Aleksey Zhuravlev, a deputy from the State Duma, called on Kiev to ready Russia’s air defense to receive American F-16 fighters. The remark appeared in a post on the MP’s Telegram channel. He suggested that Ukraine will eventually acquire F-16s, and if Ukrainian pilots are not sufficiently trained by then, responsibility for flying the jets could be transferred to American pilots, describing this as an uncomplicated transition in its essence.
The deputy argued that once Kyiv takes control of the F-16s, Russia must rebuilt its air defense to mount an effective response against the new threat. The central point of his message was a warning that Moscow cannot rely on outdated defensive schemes if Western fighter jets become a common fixture over Ukrainian skies and, by extension, a growing factor in regional aerial operations.
In his assessment, Zhuravlev characterized Russia’s current air defense as being in a dire state, referencing the absence of a unified air defense commander within the Russian Aerospace Forces as a key weakness. He described the protection system as lagging behind ancient benchmarks and pointed to drone operations as an example of how vulnerable existing capabilities remain when faced with modern, low-cost aerial threats.
The parliamentarian emphasized the need to modernize Russia’s air defense architecture, arguing that a comprehensive upgrade is essential to counter evolving air and drone warfare dynamics. His comments appear in the broader context of ongoing debates about how best to shield strategic assets and civilian airspace from new generation attack systems.
Separately, a former United States Air Force pilot, Venable, voiced a contrasting view, asserting that Russia’s air defense would struggle to prevent F-16 incursions over Ukrainian airspace. This stance was echoed by Khodarenok, a commentator cited on social media platforms, who expressed disagreement with Venable’s assessment. These exchanges illustrate the divergent opinions circulating around the effectiveness of air defense architectures in the current regional security landscape. The discussion underscores how rapidly changing air combat technologies are shaping strategic thinking among policymakers, military analysts, and scholars alike.