If confirmed by the Senate, Bertagnolli would take control of a sprawling agency charged with investigating a range of diseases and finding new treatments. The NIH has traditionally enjoyed bipartisan support in Congress, with a budget that now exceeds $45 billion.
But the role would also thrust her into the center of a prolonged fight over the origins of the coronavirus pandemic. House Republicans have prioritized investigating the NIH’s funding of research projects, in search of evidence that some of its grants may have inadvertently triggered Covid’s spread.
The NIH has not had a permanent director since December 2021, when Francis Collins stepped down after more than a decade atop the agency. Lawrence Tabak, the NIH’s longtime principal deputy director, has since served as acting director.
The White House had struggled for months to settle on a nominee, hampered by difficulties attracting top talent from more lucrative private sector jobs and concerns among potential candidates that their time in the role may come to an end along with the president’s first term.
President Joe Biden had also pushed hard for the NIH nominee to be an oncologist, the people familiar with the matter said. Biden launched the Cancer Moonshot during the Obama administration, and maintains a deep interest in cancer research in part due to the death of his son, Beau, from brain cancer in 2015.
Bertagnolli, who previously did stints at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, had won internal praise during her short time at the NCI.
She also made headlines shortly after taking the job for disclosing her own early-stage breast cancer diagnosis following a routine mammogram. She wrote at the time that “it’s one thing to know about cancer as a physician, but it is another to experience it firsthand as a patient as well. To anyone with cancer today: I am truly in this together with you.”
If confirmed, Bertagnolli would be the second woman to head the NIH.
[ad_2]
#Biden #picks #cancer #surgeon #run #NIH
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
Hyderabad: Just ten days are left until the Eid ul Fitr festival and markets are abuzz with shoppers.
‘Shop till you drop’ is the mantra of shoppers thronging the markets of the old city. While traditional markets at Charminar, Pathergatti, Khilwat, Sultan Bazaar, Mallepally, Tolichowki, Abid Road, Nampally, Musheerabad and Secunderabad are already packed.
Switch from old city markets to new malls
The trendy youngsters prefer the malls and big establishments at Abid Road, Ameerpet, Punjagutta, Dilsukhnagar, Masab Tank, Madhapur, Jubilee Hills, Kondapur Road, A S Rao Nagar, Malkajgiri, Secunderabad Park Lane and Begumpet.
“It’s all about choice. Other than the traditional wear we buy the regular or party wear clothes at the outlets of various prominent readymade clothing brands,” said Mohd Hussain, a resident of Moghalpura, who works with an IT company.
The switch of buyers from the old city markets to newer areas of the city has not hampered the sales at the markets. “The newer generations preferred Abids, Nampally, Koti and Narayanguda until five years ago, now they prefer Jubilee Hills, Madhapur, Begumpet, Secunderabad, Banjara Hills and Punjagutta for their apparels,” said Abid Mohiuddin, secretary Old City Traders Association.
Business in Old City
In the run-up to Eid-ul-Fitr, shops remain in business until ‘sehri’ time. Recently, the Telangana government in an order permitted shops and establishments, except bars and clubs, to remain open 24×7, provided they obtain special permissions.
After the Covid pandemic when business suffered a lot, the traders heaved a sigh as sales picked up now. “Still there is a fear in the people about Covid with fresh reports coming about new cases. It has not impacted business so far,” said Riyazuddin, a footwear dealer at Nayapul.
Shopping in old city markets is a different experience. The best part is that one can bargain at the shops and roadside stalls alike. Crockery, shoes and other footwear, skull caps, bangles, home furnishings, apparel, bridal wear, traditional costumes and other stuff are sold on the 2 km stretch between Madina Building and Charminar.
Arrangements for iftar are made all over the market by the traders for the facility of the customers and salesmen.
SRINAGAR: The Comptroller and Auditor General of India has revealed irregularities in implementation of Swaach Bharat (Urban) Mission scheme in Jammu and Kashmir.
In its report tabled in the Parliament, CAG said that only ten percent Individual Household Latrines (IHHLs) constructed under the scheme were found functional.
The compliance audit of two components under Swachh Bharat Mission (U) that includes individual household latrines (IHHLs) and public toilets (PTs), was carried out covering the period from 2016-17 to 2020-21.
The auditor noticed that the ULBs had not carried out house-to-house survey to identify beneficiaries for providing IHHLs.
“Progress of work was not closely monitored and no monitoring reports were on record. Beneficiary survey and physical verification of selected 942 IHHLs shown constructed by NGOs revealed that only 95 (10 per cent) were functional,” the report states.
The auditor has also pointed out that doubtful payment of Rs 116.48 lakh was made to NGOs in respect of construction of IHHLs and there was unproductive expenditure of Rs 91.30 lakh in respect of 522 IHHLs.
“Out of 173 physically verified PTs, 108 PTs were incomplete, abandoned or non-functional,” the report states.
The Government of India (GoI) launched the flagship scheme of Swachh Bharat Mission (Urban) on October 02, 2014 with the objective of making urban India 100 percent free from open defecation in areas falling under the Urban Local Bodies in the country by October 2019.
SBM, Urban (U) is being implemented by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Government of India (MoH&UA) and Housing and Urban Development (H&UDD), Government of Jammu and Kashmir.
SBM (U) has various components and is funded by the Government of India (GoI) and the State Government on 90:10 basis.
LONDON — “Better than the last guy” might not be quite the tagline every world leader hopes for. It could yet be Rishi Sunak’s winning formula.
The British prime minister, swept into office late last year by wave after wave of Tory psychodrama, has cleared several major hurdles in the space of the past month. His success has even sparked a shocking rumor in Westminster that — whisper it — he might actually be quite good at his job.
That was the murmur among hopeful Conservative MPs ahead of this week’s U.K. budget, anyway — many of them buoyed by the PM’s recent moves on two long-running sources of angst in Westminster.
First came an apparent resolution to the intractable problem of post-Brexit trade arrangements in Northern Ireland. Sunak’s so-called Windsor Framework deal with Brussels landed to near-universal acclaim.
A week later, Sunak unveiled hard-hitting legislation to clamp down on illegal migration to the U.K., coupled with an expensive deal with France to increase patrols across the English Channel. Tory MPs were delighted. The Illegal Migration Bill sailed through parliament Monday night without a single vote of rebellion.
Then came Wednesday’s annual budget announcement, with Sunak hoping to complete an improbable hat trick.
It started well, with Chancellor Jeremy Hunt making the big reveal that the U.K. is no longer expected to enter recession this year, as had been widely predicted.
But a series of jaw-droppers in the budget small print show the scale of the challenge ahead.
The U.K.’s overall tax take remains sky-high by historic standards — an ominous bone of contention for skeptical Tory MPs and right-wing newspapers alike. Meanwhile, millions of Britons’ living standards continue to fall, thanks to high fuel bills and raging inflation. U.K. growth forecasts remain sluggish for years to come.
“He’s chalking up some wins,” observed one former party adviser grimly, “because he’s going to need them.”
‘Workmanlike’
Among all but the bitterest of Sunak’s Tory opponents, there is a palpable sense of relief about the way he has approached his premiership so far.
“It doesn’t mean everything will suddenly turn to gold,” said Conservative MP Richard Graham, a longtime Sunak-backer. “But like Ben Stokes and England’s cricket team, his quiet self-confidence may change what the same team believes is possible.”
Nicky Morgan, a Conservative peer and former Treasury minister, praised a “workmanlike” budget that would reassure voters and the party there was a “firm hand on the tiller” after the “turmoil” of the preceding year with two prime ministers stepping down, Boris Johnson and then Liz Truss.
UK Chancellor Jeremy Hunt meets children during a visit to Busy Bees Battersea Nursery in south London after delivering his Budget earlier in the day | Stefan Rousseau/POOL/AFP via Getty Images
Most of Wednesday’s biggest announcements, including an extra £4 billion for childcare and a decision to lift the cap on pensions allowances, were either trailed or leaked in advance. This may have made for a predictable budget speech, but as Morgan put it: “I think that’s probably what businesses and the public need at the moment.”
An ex-minister who did not originally support Sunak for leader said that the general tone of the budget, together with the Northern Ireland deal and small boats legislation, meant that “increasingly it’s hard for hostile voices to pin real failure on Rishi.”
Others, however, fear key announcements could yet unravel. An expensive change to pension taxes was instantly savaged by critics as a “giveaway for the 1 percent.” Headline-grabbing back-to-work programs and an expansion of free childcare will take years to kick in.
Hiking corporation tax was the “biggest mistake of the budget,” Truss ally and former Cabinet minister Jacob Rees-Mogg complained.
Doing the hard yards
Observers note that in the wake of the rolling chaos under Truss and Johnson, the bar for a successful government has been lowered.
“[Sunak] could stand at the podium and soil himself, and he’d be doing a better job than his predecessors,” noted one business group lobbyist on Wednesday evening, having watched budget day unfold.
But even Sunak’s fiercest critics praise his work rate and attention to detail, in sharp contrast to Johnson. Most accept — grudgingly — he has set up an effective Downing Street operation.
Having returned from his Paris summit last Friday evening, the PM kicked off budget week with a whirlwind trip to the west coast of California to launch a defense pact with the U.S. and Australia, arranging a bank bailout along the way. He landed back in the U.K. less than 24 hours before Hunt unveiled the annual spending plan.
“It turns out working like an absolute maniac and being forensic is quite useful,” one of his ministers said.
Another Tory MP added: “He’s got the brainpower and will do the hours. He’s not good at barnstorming politics or old school dividing lines — but he is good for the politics we have right now.”
There has also been a clear effort to run a tighter ship behind the scenes at No. 10. One veteran of Johnson’s Downing Street said the atmosphere seemed “calm” in comparison.
There are tentative signs that voters are starting to notice.
James Johnson, who ran a recent poll by JL Partners which showed Sunak’s personal ratings are on the up, said the PM’s growing reputation as a “fixer” seems to be behind his recent rally, and that the biggest increase on his polling scorecard was on his ability to “get things done.”
It remains to be seen if this will shift the dial on the Tory Party’s own disastrous ratings, however, which languish some 25 points behind the opposition Labour Party. “Voters have clearly lost trust in the Tories,” Johnson said. “But if government can deliver … I would expect it to feed through.”
Anthony Browne, a Tory MP elected in 2019, expressed hope that Sunak had begun “changing the narrative” which in turn “could restore our right to be heard.”
Trouble ahead?
Sunak will be well aware that plenty of recent budgets — not least Truss’ spectacular failure last September — have unraveled in the 72 hours after being announced.
And while expanding free childcare, incentivizing business investment and ending the lifetime pensions allowance were all crowd-pleasers for his own MPs, they were not enough to conceal worrying subheadings.
The tax take is predicted to reach a post-war high of 37.7 percent in the next five years, while disposable incomes are hit by fiscal drag pulling 3.2 million people into higher tax bands. Right-wing Tories are not impressed.
Ranil Jayawardena, founder of the Conservative Growth Group of backbench MPs, described it in a statement as “an effective income tax rise,” which will be “a concern to many.”
Net migration is set to rise to 245,000 a year by 2026-27, and will add more people to the labor force than all the measures intended to make it a “back to work” budget, according to the Whitehall’s fiscal watchdog, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR). The message is not one Conservative MPs want to hear.
Already singled out by Labour’s Keir Starmer as a “huge giveaway to the wealthiest,” scrapping the lifetime allowance on pensions will cost £835 million a year by 2027-28 while benefiting less than 4 percent of workers. Conservative MPs reply that NHS doctors are one of the main groups to benefit.
Perhaps most worrying of all, the government’s own budget expects living standards to fall by 6 percent this year and next — less than the 7 percent fall predicted in November but still the largest two-year fall since records began in the 1950s.
There are some problems that can’t be solved by pulling an all-nighter. Ironically for Sunak, whose career was made in the Treasury, his may prove to be the state of the U.K. economy.
Rosa Prince, Stefan Boscia and Dan Bloom contributed reporting.
[ad_2]
#Rishi #Sunak #picks #budget #minefield
( With inputs from : www.politico.eu )
Los Angeles: ‘Everything Everywhere All at Once’ was named best picture at the 95th Academy Awards, capping off an improbable awards season run by winning the movie business’s highest honour.
The film, an adventure about a Chinese-American laundromat owner grappling with an IRS audit and inter-dimensional attackers, earned seven statues, including original screenplay and directing honours for its creators Daniel Kwan and Daniel Scheinert (collectively known as the Daniels), reports ‘Variety’.
The victory is a big one for A24, the indie studio that pushed the zany film to an impressive $100 million at the box office, a stunning achievement at a time when the market for arthouse movies has shrivelled.
The studio also managed the rare feat of nabbing all four acting honours — three of which were won by ‘Everything Everywhere All at Once’ and one by ‘The Whale’.
It was a night of comebacks and reassessments. Michelle Yeoh of ‘Everything Everywhere All at Once’ became only the second woman of colour to be recognized as best actress. The honour came after a long career in martial arts and action movies like ‘Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon’ and ‘Yes, Madam’.
“Ladies, don’t ever let anyone tell you that you are past your prime,” Yeoh said. “For all the little boys and girls who look like me watching tonight, this is a beacon of hope and possibility.”
Meanwhile, Brendan Fraser took best actor honors for his performance as a morbidly obese man trying to reconnect with his estranged daughter in ‘The Whale’.
Fraser, once an A-list star known for his work in popcorn flicks such as ‘George of the Jungle’ and ‘The Mummy’, had spent the last decade changing away from the spotlight dealing with health and personal struggles. His win continues his remarkable resurgence.
“I started in this business 30 years ago, and this – they certainly didn’t come easily to me, but there was a facility that I didn’t appreciate at the time until it stopped,” Fraser said, acknowledging his career setbacks. He thanked his director Darren Aronofsky for “throwing me a creative lifeline and hauling me aboard”.
Here are the winners:
Best Picture – ‘Everything Everywhere All at Once’
Best Lead Actress – Michelle Yeoh for ‘Everything Everywhere All at Once’
Best Lead Actor – Brendan Fraser for ‘The Whale’
Best Director – Daniel Kwan, Daniel Scheinert for ‘Everything Everywhere All at Once’
Best Film Editing – ‘Everything Everywhere All at Once’
Best Original Song – ‘Naatu Naatu’ from ‘RRR’
Best Sound – ‘Top Gun: Maverick’
Best Adapted Screenplay – ‘Women Talking’
Best Original Screenplay – ‘Everything Everywhere All at Once’
Best Visual Effects – ‘Avatar: The Way of Water’
Best Original Score – ‘All Quiet on the Western Front’
Best Production Design – ‘All Quiet on the Western Front’
Best Animated Short Film – ‘The Boy, the Mole, the Fox and the Horse’
Best Documentary Short Film – ‘The Elephant Whisperers’
Best International Feature Film – ‘All Quiet on the Western Fronta�
Best Costume Design – ‘Black Panther: Wakanda Forever’
Best Makeup and Hairstyling – ‘The Whale’
Best Cinematography – ‘All Quiet on the Western Front’
Best Live Action Short – ‘An Irish Goodbye’
Best Documentary Feature Film – ‘Navalny’
Best Supporting Actress – Jamie Lee Curtis for ‘Everything Everywhere All at Once’
Best Supporting Actor – Ke Huy Quan for ‘Everything Everywhere All at Once’
Best Animated Feature Film – ‘Guillermo del Toro’s Pinocchio’
SRINAGAR: The auction for the inaugural edition of the Women’s Premier League (WPL), underway at the Jio World Convention Centre in Mumbai, Maharashtra, saw ‘Delhi Capitals’ franchise making a successful bid to bag Kashmir-based Cricketer Jasia Akhtar for an amount of rupees 20 lakh.
Akhtar, a right-hand batter hailing from Braripora village of Shopian, has been playing for Rajasthan state team for past two years. The top-order batter, who previously played for Punjab, Trailblazers and India Reds, was recently appointed to take reins of Rajasthan team as skipper.
Jasia who now has become the lone cricketer to feature in WPL from Kashmir, is learnt to have received a call for National camp for India women’s national team in 2017 – but was unable to find a place in the playing eleven.
The other Cricketer who features alongside Jasia in the auction list from Jammu and Kashmir is Sarla Devi. The latter might however fail to make the cut this time around as the organizers are supposed to auction a maximum of 90 players for the inaugural league – scheduled to begin from March 4, 2023.
Notably, the auction saw Indian opener Smriti Mandhana being the top buys so far, with RCB splurging Rs 3.4 crore for her. (GNS)
A contingent of military officials is quietly pushing the Pentagon to approve sending F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine to help the country defend itself from Russian missile and drone attacks, according to three people with knowledge of the discussions.
Ukraine has kept American-made F-16s on its weapons wish list since the Russian invasion last year. But Washington and Kyiv have viewed artillery, armor and ground-based air defense systems as more urgent needs as Ukraine seeks to protect civilian infrastructure and claw back ground occupied by Russian forces.
As Ukraine prepares to launch a new offensive to retake territory in the spring, the campaign inside the Defense Department for fighter jets is gaining momentum, according to a DoD official and two other people involved in the discussions. Those people, along with others interviewed for this story, asked not to be named in order to discuss internal matters.
Spurred in part by the rapid approval of tanks and Patriot air defense systems — which not long ago were off-limits for export to Ukraine — there is renewed optimism in Kyiv that U.S. jets could be next up.
“I don’t think we are opposed,” said a senior DoD official about the F-16s, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive debate. The person stressed that there has been no final decision.
However, Ukraine has yet to declare that fighter jets are its top priority, the official stressed, noting that the Pentagon is focused on sending Kyiv the capabilities it needs for the immediate fight.
But fighter jets may be moving to the top spot soon. Kyiv has renewed its request for modern fighters in recent days, with a top adviser to the country’s defense minister telling media outlets that officials will push for jets from the U.S. and European countries.
A top Ukrainian official said Saturday that Ukraine and its Western allies are engaged in “fast-track” talks on possibly sending both long-range missiles and military aircraft.
One adviser to the Ukrainian government said the subject has been raised with Washington, but there has been “nothing too serious” on the table yet. Another person familiar with the conversations between Washington and Kyiv said it could take “weeks” for the U.S. to make a decision on shipments of its own jets and approve the re-export of the F-16s from other countries.
“If we get them, the advantages on the battlefield will be just immense. … It’s not just F-16s: fourth generation aircraft, this is what we want,” Yuriy Sak, who advises Defence Minister Oleksii Reznikov, told Reuters.
A White House spokesperson declined to comment for this story, but pointed to remarks by deputy national security adviser Jon Finer. He said the U.S. would be discussing fighter jets “very carefully” with Kyiv and its allies.
“We have not ruled in or out any specific systems,” Finer said on MSNBC Thursday.
Ukraine wants modern fighters — U.S. Air Force F-16s or F-15s, or their European equivalents the German Tornado or Swedish Gripen — to replace its fleet of Soviet-era jets. Dozens of the more modern planes will become available over the next year as countries such as Finland, Germany and the Netherlands upgrade to U.S. F-35 fighters.
Despite the age of Ukraine’s jets, Kyiv’s integrated air defenses have kept Russia from dominating its skies since the Feb. 24 invasion.
But now, officials are concerned that Ukraine is running out of missiles to protect its skies. Once its arsenal is depleted, Russia’s advanced fighter jets will be able to move in and Kyiv “will not be able to compete,” said the DoD official involved in the discussions.
Modern fighter jets could be one solution to this problem, argues a group of military officials in the Pentagon and elsewhere. F-16s carry air-to-air missiles that can shoot down incoming missiles and drones. And unlike the Patriots and National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems the West is currently sending, fighter jets can move around an area quickly to protect different targets.
“If they get [F-16] Vipers and they have an active air-to-air missile with the radar the F-16 currently has with some electronic protection, now it’s an even game,” the DoD official said.
Even if the U.S. decided not to send the Air Force’s F-16s, other Western nations have American-made fighters they could supply. For example, Dutch Foreign Affairs Minister Wopke Hoekstra told the Dutch parliament last week that his Cabinet would look at supplying F-16s, if Kyiv requests them. But the U.S. must approve the transfer.
Senior Pentagon officials acknowledge that Ukraine needs new aircraft for the long term. But for now, some argue that Ukraine has a greater need for more traditional air defenses, such as the Patriots and NASAMs that the U.S. and other countries are supplying, because jets may take months to arrive.
Sending Ukraine F-16s “does not solve the cruise missile or drone problem right now,” the senior DoD official said.
Big push for training
Others say the need for fighter jets is more urgent. Ukraine has identified a list of up to 50 pilots who are ready now to start training on the F-16, according to a DoD official and a Ukrainian official, as well as three other people familiar with the discussions. These seasoned pilots speak English and have thousands of combat missions under their belts, and could be trained in as little as three months, the people said.
Many of them have already trained with the U.S. military in major exercises before the invasion. In 2011 and 2018, Americans and Ukrainians participated in military drills in the skies over Ukraine. In 2011, the Americans brought over their F-16s and taught the Ukrainian pilots, in their MiG-29s and Su-27s, how to protect a stadium in preparation for the 2012 Euro Cup.
After Russia illegally annexed Crimea in 2014, the U.S. and Ukraine held a second joint 2018 exercise aimed at teaching Ukrainian pilots homeland defense tactics and controlling the skies. The American pilots used their F-15s to replicate Russian fighter tactics.
Ukraine is pushing the U.S. to start training its fighter pilots on the F-16s now, before President Joe Biden approves supplying the jets, according to the Ukrainian official and one of the people familiar. But there is no appetite in the Pentagon for this proposal, U.S. officials said. One alternative under discussion at lower levels is to start training Ukrainian pilots on introductory fighter tactics in trainer jets.
Ukraine has also considered contracting with private companies in the U.S. to begin training pilots, according to one of the people familiar with the matter.
It’s likely U.S. military training would not start without a presidential decision to supply American fighters. One concern for the Biden administration all along is that sending advanced weapons could be seen by Russia as an escalation, prompting Vladimir Putin to use nuclear weapons.
But officials point out that the F-16 was first built in the 1980s, and the Air Force is already retiring parts of the fleet. While sending Ukraine the stealthy American F-22s or F-35s would be considered escalatory, sending F-16s would not, they said.
“Let’s face it, a nuclear war isn’t going to happen over F-16s,” the DoD official said.
One European official agreed, saying F-16s “cannot be considered escalatory.”
“It’s simply part of the toolkit of having conventional weapons,” the person said.
Yet F-16s are complex systems that also require massive infrastructure and highly skilled technicians to operate and maintain. Training Ukrainian maintainers would likely take longer than training the pilots, and the U.S. may need to bring in contractors to do some of that instruction.
Lawmaker support
Providing F-16s is likely to win some support on Capitol Hill, where Democrats and Republicans alike have chided the administration for not moving quickly enough or for withholding certain capabilities, such as longer-range artillery. Sending Russian-made MiG fighters to Ukraine, via Eastern European countries that still fly them, won bipartisan support, though a weapons swap ultimately never came to fruition.
Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.), who co-chairs the Congressional Ukrainian Caucus, said he’s “not against” providing F-16s to Kyiv, but broadly favors providing Ukraine with “whatever works.”
“You can’t half-ass a war. Putin’s not. You’ve got to meet Putin armor for armor, weapon for weapon, because there’s already an extraordinary disadvantage in number of troops,” Quigley said. “Whatever works, whatever they need, send to them.
“My message when I first started talking about this is what were once vices are now habits,” he said. “Everything we ever proposed was seen as escalatory.”
But the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Adam Smith (Wash.), cast doubt on the need to send F-16s into the conflict, where fighters haven’t proved pivotal.
“I’m not opposed to it,” Smith said. “It’s just not at the top of the list of anybody’s priorities who’s focused on what [weapons] the fight really needs right now.”
He noted that F-16s, much like older MiG jets debated last year, would be vulnerable to Russian air defenses and fifth-generation fighters. Instead, Smith underscored the need to supply ammunition for air defense batteries, longer-range missiles, tanks and armored vehicles.
“What we really need to be focused on is air defense, number one,” he said. “And number two, artillery.”
[ad_2]
#Pentagon #push #send #F16s #Ukraine #picks #steam
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
Spurred in part by the rapid approval of tanks and Patriot air defense systems — which not long ago were off-limits for export to Ukraine — there is renewed optimism in Kyiv that U.S. jets could be next up.
“I don’t think we are opposed,” said a senior DoD official about the F-16s, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive debate. The person stressed that there has been no final decision.
However, Ukraine has yet to declare that fighter jets are its top priority, the official stressed, noting that the Pentagon is focused on sending Kyiv the capabilities it needs for the immediate fight.
But fighter jets may be moving to the top spot soon. Kyiv has renewed its request for modern fighters in recent days, with a top adviser to the country’s defense minister telling media outlets that officials will push for jets from the U.S. and European countries.
A top Ukrainian official said Saturday that Ukraine and its Western allies are engaged in “fast-track” talks on possibly sending both long-range missiles and military aircraft.
One adviser to the Ukrainian government said the subject has been raised with Washington, but there has been “nothing too serious” on the table yet. Another person familiar with the conversations between Washington and Kyiv said it could take “weeks” for the U.S. to make a decision on shipments of its own jets and approve the re-export of the F-16s from other countries.
“If we get them, the advantages on the battlefield will be just immense. … It’s not just F-16s: fourth generation aircraft, this is what we want,” Yuriy Sak, who advises Defence Minister Oleksii Reznikov, told Reuters.
A White House spokesperson declined to comment for this story, but pointed to remarks by deputy national security adviser Jon Finer. He said the U.S. would be discussing fighter jets “very carefully” with Kyiv and its allies.
“We have not ruled in or out any specific systems,” Finer said on MSNBC Thursday.
Ukraine wants modern fighters — U.S. Air Force F-16s or F-15s, or their European equivalents the German Tornado or Swedish Gripen — to replace its fleet of Soviet-era jets. Dozens of the more modern planes will become available over the next year as countries such as Finland, Germany and the Netherlands upgrade to U.S. F-35 fighters.
Despite the age of Ukraine’s jets, Kyiv’s integrated air defenses have kept Russia from dominating its skies since the Feb. 24 invasion.
But now, officials are concerned that Ukraine is running out of missiles to protect its skies. Once its arsenal is depleted, Russia’s advanced fighter jets will be able to move in and Kyiv “will not be able to compete,” said the DoD official involved in the discussions.
Modern fighter jets could be one solution to this problem, argues a group of military officials in the Pentagon and elsewhere. F-16s carry air-to-air missiles that can shoot down incoming missiles and drones. And unlike the Patriots and National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile Systems the West is currently sending, fighter jets can move around an area quickly to protect different targets.
“If they get [F-16] Vipers and they have an active air-to-air missile with the radar the F-16 currently has with some electronic protection, now it’s an even game,” the DoD official said.
Even if the U.S. decided not to send the Air Force’s F-16s, other Western nations have American-made fighters they could supply. For example, Dutch Foreign Affairs Minister Wopke Hoekstra told the Dutch parliament last week that his Cabinet would look at supplying F-16s, if Kyiv requests them. But the U.S. must approve the transfer.
Senior Pentagon officials acknowledge that Ukraine needs new aircraft for the long term. But for now, some argue that Ukraine has a greater need for more traditional air defenses, such as the Patriots and NASAMs that the U.S. and other countries are supplying, because jets may take months to arrive.
Sending Ukraine F-16s “does not solve the cruise missile or drone problem right now,” the senior DoD official said.
Big push for training
Others say the need for fighter jets is more urgent. Ukraine has identified a list of up to 50 pilots who are ready now to start training on the F-16, according to a DoD official and a Ukrainian official, as well as three other people familiar with the discussions. These seasoned pilots speak English and have thousands of combat missions under their belts, and could be trained in as little as three months, the people said.
Many of them have already trained with the U.S. military in major exercises before the invasion. In 2011 and 2018, Americans and Ukrainians participated in military drills in the skies over Ukraine. In 2011, the Americans brought over their F-16s and taught the Ukrainian pilots, in their MiG-29s and Su-27s, how to protect a stadium in preparation for the 2012 Euro Cup.
After Russia illegally annexed Crimea in 2014, the U.S. and Ukraine held a second joint 2018 exercise aimed at teaching Ukrainian pilots homeland defense tactics and controlling the skies. The American pilots used their F-15s to replicate Russian fighter tactics.
Ukraine is pushing the U.S. to start training its fighter pilots on the F-16s now, before President Joe Biden approves supplying the jets, according to the Ukrainian official and one of the people familiar. But there is no appetite in the Pentagon for this proposal, U.S. officials said. One alternative under discussion at lower levels is to start training Ukrainian pilots on introductory fighter tactics in trainer jets.
Ukraine has also considered contracting with private companies in the U.S. to begin training pilots, according to one of the people familiar with the matter.
It’s likely U.S. military training would not start without a presidential decision to supply American fighters. One concern for the Biden administration all along is that sending advanced weapons could be seen by Russia as an escalation, prompting Vladimir Putin to use nuclear weapons.
But officials point out that the F-16 was first built in the 1980s, and the Air Force is already retiring parts of the fleet. While sending Ukraine the stealthy American F-22s or F-35s would be considered escalatory, sending F-16s would not, they said.
“Let’s face it, a nuclear war isn’t going to happen over F-16s,” the DoD official said.
One European official agreed, saying F-16s “cannot be considered escalatory.”
“It’s simply part of the toolkit of having conventional weapons,” the person said.
Yet F-16s are complex systems that also require massive infrastructure and highly skilled technicians to operate and maintain. Training Ukrainian maintainers would likely take longer than training the pilots, and the U.S. may need to bring in contractors to do some of that instruction.
Lawmaker support
Providing F-16s is likely to win some support on Capitol Hill, where Democrats and Republicans alike have chided the administration for not moving quickly enough or for withholding certain capabilities, such as longer-range artillery. Sending Russian-made MiG fighters to Ukraine, via Eastern European countries that still fly them, won bipartisan support, though a weapons swap ultimately never came to fruition.
Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.), who co-chairs the Congressional Ukrainian Caucus, said he’s “not against” providing F-16s to Kyiv, but broadly favors providing Ukraine with “whatever works.”
“You can’t half-ass a war. Putin’s not. You’ve got to meet Putin armor for armor, weapon for weapon, because there’s already an extraordinary disadvantage in number of troops,” Quigley said. “Whatever works, whatever they need, send to them.
“My message when I first started talking about this is what were once vices are now habits,” he said. “Everything we ever proposed was seen as escalatory.”
But the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Adam Smith (Wash.), cast doubt on the need to send F-16s into the conflict, where fighters haven’t proved pivotal.
“I’m not opposed to it,” Smith said. “It’s just not at the top of the list of anybody’s priorities who’s focused on what [weapons] the fight really needs right now.”
He noted that F-16s, much like older MiG jets debated last year, would be vulnerable to Russian air defenses and fifth-generation fighters. Instead, Smith underscored the need to supply ammunition for air defense batteries, longer-range missiles, tanks and armored vehicles.
“What we really need to be focused on is air defense, number one,” he said. “And number two, artillery.”
[ad_2]
#Pentagon #push #send #F16s #Ukraine #picks #steam
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
