Can Ukraine’s counteroffensive prevail without combat air cover, and will the West come to regret not providing Ukraine with such battle-winning capability?
Although the West has provided a wealth of financial and military support to Ukraine to help combat the illegal invasion of Russian forces, it has been reluctant to provide the modern Western air power that President Zelenskyy clearly needs.
For much of the war in Ukraine, the Russian Air Force has been conspicuous by its absence.
Primarily used to launch long-range missiles at targets all over Ukraine, the Russian fighter jets have found the airspace over Ukraine particularly dangerous, and reports suggest they have lost 10% of their assets in the war to date.
The Russian Air Force has been constrained – to some degree – by the provision of modern Western air defence systems; however, since the start of Ukraine’s counteroffensive, the Russian Air Force has increased dramatically its sortie rate and effectiveness.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
11:04
Ukrainian village’s ’28 days in hell’
Air superiority is the degree of dominance that permits the conduct of operations by one side and its related land, sea and air forces at a given time and place without prohibitive interference by opposing air forces.
Successful land operations without local air superiority are very difficult; even in Afghanistan, just the sound of jet noise sparked panic in the Taliban fighters.
However, Ukraine does not have the air power capability to dominate the skies and is obliged to conduct its much-anticipated counteroffensive without effective air support.
Advertisement
As an interim measure, the West has provided a comprehensive suite of modern air defence systems – man-portable and mobile – which have taken their toll on the Russian Air Force.
However, the Russians can operate over southeast Ukraine with relative impunity and are supporting their land colleagues with a selection of glide munitions that enable the Russian fighters to remain a safe distance from the Ukrainian air defence systems.
It appears that the Russians have neither the training nor expertise to conduct effective close air support.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
5:47
Sean Bell on ‘sobering’ battles in Ukraine
Delivering explosive ordnance close to friendly forces is a challenging task, especially for fighters travelling at 1,000ft a second.
The difference between friendly and enemy is often a fraction of a second’s flying time, and thus the risk of fratricide is high.
If the Russian pilots were better trained, the results for Ukraine could be devastating.
Regardless, this is a very high-risk operation for Ukraine, sending inexperienced new recruits against robust Russian defences, where they will expect to suffer 3x the casualty rate on offence than they have on defence.
So, would the earlier provision of F-16s to Ukraine from the West have made a difference?
In short – no.
Ukraine needs modern air power, not a squadron or so of second-hand F-16 platforms that are neither supportable nor credible, against modern, stealthy Russian fighters.
Air power is a complex amalgam of technology, high-tech software, state-of-the-art precision weapons, and a wealth of supporting capabilities – such as airborne warning and control systems (AWACs), surface-to-air missiles and electronic warfare.
The Russian Air Force could decimate a small number of autonomous ageing F-16s, thus destroying Ukraine’s fledgling air power capability almost overnight and emboldening the Russian military.
The only credible way to provide Ukraine with the air capability required for this year’s offensive would be for the West to intervene and commit Western assets – and crews – to the conflict.
There is no sign of any international appetite for that level of escalation, despite the critical importance of this Ukrainian offensive.
For now, the Ukrainian military has to take on established Russian defences and without the protective umbrella of air support. That is a tough challenge.
Ukraine appears confident that it can prevail – despite the limited resources at its disposal.
Meanwhile, the West will be hoping it does not come to regret the decision not to provide battle-winning combat air capability to Ukraine.
Elon Musk is being sued for failing to disclose his purchase of more than 5% of Twitter stock in a timely fashion.
The world’s richest man bought the stock in March 2022 and the complaint by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) said the delay allowed him to continue buying Twitter stock at artificially low prices.
In papers filed in Washington DC federal court, the SEC said the move allowed Mr Musk to underpay by at least $150m (£123m).
The commission wants Mr Musk to pay a civil fine and give up profits he was not entitled to.
In response to the lawsuit a lawyer for the multi-billionaire said: “Mr Musk has done nothing wrong and everyone sees this sham for what it is.”
An SEC rule requires investors to disclose within 10 calendar days when they cross a 5% ownership threshold.
The SEC said Mr Musk did not disclose his state until 4 April 2022, 11 days after the deadline – by which point he owned more than 9% of Twitter’s shares.
More on Elon Musk
Related Topics:
Twitter’s share price rose by more than 27% following Mr Musk’s disclosure, the SEC added.
Mr Musk later purchased Twitter for $44bn (£36bn) in October 2022 and renamed the social media site X.
Since the election of Donald Trump, Mr Musk has been put in charge of leading a newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) alongside former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy.
The president-elect said the department would work to reduce government bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures and restructure federal agencies.
US president-elect Donald Trump has suggested Israel and Hamas could agree a Gaza ceasefire by the end of the week.
Talks between Israeli and Hamas representatives resumed in the Qatari capital Doha yesterday, after US President Joe Biden indicated a deal to stop the fighting was “on the brink” on Monday.
A draft agreement has been sent to both sides. It includes provisions for the release of hostages and a phased Israeli troop withdrawal from Gaza.
Qatar says Israel and Hamas are at their “closest point” yet to a ceasefire deal.
Two Hamas officials said the group has accepted the draft agreement, with Israel still considering the deal.
An Israeli official said a deal is close but “we are not there” yet.
More than 46,500 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza since Israel launched its ground offensive in the aftermath of the 7 October attacks, according to the territory’s Hamas-run health ministry.
President Biden said it would include a hostage release deal and a “surge” of aid to Palestinians, in his final foreign policy speech as president.
“So many innocent people have been killed, so many communities have been destroyed. Palestinian people deserve peace,” he said.
“The deal would free the hostages, halt the fighting, provide security to Israel, and allow us to significantly surge humanitarian assistance to the Palestinians who suffered terribly in this war that Hamas started.”
Qatari mediators have sent Israel and Hamas a draft proposal for an agreement to halt the fighting.
President-elect Donald Trump has also discussed a possible peace deal during a phone interview with the Newsmax channel.
“We’re very close to getting it done and they have to get it done,” he said.
“If they don’t get it done, there’s going to be a lot of trouble out there, a lot of trouble, like they have never seen before.
“And they will get it done. And I understand there’s been a handshake and they’re getting it finished and maybe by the end of the week. But it has to take place, it has to take place.”
Israeli official: Former Hamas leader held up deal
Speaking on Tuesday as negotiations resumed in Qatar, an anonymous Israeli official said that an agreement was “close, but we are not there”.
They accused Hamas of previously “dictating, not negotiating” but said this has changed in the last few weeks.
“Yahya Sinwar was the main obstacle for a deal,” they added.
Sinwar, believed to be the mastermind of the 7 October attacks, led Hamas following the assassination of his predecessor but was himself killed in October last year.
Under Sinwar, the Israeli official claimed, Hamas was “not in a rush” to bring a hostage deal but this has changed since his death and since the IDF “started to dismantle the Shia axis”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:14
Biden: ‘Never, never, never, ever give up’
Iran ‘weaker than it’s been in decades’
Yesterday, President Biden also hailed Washington’s support for Israel during two Iranian attacks in 2024.
“All told, Iran is weaker than it’s been in decades,” the president said.
Mr Biden claimed America’s adversaries were weaker than when he took office four years ago and that the US was “winning the worldwide competition”.
“Compared to four years ago, America is stronger, our alliances are stronger, our adversaries and competitors are weaker,” he said.
“We have not gone to war to make these things happen.”
The US president is expected to give a farewell address on Wednesday.
The deal would see a number of things happen in a first stage, with negotiations for the second stage beginning in the third week of the ceasefire.
It would also allow a surge in humanitarian aid into Gaza, which has been devastated by more than a year of war.
Details of what the draft proposal entails have been emerging on Tuesday, reported by Israeli and Palestinian officials.
Hostages to be returned
In the first stage of the potential ceasefire, 33 hostages would be set free.
These include women (including female soldiers), children, men over the age of 50, wounded and sick.
Israelbelieves most of these hostages are alive but there has not been any official confirmation from Hamas.
In return for the release of the hostages, Israel would free more than 1,000 Palestinian prisoners and detainees.
People serving long sentences for deadly attacks would be included in this but Hamas fighters who took part in the 7 October attack would not be released.
An arrangement to prevent Palestinian “terrorists” from going back to the West Bank would be included in the deal, an anonymous Israeli official said.
The agreement also includes a phased withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza, with IDF troops remaining in the border perimeter to defend Israeli border towns and villages.
Security arrangements would be implemented at the Philadelphi corridor – a narrow strip of land that runs along the border between Egypt and Gaza – with Israel withdrawing from parts of it after the first few days of the deal.
The Rafah Crossing between Egypt and Gaza would start to work gradually to allow the crossing of people who are sick and other humanitarian cases out of Gaza for treatment.
Unarmed North Gaza residents would be allowed to return to their homes, with a mechanism introduced to ensure no weapons are moved there.
“We will not leave the Gaza Strip until all our hostages are back home,” the Israeli official said.
What will happen to Gaza in the future?
There is less detail about the future of Gaza – from how it will be governed, to any guarantees that this agreement will bring a permanent end to the war.
“The only thing that can answer for now is that we are ready for a ceasefire,” the Israeli official said.
“This is a long ceasefire and the deal that is being discussed right now is for a long one. There is a big price for releasing the hostages and we are ready to pay this price.”
The international community has said Gaza must be run by Palestinians, but there has not been a consensus about how this should be done – and the draft ceasefire agreement does not seem to address this either.
In the past, Israel has said it will not end the war leaving Hamas in power. It also previously rejected the possibility of the Palestinian Authority, which exercises limited governing powers in the West Bank, from taking over the administration of Gaza.
Since the beginning of its military campaign in Gaza, Israel has also said it would retain security control over the territory after the fighting ends.