What Weapons Does Ukraine need to Win? 

I mean it could hhappen but barran would have to wait and a rich naion would have to buy that 200 aircraft and even then it would take time unless someone fanancs a new factory.

No one other then the US has enough of them in stock tho...

We also said "no armor". Bradleys are arriving next week. We said no tanks, and now we are preparing to ship Abrams. "No" doesn't mean "no," it means "give Putin a week to worry about the most recent aid package, then we'll announce the fighter jets."

That looks like such a dick move from the US... "We won't send our jets, but you can send yours and then buy jets from us again "

@@NotUnymous Yeah. But I also get the feeling that any country that gives their F16s to Ukraine will replenish them with newer fighter jets like the F35.

I believe they are also considering sending the Dassult Raphael

Yes, and they may do it regardless of what the US or UK do

@@chimingfung3901 No Rafale, Mirage 2000C is mostly likely could be mirage 2000-5

A three way transfer with India would be better. France can send Mirages or even Rafales to India. India in turn sends MiGs and Su-30 to France, which France then gifts to Ukraine. This gives India more fighters they are familiar with and need while giving Ukraine more fighters they are familiar with and need.

India could potentially send all of their MiG-29UPG and their oldest 50 Su-30 which are due for retirement soon anyways. France could supply India with all of their Mirage 2000D for ground attack use and other Mirage 2000 as spare parts for India’s current Mirage 2000. India could also send their MiG-29K if supplied with Rafale M in trade. This would probably require some modifications to INS Vikramaditya elevator hatches to use them effectively but worth it for the capability upgrade.

Please let's give them nuke and be done with this

Cooking the frog...

The U.S has granted export licenses to other countries for export to Ukraine and wants the Ukrainians to get their planes from them while training in America

Source?

@@erisboxxx Back in June 2022, congress pass a 100M bill authorizing the Ukrainian pilots to be trained on F-16's. To train on the use of AIM-9X2 and AIM-9M, etc. etc. Resolution:H. R. 8144

This is because they make love, not war.

That and saying armies use the f16 while saying air forces would have been more accurate.

there is also no such thing as a leopard 2S. German leopards come in variants a1 to a7+ then there is are the international variants like the stridsvagen-122 or the polish PL variant.

Lol I love these guys but I do wonder sometimes if they even watch their own videos before releasing. Like what is with that cut at 4:30

Agreed, this was really jarring. I think they were using "army" as a synonym for "military", which is fairly common practice but misleading nevertheless

@@josephkennelly8953 In some languages army and military are synonyms, this is why this mistake is not flagged by most people(or at least international viewers).

i meaaaaan hes not wrong in saying that the F-16 is not being produced for the army :P

Minor Fu paw. It was funny hearing it though.

You're confusing army with Army. The latter specifically refers to the land division of a military, while the former basically just means a military in general.

That's not exactly true. The C-17 can carry the tank, but only one at a time. So it's very inefficient to airlift, but you can airlift the m1 Abrams. Every variety of the tank can be transported by jet.

The C5 Galaxy can carry up to 2 Abrams but stresses the air frame. You would only see that if the US faced an existential threat.

RORO-row your tanks, Gently into port, Then they're sent forward To slaughter and war, Rolling slowly forth.

@@edbangor9163 that is true for older non sep variants. All the sep variant tanks weigh over 70 tons. It's too heavy.

@@M3PH11 It's not an issue of weight. The Globemaster can carry a lot more than 70 tons of cargo. The issue is weight distribution along stress points on the aircraft. But in Abrams design is very modular. Pieces can be removed from the vehicle, and set elsewhere on the plane. The end result is a configuration that may not be combat effective the second your plane is wheels down, but you can still transport them by aircraft.

At third point it’s clearly an excuse.

The fact that Western allies made an error by not sending them back then doesn't justify delivering all equipment without propper training. In fact, if you want Ukraine to lose the war that's the best thing you can do. Reddit and Twitter random profiles seem not to understand this. It seems some people on RU-vid too...

Let's get this straight the Donbas has both Ukrainian-speakers and Russian-speakers so an internationally-monitored buffer-zone is and probably has been the only realistic option. It is high time the adults came into the room and the US, the main driver, pointed it out to Zelensky. All wars end. Only questions are how and when? Sending more weapons is futile because neither Ukraine nor Russia will be able to manage the Donbas politically without international input. Secondly why should nations keep supplying Ukraine? We are in another phase. Ukraine-fatigue is setting in. Other countries cannot afford to endlessly support Ukraine. They have their own problems - strikes etc and they need money domestically. Ukraine isn't probably worth it.

Time the grown-ups entered the dialogue and ended the war, carnage and suffering instead of adding fuel to the fire by sending more weapons. Talk of Marshall Aid for Ukraine to rebuild. What about Marshall Aid for Redcar? Many areas domestically are almost in as bad a shape as towns in Ukraine but ignored for a century.

They have received training. And that is the infuriating part. Not many but then not many systems are being discussed being sent either.

That is all they have done but the US says no to ATACMs

@@lesterquintrell4844 they'll probably get GLSDBs instead, also himars compatible

@@theo_korner If I understand correctly the GLSDBs are much cheaper and can be sent in bulk vs the rare and expensive ATACMS

which is bad investment. why old generation F16s when Romania could simply buy Eurofighter Typhoons which are much more advanced. same is true with Romania native made tanks that are completely garbage by every modern tests. Romanian government should sell all of their native made TR-85s to some poor 3rd world African countries and instead buy some German Leopard 2 tanks. let's be honest here, native Romanian vehicles are terrible. they are cheap and lack quality. quality is much more important than quantity.

@@LevisH21 hey im not the military expert here. I only say stuff. Plus we already have Eurofighters, its not like we only purchased american stuff. And we didnt buy many new vehicles because we were more focused on planes. And we cant produce new ones because its too expensive for us.

@@cgt3704 The F-16s are fine for air to air combat and they do have considerable capability in the ground attack roll. There really is no clear cut advantage in any of them until you get to stealth or a networked fighter like the F-35.

@@LevisH21 F-16 are modernized and they are at capability level of latest F-16C/D models. As such only advantage that EF would have for Romania is that they could possible be new and as such cheaper, but even that is questionable to claim considering bad reputation of EF when it comes to maintenance. And ultimately, you clearly do not understand long term goal of Romanian AF and that is F-35. Romania needed something to 1. cover fighter capability after MiG-21 until F-35 are bought and 2. be western made fighter which would enable Romanian personal to train and improve on it. Claiming that quantity is not importante as much as quality in modern war is laughable, specially after first year of war in Ukraine in which both sides managed to lose tank fleet of modern western European states at least once and almost run out of arty ammunition. Quantity is importante. Quality is also importante.

The West should give all there surplus equipment to the Ukraine now. Best way to recycle the the old stuff and causing Russians untold problems. The West buys new stuff and if Russia doesn't quit the war, the new equipment will finish the Russians off in short order.Western Europe has only one military thread and that is Russia.

bro you are right on russias doorstep, if war breaks out Latvia is gonna become a wasteland. start stocking up on food and watch out for any men dressed in military clothes so you dont get a military subpoena

Source?

Isn't it an option in Microsoft Flight Simulator?

@@amsalkhan4754 F35 costs about $100 million usd to $135 million or more. variables include version, block and number in order amongst many other things. no fighter costs 5 million.

But then Russia will just send their Kirov's

Nah, the 1960s T-34 (the only tanks Russia has left) will probably destroy everything the USA will send 🤓🤓

And Pannier tanks.

@@Pavos Veteran Rocket IFVs can take them down😉

Why stop there? Why not send the Ukrainians all our weapons and armaments and leave our own nations completely undefended. What could possibly go wrong....

Army is a synonym to the term military more broadly

@@alexseguin5245 yeah but individuals including myself and Quentae like to nitpick these things

Is it possible to configure loitering kamikaze drones to be fired from 152 mm artillery?

@@stevenwilson5556 the Russians do have a drone that can fly for 20 minutes and can be launched from rocket artillery which is used for bda

It will be easily countered when the Iranian Fath series of small ballistic missiles reach the Russian arsenal in Ukraine, on top of a ramped up production of Russian Tornado MLRS missiles.

@@John-hu9qg Russians have not shown themselves capable of "easily countering" things that in theory are "easily countered". On paper it might be easily countered, but on the battlefield may very well be a different story

@@stevenwilson5556 Well then a weapon of equal capability, to insure that Ukrainian targets are picked off also. Its becoming apparent that Russian real-time battlefield situational awareness has improved rapidly, with information coming in from domestic and foreign sources, especially around recent territorial gains and Russian advances.

So basically: US wants war, but needs the Europe to pay for it.

since ukraine dont have money to buy it. US sell to nato member then the member send it to ukraine by free. that how us get rich

@@caturskak6936 thats not how we get rich, we don't feel like giving billions away for nothing

I mean I don't see why not? like down them in the things and they will die even if you flatten the eniter region trying tto hit a single tank.

So.e sources say 100 tanks others up to 500, the real number eill be secret until war is ovet likely

Those tanks don't need training since they're Soviet-made (and Ukraine already operates on those) and will be sent this month already.

@@diogorodrigues747 To be precise PT-91 isn't truely Soviet made, T-72 can be upgraded to the PT-91 standard but the later models have some limited redesigns to hulls and turrets as well as more radical internal ones

only way ukraine wins the war lmao

@@ronmka8931 Not really. The USSR only lost 15,000 in Afghanistan and it became a quagmire that crippled their economy and led to their downfall. Current estimates but the much smaller Russia at ~180,000 killed and wounded and their economy haemorrhaging and it hasn't even been a year. Ukraine just has to keep fighting. Even if Russia wins, it'll be a pyrrhic victory. They'll be Tsars of rubble with a destitute motherland and absolutely weak compared to the West. The West just needs to make sure this doesn't become our Spanish civil war.

​@@jaydenvancanne9981 QUAGMIRE!!!???!!!? GIGIDY GIGDY SLAVA DEEZ NUTZ

@@jaydenvancanne9981 bullshit their economy is still alive and much better than in EU countries, the sanctions didn't work as EU expected, Russia is doing very well with Asian countries.

Fight till the last abled Ukrainian to make America great again.

Let’s be accurate and truthful: the “West” here, the West which deprived Ukraine of its strategic defence, is the US and the U.K. alone.

No , it was russia who promised to protect them

No. It didn't. That treaty only makes promises not to harm. Russia could do anything in Ukraine and the west is not obligated to intervene. We help because we want to, not because we have to

@@RepeatedTime i disagree. « Not to harm » is already covered by the UN Charter, a treaty to confirm that is pointless, wouldn’t make any sense really. The Budapest memoranda are not pointless at all. In 1994, Russia, the US, the U.K. and Ukraine (and a couple of other former Soviet republics) signed the Budapest memoranda, which established the first three as the guarantors of Ukraine security and border integrity in exchange for Ukraine ditching their 3,000+ nukes. Which makes a lot of sense and is a fair deal: Ukraine gives away its ultimate protection against three of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council guaranteeing their protection. The two other permanent members of the UN Security Council, China and France, signed separate documents in which they committed to support Ukraine, without any specific guarantee. Minimum service, basically. Since we’re here, who would ditch their unbreakable nuke protection for a vague promise « not to get harmed »? Let’s be serious, shall we? So let’s wrap this up: in 1994, 3 of the 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council became Ukraine’s borders guarantors. In 2014, one of the three turned aggressor while the two others looked away. A fourth permanent member looked away. And the last one tried to pick up the pieces and set up the Normandy format with the great help from Germany - not a permanent member of the UN Security Council - to monitor and implement the Minsk accords. In 2022, the aggressor doubles down. After initially planning to do exactly as in 2014 (nothing, that is) the two other guarantors are forced by Ukraine to somehow uphold their commitment, while abundantly pissing on the two only countries which cared to do something in the 2014 aftermath. And here we are.

@@tixien how about germany and france selling out ukraine in minsk ii?

Poland sent like half of its ENTIRE arsenal to Ukraine, if not more. Well it is clear as day for polish people that - in case Ukraine fall - they will be next on Putler's menu. Even Putler's talking heads made such statements. Bulgaria, Czeh Republic and Baltic States are also backing Ukraine as much as they can for the same reason. Given reluctance of US to provide help to Ukraine - especially at the start of the War - because "we don't want to anger Putin he might escalate" there is no guarantee that US would honor NATO article 5.

thats essentially what we are already doing. Pzh2000 and Leopards came directly from the Bundeswehrs active troops

The problem is that Germany and the other European nations still fear and distrust one another. That's the reality of human nature.

@@charlesyang8146 what? lmao

whos paying for that?

It has the most nukes though like even if half work the US would be very dead...

@@GreenBlueWalkthrough if a single one misfires in its silo then it's over before it starts as it sets off the lot of them in the base but no one is stupid enough to let the minutemen fly at this point.

@@GreenBlueWalkthrough if teh start to a nuclear war putin and bjdrn are the first 2 dead ones, war is fought if leaders dont die. Nuclears are deterrants, aka, never use weapons

​@@bartandaelus359 Yeah, because Russia totally keeps their entire nuclear arsenal in a single silo. /s

@@GreenBlueWalkthrough Once again, countries with nukes can do whatever to countries without nukes.

No, if I read correctly. There is a domestic, and an export version. Ukraine is getting the export version from how I understand it so the armor is already composite armour vs the domestic depleted uranium.

@@TheOwlGilga the US probably need to divert shipments originally for another country to Ukraine, it’s not like there are extra export versions lying around.

Pretty sure they already have the tungsten variants in stock

I heard that they build completly new ones for the Ukraine. Whatever it may be. It's a joke.

Depleted uranium and tungsten are not armour. They are armour penetrating ammo. So I think you must have misunderstood some aspects here.

The version that is sent to Ukraine is the new leopard 2 A6.

@@johnhobbes2268 I know that.

@@johnhobbes2268 The Leopard 2A6 isn’t new anymore. The newest version of the Leopard 2 tank is the Leopard 2A7V.

@@ryanvanderveer4263 The Leopard 2A6 is indeed not the lasted version, that's (as you pointed out) the Leopard 2A7V but the Leopard 2A6 is still new as it has most of the features of the latest version, including the longer and thus with DM53 APFSDS rounds more powerful Rh 120 L/55 main cannon.

@@BlackWater_49 That’s right. One thing I wonder is why western militaries actually opted to send Leopard 2A6 tanks instead of Leopard 2A4s, considering there are many more Leopard 2A4s than Leopard 2A6s.

No. You realize Russia is not sitting still nor is it some 3rd world army that it's made out to be in our media. The longer it takes, the more entrenched millions of Russians will be.

If the Ukrainians do it too slowly, Russia will retreat into becoming North Korea or Iran and we'll keep terrorising their neighbours. If they do it fast, less people will die, and also there is a chance of Russia breaking up that will free a lot of people. Russia is called the prison of nations, because there are 160 different ethnicities that all serve the "great Russian tzar"

Perhaps you can come along yourself and help out. My squadron is deploying in October, and we could always use a military logistics specialist. Or are you not as keen to sacrifice yourself as much as other people just to see Russia lose a war?

@@maszk9743 kind of a wierd take il be honest. A) I'm a software developer, not a soldier, though to be fair, you had no way of knowing that. B) To be fair, I don't actually hate the idea of dealing with army logistics so depending on the situation, I'm not actually opposed to being a logistics officer. C) As far as I'm concerned, some amount of my taxes are being paid to Ukraine in aid. I've also donated to charities. Sure it's not much but it is something that I can do. Unfortunately, Ukraine is caught in the middle of a far larger geopolitical situation which makes sending missiles and jets difficult. If tanks don't prompt Russia to do stupid things then more tanks is good.

​@@davidcooks2379 The longer this war goes on, the higher Russian casualties get, the more strain there is on the Russian nation. The more aid that we give Ukraine, the stronger Putin's propaganda can become with this being a Russia vs NATO war. Russia can lose to NATO, no one actually thinks they'll win, so a defeat from NATO wont shake Russia to the core. A defeat from Ukraine would do that. Also, the break up of Russia could lead to an interesting kind of hellscape which could destabilise a large amount of the world. Its safer to just replace Putin with a more pro-western leader and let Russia federalise in time, and by replace, i mean, just weight and see if Russia gets rid of him.

Where would the F16 operate from? Ukraine? - if so their airfields would be promptly taken out of action with drones and missiles. ...from Poland? - if so we can all look forward to the same... followed only slightly later by general nuclear exchange... and everyone is disappointed.

Because they're relying a lot of volunteers and for that matter conscripts who have been barely trained for the weapons they already have... They can't take valuable time of for stuff they might not even get.

They are.. Ukrainian soldiers receive trainings in neighboring countries

@@joeyjojojrshabadoo7462 what I’m saying is that in the 100,000 strong Ukrainian army they should be able to find 100 people to train with western tanks, if they had started 10 months ago they would be experts by now.

@@joeyjojojrshabadoo7462 in fact they need to take 50 pilots and start training them with F16s if they end up not being needed they can go back to combat operations, Ukraine has far more pilots than they have planes anyway.

They could use Microsoft Tank Simulator.

That is a 10% increase Not a big difference, but will definitely help

Ukraine had maybe 1500 tanks, now it is ca.500-600 left, but yea, it won't help.

Ukraine has asked for 300.

The difference in capabilities really does make a difference... For example, the Leopard-tanks have a missile defense system, are highly maneuverable and very accurate. Sending these tanks up against the much older russian AV's and tanks will definitely give them the advantage. If you would put up 10 T 72's (which are used now) vs 10 Leopard 2's, the Leopards will definitely win...

I agree. The countries with the most stuff in storage are the USA and Germany.

Idk why our country (India) is not supporting Ukraine. But anyways I support Ukraine. Also I want peace between india and Pakistan

@@arnesh6456 Never ever to fascism. I hope most Indians would take a stand like you. And yes, also peace to Pakistan and India❤️

@@arnesh6456 If I'm not mistaken, India is an ally or at least a neutral party to Russia

@@arnesh6456 main reason is that USSR was a major ally of India and Russia has a seat at the un security council hence they veto anything on Kashmir on India's behalf. Also I do wish for peace thanks

@@arnesh6456 What a self loathing Indian, Have some pride.

Russian anti-tank rockets are highly unlikely to destroy western tank. Even in case of western ATGMs vs soviet tanks nearly all of kill videos that we saw happened when missile was fired at lonely tank unaware that it has been fired upon. In other words, even soviet junk fares reasonably well against state-of-the-art western missiles AS LONG IT IS ATTACKED FROM THE FRONT which is exactly what these tanks were DESIGNED FOR. You can argue that such doctrine was silly (and I would agree with you btw), but the thing is even T-series tank can not be penetrated from the front by any ATGM and have number of countermeasures that actually works (from the front), can not be penetrated from the side of the turret by most of infantry-portable ATGMS (and its not obvious whether heavier ATGMS can or can not penetrate turret from the side) and its smoke screen (wrong name btw) works okay against top-hitting missiles as long as it is deployed in time (which never happened on any video involving turret being thrown).

Western tanks have better optics

@@skipperg4436 Really. The Russ have had 30 years to develop rockets specifically for the Abrams tank. Why do Rockets need to hit the front of a tank? Why do we believe in the myth of western technology?

no it won't!

I mean it's a risk send stuff now and make sure Russia can't make war this century but be at risk of China taking Taiwan and the US will being under stuffed...

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

The Ukrainians are going to continue yes, but they will eventually lose without western support. Just like for the Soviets in WWII, without lend lease, no victory is possible.

Prolonging the war is providing weapons. Without weapons there is a chance Ukraine can be forced to the table. With weapons they will fight to the very last Ukrainian and force Russia to take over all of Ukraine. If Ukraine was provided tanks sooner Russia would have also escalated sooner so there would be no affect. Any provisions of weapons to Ukraine will be matched 2x by Russia so there is little point going into the hole unless you do not care about Ukraine & just want the world to burn around Ukraine.

i doubt they would listen

@@franknwogu4911 But going against the conditions of a lend-lease of a vital weapons system would not be in their interest as it would destroy the trust between NATO and Ukraine.

I agree they should get those, too

lmao the nato propaganda is strong with this one, the a-10 is nothing but a sitting duck in a modern battlefield (and not when the enemy only has old ak47's and outdated MANPADS)

@ronmka8931 brrrrrt what did you say? I can hear you over my brrrrrrt brrrtbrrrtttt Ops that one was me, darn taco bell xD

@@ronmka8931 lol the A-10 is built to take a beating and fly back to base. Very few planes in the air could take the beating that A10s have demonstrated the ability to take and fly back home. Sitting duck my ass lol Russians would get mowed down by that thing if they tried to shoot it down.

@@stevenwilson5556 wow are you serious? sure its impressive to take on 50. cal or even 20mm... for 1960's standards, and yeah its been quite successful in low-intensity conflicts like Afghanistan where the only aa there was were 20mm AAA and small arms fire (by which the titanium "bathtub" was meant to defend against), and there were used against a modern army in iraq (not that i would personally call the 1991/2003 army modern) only in areas where the threat of AA has been removed and the vast majority of the kills the A10 has racked was by maverick missiles thousands of meters in the air and with its main gun. anyways back to your idiotic ramble about the a10, other planes like the f15 have been able to land on only 1 wing like the A10 and airforces dont exactly want an armoured jet that can take a beating (expensive repairs) but a survivable jet that is able to evade danger and make it back to base, the A10 has to ability to evade danger, such as AA missiles, due to its extremely slow speed, therefor its a sitting duck in the air when it encounters a competent AA crew. so go on tell me how a jet that is meant to essentially do WW2-style CAS missions that the enemy will almost certainly have visual contact and be up against something like the Tunguska or the s400, saying the A10 will just shoot it is childs play, its obvious you are just brainwashed. go on tell me a coherent argument about how good the a10 is

I think Ukriane just wants steel in the air and will put their veteran(Ace maybe) pilots in them to start and then train new recruits on the rest... However I assume they want to kick Russia out of their airspace and not do multirole but then again for a veteran pilot dumb bombs aren't any harder then guns and Fox-2s. But yeah new recruits will need time weeks at minimum just to fly and fight in them months or longer to be good... Also I assume the Russians have veterans of their own that are a challenge to fight so yeah it could work butt will be a blood bath for the new Ukrainian recruits if not trained to be great.

the main issue with air force is it's really hard to use air force against a country with hundreds of anti air battalions... like Russia. in Serbia, NATO (mainly the US) could not execute suppression of enemry air defense. Serbia only had about 30 anti air systems. Russia has hundreds. they also have frigates in the sea that excel at destroying air force.

At the start of the conflict, Ukraine had a total of roughly 100 airframes. This is the size of the pool of possible pilots we are talking about. For a proper training, they also need to speak English sufficiently, which limits the pool even further. Furthermore, the F-16 needs better accomodation than the robust old MIGs, which Ukraine can´t provide. In essence, even if the US would agree to deliver F-16s and train the pilots, the Ukrainian air force would never be in a position to challenge the Russian air force and the Russian air defenses. It is a political request by Kiev, designed to enrage Moscow and to drag NATO into the war. Two days ago, a Tochka-U missile from Ukraine struck a gas pipeline facility in Bryansk. This is what Kiev wants the ATACMS for, not for a meaningful use on the battlefield, but to strike at Russian targets that create maximum attention and outrage in Moscow, with the hope that Moscow overreacts and strikes at NATO territory. To drag NATO into the war in some way or the other, that has been Voldymir "It was a Russian Missile" Selensky´s plan A from the beginning of the war on. Remember "Close the sky!"?

While it is very much true, we have seen Ukraine raise way above expectations. Most notably just this week it turned out that The Patriot training which was supposed to take a whole year is due to end in the coming weeks, making the total training time just over 2 months and the trainees are supposedly going to be able to train more people on their own. Poland also claims it will be able to train the Leopard tankers 2 - 3 weeks faster than by end of March that was originally assumed And yeah as you said these are completely different scale, but I would still assume they will be able to use them way faster. I believe the difference cones from the fact, usually training times are set by people that have full military training but little to no actual war experience which is why the expectations are being smashed

We don't have unlimited ATACMS, and there's maybe a possibility that Russia's AD which can't seem to handle HIMARS could shoot down the much more expensive ATACMS

As corrupt as ukraine is, I would guess the just want to sell them to Russia

Presumably, their intel is telling them that this isn't going to be over by Christmas. They probably want the F16s so that they can be later integrated with systems they can reasonably expect to get later on. Think about it, if they get MIGs and they later want to upgrade their communications or refueling for longer and more accurate missions, they won't be able to, because they don't have planes compatible with the systems required for those upgrades. Which will mean that they'll just need to ask for F16s in the future anyway.

@KingPin617 that does make good sense. Plus they will want to become NATO-compatible postwar and the F16 will help with that.

@@GunslingerLv the Russians are even more corrupt and Ukraine has been combating corruption

Yeah but f-16 could use western missiles and ew equipment. With experienced and well enough trained pilots they could conduct decent sead and hamper russian logistics + open up the possibility of more cas

That is misleading, Russia and Ukraine actually signed an agreement that, in exchange for Ukraine handing its nukes to Moscow, the Russian government would... _recognize the territorial integrity of ukraine_

See also: "We do not seek occupation of the Ukrainian territory" and other funny jokes, from the authors of very legal and very cool referendums.

@@socialistrepublicofvietnam1500 It's not misleading. It's historical fact, as is what you said.

I don't think they had the codes to use them. However everything else is right

Not the West, not China. Russia, the US and the U.K., these three alone, deprived Ukraine of its strategic defence, in exchange for guaranteeing Ukraine territorial integrity. It’s called the Budapest memoranda, it was signed in 1994, and it’s there for all to see.

good news! they did.

@@1995pieter That would indeed be good news. Could you provide a source, because I heavent heard of Ukrainians getting training on Leos before Jan 2023.

True escalation and the risk of given something up you might need later are better excuses.

@@GreenBlueWalkthrough Russians said, that if any shell strike russian territory there will attack on "decision centres" Now Kurska & Belgorodska oblast' are under shelling every day It's only one example, but there are a lot of such examples And the WH and Europe even now still believe, that Russian threats aren't just empty words¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

"...and make sure they have some nukes installed onboard." SMH

SEND THE ENTIRE STOCKPILE

@@socialistrepublicofvietnam1500 you guys still owe money to Putin?

But it does cause a big loss of Russian soldiers. Still Putin doesn't care about that does he?

@@ianhamilton3113 Ukraines are dying at a quicker rate.

@@lesterquintrell4844 That's because Russia is targeting their civilians.

Russia lost a lot of troops and equipment in ukraine. Even if they could recover after a time, the cards are stacked against russia. NATO has more manpower, is technologically and economically way superior, has greater industrial capabilities (that they would use if they are directly attcked), a similar nulcear arsenal, is militaries have better tactical and strategic capabilities and the west has more diplomatic softpower. It´s a russian fantasy that they had or ever will have a chance in a war against NATO.

The technological and economical gap between west and the rest of the world is narrowing day by day! They try their best to keep the gap by mostly creating conflicts everywhere and it will only delay the process, not stop!

The command of Ukraine exaggerates the losses of the occupying Russian troops in order to mislead Western partners, creating the illusion of controlling the situation. This is an illusion of peace for the west, with which the west is satisfied. Without satellite-corrected point strikes on the locations of Russian troops, there will be no victory for the Western countries.

I herd the French government is considering sending Leclercs, has this been confirmed?

Perhaps they are not as famous as Abrams and Leopards 🤔 ?

That’d be as useless as sending tanks on their own without infantry support in a city! 😂

How many nukes do you have Macky?

I kinda like “hee mars” 😂

We're not told Ukraine is about to lose