>while you say that Russia isn't capable of causing even more destruction in the region.

Their military is fully committed, there's nothing else they can do.

Notice that Ukraine is asking for all these things and are not worrying about "escalation". Strange, huh?

These delusional Putin propagandists whinging about "escalation" are on the other hand completely safe.

> They end up being used to push the war into Russia forcing a much more desperate defensive Russian escalation.

Pushing the war into Russia is a purely good thing, Ukraine needs to strike military assets on the Russian side in order to win the war. It's unambiguously good and there are no downsides.

>The ability to project into Russia increases Russia's willingness to retaliate openly or covertly against the nation giving the jet-- potentially forcing the escalation to full world war.

Russia lacks the capability to "retaliate", and they lack the casus belli as well. There is zero chance they do anything to the west no matter what type of weapon Ukraine is given. And they're already doing everything they possibly can to Ukraine, there's no further step in the escalation ladder.

>and I'm sure the world's top diplomats can't compare to your genius

The world's top diplomats and military leaders all agree with me on this.

>but there's some pretty obvious ways that this could create blowback

No, there's no possibility of weapon deliveries to Ukraine creating "blowback" from Russia. The only type of blowback you might see is in domestic politics, where you might lose the votes of fearful idiot voters. And even then that might only happen in a select few countries, considering citizens of most western nations overwhelmingly support the cause.

> There is an actual reason why nations have been hesitant to give Ukraine fighter jets.

The actual reason is lack of political will. His suggestion is directly designed to deal with this, by taking initiative and paving the way for timid nations (the US, Germany) to follow.

>and even then it's not necessarily clear they would be the determining factor in making gains

There is no single weapon or system that will win a war by itself, that's not how war works. Modern fighter jets will give Ukraine capabilities that they didn't have before though, providing a sizeable advantage in both air defense and giving them the option of using western stand-off munitions.

>rather than a provocation that takes the war to the next level.

This is pure Russian propaganda. There is no possible "next level", Russia is already trying as hard as it can to win the war.

Why would they want an aircraft carrier? They have airfields, which are like unsinkable aircraft carriers.

The core point is true though, this current drip-feeding is strategically unsound if the goal is for Ukraine to win and Russia to lose. It makes no sense from a military perspective. The only thing we achieve by pussyfooting around is drawing out the conflict, so we should commit fully and provide everything they need.

Old soviet gear is simply not sufficient as it doesn't confer a technological advantage over Russian gear. It's a stopgap measure, nothing more.

What Ukraine actually needs is modern NATO equipment such as another 500+ Bradleys, some latest block F-16s, ATACMS and any artillery piece we can scrounge up. This war is not going away any time soon, and the sooner we realize that Ukrainian victory requires a serious investment in equipment the better.

Enabling Ukraine to, at scale, strike targets deep inside Russia will help to level the playing field, and this should be the absolute highest priority in terms of equipment delivery.

The article clearly states family connections. Did no one else read it?

This isn't about stockpiles or military readiness, it's about political will. Germany is merely being asked to approve Leopard export from allied nations as well as supply a symbolic number of them. In practical terms this is extremely easy to make happen, the only barrier to doing so is cowardice and indecision from German policy makers.

Germany is looking for an excuse to not send anything, or political cover to send it, so this doesn't matter. The US sending a single symbolic Abrams would still force Germany to deliver on their (implied) promise.

> but why is Germany demanding a match.

It's cowardice, they're deathly afraid of doing anything without overwhelming political cover. It's much more comfortable to hide behind the skirt of mommy US.

No fusion project has reached more than 10% of breakeven energy generation so far, despite billions invested.

It would require some incredible breakthroughs in technology.

We'll keep funding it, but in the meantime there are actual working solutions that we should be embracing, like nuclear fission as well as hydro/solar/wind + storage technologies.

Also doesn't make any sense in terms of economy or energy expenditure.

Storing it in the desert (or on site) is many orders of magnitude safer than shooting it into space. Not to mention the massive energy requirements for launching items into the sun. In fact it takes far more energy to reach the sun than it takes to escape the solar system entirely.

The simple fact here is that storage of nuclear waste is not a practical or safety issue at all, it's a political issue. If we can shut down the NIMBYS and irrational anti-nuclear activists this issue will be solved forever.

We don't need innovative solutions on handling the waste (that's already a solved issue), we need innovate solutions on getting political support for it.