[tim333]

With F16s it rather depends what air to air missiles they are supplied with. There are some that could take out Russian planes from a fair distance. But I'll give you stealth would be better. I'm surprised at how wimpy the west has been with air support - two years in and not an F16 in action. If they'd lent a couple of F35s with volunteer pilots it could have given Russia something to think about.

[unclebucknasty]

Yeah, no doubt the F-16s would be equipped with appropriately-ranged missles. The question is around their own vulnerability while patrolling/acquiring targets.

Seems to imply a job for stealth, or otherwise establishing air superiority. But, even with the latter the outcome might be variable—especially for eastern / northern Ukranian targets—without incursion into hostile (Russian or Belarusian) airspace.

Agree 100% on Western support. Seems we've been fighting to "not escalate" versus fighting to win. But, it's already a war with Ukrainian cities being pounded. In this context, "not escalating" seems to be a euphemism for "losing".

[shmerl]

It's getting better with France and UK pushing to drop that "not escalate" demagoguery in favor of actually facing the problems. And it's helping.

Macron surprisingly was very on point about using the uncertainty tactic as a deterrent method, instead of "we won't do this / we won't do that in order not to escalate". It's good he finally got to that point, though it should have been clear from the start.

Other allies should also remove all restrictions for Ukraine on using weapons to hit targets directly in Russia.

What also works as a deterrent is Russia knowing that for any hit, they'll be hit by Ukraine in return, and not just on the front lines, but anywhere inside their territory.

[unclebucknasty]

Agree 100%. As it is, the risk is all on the Ukrainian side, save for Russian casualties (which Russia has shown to be of little concern, as they shovel everyone from prisoners to conscripts to the front lines).

They need to have more downside risk, which doesn't come from the West constantly reassuring them that we won't "escalate". Hitting targets in Russia would definitely change the calculus. As would enforcing a NATO no-fly zone over Ukraine.

I was glad to hear Macron and others turn the corner there. But, I hope they're willing to back it up, else the bluster would do more harm than good.

I have a feeling it will be tested.

[tim333]

I guess there may be an element of slowly boiling the frog in that the west was nervous about getting into a nuclear war with Russia which is understandable. But I think there should be an understanding that invading basically democratic countries is unacceptable and we'll make it a pain for the Russians until they rethink.

I heard an interesting idea to blockade their oil by hitting empty tankers sailing into Russia to pick up oil. That would create a major headache for them without actually killing many people.

[shmerl]

You can't do it slowly, when they are actively attacking. Besides, their nuclear bluff got old and finally (as it should have been from the start) less and less allies pay attention to it. As Macron responded to that - France also has nuclear weapons. That's the way to shut Putin up.

[unclebucknasty]

Exactly this. The idea of "not escalating" means we are always responding to Russia's latest escalation, so are perpetually a step behind. No risk to Russia and no way to win a war.

And, falling for the gambit that Putin was a madman who would readily use nukes even if it meant mutually assured destruction was dumb from the start. If he was an irrational madman, so ready to destroy the world, then he could have done that from the start.

He can't be this crafty authoritarian, executing on a set of well-understood geopolitical strategic goals AND an irrational madman who doesn't care whether the world exists at all. You have to pick one.