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.
Image: F-16 fighter jets. File pic
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.
The brutality of Russia’s drone assaults on Ukraine’s towns and cities shows no let up.
“Savage strikes, a deliberate targeted terror” is how the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy described the latest overnight bombardment.
Some 595 attack drones and 48 missiles were involved and even if only a small fraction made it through Ukrainian air defences, the destruction – in Sumy and Odessa, Zaporizhia and Kyiv – is significant.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:57
Russia strikes Kyiv in major attack
Also overnight, Denmark reported yet more drone sightings.
It has not named Russia directly but after a week in which unidentified drones have resulted in the temporary shutdown of military and civilian airports, it is banning all civil drone flights and describing the threat as a hybrid attack.
Germany is also raising the alarm over unexplained drone activity along its border with Denmark.
Germany’s interior minister said on Saturday: “We are witnessing an arms race, an arms race between drone threats and drone defences. It is a race we cannot afford to lose.”
NATO is having to deploy extra assets to beef up its Baltic Sea defences and its Eastern flank.
European nations are working to establish a drone wall along their borders with Russia and Ukraine.
Germany is setting up a drone defence centre to make sure it has what it needs to protect itself.
The Kremlin is forcing NATO to divert assets to protect its airspace and sub-sea infrastructure at a time when Europe is trying to work out how best to support and finance Ukraine.
With drones an inexpensive element of its hybrid warfare arsenal, Russia is sending a clear warning that it can relatively easily chip away at Europe’s defences and that Europe had better focus on protecting itself.
“If NATO begins to look too rattled, that actually is encouragement for Putin precisely to step up the pressure,” says Mark Galeotti, a specialist in Russian security. “So really we need to be holding our nerve.
“Yes, reserving the right to shoot things down that look like direct threats, but otherwise actually talking down, not talking up, the nature of the threat while of course we arm so that we are even more prepared.”
Last week, Estonia said its fighter jets had escorted three Russian MIG fighter jets out of their airspace after a 12-minute incursion, which Russia denies ever took place.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:24
Russia denies violating Estonia airspace amid NATO outrage
On Saturday, Estonia pledged €10m (£8.7m) to NATO’s “Prioritised Ukraine Requirement List” or PURL programme, which sees US-produced weapons, paid for by NATO’s European partners, fast-tracked to Ukraine.
Zelenskyy posted on Sunday after speaking with the NATO secretary general that PURL is moving forward well. And that is just what Russia is trying to prevent.
Hamas’s armed group has claimed it has lost contact with two hostages as a result of Israel’s operations in Gaza – after it called on air deployments to be stopped for 24 hours.
In a statement, Hamas’s armed al-Qassam Brigades said it had demanded that Israel halt air sorties for 24 hours, starting at 6pm, in part of Gaza City, to remove the hostages from danger.
It comes a day before Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is due to meet US President Donald Trump and as the number of those killed in Gaza surpasses the 66,000 mark, according to the enclave’s Hamas-run health ministry.
Its figure does not differentiate between civilians and fighters.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:06
Volunteer nurse’s video diary of Gaza horrors
A total of 48 hostages are still being held captive by Hamas, the militant group which rules Gaza, with about 20 believed by Israel to still be alive. A total of 251 hostages were taken on 7 October 2023, when Hamas launched an unprecedented attack on Israel which killed 1,200 people.
Situation on the ground
In Gaza, a war-torn enclave where famine has been declared in some areas and where Israel has been accused of committing acts of genocide – which it has repeatedly denied – the almost two-year war raged on.
On Sunday, the number of those killed rose to at least 21 as five people were killed in an airstrike in the Al Naser area, local health authorities said, while medics reported 16 more deaths in strikes on houses in central Gaza.
The Civil Emergency Service in Gaza said late on Saturday that Israel had denied 73 requests, sent via international organisations, to rescue injured Palestinians in Gaza City.
Israeli authorities had no immediate comment. The military earlier said forces were expanding operations in the city and that five militants firing an anti-tank missile towards Israeli troops had been killed by the Israeli air force.
In Monday’s White House meeting, President Trump is expected to share a new 21-point proposal for an immediate ceasefire.
His proposal would include the release of all hostages within 48 hours and a gradual withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Palestinian enclave, according to three Arab officials briefed on the plan, the PA news agency reports.
A Hamas official said the group was briefed on the plan but has yet to receive an official offer from Egyptian and Qatari mediators. Hamas has said it is ready to “study any proposals positively and responsibly”.
Mr Trump, who has been one of Israel’s greatest allies, said on Sunday there is “a real chance for greatness in the Middle East”.
It is unclear, however, what Mr Trump was specifically referring to.
He said in a Truth Social post: “We have a real chance for Greatness in the Middle East. All are on board for something special, first time ever. We will get it done.”
On Friday – the same day a video of diplomats walking out on Mr Netanyahu during his address to the United Nations went viral – Mr Trump said he believed the US had reached a deal on easing fighting in Gaza, saying it “will get the hostages back” and “end the war”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:08
Diplomats walk out as Israeli PM speaks at UN
“I think we maybe have a deal on Gaza, very close to a deal on Gaza,” the US president told reporters on the White House lawn as he was leaving to attend the Ryder Cup.
Mr Trump has repeatedly claimed an agreement to end the war was imminent, only for nothing to materialise.
Weeks ago, he said: “I think we’re going to have a deal on Gaza very soon.”
It was one sentence among the many words Donald Trump spoke this week that caught my attention.
Midway through a jaw-dropping news conference where he sensationally claimed to have “found an answer on autism”, he said: “Bobby (Kennedy) wants to be very careful with what he says, but I’m not so careful with what I say.”
The US president has gone from pushing the envelope to completely unfiltered.
Last Sunday, moments after Charlie Kirk‘s widow Erika had publicly forgiven her husband’s killer, Mr Trump told the congregation at his memorial service that he “hates his opponents”.
Image: President Donald Trump embraces Charlie Kirk’s widow Erika. Pic: AP
The president treats professional disapproval not as a liability but as evidence of authenticity, fuelling the aura that he is a challenger of conventions.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
“I’m really good at this stuff. Your countries are going to hell,” he told his audience, deriding Europe’s approach to immigration as a “failed experiment of open borders”.
Image: Mr Trump addresses the UN General Assembly in New York. Pic: Reuters
Then came a U-turn on Ukraine, suggesting the country could win back all the land it has lost to Russia.
Most politicians would be punished for inconsistency, but Mr Trump recasts this as strategic genius – framing himself as dictating the terms.
It is hard to keep track when his expressed hopes for peace in Ukraine and Gaza are peppered with social media posts condemning the return of Jimmy Kimmel to late-night television.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:29
Trump’s major shift in Ukraine policy
Perhaps most striking of all is his reaction to the indictment of James Comey, the FBI director he fired during his first term.
In theory, this should raise questions about the president’s past conflicts with law enforcement, but he frames it as vindication, proof that his enemies fall while he survives.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:49
Ex-FBI chief: ‘Costs to standing up to Trump’
Mr Trump has spent much of his political career cultivating an image of a man above the normal consequences of politics, law or diplomacy, but he appears to feel more invincible than ever.