![]() ![]() The F-16 approval has been a long, slow slog. finally agreed to send 31 Abrams to Ukraine. Under escalating pressure from European nations that wanted to send Ukraine their own tanks, the U.S. ![]() had said the Abrams was too complicated and required too much logistical support for Ukrainian troops. Of note was the recent turnabout on M1A1 Abrams tanks. And in each case, it eventually succumbed to pressure from allies and agreed to send the increasingly advanced weapons. balked at sending Patriot missile batteries, longer-range missiles or tanks. has proven again and again during the war that it can change its mind.Įarly on the U.S. The other key reason, however, is the ongoing concern that sending fighter jets to Ukraine would enrage the Russians, provoke President Vladimir Putin and possibly escalate or broaden the war.ĭespite all the concerns, the U.S. ![]() So the emphasis has been on sending air defense systems and millions of rounds of rockets, missiles and other ammunition - as Ukraine prepares for a much expected spring offensive. was providing to Ukraine was based on what the country needed most to fight the war. ![]() officials at the Pentagon have insisted that the military aid the U.S. In one instance earlier this year he was asked why he opposed sending them, and he responded, “Because we should keep them here.” Kirby said, “No.”Īsked similar questions in recent months, Biden also declined to approve the F-16s. had in any way changed its position on F-16s not being the right focus for military aid. had so far declined to allow other countries to export their U.S.-made Falcons to Ukraine.Īs recently as Monday, after Zelenskyy reiterated his desire for F-16s and other jets, National Security Council spokesman John Kirby was asked if the U.S. officials - from Biden on down - had flatly rejected sending F-16s to Ukraine, when asked publicly. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |