system and trying to project force into another country.
For clarification, I am referring only to US/NATO fighting against Russian forces in Ukraine - not any Russian forces in Russia.
Ah, sorry…I misunderheard you. It would still take more than half a day, but yes, if NATO went to active operations in Ukraine and it stayed conventional we could drive Russia out. Certainly.
The accuracy of such weapons is not perfect, and Russia does have substantial and high quality AAA and interceptors.
I’ve no doubt NATO has the edge here, but it wouldn’t be a walk in the park.