Why Belgium is not sending F-16s to Ukraine

It would be fair to say that the leading French language daily newspaper in Belgium, Le Soir, is a handmaiden to the Belgian government in disseminating state approved propaganda about Russia and about the Russian-Ukraine war. This is a badge of honor, or of disgrace, depending on your point of view. But this fact makes it especially interesting that yesterday’s print edition devoted a full page to the issue of sending F-16s to Ukraine written by the head of its “World” staff, Philippe de Boeck. In this long text we find information about the Belgian air force that ordinarily does not circulate widely and which tells us a great deal about why it is NATO, rather than Russia that is being critically weakened by the war.

The headline space of this article is taken by a quotation from Joseph Henrotin, a Belgian political scientist who holds senior positions at several French think tanks specialized in military strategy and risk analysis, and is also editor in chief of the magazine  Défense et sécurité international. Said Henrotin:  “If it really wanted to do so, Belgium could deliver the F-16 to Ukraine.” The subtitle goes on to say: “If the West wishes the war to end quickly, Kiev’s allies have every reason to provide a maximum of fighter planes to Ukraine as quickly as possible, Joseph Henrotin believes. He explains why.”

The author reminds readers that for several months Ukraine has been demanding F-16s, ideally between 120 and 160 of them. Last week three member states of NATO, The Netherlands, Denmark and Norway announced that they will deliver about sixty planes. Belgium has agreed to train pilots and support mechanics but not to supply planes.

My final quote from the introductory section of the article intended to whet the appetite of readers is a couple of sentences set in bold typeface:  “The general responsible for procurement at the Ministry of Defense declared recently to the Standaard [Belgian Dutch language daily] that Belgium could not deliver the F-16 to Ukraine because they will be at the end of their service life when their successors arrive. Is this true or false?”

After this tantalizing opening, the article does not disappoint.  It provides detailed information on the considerations that the Belgium government has weighed in reaching its decision not to send any of its F-16s to Kiev. The technical considerations have been released to the public, it appears, while the driving motive, political, has not.

The technical considerations are that the Belgian fleet of F-16s is approaching the end of its service life of 8,000 flight hours, which, considering annual flying time, equates to about 25 years. However, the replacement jets, F-35s, will be delivered to Belgium only after a delay of several years and spread over a number years following initial deliveries. Therefore, any planes which Belgium could eventually send to Ukraine would be worthless in the operational sense. And even those presently sitting on Belgian runways are not of the first freshness. Their hours of remaining flight time are numbered.

Within the article, this argument is countered by the remark that Ukraine is in the midst of war, that it needs to put together a large number of planes to present a threat to Russian forces that could lead to peace talks on favorable terms, and it is irrelevant how many hours of flying time are left on any individual planes. Even a couple of hours would be better than nothing. This is said as if the Russians are incapable of reading these very lines.

The political argument is that Belgium has certain force level obligations to NATO and that reducing its fleet before replacement aircraft are delivered would violate these obligations.  We are left to believe that the member states who declared their readiness to part with them will be taking delivery of F-35s well before Belgium and so will be taking lesser risks to their own defense capabilities. But is this in fact true, or are these three countries less risk averse than Belgium.

My overall conclusion from this important article is that with respect to aircraft, just as with regard to tanks and artillery munitions, Europe’s store of materiel that would be needed should it find itself in a hot war with Russia is barely adequate and continues to be depleted voluntarily through shipments to Ukraine where it is systematically and rather quickly destroyed by Russian forces. Who is being “demilitarized”?  Is it Germany and the UK, or is it Ukraine?

 Meanwhile, we are fairly sure that the Russians have been holding back from the conflict their most advanced military equipment which would be used against NATO should the proxy war turn into a hot war. Its hypersonic missiles have been used very sparingly. Their latest generation tank only made its appearance on the battlefield a couple of weeks ago. And the likely contract to be signed in coming days with North Korea to supply artillery shells will be to top up Russia’s stores for the day war with NATO comes, not to be fired from the tubes in Donbas next week.

Going back to first assumptions when the United States provoked Russia into invading Ukraine to remove the threat of NATO installations there, it was expected in Washington, London, Brussels and Berlin that the combination of military destruction by superior hardware and by NATO-trained forces and economic destruction on Russia by the “sanctions from hell” would greatly weaken the country for a generation to come. Then the United States would be free to move on to tame its greater global competitor, China.

However, Russia was able to overcome the impact of the sanctions rather quickly by reorganizing its trading patterns away from the West and towards China, India and other friendly nations. Even oil sales which collapsed in January after the latest round of sanctions took effect, have recovered fully in dollar terms now that the payments are recorded for shipments to the new Far Eastern markets which take months to reach customers. And on the battlefield, Russia quickly adapted to the new conditions of ground warfare, showing technological prowess that has had devastating effect on the celebrated U.K., German and other Western equipment, while Russia’s artillery superiority forced the West to empty its warehouses if the Ukrainians were to have any chance to respond after their own Soviet vintage shells were wholly depleted.

All of the foregoing persuades me that if and when Russia overwhelms the Ukrainian army by unleashing its own offensive and a Ukrainian defeat is there for all to see, the Biden Administration will not escalate but will walk away from its and NATO’s disaster. The United States and NATO have left themselves lacking the wherewithal to defeat Russia by conventional arms and resort to nuclear weapons can lead all too quickly in a direction that everyone in Washington fears more than anything else.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2023