March 17, 2023 - 1:30pm
In a surprise move, the Slovak government has announced that it will supply 13 MiG-29 fighter jets to Ukraine. Bratislava has been mulling sending the planes for weeks, but appears to have been spurred into action by Poland’s announcement yesterday that it would send four of its own MiGs to Ukraine in the coming days, with more to follow.
As the first two nations to send fighter jets to Ukraine, Poland and Slovakia have crossed another of the West’s previously stated red lines in arming Kyiv. The question now is whether their initiative will lead other Western powers, capable of supplying more advanced planes, to follow suit.
The MiG-29 jets now being donated do not alter the technological balance of power in the war. These Soviet-era aircraft are already used by Ukrainian pilots, so deliveries can be considered more as a replenishment of stocks than a qualitative shift in Ukraine’s capabilities.
The Slovak government gave a particularly modest assessment of the utility of the planes it is donating. Most are not currently operational — three of them don’t have engines — and some will only serve for spare parts. The government said that sending them to Ukraine is a logical way to “get rid of” old planes which would otherwise be left unused. Poland’s jets, meanwhile, are “at the end of their operational life but still functional,” according to Polish President Andrzej Duda.
Bratislava also stressed that donated planes should be used for protective operations, rather than attacks — although quite where this distinction will be drawn in the event of an anticipated Ukrainian counteroffensive is unclear. Analysts point out that MiGs currently being flown by Ukraine are fitted with Western missiles that can strike targets dozens of miles away, making them capable of playing a supporting role in attacks on Russian positions without coming directly into the line of fire.
Given their relatively limited set of capabilities, though, the true measure of success for Polish and Slovak plane deliveries may be whether they help break the dam on more advanced fighter jet donations from NATO member states. Poland is being coy about also potentially providing American-made F-16 planes, which would take Ukraine’s aerial abilities up a notch. As it has throughout the war, Warsaw is applying not-so-subtle pressure on the great Western powers to do away with their scruples about giving Ukraine these more advanced systems.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribePerhaps this is picking nits, but the F16 is actually older than the MiG-29. The former entered service in 1980, the latter in 1983. Granted, the individual planes themselves would surely be younger as the F16 is still in production. The US has mostly transitioned to newer designs themselves but still sells the F16 to allies. What the Ukrainians are getting from Poland/Slovakia are literally 30+ year old planes from before the USSR collapsed. Still, I’m not sure the F16 would be a ‘game-changer’ in the way the author implies as it’s the same generation as the MiG and the two planes were basically built to fight each other and neither was considered vastly superior. The F16 became a hugely popular design primarily mostly because it’s cheaper to produce than almost any other American plane, either before or since. There are more modern planes, of course, but the US almost surely won’t give Ukraine F22s or F35s, nor will any of the few other countries who fly those planes without the permission of the USA.
Good point. Unless they get planes in much larger quantities, it will be the war on the ground that will be decisive, one way or the other.
It’s not the airframes that matter, it’s the avionics and radars and weapons systems.
Good point. Unless they get planes in much larger quantities, it will be the war on the ground that will be decisive, one way or the other.
It’s not the airframes that matter, it’s the avionics and radars and weapons systems.
Perhaps this is picking nits, but the F16 is actually older than the MiG-29. The former entered service in 1980, the latter in 1983. Granted, the individual planes themselves would surely be younger as the F16 is still in production. The US has mostly transitioned to newer designs themselves but still sells the F16 to allies. What the Ukrainians are getting from Poland/Slovakia are literally 30+ year old planes from before the USSR collapsed. Still, I’m not sure the F16 would be a ‘game-changer’ in the way the author implies as it’s the same generation as the MiG and the two planes were basically built to fight each other and neither was considered vastly superior. The F16 became a hugely popular design primarily mostly because it’s cheaper to produce than almost any other American plane, either before or since. There are more modern planes, of course, but the US almost surely won’t give Ukraine F22s or F35s, nor will any of the few other countries who fly those planes without the permission of the USA.
‘The year is 2027. The Ukraine war continues. Prime Minister Eddie Izzard has promised that despite previous Trident deliveries the hydrogen bomb is a red line’
The real question is whether the Russians will prefer Cake or Death.
The real question is whether the Russians will prefer Cake or Death.
‘The year is 2027. The Ukraine war continues. Prime Minister Eddie Izzard has promised that despite previous Trident deliveries the hydrogen bomb is a red line’
Eastern European nations, including Poland and Slovakia, have long been seen within the EU as the “poor cousins”. I’ve had this discussion with Slovakians and Hungarians and they really resent this treatment as second class citizens.
The war in the Ukraine has shown them as having sized up the situations astutely and correctly while others dozed, equivocated or stayed in outright denial. They’ve also shown what courage they have and they know from their own recent histories what they are dealing with.
Finally, don’t underestimate the feeling of Slavic brotherhood which exists between these countries and the Ukraine. That is certainly a factor driving these countries to break ranks, go further and take more risks for their Ukrainian brothers.
What we are seeing now is the start of shifting power within the EU, with the willingness to cross boundaries and lead the way militarily being just the beginning. France and Germany had better find a bit more than the previous history of the EU to justify their current status within it.
I’m wondering what Austrians think of this and also of support for Ukraine in general since Austria seems very pro EU but nevertheless sitting comfortably on the fence in terms of European defence (NATO) against a hostile aggressor? It’s very convenient for the Alpine nations to stay out of the picture whilst surrounded by other nations who are taking the responsibility, even if historic ties to Budapest are part of the reason, but its 2023 and not the 1800’s.
Sitting on the fence is the best definition I can think of for Austrian foreign policy generally. There is no country in Europe less willing to stick its neck out and actually have an opinion. They’ve elevated equivocation to an art form.
It’s worth remembering that the aggression has not been against either NATO or the EU, one of which is meant to be a defensive alliance and the other of which has no military capacity. It’s not Austria’s war.
We must remember that Austria only achieved post WW2 independence on agreeing a perpetual neutrality pact in 1955.
Sitting on the fence is the best definition I can think of for Austrian foreign policy generally. There is no country in Europe less willing to stick its neck out and actually have an opinion. They’ve elevated equivocation to an art form.
It’s worth remembering that the aggression has not been against either NATO or the EU, one of which is meant to be a defensive alliance and the other of which has no military capacity. It’s not Austria’s war.
We must remember that Austria only achieved post WW2 independence on agreeing a perpetual neutrality pact in 1955.
I’m wondering what Austrians think of this and also of support for Ukraine in general since Austria seems very pro EU but nevertheless sitting comfortably on the fence in terms of European defence (NATO) against a hostile aggressor? It’s very convenient for the Alpine nations to stay out of the picture whilst surrounded by other nations who are taking the responsibility, even if historic ties to Budapest are part of the reason, but its 2023 and not the 1800’s.
Eastern European nations, including Poland and Slovakia, have long been seen within the EU as the “poor cousins”. I’ve had this discussion with Slovakians and Hungarians and they really resent this treatment as second class citizens.
The war in the Ukraine has shown them as having sized up the situations astutely and correctly while others dozed, equivocated or stayed in outright denial. They’ve also shown what courage they have and they know from their own recent histories what they are dealing with.
Finally, don’t underestimate the feeling of Slavic brotherhood which exists between these countries and the Ukraine. That is certainly a factor driving these countries to break ranks, go further and take more risks for their Ukrainian brothers.
What we are seeing now is the start of shifting power within the EU, with the willingness to cross boundaries and lead the way militarily being just the beginning. France and Germany had better find a bit more than the previous history of the EU to justify their current status within it.
When will the mainstream taboo about the likelihood of ‘pro Ukrainian’ involvement in the destruction of the Nordstream pipelines be broken?
Surely this changes everything? Are they really an ally to be unquestionably supported?
This has nothing to do with the article, Adamovicz. It’s not a question of being an ally, it’s supporting the bastion facing the Russian empire. The Northstream pipelines incident just served to unite Europe in freeing itself from dependency on a hostile and aggresive neighbour with a strategy of imperialism and plans to recover lost territories. The upticks are just a symptom of the infiltration of this media by those otherwise inclined so I expect downticks on my piece.
Well interestingly we appear to be 5-5 on upticks..
Yes, of course, Putin is a tyrant, but it is the American Empire that has been stoking this war for 30 years, with the endless eastward march of NATO and then the Maidan coup of 2014 (isn’t that what you call the overthrow of a democratically elected government?)
How ironic that we’ve just had the 20th anniversary of the mother of all illegal unprovoked wars, as ever started shamelessly the Americans.
This has got everything to do with the insane idea of providing jet fighters to Ukraine and risking the start of WW3.
The Ukrainians are just as corrupt as the Russians, and merely the bulwark for American geopolitical ambitions. Why are we backing them to the hilt and not questioning more?
Being a corrupt nation doesn’t entitle your neighbour to invade and start killing your population and flattening your cities. The West’s fault was in ignoring the invasion of Crimea, not in allowing former Soviet-controlled nations to exercise their democratic choice to join NATO and/or the EU. NATO will now expand to include Finland, and (if they sort their differences with Turkey) Sweden. Only Putin and his supporters are to blame for this situation.
You make it sound like Russia agreed at some point to conduct itself under the rules of the West’s global liberal order.
Who says Ukraine is entitled to make a democratic choice to join NATO/EU? You beg the question at issue, which is whether the USA or whether Russia makes the rules for Ukraine.
However hard it is for Putin to conscript people to fight in Ukraine, it will be as nothing compared to the problems the Americans would have. We shall see.
“You make it sound like Russia agreed at some point to conduct itself under the rules of the West’s global liberal order.”
Russia signed the Budapest memorandum, prohibiting aggression -military and economic – towards independent former Soviet states, including Ukraine.
“Who says Ukraine is entitled to make a democratic choice to join NATO/EU? You beg the question at issue, which is whether the USA or whether Russia makes the rules for Ukraine.”
NATO has an open-door policy with admission granted on the agreement of existing members. Ukraine is free to apply, should they choose.
“However hard it is for Putin to conscript people to fight in Ukraine, it will be as nothing compared to the problems the Americans would have. We shall see.”
I think we are seeing the difficulties Russia is facing. Ukrainians are well motivated to defend their homeland and prepared to fight for it. Russia instead sends ill-trained and ill-equipped conscripts, prisoners, and mercenaries. Russia may well prevail in this war, but it will be a pyrrhic victory if they do.
“You make it sound like Russia agreed at some point to conduct itself under the rules of the West’s global liberal order.”
Russia signed the Budapest memorandum, prohibiting aggression -military and economic – towards independent former Soviet states, including Ukraine.
“Who says Ukraine is entitled to make a democratic choice to join NATO/EU? You beg the question at issue, which is whether the USA or whether Russia makes the rules for Ukraine.”
NATO has an open-door policy with admission granted on the agreement of existing members. Ukraine is free to apply, should they choose.
“However hard it is for Putin to conscript people to fight in Ukraine, it will be as nothing compared to the problems the Americans would have. We shall see.”
I think we are seeing the difficulties Russia is facing. Ukrainians are well motivated to defend their homeland and prepared to fight for it. Russia instead sends ill-trained and ill-equipped conscripts, prisoners, and mercenaries. Russia may well prevail in this war, but it will be a pyrrhic victory if they do.
You make it sound like Russia agreed at some point to conduct itself under the rules of the West’s global liberal order.
Who says Ukraine is entitled to make a democratic choice to join NATO/EU? You beg the question at issue, which is whether the USA or whether Russia makes the rules for Ukraine.
However hard it is for Putin to conscript people to fight in Ukraine, it will be as nothing compared to the problems the Americans would have. We shall see.
Being a corrupt nation doesn’t entitle your neighbour to invade and start killing your population and flattening your cities. The West’s fault was in ignoring the invasion of Crimea, not in allowing former Soviet-controlled nations to exercise their democratic choice to join NATO and/or the EU. NATO will now expand to include Finland, and (if they sort their differences with Turkey) Sweden. Only Putin and his supporters are to blame for this situation.
Well interestingly we appear to be 5-5 on upticks..
Yes, of course, Putin is a tyrant, but it is the American Empire that has been stoking this war for 30 years, with the endless eastward march of NATO and then the Maidan coup of 2014 (isn’t that what you call the overthrow of a democratically elected government?)
How ironic that we’ve just had the 20th anniversary of the mother of all illegal unprovoked wars, as ever started shamelessly the Americans.
This has got everything to do with the insane idea of providing jet fighters to Ukraine and risking the start of WW3.
The Ukrainians are just as corrupt as the Russians, and merely the bulwark for American geopolitical ambitions. Why are we backing them to the hilt and not questioning more?
During WW2 we gave the Russians our unquestioning support. We should do likewise now to the Ukraine.
When you say pro-Ukrainian, you mean American, right
Surely helping Ukrainians defend themselves from a nation whose leader has just been convicted of war crimes has nothing to do with Ukraine, and everything to do with the US.
No nation–other than the US, China and Russia–have, or should have, any agency in the world.
Indeed, perhaps Obama was the one who convinced Yanukovch to join the EU–the ultimate cause of all this conflict?
The neo-cons are everywhere!
Convicted of war crimes
When did this happen?
In your reality, is Milosevic still president of Serbia?
In your reality, is Milosevic still president of Serbia?
Convicted of war crimes
When did this happen?
Surely helping Ukrainians defend themselves from a nation whose leader has just been convicted of war crimes has nothing to do with Ukraine, and everything to do with the US.
No nation–other than the US, China and Russia–have, or should have, any agency in the world.
Indeed, perhaps Obama was the one who convinced Yanukovch to join the EU–the ultimate cause of all this conflict?
The neo-cons are everywhere!
Looks like nobody cares.
Indeed, that’s because nobody in the West–to include the US and Ukraine–would have done it, since any such attack would be senseless.
No matter what the trolls tell you, Russia can still send plenty of gas to Germany, et al, through Druzhba and Yamal.
Thanks for your inability to reply!
Thanks for your inability to reply!
This has nothing to do with the article, Adamovicz. It’s not a question of being an ally, it’s supporting the bastion facing the Russian empire. The Northstream pipelines incident just served to unite Europe in freeing itself from dependency on a hostile and aggresive neighbour with a strategy of imperialism and plans to recover lost territories. The upticks are just a symptom of the infiltration of this media by those otherwise inclined so I expect downticks on my piece.
During WW2 we gave the Russians our unquestioning support. We should do likewise now to the Ukraine.
When you say pro-Ukrainian, you mean American, right
Looks like nobody cares.
Indeed, that’s because nobody in the West–to include the US and Ukraine–would have done it, since any such attack would be senseless.
No matter what the trolls tell you, Russia can still send plenty of gas to Germany, et al, through Druzhba and Yamal.
When will the mainstream taboo about the likelihood of ‘pro Ukrainian’ involvement in the destruction of the Nordstream pipelines be broken?
Surely this changes everything? Are they really an ally to be unquestionably supported?
If Ukraine were fighting anyone other than the apparently inept Russian army, it might appear that sending them MIG-29 aircraft was some sort of joke, those planes being not exactly cutting edge technology. But the Ukrainians have demonstrated more than once that they will use whatever arms they can get very effectively. They will make the Russians regret having produced MIG-29s at all.
If Ukraine were fighting anyone other than the apparently inept Russian army, it might appear that sending them MIG-29 aircraft was some sort of joke, those planes being not exactly cutting edge technology. But the Ukrainians have demonstrated more than once that they will use whatever arms they can get very effectively. They will make the Russians regret having produced MIG-29s at all.
Wonderful post
Thanks
Wonderful post
Thanks
Ukraine needs things like tanks and arty rounds much more than jets.
The anti-aircraft artillery of both sides is such that neither dares fly beyond the front lines. If a Buch can shoot down a missile, it can shoot down a jet.
Indeed, the Russian army shot down far more Russian aircraft than Ukrainian in the first few weeks of the war.
It’s what happens on the ground that will decide this war.
It would seem that air-superiority is not (yet) a deciding factor in this conflict, otherwise Russia would be exploiting theirs to fly bombing missions, and attacking front-line positions. Perhaps the Russian airforce is not up to scratch, or air-defences in Ukraine are capable of inflicting enough losses to the Russian airforce to make them desist; not even attack helicopters (of which the Russian’s are well-equipped) are much in evidence. As you say, this conflict will be decided on the ground and what Ukraine needs is ordnance, ammunition and trained troops. Russia doesn’t want to rely on drafting ordinary citizens to avoid the loss of morale and support amongst the population, and it doesn’t have enough prisoners to act as cannon-fodder for the Wagner group. This is a war of attrition and the side with sufficient resources and trained personnel will prevail.
It would seem that air-superiority is not (yet) a deciding factor in this conflict, otherwise Russia would be exploiting theirs to fly bombing missions, and attacking front-line positions. Perhaps the Russian airforce is not up to scratch, or air-defences in Ukraine are capable of inflicting enough losses to the Russian airforce to make them desist; not even attack helicopters (of which the Russian’s are well-equipped) are much in evidence. As you say, this conflict will be decided on the ground and what Ukraine needs is ordnance, ammunition and trained troops. Russia doesn’t want to rely on drafting ordinary citizens to avoid the loss of morale and support amongst the population, and it doesn’t have enough prisoners to act as cannon-fodder for the Wagner group. This is a war of attrition and the side with sufficient resources and trained personnel will prevail.
Ukraine needs things like tanks and arty rounds much more than jets.
The anti-aircraft artillery of both sides is such that neither dares fly beyond the front lines. If a Buch can shoot down a missile, it can shoot down a jet.
Indeed, the Russian army shot down far more Russian aircraft than Ukrainian in the first few weeks of the war.
It’s what happens on the ground that will decide this war.