Price: [price_with_discount] (as of [price_update_date] – Details)
[ad_1]
Product Description
Zest 4 Toyz Globe for Kids, STEM STEAM Educational World Globe with Magnifying Glass for Kids/Office Globe/Globes for Students by -8 INCH
8 INCH Classic Design Rotating :-World Globe With Metal ( Iron ) Base with Black Matt powder coating .This artfully drawn, antique shaded, political and topographical Hand Crafted World Globe will be a substantial addition to any office, classroom, or home.Earth’s geography, no illustration is as effective as a realistic, round earth globe. Unlike a flat map, it can be spun, handled, and analyzed in 3D detail, letting children experience the wonders of science through active involvement.Continents, countries, capitals, deserts, seas, and boundaries are clearly marked and easy to detect on this enchanting world map.
The World in Your Hands
A Globe certainly assists to figure out several cities, countries, states on a map that would increase one’s geographical knowledge about the world.The globe comes with an array of ways in which it can be used. It can be perfectly used by schools and colleges to demonstrate the areas around the world and can also be used for home decor.Built with young kids in mind, this world globe rests on a sturdy weight-balanced base that holds the orb aloft for imaginative fingertip expeditions.Globe can be an ideal reward or gift on the occasion of many festivals as it represents knowledge sharing. It can also be presented as a souvenir to people who love to travel around the world.
Ideal Gift For Those You Love
The Globe has plastic arc and base globe that rotates, just like our earth does. It will enhance the grace of your home,office,etc. Keep it on a flat surface like office desk or study table and start the new experience along with fun and learning. This globe is sturdy, durable,lightweight,compact and rotating.As the years pass and your child grows, this one-of-a-kind globe will prove invaluable through his geography, history, social studies, current events and geopolitics classes.Ideal Gift -This Globe is a perfect gift for Boss, Travelers, Husbands, wife, Kids, or friends on Christmas Day, Birthday, Valentines Day, Anniversary, Thanksgiving Day etc, perfect for any gift giving occasion.
Educational Globe Best Gift
Combo Offer : World Globe With Magnifying Glass worth 199. It will help your kid to easily recognize and learn the political features on the globe. This globe moves smoothly and it has laminated scratch proof surface. It can be wiped and cleaned.
Packing & Care Instructions
Keep away the sharp objects while using the globe.Use only dry cloth to clean or remove dust.Do not clean the metal bases with very wet clothes.Do not use industrial or even household cleaners.
🌍FEATURES :- Globes for political students/kids/adults can be put on study table , desk coaster , office table both on big/small size or can be used for home decoration it is a light weight & easy to clean. Base Material- Metal, Globe Daimeter- 8 🌍START EXPLORING THE WORLD TODAY- Perfect desktop globe for greater awareness of our planet and maps .A must have for any teacher or student,ideal for any learning desk,office ,kids study room,bookshelf and classroom. It’s also perfect for a young mind that loves geography or has an interest in the world at large. 🌍COMBO OFFER : World Globe With Magnifying Glass worth 199. It will help your kid to easily recognize and learn the political features on the globe. This globe moves smoothly and it has laminated scratch proof surface. It can be wiped and cleaned. 🌍GIFTING : Perfect gifting idea for almost all the occasions. Children’s birthday, Christmas, friends’ event, new office opening, you are more than welcome to be creative. For instance, give to someone who would love to decorate a studio, or in a café as a stand out piece, etc.
DeSantis, Donald Trump’s chief rival in the Republican presidential primary, has said he will sign the bill. Once he does — and if North Carolina Republicans act, too — abortion would be largely illegal throughout the South. It will all but guarantee that the topic will become a defining point in the 2024 campaign.
“It’s obviously a bad issue for Republicans,” said Sarah Longwell, a moderate Republican strategist who has conducted extensive focus groups with Republican voters.
Republicans know by now that the politics of abortion in the post-Roe v. Wade era are unfavorable to them. They have since seen the stunning defeat of an anti-abortion measure in heavily-Republican Kansas last year, and continuing through a less-than-red-wave midterm.
On the issue of abortion, “we are at a disadvantage, 100 percent,” said Mark Graul, a Republican strategist in Wisconsin who oversaw George W. Bush’s 2004 campaign in the state.
But even as Donald Trump himself has said the party went too far with abortion restrictions, there has been little appetite in the broader GOP for pulling back. Public opinion overall favors abortion rights, with even many Republicans and Republican-leaning independents saying the procedure should be legal in most cases. But among the activist base — including many Republicans who spent decades laboring to overturn Roe — the issue remains a litmus test that features prominently in GOP primaries. The 15-week bans that seemed extraordinarily aggressive just one year ago now are considered half-measures.
“The majority of [state] representatives are in safe seats, so they’re more worried about primaries where social issues play to the base,” said former North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory, who ran unsuccessfully for a U.S. Senate seat last year. “They’re not really worried about those people running statewide.”
“It’s a very selfish game,” he added.
If Wisconsin is any indication, it may also prove to be enormously destructive to the GOP. In that swing state on Tuesday, liberals flipped the ideological balance of the Supreme Court with Janet Protasiewicz’s lopsided victory over conservative former state Supreme Court Justice Dan Kelly.
Abortion wasn’t the whole story. Money and candidate quality may have mattered more, Graul said. But it was a big part of it — in a state that has a controversial, 19th-century abortion ban on the books, and where Protasiewicz campaigned heavily on abortion rights.
Some Republicans looking ahead to 2024 are already sounding the alarm.
Earlier this week, Jon Schweppe, policy director at the American Principles Project, a conservative think tank, warned on Twitter that “Republicans need to figure out the abortion issue ASAP. We are getting killed by indie voters who think we support full bans with no exceptions.”
He urged them to “suck it up” and unite behind Sen. Lindsey Graham’s proposed 15-week abortion ban, hoping to blunt Democrats’ criticisms of more restrictive measures.
“I want to ban abortion,” Schweppe said in an interview on Thursday. “That’s a long-term goal. I think almost every pro-lifer will tell you that’s the case. We believe it’s murder. But you know, you’re not going to get there overnight, and you’re not going to get there by doing something that’s against the will of the American people.”
He added: “If the pro-life movement doesn’t get their shit together, ultimately, Republicans are going to say, ‘Well, we have to get elected, and the pro-life movement is a liability.”
Longwell’s focus groups would appear to bear that out. Abortion, she said, is often the first example voters raise when explaining why they view a candidate as “extreme.” And as Donald Trump’s loss in 2020 and the midterms laid bare, that designation is deadly in a general election.
“The gap between what base voters demand on abortion, on election denialism, on fidelity to Trump — the gap between that and what swing voters are up for has gotten very wide,” Longwell said. “You always had to do a general election pivot, but it’s turning from a pivot into a massive leap.”
For Democrats, it’s becoming an ongoing political gift — a cudgel they will use to hit Republicans in the run-up to 2024.
Citing what he called Wisconsin’s experience with “the nightmare that Republicans want to inflict on the entire country,” Ben Wikler, the state Democratic Party chair, said, “the political impact of it represents a tectonic shift.”
[ad_2]
#Wisconsin #wakeup #call #Republicans #full #steam #ahead #abortion #restrictions
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
As women get older their skin changes and it no longer looks plump and youthful. Wrinkles around the eyes, often known as crow’s feet, is one of the most common skin problem faced by women growing old. Women use various cosmetics and surgeries to reverse the signs of ageing, and most of them are expensive and risky. Some women go to any extent to get those wrinkles removed. One such example of woman going to an extreme to get her wrinkles removed came from Philadelphia.
Reportedly, Jessica, 44 year, from Philadelhipa was fed up with the cosmetics and surgeries which couldn’t prevent her wrinkles and as a final resort tried to iron her face with a steam iron. Jessica partially burned her face. Speaking to The Fauxy, Jessica said “I was ironing my cloth and realised that steam iron helps in getting rid of wrinkles. I have tried all types of cosmetics and even surgery but nothing helped. I also tried Instagram filters but people started asking why I always keep phone with Instagram camera on in front of my face. I was fed up and hence, decided to steam iron my face”.
Jessica has to now undergo plastic surgery and she has asked her surgeons to keep the wrinkle free plastic on her face. Speaking to The Fauxy, the surgeon said “Steam iron removes wrinkles from cloths, so if she really wanted to get rid of wrinkles she should have put a clot on her face before ironing it”.
Jessica isn’t alone to go this far to get rid of wrinkles, a lady in India reached Bhagweshwar Dham to get her wrinkles removed.
[ Disclaimer: With inputs from The Fauxy, an entertainment portal. The content is purely for entertainment purpose and readers are advised not to confuse the articles as genuine and true, these Articles are Fictitious meant only for entertainment purposes. ]
What if the Queen hadn’t died when she did? If she hadn’t, Arsenal would have faced PSV Eindhoven in the Europa League in September and that game wouldn’t have had to be played in the midweek slot when they had been slated to host Manchester City.
Arsenal would have gone into what could prove the defining game of the season in October on a run of seven straight victories, having beaten Tottenham and Liverpool in their previous two home league matches, while City would have been coming off a 1-0 defeat at Anfield. As it was, Arsenal were fretting in their worst run of the season, while City were just beginning to emerge from a post-World Cup blip. But still they’ll blame the referees.
Arsenal are level at the top with a game in hand, but the sense of momentum has gone. It’s true they will win the league if they draw at City in April and win their other 15 games – and few before the season began would have predicted anything like that – but nobody at the club can be looking beyond Aston Villa on Saturday and getting out of this run of four games without a victory. Having dropped seven points in the first half of the season, they have let eight go in the first three games of the second. Eight-point leads, once squandered, are seldom regained.
Guardiola says Arsenal still on top as Arteta bemoans Gunners’ ‘gifts’ to City – video
The slump began at City in the FA Cup. At the time, a 1-0 defeat felt almost like the perfect result for Arsenal: even with a weakened team there had been no sense they couldn’t live with the champions and space had been opened in the calendar to focus on the more important competition. But that defeat broke the run.
Nobody could realistically criticise Mikel Arteta for resting players given the slenderness of his squad, but it was as though that was the moment when, having gone chasing off the cliff, they glanced down and realised this progress wasn’t sustainable, that gravity was going to get them in the end.
How much longer could they have gone on, defying football’s natural financial laws? There’s always misfortune to be blamed. Perhaps they were unlucky then to meet Everton enjoying the first (only?) game of a Sean Dyche bounce, but however tenacious Goodison’s new dogs of war were in midfield, there was also a sense Arsenal were flat. The zip had gone.
Fatigue is almost impossible to prove in football and is often little more than a convenient post-hoc rationalisation. Only those with access to intimate medical data can say with any certainty whether players are physically exhausted and even those stats can’t account for mental weariness. But the fear for Arsenal had always been they would run out of steam and, recently, steam has looked in very short supply.
Against Brentford, the VAR official, Lee Mason, was understandably blamed for becoming so fixated on a possible blocking run by Ethan Pinnock that he failed to consider whether Christian Nørgaard was offside in squaring for Ivan Toney to equalise, but there is rarely only one factor at play. Brentford had by far the better chances in the first half: they could easily have been two or three up. To focus on that one refereeing error, to blame that for Arsenal’s sputter, is to ignore the bigger picture.
Takehiro Tomiyasu’s duff back pass allows Kevin De Bruyne to score for Manchester City. Photograph: David Klein/Reuters
Arsenal had their chance against City. By Pep Guardiola’s own admission he got the tactics wrong in the first half, with Bernardo Silva an unconvincing left-back torn apart by Bukayo Saka. At half- time, Arsenal had had 59.5% of the ball. They had had opportunities. Eddie Nketiah had put a free header wide. Saka had dithered in a good position. City had struggled to create chance until Takehiro Tomiyasu’s duff back pass.
skip past newsletter promotion
after newsletter promotion
What if Arteta had stuck with Ben White at right-back? Even then, for those minded to do so, it was possible to look at the refereeing. What if Silva had been booked for his second or third foul on Saka rather than his fourth? Might he then have been sent off before Guardiola could reorganise? What might Arsenal have been able to do against 10 players?
But Guardiola was able to rejig and City in the second half were by far the better side. They scored twice, had an effort cleared off the line and were denied a penalty only by a narrow offside. Might it have been different had Thomas Partey been fit or Arsenal managed to sign Moisés Caicedo rather than Jorginho as back-up? Might they have had more of a chance of regaining the initiative had they landed Mykhaylo Mudryk rather than Leandro Trossard?
Mikel Arteta speaks to Arsenal’s players during the defeat by Manchester City. Photograph: Tom Jenkins/The Guardian
Perhaps, and that leads to a form of economic determinism that perhaps comes closest to an overall explanation for who wins titles: City have the most resources, so they can afford the best manager and the best players and provide for them the best facilities. Perhaps financial gravity was always going to catch up with Arsenal. But such things are rarely singular or simple and there may be twists in this season’s title race. Arsenal may come again but it doesn’t seem likely.
What if the Queen hadn’t died when she did? What if the game had been played in October? For want of a nail, the kingdom was lost.
[ad_2]
#Arsenal #steam #financial #gravity #brings #Jonathan #WIlson
( With inputs from : www.theguardian.com )
But the president’s visit Tuesday was particularly symbolic for the New York and New Jersey politicians in attendance who have witnessed the $16 billion endeavor suffer several delays over the years. Biden’s trip showed that after repeated setbacks, the critical infrastructure project finally has federal backing— even if it’s still years in the making.
“All told, this is one of the biggest and most consequential projects in the country,” Biden said at an event in a 30-track rail yard in front of commuter trains emblazoned with the presidential seal. “But it’s going to take time. It’s a multibillion effort between the states and the federal government. But we finally have the money and we’re going to get it done, I promise you.”
In 2009, officials did a ceremonial groundbreaking for a previous version of the tunnel project that was intended to alleviate commutes for the 200,000 passengers who relied on it everyday. The 10 miles of track stretching between Newark, New Jersey and New York Penn Station are a common source of delays and service meltdowns.
Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) said he recalled the celebratory event that was over a decade ago “almost to the day.” Shortly after that, then-New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie pulled state funding for the project and workers who had started digging the tunnel entrance had to fill it back in.
“Our journey since that press conference has been long and winding. But today it brings me immense pleasure to say we’re finally getting it done,” he said.
The project was revived after Hurricane Sandy, which inundated the tunnel with seawater. Biden said signs of the damage remain.
“Today over 10 years later there’s still remnants of seawater in the tunnel eating away at the concrete, the steel and the electrical components within the tunnel,” Biden said.
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul said the storm underscored the need for the project, recalling how two hurricanes caused severe infrastructure damage when she first entered office.
“You need to have the redundancy, backups to make sure this region is never ever paralyzed because that’s exactly what would happen,” she said.
As elected leaders in New York and New Jersey tried to revive the tunnels after Christie killed them, they ran into opposition from then-President Donald Trump. Biden, a known Amtrak lover, made the project a priority when he entered office — approving a required environmental study that had languished.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a major backer of the tunnel, also celebrated the significance of Biden’s visit after years of disappointment.
“Finally, finally, finally, we can say Gateway will be built,” he said.
The federal award will defray half the cost of building concrete casing on the far west side of Manhattan, preserving the right-of-way for future trains to enter New York Penn Station. Amtrak and other local partners in the project are expected to pay for the rest of the work.
Construction is also underway on other components of the Gateway Program, including the planned replacement and expansion of the Portal North Bridge in New Jersey.
Workers are expected to begin digging the actual tunnels in fall 2024. The entire project isn’t scheduled to be completed until 2038 and will cost more than initial estimates due to delays.
Buttigieg said the project is long overdue, stating that “we cannot lead the world in this century if we depend on infrastructure from early in the last one.”
New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy echoed the point about the tunnel that was first opened in 1910.
“One of these days we’ll get into the 21st [century], I hope sooner than later,” he said.
[ad_2]
#Biden #Hudson #River #Tunnel #project #finally #full #steam #ahead
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
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 )