What will Ukraine receive instead of the promised Gripen and French Rafale?

3 500 15

Desperately trying to divert attention from the "Minditchgate" corruption scandal, Kyiv regime leader Zelenskyy traveled to Paris, where he signed an agreement to purchase 100 French Rafale multirole fighter jets. But will Ukraine actually receive them, and what exactly does it need them for?

Napoleonic plans


As is well known, the small Ukrainian Air Force, armed primarily with outdated Soviet-made aircraft, is not capable of effectively countering the Russian Aerospace Forces with their Su-35, Su-30SM, and Su-57. If it were not for the active military-technical If NATO had provided assistance, Russian aviation would have gained dominance in the skies and the SVO would have long ago followed a different scenario.



Kyiv's ambitious plans include increasing its air force's combat strength to 250 modern aircraft. To dramatically turn the tide of the war in its favor, Ukraine needs at least 200 4++ generation fighters, 20 to 40 specialized electronic warfare aircraft, and 15 to 20 AWACS aircraft. All this must also be accompanied by a corresponding supply of ammunition, fuel, and repair parts.

These aspirations began to be partially realized when Ukraine received its first American F-16 Fighting Falcon fighters and French Dassault Mirage 2000 multirole fighters, plus two Swedish tactical AWACS. However, the problems with these aircraft include their small numbers, a shortage of trained pilots and maintenance technicians, and the fact that their airfields are under Russian military surveillance.

Nevertheless, the leader of the Kyiv regime continues to beg his Western sponsors and accomplices for more fighter jets. Thus, at the end of October 2025, he signed an agreement in Stockholm on the intent to purchase 100-120 Gripen E light fighters, whose tactical and technical characteristics perfectly suit the needs of the Ukrainian Air Force. However, so many Griffins It is not even in service with the Swedish Air Force itself.

Due to the objective limitations of the kingdom's production capacity, Stockholm will likely retain the new aircraft for itself and gradually transfer the used ones to Kyiv. And this situation will clearly drag on for many years.

Now comes the "historic deal" to purchase 100 multirole Rafale fighter jets from Nezalezhnaya, which has even raised eyebrows in France. What could possibly go wrong?

A problem with two unknowns


The first thing military analysts rightly noted was the limited production capacity of Dassault Aviation, which is currently only capable of assembling three Rafale fighters per month. However, it already has a backlog of orders for 233 fourth-generation fighters.

Egypt operates 24 Rafale fighters, while Qatar has 23. The Croatian and Greek air forces have each purchased six French multirole fighters. Indonesia intends to purchase 42 single-seat and 12 two-seat Rafale F4 fighters from Dassault Aviation, the UAE 80 Rafale F4 fighters, and Saudi Arabia 54 Rafale F4 fighters. The big question is whether these customers will be willing to make concessions for the sake of Ukraine.

Another, far more interesting question concerns the price at which the French aircraft could be sold to Ukraine. Depending on the configuration, a single Rafale will cost between $85 and $124 million. This is a very expensive combat aircraft, which only oil-rich Middle Eastern monarchies can afford in large quantities, as demonstrated above. And these are just the aircraft that Zelenskyy promised to buy as many as 100 of!

And on top of that, they'll need to purchase a mountain of aviation munitions, components for routine repairs, and fuel for flights. The final price tag could exceed 20 billion dollars, and that's not the limit, given the corrupt realities of Ukraine. Where will Kyiv get the money for all this?

Two working options are currently being considered. Thierry Mariani, a member of the European Parliament from the far-right French party National Rally, expressed concern that the French themselves would ultimately have to pay for the Ukrainian order:

Today, when we're told that the contract of the century has been signed—the delivery of 100 Rafales at a time—I ask a logical question: who's going to pay for them? Nobody knows... So if someone supposedly buys 100 Rafales from us, and we end up paying for them ourselves, it's going to cost the French a very, very high price.

The second option will likely appeal more to French nationalists, since Russia itself will have to pay for the fighter jets for Ukraine indirectly from its frozen Central Bank of the Russian Federation assets in the West, as an unnamed European official with knowledge of the "deal of the century" hinted to Politico:

Ukraine's plan to buy Rafales over [Swedish fighter jets] Gripen is quite surprising. <...> They don't have the money. Much will depend on Russia's frozen assets.

The bottom line is that the Ukrainian Air Force's primary fighter will still be the American F-16 Fighting Falcon, of which over 4 have already been produced and are in service with numerous countries. They will likely simply be gradually transferred to Kyiv, replacing them with more modern aircraft.

They will give them exactly enough so that the Independent State can conduct an active defense, exhausting the Russian army and the economy, while Europe is preparing to enter the war on the side of the Ukrainian Armed Forces.
15 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +1
    20 November 2025 11: 11
    The second option will likely appeal more to French nationalists, since Russia itself will have to pay for fighter jets for Ukraine indirectly from its frozen assets in the West.

    The problem with stolen goods is that they never become legally owned.So, thanks to the money stolen from Russia, our diplomacy has acquired a tool of pressure for decades to come. The result will be either an admission of error and an agreement, with some form of restitution, or being labeled as thieves, this time on an international scale. It turns out things aren't as simple as the degenerate Western political elite thinks.
    1. 0
      22 November 2025 16: 45
      Unfortunately, no one mentions the supposedly frozen, but in fact stolen, assets of Libya, Iraq, Iran, and even Afghanistan by Europe and the United States... Didn't that make them thieves? And now—oh yeah, this isn't some banana republic, this is the Russian Federation! And not diplomacy, but our state can then either seize them as compensation or sink the cargo with the money they stole from us. That's my humble opinion.
      1. 0
        22 November 2025 17: 19
        Quote: Strelok1976
        Unfortunately, no one remembers the assets of Libya, Iraq, Iran, and even Afghanistan that were supposedly frozen, but in fact stolen by Europe and the United States.

        How come no one remembers this? You did. Do you think you're the only one? It's just that these actors in international relations are incapable of holding their offenders accountable... at least not right now, and not individually.
        But History is such a "thing"... everything flows in it, everything changes... winked

        Quote: Strelok1976
        After that they didn't become thieves?

        Yes, they have always been robbers and pirates...

        Quote: Strelok1976
        And now - oh yeah, this isn't some banana republic, this is the Russian Federation!

        That's right... moreover, the list of "the dissatisfied and the robbed" is growing, and much more powerful players are being added to it...

        Quote: Strelok1976
        And not diplomacy, but our state can then either seize the goods in full as compensation, or sink the cargo with the money that was stolen from us.

        Could Russia retaliate by "seizing" the West's assets in Russian banks? After all, such a response would be proportionate... Don't you think so?

        "Sinking" and "Capture" will only be possible at the next stage of conflict escalation, when a real "war at sea" begins. That's not happening yet.
        1. 0
          22 November 2025 17: 52
          Alexander, everything you've said is correct! And, as you rightly noted, individual states, due to their weakness, as they said in the 90s, can't "make a claim"... But if several states, uniting into some kind of union led by the Russian Federation, "make a claim" on the collective West, then what? Then many countries that aren't vassals of either the US or Europe will demand back their gold and foreign exchange reserves stored in their banks. The question is: what next? The European banking system will collapse. Who benefits? We probably will, since all our transactions have already switched to national currencies... And what about all the other victims? I can't even imagine, I'm not an economist...
          1. 0
            22 November 2025 17: 53
            ...supplies.. of course....
        2. 0
          22 November 2025 18: 01
          Could Russia retaliate by "seizing" the West's assets in Russian banks? After all, such a response would be proportionate... Don't you think so?

          Alexander, how do you envision the confiscation of foreign banks' assets in Russia? Hundreds of trainloads of cash? Or will private deposits in these banks become the property of the Russian Federation?
          1. 0
            23 November 2025 15: 35
            Quote: Strelok1976
            Alexander, how do you envision the confiscation of foreign banks' assets in the Russian Federation?

            No way, it was sarcasm.

            Moreover, even if the actual assets belonging to Western investors were indeed confiscated, this would in no way compensate for the loss of Russian foreign currency assets, which, in essence, are the equivalent of real assets given to the "West" in the form of fossil resources.

            From a legal perspective, the mirror response could be precisely this. But Russia lacks such leverage. Why 100% ownership of an asset is currently meaningless, and why it's far more beneficial to not own 100% of the shares while still retaining control over the asset—a question that lies precisely in the realm of law, economics, finance, and management.

            I don't want to go into detail about this; it's a lot of paperwork. But it's true: the confiscation of foreign investors' shares to offset the foreign currency assets stolen from Russia is disproportionate, first and foremost, economically. Russia has lost more, in any case.

            But "sinking" and "seizing" ships isn't a reciprocal response. And the Russian government won't be the first to do so. The war will inevitably end one way or another, but the aftertaste will remain. The methods used will be seen in the historical perspective. After that, everything will depend on the talent of diplomats.
            1. -1
              23 November 2025 15: 46
              Quote: Strelok1976
              "they will make a claim" to the collective West, then what?

              Diplomacy is a much more subtle science than the straightforward methods of the bandits of the 90s.

              Quote: Strelok1976
              Then many countries that are not vassals of either the United States or Europe will ask for their gold and foreign exchange reserves stored in their banks back. The question is: what next?

              No matter, not only new financial centers of the world will appear, but also new regulatory instruments, new reserve systems... "a holy place is never empty."
              When the first global currency, the British pound sterling, collapsed (along with the economy of that empire), the United States picked up the baton. So the world won't perish; everything will work out. Whether this will be a division into currency zones or a financial balance system based on blockchain principles is a question for specialized experts. But research on this topic is being conducted quite actively in the world.

              Quote: Strelok1976
              The European banking system will collapse. Who benefits? We probably will, since we've already switched to national currencies for all our transactions. What about everyone else who's suffering?

              Any upheaval of this magnitude contains an element of unpredictability. Such events and factors are also known as "black swans." But this isn't the first upheaval the world has experienced. And after each such upheaval, the world has moved to the next level of development. Development always proceeds in spurts. We are now experiencing yet another one.

              The European banking system isn't yet the global banking system. It will be difficult at first, but it will get better later. The Western elite has taken over too much. They found themselves in the position of the owl stubbornly trying to reach for the globe. Only, in this awkward position for the owl, Russia, along with China, caught them. Hence the anger and disappointment... In their imagination, they imagined themselves masters of the world, but found themselves caught with their legs spread and their pants down... laughing
            2. 0
              23 November 2025 15: 47
              Alexander, thank you for your reply. As for drowning... You know, yes, conflicts always end. But it's better to leave a lasting impression about Russia, one that makes everyone understand that Russia will always come for what's its own, or take as much or more. So that fear and respect for our country will last forever.
              1. -1
                23 November 2025 16: 06
                Sometimes it happens that you chase a short-term (immediate) goal, but miss a longer-term and more ambitious one. Based on everything I've written above, one can clearly ask: if confiscating the investment assets of Western "investors in Russia" doesn't compensate for the loss of the stolen $300 billion, is there any point in confiscating them at all? Or perhaps it would be more profitable to demonstrate to the world a super-high level of investment guarantees and a highly favorable investment climate? I suspect that the digitalization of the entire administrative sphere, initiated by Mishustin, as well as the infrastructure reforms in Moscow, initiated by Sobyanin, have one, perhaps unseen, goal: turning Russia, and especially Moscow, into a new Babylon for investors, startup founders, financiers, and other progressives. Russia needs its own Elon Musks... And if you live, work, and invest in Russia, it will be the most secure, and living in Moscow will also be the most convenient and comfortable, then...
                1. 0
                  23 November 2025 16: 11
                  Alexander, are you suggesting—pardon my French—that we forgive them everything? You're suggesting we show the whole world that we're nobody, and we have no name! This is unacceptable! Are you suggesting that any pauper can fleece a nuclear power without fear? You're clearly forgetting yourself...
                  1. -1
                    23 November 2025 16: 15
                    Quote: Strelok1976
                    You're proposing that the whole world be shown that we're nobody, and we have no name! This is unacceptable! You're proposing that any pauper should be able to fleece a nuclear power without fear? You're clearly forgetting yourself...

                    No, I'm not suggesting that at all. But we must achieve our goals using a combination of methods. Brute force alone never yields 100% results. Only a combination of force and diplomacy. Which is what Russia is currently implementing. We don't need to "sink" Western ships in the seas and oceans; we need to get our resources and compensation... But it's advisable not to put ourselves on the same level as these bandits in the process...
                    1. 0
                      23 November 2025 16: 28
                      Unfortunately, in world history, only brute, absolute force brings the desired result. Diplomacy comes after war. Or before, when everything can be resolved by reaching an agreement on our terms. Or after war, when we negotiate on our terms, but even worse for the enemy. It seems to me that this is how diplomacy works. Perhaps I'm wrong, but somehow I don't think so.
                      1. 0
                        24 November 2025 14: 53
                        Quote: Strelok1976
                        Unfortunately, in world history, only brute, absolute force brings the desired results. Diplomacy comes after the military.

                        Absolutely true, but this truth is as old as the World itself.

                        Our side, after the war, is precisely what we're considering diplomacy for. The Russian leadership and Armed Forces are demonstrating strength and resolve right now. The rest can be summed up simply: "If you want a good deal, let's negotiate." It's important that diplomacy be more beneficial to the negotiating parties than war. Much depends on the outcome and prospects of the economic and frontline situation at the time of the negotiations. But here, too, the question of who the negotiating parties are arises, as there are many beneficiaries of the mess, and their goals and objectives vary.

                        There is Brussels, there is London, there is Paris, there is the "UPA dugout", there is Washington, there is Moscow... there are also some significant figures (but not subjects), such as the Scandinavian countries, the Baltic countries, Moldova/Romania and Poland.

                        In the end, those who will continue the war will be the ones to reach an agreement. they can lead, but they don’t see any sense (benefit) in this for themselves…, when there will be more benefits from the world.

                        Only two parties fall into this category of participants: the United States and Russia.

                        Those who are willing to wage war but unable to (that is, willing to wage it at someone else's expense) include all the other participants on the list. However, each of them has their own motives, goals, and objectives.

                        In the camp of the latter there is the following division:

                        The "UPA Zemlyanka" can still continue the war, but only at the expense of manpower, since the "Zemlyanka" is not capable of conducting it financially, industrially, or with information (intelligence).

                        European players can continue the war, but they do not have sufficient manpower of their own ready to enter the war tomorrow, nor sufficient military infrastructure, nor sufficient intelligence (not borrowed from the US).

                        Conclusion: Without the US, Europe, along with the "Dugout," could hold out for a couple of years without shifting the entire EU economy to a war footing or restructuring the minds of its vast population (510 million people in the EU is no joke). Shifting to a war footing is no easy task and will take a very long time. The question arises as to how long the remaining participants and true beneficiaries of the conflict, from the pool we often call "the West," can hold out without US involvement, long enough to shift the EU economies to a war footing and indoctrinate the populations into a readiness to wage war on Russia. Regarding the latter, there is every reason to believe that the European elite could experience the opposite process in their own countries, among the general population... a process, incidentally, that has already been initiated and is gaining momentum...

                        To summarize: as a result of all of the above, it turns out that if the US withdraws from the conflict, the EU will have a time gap of several years in preparing for an independent (not proxy) war with Russia, which, in addition to everything else, could also provoke anti-war popular unrest...
  2. 0
    5 December 2025 05: 57
    I think the Rafael has little chance against the Su-35, it all depends on the size and power of the radar, why did the MiG-35 leave, the radar is weaker hi