Time proves everything...
https://www.wsj.com/world/ukrainian-f-16-is-destroyed-in-crash-4f6d66f6It's a good time to come up with a complete summary of what we discussed in this topic regarding F-16 fighter jets Ukraine were supposed to receive. Over the past year I've speculated about them and how they were too "hyped up" in the Western media and with recent information that has surfaced, specially this recent WSJ article we can see that all the following statements I've made over the past year were accurate.
On the other hand, Ukraine, although slowly, is being supplied by other countries with the latest weapons. On the way, by the end of the year, already the first fifty F-16 fighters. If Ukraine has been quite successful in this year and a half with 120 obsolete Soviet aircraft,
Sorry for going OT but I wonder what aircraft you consider "obsolete", specially when you compare it with F-16 which you refer to as "latest weapons"!!!
The fighter jets that Ukraine has/had were MiG-29 (introduced on 1983), Su-24 (1974), Su-25 (1981), Su-27 (1984). None of these are considered obsolete specially when compared with F-16 (introduced 1978)! which is older than 90% of what Ukraine had before!
It starts from my first statement to @Ozero that compared to the Eastern warplanes Ukraine already had, the F-16 is not a good addition and if anything is to be considered obsolete, it is not the Ukraine's existing airforce, it is what they are being given. We've already seen that Ukraine is performing far better with its Mig-29 and Su-27 specially as we saw in the Kursk invasion.
Congratulations on receiving the first tiny batch of F-16 fighters. So how many were in it? 6? 12? Did they make any difference or was I correct when months ago I said it is too little too late and it won't have any meaningful impact on the result of this conflict?
Time answers another question as well. The number was 6. Only 6. They did not have any meaningful impact. Even if they were the most modern aircraft with the most trained pilots, 6 of them would not have made a meaningful difference.
In other words this was not too little too late, it is too nothing too late.
~ it depends on a lot of factors such as
- the pilots of those F16's, how much training did they have and at what quality,
On one hand we have Russia that still has a large number of air-defenses which include high quality and long range radars and anti-air missiles alongside a large air-force with modern aircrafts with pilots flying them who have been trained for a long time under favorable conditions.
Not much is expected of a Ukrainian pilot with little training abroad (language barrier) on a Western system they are not even familiar with.
The article proves at least one of these statements as well.
Ukraine is already losing those F-16 fighter jets. Like the case explained in the WSJ article. If it were shot down by a Russia air-defense it proves what I said about Russian air-superiority or rather air-dominance.
But also if the Americans are telling the truth and the Ukrainian pilot has actually crashed the plane it proves the other thing I said. The training they received (abroad, with language barrier on a Western system they are not familiar or comfortable with) is not at all enough to make the aircrafts they received useful.
Let's get back to topic. This whole F-16 talk may seem off topic but it is actually very on-topic. Why didn't the US regime give Ukraine more than 6 of these jets? Why is the regime giving them very little ammunition as well? Why is the regime dragging this conflict on and prohibiting Ukraine from negotiating?
Read the title of the topic another time. That's the US regime's goal. A war of attrition against Russia and in order to "implode Russia", the US regime has to destroy Ukraine first. This is why so little is being given to them to only keep them in this conflict without letting them being defeated and at the same time without allowing them to gain any victory over Russia! At the same time prohibiting any peace negotiations that could lead to a cease fire.
This is why the Istanbul peace treaty that Ukraine and Russia came up with only a month into the conflict that would have ended all the past 3 years' death and destruction right then and there, had to be rejected. A peace treaty that US regime ordered to be rejected through their proxy, Boris Johnson.
Is Russian economy "imploding" or as OP quoted from the American mouthpiece "
The economy is imploding. We forecast a GDP collapse of -30% by end-2022". Did that happen? I don't see it. The 2022 GDP growth was -2.1 and +3.6 for 2023 according to the WorldBank. Compared to the bigger negative growths Russia has had like the -7.8 in 2009, this seems like nothing.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG?end=2023&locations=RU&start=1990&view=chartUnfortunately this means US regime will not allow this conflict to end until either they reach their goal and Russian economy "implodes" or there is nothing left of Ukraine.