What’s stopping Ukraine and its allies from building these? If they’re so cheap and simple. Let’s say you start pounding blocks down in the major cities in southwest Russia and see how they feel after that
Ukraine and its allies have much smaller stores of large, outdated dumb bombs to refit, and Ukraine has a much smaller Air Force with which to deploy them, so it makes little sense for Ukraine and its allies to build this particular solution (the West has purpose developed – or already modified – glide bombs, but, again, Ukraine’s smaller air force and not having the exact planes on which those are integrate is a bit of a barrier, though the second part is relatively easily overcome.)
> Let’s say you start pounding blocks down in the major cities in southwest Russia and see how they feel after that
Neither Ukraine nor, even moreso, its allies are interested in pounding city blocks in Southwest Russia indiscriminately. OTOH, military bases, oil infrastructure, etc. are a bit of a different story, but they are finding ways to do that without glide bombs.
Unlikely, the US still has a lot (hundreds of thousands) of dumb bombs. As you said, they don't have a good delivery platform until the F-16s get there. The US orders 20-30k JDAM kits _per year_.
Ukraine has had it since earlier this year.
Apparently, it is not being as effective as one would've hoped though due to heavy Russian GPS jamming [1]
[0] https://www.saab.com/products/ground-launched-small-diameter...
[1] https://www.twz.com/land/have-ground-launched-small-diameter...
EDIT: OTOH, its based on the SDB, which is a (small, 250lb) glide bomb with decent (40km) range whichthe US has currently only integrated the on the F-15E Strike Eagle, which Ukraine doesn’t have. There’s a long list of other potential future carriers envisioned by the US (including the F-16, which Ukraine will soon be operating), and integrating Western weapons with Soviet-design aircraft has been happening a fair amount in Ukraine, so if the problems affecting GLSDB were solved, SDB would be a real possibility for them, as well.
https://armyrecognition.com/focus-analysis-conflicts/army/co...
They don’t have them same range.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Direct_Attack_Munition
The article does say there are longer range versions
“hitting targets up to 72 kilometers (45 miles) away.”
Maybe it comes down to Russia having a much bigger air force.
The other thing to consider is what’s being targeted? Ukrainian infrastructure.
https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/joint-direct-at...
A nuclear World War 3?
> Let’s say you start pounding blocks
Let's say we just start the peace negotiation process in earnest this time.
Ukraine needs a powerful bargaining position before entering negotiations, and though it's regrettable this is the case, a powerful bargaining position derives from power on the battlefield. The best route to peace is therefore to give Ukraine as deadly a sting as possible.
When in the 1960s tensions between Moscow and Peking rose, Moscow asked Washington if Washington would be okay with Moscow's nuking China. (Washington replied with a firm no.)
Although Russia is probably not going to resort to nukes, the risk is high enough that I wish my country (the US) had started drastically increasing American preparedness for nuclear war when it started sending military aid to Ukraine.
It takes more than one thing going wrong at the same time, for an accident to happen, but that happens - that's why we have car accidents - only here we're talking about a potentially civilization/climate ending accident.
Better not to be in that situation in the first place.
That would be nice, but what are the chances of that happening in your opinion without the US and Europe's promising that Ukraine will never become a member of NATO and the US and Europe's promising to stop supplying weapons to Ukraine?
There is zero chance the war would take more than a slight pause before resuming in full force with a less-capable Ukraine if Ukraine’s allies promised to stop supplying it with weapons. (The Russo-Georgian War, immediately, and with a slight delay because of temporarily Russia-favorable political conditions that emerged in the interim in Ukraine, the Russo-Ukrainian War are both direct results, in fact, of that kind of accommodationist thought winning the day at the 2008 NATO summit with regard to Russia’s demand at the time that Georgia and Ukraine not have Membership Action Plans extended to them. Fool me once…)
There’s a very good chance that Russia will stop if that does not happen, even if it is unlikely that the current leadership would do so.
Ultimately it's up to the Ukrainians what terms they want to negotiate. But it would seem foolish to give up the option of joining NATO and the EU just to gain a temporary peace. If they're going to survive as an independent country rather than a Russian vassal state then they will need alliances with nuclear powers.
This narrative is being strongly pushed in various social media by Russian troll farms.
That would only serve as an opportunity for Russia to regroup, build up the war machine, and attack again, possibly not just Ukraine.
It could also serve as an opportunity for Ukraine to do the same in reverse -- ultimately leading to a Russian withdraw (many years later but with many lives spared also).
OTOH, a continuation of the status quo (assuming the political climate in Western countries permits the Ukrainians to do so, which is in itself a highly dodgy proposition) is not at all guaranteed to end in Ukraine's interest, and brings certain obvious tail risks to the rest of the world as well.
Ultimately it's a matter for the Ukrainians to decide. My only point is that it's perfectly possible to discuss different options for achieving the same desired end result (which it seems we agree on) -- without having to label these as being in favor of Russian "peace narratives".
That is, I can't see Ukraine trying to negotiate some kind of peace-for-land deal. Apart from anything else, any land Russia occupied as part of such a deal would be used to launch a new attack once they've reconstituted their forces.
So any negotiation would be between "The West" and Russia, over Ukraine's heads. And that is the only kind of negotiation that Putin will countenance; he's been very clear that he thinks Ukraine is not a country, it's people are no more than ill-educated Russians, and its leaders are nazis.
Of course, Russia has negotiated with real nazis before; but it's pretty seditious to mention that in public in Russia nowadays.
Anything else rewards and encourages the use of invasion, profoundly encourages China to invade Taiwan, and North Korean and Iran.
It will also anyway only be a temporary peace; Putin will try again in some years time. Anyone want to trust him when he promises not to - again?
The West has been forced to spend vast amounts of money, in many ways, and millions of people have been forced to flee Ukraine and resettle in the West, and about 500,000 people have been maimed or killed.
To not win after such costs is to lose.
It also means all nations which have a threatening neighbour need their own nuclear weapons. That's in the end will lead to their use.
There is also a more personal reason.
The world has a lot of shit in it, and people generally are increasingly depressed in their normal, day to day lives, because of it. We are not happy.
Stopping Putin would bright a vast ray of hope and a vision of a decent future in our lives.
Also, there can be no peace between the sheep and the wolf. Russia believes Ukraine does not and cannot exists. How can that ever lead to long lasting peace and long term territorial integrity for Ukraine?
Galloway is famous for his grovelling address to Saddam Hussein: "I salute your [...] indefatigability."
> US House approves critical $61bn Ukraine aid package https://www.bbc.co.uk › world-us-canada-68861011 20 Apr 2024 — While all 210 Democrats voted in favour of the $61bn aid package, more Republicans were against the legislation than in favour of it, 112 to 101 ...
It's a bit hard to pigeonhole political beliefs but Russia's policies seem kind of fascist and they seem to be supported mostly by far right and xenophobic types in the west.