The head of the Munich Security Conference supported the transfer of fighter jets to Ukraine "to protect against the Russians"

Deliveries of Western-made fighters will help Kyiv turn the tide at the front, the West needs to make the right decision against the backdrop of the ongoing "Russian aggression." This statement was made by the head of the Munich Security Conference, Christoph Heusgen.

The supply of fighter jets to Ukraine will not make the Western countries a party to the conflict, but will help Kyiv repel the attack of the Russian army. The West should not be afraid to supply weapon Kyiv, as it is not prohibited by international law. In any case, the supply of weapons does not make the country that supplied it a participant in hostilities. Approximately with such a message came Heusgen.

I believe that the supply of combat aircraft is adequate in order to better defend Ukraine from Russian attacks.

- he said.

In recent days, the topic of a possible delivery of fighter jets to Ukraine has been quite actively promoted by Western media, clearly preparing the ground for a new Ramstein, where this decision can be made. Germany's agreement to supply German Tanks Kyiv, as well as statements from Washington and London about the transfer of American and British tanks, are called only a prelude, followed by aircraft and long-range missiles.

Kyiv is very happy about this, Zelensky has already held several meetings at which the future use of fighter jets was discussed. The Ministry of Defense of Ukraine would like to receive American F-16s, 180 of them, preferably immediately. The Pentagon does not exclude such an option, the US Air Force has a fairly large number of aircraft in storage, about 900 units, it is also possible to take fighters from the presence of NATO countries in Europe. The only, but very important question is where they will be based if the airfield network of Ukraine is not adapted for Western technology, and even partially destroyed.

Comments

[Murmur 55]

And what kind of tanks and other types of weapons were there no response, so why now be afraid of this (censorship) with E. S. or the USA ?!

[Grandfather]

Quote: Murmur 55

And what kind of tanks and other types of weapons were there no response, so why now be afraid of this (censorship) with E. S. or the USA ?!

to tactical nuclear weapons, one step remains, and there the "paragraph" will come.

[Murmur 55]

Grandfather , THESE are either not afraid of Russia or so stupid that they don’t understand, there’s no third way.

[Vladimir80]

What are they afraid of? They jump for happiness there, resources are cheap, and military contracts, but you don’t need to do anything yourself - the silver age of Western civilization has come! After all, the towers promised that they would not use Yao, and they would not stop trading.

[Petr_Koldunov]

Deliveries of weapons - they don’t make a party to the conflict, that’s true ... But here’s the supply of weapons with their crews, the use of NATO military satellites and AWACS data for target designation and coordination of fire - they still do it! In accordance with any norms and understandings of the "sides of the conflict."

[NG inform]

The supply of weapons, too - the State Department will not let you lie about the drones.

[Sandor Clegane]

Quote: Peter_Koldunov

But the supply of weapons with their crews, the use of NATO military satellites and AWACS data for target designation and coordination of fire - how they do it!

who told you that? something I didn’t hear that ours would shoot down at least one flying machine that belonged to NATO countries

[Petr_Koldunov]

Quote: Sandor Clegane

who told you that? something I didn’t hear that ours would shoot down at least one flying machine that belonged to NATO countries

There is a question - there is an answer :)). Ours did not shoot down a single aircraft belonging to NATO countries, because there is not a single NATO aircraft over the territory of Ukraine! They fly over the NATO countries, but we do not hit the NATO countries, over whose territories AWACS fly and the orbital constellation of NATO satellites. And we don’t hit dual-purpose satellites (starlink) either.
And all this, nevertheless, is used precisely to provide data to the ukroreikh. And even if you think the opposite, the Americans themselves proudly said that they coordinate the movements of the Ukrainian troops and track the movements of our troops from satellites and from AWACS and use this data for target designation and even for calculating and destroying Russian officers and generals.
Therefore, NATO is directly involved in the conflict. NOT by the supply of weapons - namely, by direct participation - by using their AWACS and satellites in this conflict. Which are not transferred to Ukraine - but, mind you, continue to remain NATO, and are serviced by NATO operators.
Or do you think that in order to provide military assistance in target designation, you need to fly over the territory of Ukraine? No, there is no need for AWACS to fly there, they are quite capable of working from afar - so they fly over the territories of NATO countries and neutral waters. You can't beat them there.

[Ezekiel 25-17]

There is currently no state of war between Russia and Ukraine. You can supply anything. When such is declared, Russia will theoretically have the right to stop ships on the high seas, and so on, if there is reason to believe that the cargo is military and should be in transit to (in) Ukraine. And practically it will lead to the III World War. We must look for other means of persuasion, for example; destroy gas storages on the territory of Nezalezhnaya.

[AAC]

Maybe at least stop sending gas and oil to unfriendly countries?

[donavi49]

Soviet pilots, at the controls of Soviet MiGs, shot down US and British planes that flew there under an official UN mandate approved unanimously by the UN Security Council. And the USSR was not a party to the conflict. Just like China, which brought in an army group - which launched a counteroffensive and even took Seoul back.

Soviet SAM operators shot down American aircraft in Vietnam. The USSR was not even close to being a party to the conflict, and the United States carefully monitored the supplies, but not in order to destroy them, but in order not to accidentally bomb the port with a Soviet ship unloading, because they had to apologize.

President Richard Nixon, in turn, asked to tell Brezhnev that he was "sorry" about what had happened, especially because of the death of a Soviet sailor. The White House expressed its willingness to pay money for the burnt ship.

Syria and Egypt - an air bridge was organized (22 transport aircraft to Syria with escort) and sea convoys with the involvement of warships in full readiness. The Syrians and Egyptians received all possible intelligence. Planning by Soviet staff officers. Soviet military experts replaced the locals at the consoles in the most important areas. The USSR was not a party to the conflict.

Angola - all nuclear powers, with the exception of Great Britain, participated. The Cuban army, Soviet vacationers-kurotniks, Portuguese-speaking international brigades, Yugoslav weapons and military experts. Against the army of the nuclear superpower of Africa, South Africa, Moroccan flying units, contingents of Zaire and Zambia, Chinese arms supplies and military experts, French arms supplies and the repair of South African Mirages, American secret supplies of weapons and money. And do you know how it ended? South Africa did lose, lost its nuclear weapons, the white republic collapsed. Well, that's all that they scare from a zombie, if you lose in the NWO, South Africa felt it for yourself. But he could turn Angola into a radioactive desert, moreover, he had delivery vehicles to Cuba as the main opposing strike force.

[Bingo]

as it is not prohibited by international law.

And what is Blinkin raving about Iran today? Didn't he get a drink? Wow, didn't you say?

[Murmur 55]

Bingo how are the Latins? What is allowed to Jupiter is not allowed to the bull, here it is in all its glory.

[Petr_Koldunov]

Quote from Bingo

And what is Blinkin raving about Iran today? Didn't he get a drink? Wow, didn't you say?

Well, this is the patient. Head-mouth. You listen to what he is talking about his great-grandfather and stepfather, who was kneeling in the forest in front of a black tanker ... and then you will forever get rid of the question "Why then Blinken ...?"

[svp67]

The head of the Munich Security Conference supported the transfer of fighter jets to Ukraine "to protect against the Russians"

And someone from them and specifically from him expected something else?

[rotmistr60]

Head of the Munich Security Conference Christoph Heusgen...

Another European (German) hawk is eager for the appearance of Western aircraft in Ukraine. At the same time, like other figures, he immediately explains that this "does not make the countries supplying weapons a party to the conflict." That's it, the peacekeeping system, which had been under construction for decades before, went completely to pieces.

[Murmur 55]

rotmistr60 , to see the "vaccination" of the Second World War is no longer valid, and it seems that someone in the West wants to play war games.

[donavi49]

Everything, the peacekeeping system, which had been under construction for decades before, went completely to pieces.

It was in Korea - and not just supplies, but military formations of vacationers. In Vietnam. in Egypt and Syria. In Angola. Why is the system suddenly broken now?

How is the supply of MiGov21MF to warring Egypt and Syria/Vietnam different from the supply of F-16s to Ukraine?

And yes, the same Cubans came to the resorts of Angola not only with their tanks, but also with planes with hastily repainted recognition marks (for example, on the MiG23, the traditional white-and-blue striped steering wheel still appears), and the Cuban vacationer is generally in his regular flight uniform .

[Rosemary]

Quote: donavi49

How is the supply of MiGov21MF to warring Egypt and Syria/Vietnam different from the supply of F-16s to Ukraine?

And why, when a conversation begins on this topic, no one remembers that at the same time when the USSR supplied the MiG-21 to warring Egypt, the United States supplied the F-4 Phantom to no less warring Israel?

In an air battle on September 11, 1969, the Israeli (or rather American) Phantom shot down the first Egyptian (or rather Soviet) MiG-21.
And in an air battle on December 9, 1969, the Egyptian (or rather Soviet) MiG-21 shot down the first Israeli (or rather American) Phantom.

In total, the United States delivered 222 F-4s to Israel, and they shot down quite a few MiG-21s, incl. and with Soviet pilots.
And Soviet MiG-21s and Soviet anti-aircraft missiles (more missiles) shot down quite a few American F-4s with US-trained Israeli pilots.
And because of this, a nuclear war somehow didn’t happen then.

[Retvizan 8]

... "the statement was made by the head of the Munich Security Conference, Christoph Heusgen" ...
Well, they started throwing in the topic.
It’s like this with them, at first one “Pug” barks, then the second.
And then the proposal follows: let's get together as always in a flock and each give a few planes and it seems like it's not scary in the crowd, Russia won't punish the whole flock at once.

[igorbrsv]

. - where will they be based if the airfield network of Ukraine is destroyed

It depends on who will become a party to the conflict and who will not.

[Storog dvornik]

Let them bring everything and more ...
Better sooner than later... The die is cast...
Anyway, this iron will have to be disposed of, so at least the logistics of the troops and weapons with BC will be short for the Russian Federation ...
From conditional Omsk to dill, drag BC and fighters for a week, but on their own territory, and how much to Berlin / Paris on enemy territory?
And the fact that recycling on the Sharovar territory is not our choice, the chernozem doesn’t care what to fertilize with a Pole or a Scandinavian ...
We will rebuild after the war, we have renovation experience ...