[Goose]

This article spells out exactly what Goose refers to above, the need to have pilots that are a blank slate. Apparently Canada is training two such pilots and has plans to train more.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/uk...-1.7136872

Great that this is happening. Too bad it isn't 38 today. Canada should IMO step up and pay for it. At least the money would be spent in Canada. One unfortunate fact the article mentions is that Ontario Canada has many days where the weather is bad (horrible in some cases) and therefore you can't fly training missions. Most of Europe has the same issue. New Mexico doesn't have that problem. The US needs to step up way beyond the meager numbers of Ukrainians currently being trained. It is also an interesting fact that these Ukrainians are being trained to NATO standards in an aircraft designed in and used by the Warsaw Pact :-). Obviously all modern electronics and such.

Also rather interesting is the ongoing squabble between France and some of the other NATO countries about actually putting boots on the ground. France claims they were referring to possible mine clearing personnel, not combat personnel.  As one might suspect the Baltic States are more or less all in on the concept, and Poland seems to be more inclined that way, and the Czech Republic has apparently stated that NATO nations putting troops in Ukraine does not violate any existing rules. 
https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/...al%20norms.
Poland says it is not unthinkable.
I can understand the Baltic States and Poland coming to the conclusion that it is either fight Russia now or fight them later.  Not that I am in favor of such a risky action.  But the world currently has too many flash points for anyone to feel really comfortable.

IMO this is all theater. All the parties know that NATO only requires its members to "respond appropriately" if one of them is attacked. If you send troops to a war the rest of NATO has no obligation to help you fight it. In particular, all the potential participants know the US is a "hard no" on such an action. People often threaten outrageous responses when they are unable or unwilling to execute an effective alternative.

It is undoubtedly true there are way too many "flash points" in the world and particularly in Ukraine. This also shows the danger of the US surrendering it's "first among equals" status in NATO. Without the US to be the "adult", actions like are being discussed above become entirely possible, even likely. The Baltic States may indeed decide their only hope is a general war and therefore start one. TBH, I believe that if things get bad enough Ukraine will figure out some kind of "provocation" that they can execute and then blame on the Russians. This may be used to stampede NATO into doing something drastic, like direct intervention. If you think you have no choice, you do risky things.

[Goose]

This article spells out exactly what Goose refers to above, the need to have pilots that are a blank slate. Apparently Canada is training two such pilots and has plans to train more.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/uk...-1.7136872

Great that this is happening. Too bad it isn't 38 today. Canada should IMO step up and pay for it. At least the money would be spent in Canada. One unfortunate fact the article mentions is that Ontario Canada has many days where the weather is bad (horrible in some cases) and therefore you can't fly training missions. Most of Europe has the same issue. New Mexico doesn't have that problem. The US needs to step up way beyond the meager numbers of Ukrainians currently being trained. It is also an interesting fact that these Ukrainians are being trained to NATO standards in an aircraft designed in and used by the Warsaw Pact :-). Obviously all modern electronics and such.

Also rather interesting is the ongoing squabble between France and some of the other NATO countries about actually putting boots on the ground. France claims they were referring to possible mine clearing personnel, not combat personnel.  As one might suspect the Baltic States are more or less all in on the concept, and Poland seems to be more inclined that way, and the Czech Republic has apparently stated that NATO nations putting troops in Ukraine does not violate any existing rules. 
https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/...al%20norms.
Poland says it is not unthinkable.
I can understand the Baltic States and Poland coming to the conclusion that it is either fight Russia now or fight them later.  Not that I am in favor of such a risky action.  But the world currently has too many flash points for anyone to feel really comfortable.

IMO this is all theater. All the parties know that NATO only requires its members to "respond appropriately" if one of them is attacked. If you send troops to a war the rest of NATO has no obligation to help you fight it. In particular, all the potential participants know the US is a "hard no" on such an action. People often threaten outrageous responses when they are unable or unwilling to execute an effective alternative.

It is undoubtedly true there are way too many "flash points" in the world and particularly in Ukraine. This also shows the danger of the US surrendering it's "first among equals" status in NATO. Without the US to be the "adult", actions like are being discussed above become entirely possible, even likely. The Baltic States may indeed decide their only hope is a general war and therefore start one. TBH, I believe that if things get bad enough Ukraine will figure out some kind of "provocation" that they can execute and then blame on the Russians. This may be used to stampede NATO into doing something drastic, like direct intervention. If you think you have no choice, you do risky things.