Europe War in Ukraine - Thread 4 - thread rules updated

[Gethelred]

This is the thread for discussing the War in Ukraine. Should you want to discuss the geopolitics, the history, or an interesting tangent, head over here:

Europe - Backdrop to the war in Ukraine

This is the thread for the geopolitics, history and framework around the Russia-Ukraine conflict. If you want to discuss the events of the war, head over to this thread: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/war-in-ukraine-thread-4-thread-rules-updated.1376293/page-146

www.bigfooty.com

If a post isn't directly concerning the events of the war or starts to derail the thread, report the post to us and we'll move it over there.

Seeing as multiple people seem to have forgotten, abuse is against the rules of BF. Continuous, page long attacks directed at a single poster in this thread will result in threadbans for a week from this point; doing so again once you have returned will make the bans permanent and will be escalated to infractions.

This thread still has misinformation rules, and occasionally you will be asked to demonstrate a claim you have made by moderation. If you cannot, you will be offered the opportunity to amend the post to reflect that it's opinion, to remove the post, or you will be threadbanned and infracted for sharing misinformation.

Addendum: from this point, use of any variant of the word 'orc' to describe combatants, politicians or russians in general will be deleted and the poster will receive a warning. If the behaviour continues, it will be escalated. Consider this fair warning.

Finally: If I see the word Nazi or Hitler being flung around, there had better have a good faith basis as to how it's applicable to the Russian invasion - as in, video/photographic evidence of POW camps designed to remove another ethnic group - or to the current Ukrainian army. If this does not occur, you will be threadbanned for posting off topic

This is a sensitive area, and I understand that this makes for fairly incensed conversation sometimes. This does not mean the rules do not apply, whether to a poster positing a Pro-Ukraine stance or a poster positing an alternative view.

Behave, people.

 

[Cap]

My gosh the level of discussion is sad from you.

Our economies are already screwed from the disasterous response to covid, and our political system has been utterly corrupted by operatives like Epstein, there’s niether the public goodwill nor the space in our finances to do so on a level that would make a sign if any difference now !

 

[Gethelred]

Our economies are already screwed from the disasterous response to covid, and our political system has been utterly corrupted by operatives like Epstein, there’s niether the public goodwill nor the space in our finances to do so on a level that would make a sign if any difference now !

Yep.

Bye now.

 

[Rayzorwire]

What an absolute pack of lies.

Just to be absolutely clear on this point, are you suggesting that Estonian military intelligence, the Institute for the Study of War, the BBC and The Times are all lying?

Because I've almost entirely used their words.

 

[Zidane98]

Just to be absolutely clear on this point, are you suggesting that Estonian military intelligence, the Institute for the Study of War, the BBC and The Times are all lying?

Because I've almost entirely used their words.

I would suggest you've picked only the information from those sources that suits a pro Russian narrative.

 

[Smeg Head]

Rayzorwire I think there are genuine concerns that Ukraine can't train, equip and maintain a large enough force of soldiers, especially if Russia continues to throw their men at the conflict as well. I doubt their ability to ramp up long term production of more sophisticated weaponry while under sanctions.

Small arms and ammunition, mines, artillery pieces and shells yes. But we are already seeing infrastructure decay in Russia because of a lack of replacement parts and people who actually know how to repair and maintain stuff.

None of this means anyone should roll over and give Putin what he wants. Its all good to say or negotiate but when one party refuses to do so in good faith (and is frankly insane) its not going to go anywhere.

 

[Cap]

 

[Cap]

This is beyond disappointing

 

[Rayzorwire]

I would suggest you've picked only the information from those sources that suits a pro Russian narrative.

You see, here's the thing, not one of those sources is even remotely pro-Russian and we both know it. That's why I used them.

So they're not out to shape any kind of 'pro-Russian narrative' at all, are they? And yet I assume you are still maintaining that they are lying?

Estonian military intelligence, the ISW, the BBC and The Times are lying to create pro-Putin narratives?

Doesn't really 'pass the pub test', does it?

 

[Jello_B]

The way the Biden administration has cemented Russia and China's ties will more than likely be seen decades from now as the most decisive factor in the now rapid decline of the American empire.

As to Russia losing, well, it's simply not.

Not even if you play the 'lets invent what Putin said his aims were and change it every few months to suit ourselves' game to its hardest.

But let's see how the West thinks the war is actually going.

Of course, these days, to do that you need to become quite skilled at reading between the lines of serious academic papers and you seldom bother with the newspapers...

Some relevant excerpts from NATO member Estonia's recent intelligence paper Setting Transatlantic Defence up for Success: A Military Strategy for Ukraine's Victory and Russia's Defeat:

https://kaitseministeerium.ee/sites/default/files/setting_transatlantic_defence_up_for_success_0.pdf

Most NATO Allies have significantly depleted their already small conventional military stockpiles and capabilities by donating their equipment to Ukraine. The Allies also have a very limited industrial base that is unfit for meeting the security challenges of the 21st century and unable to reconstitute these capabilities unless defence investments are substantially and urgently increased.
…
If undisrupted, Russia has the capacity to train approximately 130,000 troops every six months into cohered units and formations available for launching operations. Additional troops can be mobilised and pushed into Ukraine as untrained replacements, but these do not provide effective combat power.

Just to be clear, this is a NATO member confirming that Russia will soon be able to fully combat ready train 26 brigades every 6 months. Ukraine was barely able to assemble 9 brigades for the much vaunted counter-offensive, to put those troop numbers into stark perspective.

Meanwhile, Ukraine is currently battling in the Rada to allow 'mildly disabled' Ukrainian men to be sent to the front, with Zelensky not quite able to overcome the human rights objections of enough parliamentarians. Numerous other articles freely available talk of how so many Ukrainian men simply don't go out anymore for fear of being press ganged to the front with not enough training and no hope.

Bloodied and exhausted: Ukraine’s effort to mobilize more troops hits trouble

Kyiv needs more men for the battlefield, but must also balance concerns about the economy, taxes and fairness.

www.politico.eu

The average age of the Ukrainian men fighting is 47. At what point do they say 'enough!' after two years at it with no rotations while the Russians freely rotate in and out?

The young and wealthy enough to pay the bribes males have fled and they're not going home anytime soon - and why would they?

But back to Estonian NATO intelligence on how badly Russia is 'losing' - because it really is a failed state compared to not-at-all-delusional Europe:


Efforts to increase European production have been stymied by each European state pursuing separate – and relatively small – orders from industry. The business case presented by these orders does not justify defence manufacturers increasing production capacity, because there is no clarity on the scale of orders over time. European Allies and Member States therefore should work together to consolidate orders into larger and longer term contracts that would justify investment in production capacity in the defence industrial base.
…

So NATO countries haven't even started getting serious in any way about ramping up their productive capacity (despite fearing Putin invading them so much? )...meanwhile:


Russia’s total production and recovery of artillery ammunition will reach 3.5 million units in 2023, representing a more than three- fold increase from the previous year’s production. In 2024, production and recovery will increase further and would likely reach up to 4.5 million units. This volume significantly exceeds the amount of artillery ammunition available to Ukraine. If the Ramstein coalition is unable to ensure the sufficient increase in ammunition production and supply to Ukraine as a matter of urgency, Russia’s advantage in the use of artillery ammunition and thus in the war will increase.
...
Russia has significantly expanded the production of various long-range strike systems. This includes stockpiling approximately 1500 Shahed one-way-attack UAVs, now produced in Russia, alongside cruise missiles, ballistic missiles and aero-ballistic missiles21. In October 2022, it was producing approximately 40 such systems per month. A year later it is now producing approximately 100. Production could reach 200 strike systems per month over 2024.


None of that sound like 'losing' to me, or a 'shattered economy' on the verge of collapse (FWIW, Russia overtook Germany as the world's 5th largest economy last year and continues to steadily grow despite sanctions):

Germany on the other hand, on account of having to pay so much more for US energy than it did Russian to fuel its mighty industrial machine, is now in free-fall de-industrialisation mode as its corporations move to the US where energy is a quarter the price:

View attachment 1887089
View attachment 1887090


As the old saying goes - the real purpose of NATO is America in, Russia out, Germany down. So NATO is actually functioning precisely as the US intended (in an economic sense at least!).

But back to the main topic at hand, let's look at a couple of recent Western newspaper articles to get a feel of how troops on the front line are doing:

Ukraine war: Soldier tells BBC of front-line 'hell'

A Ukrainian soldier on the east side of the Dnipro river tells the BBC about life on the front line.

www.bbc.com

"Every day we sat in the forest taking incoming fire. We were trapped - the roads and paths are all riddled with mines. The Russians cannot control everything, and we use it. But their drones are constantly buzzing in the air, ready to strike as soon as they see movement.

"Supplies were the weakest link. The Russians monitored our supply lines, so it became more difficult - there was a real lack of drinking water, despite our deliveries by boat and drone.

"We paid for a lot of our own kit - buying generators, power banks and warm clothes ourselves. Now the frosts are coming, things will only get worse - the real situation is being hushed up, so no-one will change anything.

"No-one knows the goals. Many believe that the command simply abandoned us. The guys believe that our presence had more political than military significance. But we just did our job and didn't get into strategy."


That's not coming from RT or Sputnik, it's the BBC, belatedly reporting a tiny slice of reality. It's also quite probably the beginning of the BBC and Empire more generally throwing Zelensky (or a specific Ukrainian commander) under a very large, slow moving bus. Why else choose to report what is in bold?

How about a little from The Times:

Surrounded and low on ammo, the elite troops out to spoil Putin’s New Year

One of Ukraine’s finest brigades has been sent to defend the key city of Avdiivka. Without more gear their chances are dwindling, they tell Maxim Tucker

www.thetimes.co.uk

“It’s a shitty situation,” Sausage said. The shell shortage forces soldiers like Sergeant Taras “Fizruk”, a 31-year-old mortar gunner, also from the 2nd Battalion, to make impossible life and death decisions.

“We had ten times more ammunition over summer, and better quality,” he said. “American rounds come in batches of almost identical weights, which makes it easier to correct fire, with very few duds. Now we have shells from all over the world with different qualities and we only get 15 for three days. Last week we got a batch full of duds.”

Instead of firing on Russians as soon as they come within range, they have to wait to be sure they are heading for their positions, and only hit large groups.

“We should be controlling our sector from 4km away, so we can kill a few hundred Russian soldiers before they get to our infantry and we only take a few wounded,” he said. “But without ammunition we can’t. When it’s two or three soldiers I’m not shooting any more, only when it’s a critical situation, say ten guys close to our infantry, we will work.


So in summary, Russia is single-handedly out-producing the West by a considerable margin when it comes to raw hardware and more importantly, despatchable ammunition. It is training vastly more troops to a far higher level than Ukraine can maintain (any attempt to even assemble, let alone train meaningful numbers of troops within Ukraine gets promptly bombed and NATO countries have limited spare capacity) and can according to NATO intelligence, continue doing so for years to come.

Meanwhile, the incredibly brave, amazingly adaptive, still so motivated despite everything Ukrainian soldiers are getting thrown under one bus after another with absolutely no hope of things improving.

Fables about Russia losing and an endless continuation of the Information War do nothing to end the ACTUAL war and bring about the beginning of some sort of peace process.

Perhaps if Westerners better understand Ukraine's realistic short, medium and long term prospects, that process might come about faster and less people will die.

That's what I'd like to see.

Couple of really interesting posts mate and thanks for your research in compiling. Sad to read, but informative nonetheless.

 

[Mobbs]

The Il-22 which was able to return to Anapa airfield. Ukraine claim they shot it down (with what? what reaches that far?). RF milbloggers say it was friendly fire.

 

[Smeg Head]

Well that looks like missile debris with all those random sized holes.

 

[Rayzorwire]

Rayzorwire I think there are genuine concerns that Ukraine can't train, equip and maintain a large enough force of soldiers, especially if Russia continues to throw their men at the conflict as well. I doubt their ability to ramp up long term production of more sophisticated weaponry while under sanctions.

Small arms and ammunition, mines, artillery pieces and shells yes. But we are already seeing infrastructure decay in Russia because of a lack of replacement parts and people who actually know how to repair and maintain stuff.

We read a lot about that in the media and without a doubt there are isolated issues (eggs!), but in the same vein we also read that Putin has been on the brink of death or overthrow at least 100 times over during his time in office and some truly fanciful, invented out of whole cloth to humiliate Putin/Russia things on virtually a daily basis.




If you look at the production numbers the Estonians quote, does it really seem like industrial decay is going on? - because the sources I'm reading are speaking of it more like an industrial renaissance which is led by the need for increased military capacity, but is also heavily bleeding over into a lot of other, more civil, socially constructive areas.

None of this means anyone should roll over and give Putin what he wants. Its all good to say or negotiate but when one party refuses to do so in good faith (and is frankly insane) its not going to go anywhere.

I'm gonna assume you mean Putin?

I don't see any compelling logical reasons to automatically assume he was not genuine both when he sat down and signed the Minsk agreements and when the peace talks occurred in early '22.

What we've learned subsequently, via her Der Spiegel interview last year, is that Merkel (on Germany's behalf) freely admitted that Germany and France only signed both Minsk agreements to give Ukraine enough time to further militarise - so it could 'defend' itself from Russia. Merkel herself was defending her legacy and let that howler slip in the process.

Which leaves us in the position where we're logically forced to conclude that either only Putin was genuinely trying to find a peaceful solution in the Donbass, or none of them were.

Which do you prefer?

What's worse, on the - what may seem tiny to most - off-chance that Putin was genuinely trying for peace, how can he possibly trust the next agreement he signs with a Western leader after what happened with Merkel?

He'd feel quite betrayed, wouldn't he? No peace or resolution, just a very much bigger, much more NATO armed and coordinated force camped on his border.

He copped 8yrs of brutal domestic flak for being a 'Europe appeaser' (from those in the parliament and media further to the right and far more militant than he is) and steadily falling approval ratings, solely because he refused to act in any way which broke the second Minsk treaty.

FWIW, the closest anything has ever come to toppling Putin was his refusal to act on the Donbass. Now he has, his approval ratings are back in the 70%+ range where they have historically been and his support within the Duma has never been stronger, bringing both the communists and the right-wing more into common agreement than ever before.

I'd say the above in and of itself makes a fair case to say Putin may well have been the only one genuinely trying for peace and an end to ongoing conflict, others may find that an impossible proposition.

The one thing we do know for absolute certain is that the Western corporations who build military equipment have done really nicely out of the whole sad affair.

 

[Rayzorwire]

Couple of really interesting posts mate and thanks for your research in compiling. Sad to read, but informative nonetheless.

No worries, Jello.

 

[CD Xbow]

....I'd say the above in and of itself makes a fair case to say Putin may well have been the only one genuinely trying for peace and an end to ongoing conflict, others may find that an impossible proposition.

The one thing we do know for absolute certain is that the Western corporations who build military equipment have done really nicely out of the whole sad affair.

He started the f"cking war. It's his war. He can finish it now, be a real man of peace and leave Ukraine. The 500,000+ casualties are all his doing, no one else. The destruction of Ukraine towns and cities are his doing. That is not a man trying for peace. if you believe Russian efforts at peace have been in good faith you have rocks in your head.

 

[Smeg Head]

The health things are irrelevant and most likely just propaganda, but things on fire are things we have seen verifiable pictures of.

And Putin doesn't wanted peace, never has. Look at Georgia, hell look at Chechnya. Ukraine isn't the first conflict under his watch so we have a pretty set pattern of behavior under his rule.

 

[Rayzorwire]

He started the f"cking war. It's his war. He can finish it now, be a real man of peace and leave Ukraine.

As the old saying goes, wars start when politics become exhausted. Whether you or I agree or not, Putin felt he'd exhausted every single political option when he invaded. Unless we go back and examine what political options he did take, no common understanding can occur and peace is as far away as ever.

It's usually not an easy thing to define the genesis of a conflict, but in this case, I don't think it's difficult at all.

For those of us who are old enough to remember, there's a very strong case to say Gorbachev did more for the benefit of humanity than any other person who lived in the 20C. Prostrated himself before the West to the utter horror of most of his countrymen, inflicted economic and social chaos on them, brought the entire Soviet bloc to the verge of ruin.

The USSR could have bumbled along poorly for decades longer, maybe even had a revival despite having destroyed much of their credibility with their own people, but he realised something had to change and he had the power to do it.

There was such a wonderful feeling all around the world. The Cold War was over - the future was gonna be bright, prosperous and peaceful, surely?

So how did the West thank Gorbachev and Russia by extension?

We went from agreeing not to move NATO 'an inch east of Germany' to the era of Clinton enormous NATO expansion (to combat who and what exactly?), to now having a nuke capable missile base in Poland 100km from the Russian border and wanting to install more in Ukraine. The same Western Alliance who felt it was acceptable to bring the world to the brink of nuclear war over missiles in Cuba being too close to America, has zero qualms about doing the exact same thing to Russia except even closer and effectively saying - 'what are you gonna do about it?'

Putin tried to join NATO (naively thinking it could evolve to be something more than an entirely anti-Russian organisation now the USSR had fallen), he's made endless speeches publicly and privately about red lines and not militarising his borders or neighbours, leaving major powers to their own sphere of influence etc. - what good have any of his political attempts for different outcomes done?

Which political option hadn't he already exhausted?

The same bloke who got letters every other day from family members of the 14,000 people killed in the Donbass during Ukraine's 8yr civil war? A war we never used to hear about in the media because everything about it was murky and impossible to put into context for a Western audience without a half hour history lesson to begin.

These days our media have conveniently fixed the need for a history lesson by entirely removing all the Russian context from the sotry.

War is the worst of choices, but the West has gone in up to its neck for far less than what caused Putin to act.

That is not a man trying for peace.

And yet, every time he's been asked, since the outset of the conflict, Putin has said Russia is willing to sit down for peace talks.

When you ask Zelensky, he says, after we take back the Donbass and Crimea, we might think about it.

Is Putin really the sole impediment to peace?

 

[Rayzorwire]

The health things are irrelevant and most likely just propaganda, but things on fire are things we have seen verifiable pictures of.

And Putin doesn't wanted peace, never has. Look at Georgia, hell look at Chechnya. Ukraine isn't the first conflict under his watch so we have a pretty set pattern of behavior under his rule.

Yep, the pattern is that they all involve Russians directly and they all involve Russia's immediate borders. The only other times the USSR or Russia have entered other countries for military purposes is by invitation of the direct leader (no supporting coups and colour revolutions). They're sticklers to the law like that and Putin is of course an exceptionally pedantic, lawyer by trade. Makes reading his speeches and writings full of endless legalese interminably boring most of the time!

The set US pattern seems to be to surround both Russia and China with as many missile toting hostile neighbours as they can coerce. All for the sake of peace, so they say.

Which pattern do you think impacts efforts towards global peace more negatively?

 

[Cap]

As the old saying goes, wars start when politics become exhausted. Whether you or I agree or not, Putin felt he'd exhausted every single political option when he invaded. Unless we go back and examine what political options he did take, no common understanding can occur and peace is as far away as ever.

It's usually not an easy thing to define the genesis of a conflict, but in this case, I don't think it's difficult at all.

For those of us who are old enough to remember, there's a very strong case to say Gorbachev did more for the benefit of humanity than any other person who lived in the 20C. Prostrated himself before the West to the utter horror of most of his countrymen, inflicted economic and social chaos on them, brought the entire Soviet bloc to the verge of ruin.

The USSR could have bumbled along poorly for decades longer, maybe even had a revival despite having destroyed much of their credibility with their own people, but he realised something had to change and he had the power to do it.

There was such a wonderful feeling all around the world. The Cold War was over - the future was gonna be bright, prosperous and peaceful, surely?

So how did the West thank Gorbachev and Russia by extension?

We went from agreeing not to move NATO 'an inch east of Germany' to the era of Clinton enormous NATO expansion (to combat who and what exactly?), to now having a nuke capable missile base in Poland 100km from the Russian border and wanting to install more in Ukraine. The same Western Alliance who felt it was acceptable to bring the world to the brink of nuclear war over missiles in Cuba being too close to America, has zero qualms about doing the exact same thing to Russia except even closer and effectively saying - 'what are you gonna do about it?'

Putin tried to join NATO (naively thinking it could evolve to be something more than an entirely anti-Russian organisation now the USSR had fallen), he's made endless speeches publicly and privately about red lines and not militarising his borders or neighbours, leaving major powers to their own sphere of influence etc. - what good have any of his political attempts for different outcomes done?

Which political option hadn't he already exhausted?

The same bloke who got letters every other day from family members of the 14,000 people killed in the Donbass during Ukraine's 8yr civil war? A war we never used to hear about in the media because everything about it was murky and impossible to put into context for a Western audience without a half hour history lesson to begin.

These days our media have conveniently fixed the need for a history lesson by entirely removing all the Russian context from the sotry.

War is the worst of choices, but the West has gone in up to its neck for far less than what caused Putin to act.





And yet, every time he's been asked, since the outset of the conflict, Putin has said Russia is willing to sit down for peace talks.

When you ask Zelensky, he says, after we take back the Donbass and Crimea, we might think about it.

Is Putin really the sole impediment to peace?

Sorry, I'm a bit lost here.

Are you writing Russian fan fiction or are you doing some thought experiment.

 

[Cap]

I wonder what the people of Chechnya, Georgia, Moldova and Belarus think of this obviously peace loving Putin

There is good reason countries freely and by their own choice, joined NATO, it was too make sure you weren't attacked by a genocidal maniac.

 

[Mobbs]

Honestly can't be arsed. Should be an exam based on all 3 threads before gaining access to take part. If you can avoid repeating the same disproven talking points, then there's klaxons and the gates open.

Some lie words/phrases include "coup", "civil war" and "language repression" but there's plenty more. But the details are well back within these threads.

 

[Crankyhawk]

As the old saying goes, wars start when politics become exhausted. Whether you or I agree or not, Putin felt he'd exhausted every single political option when he invaded. Unless we go back and examine what political options he did take, no common understanding can occur and peace is as far away as ever.

It's usually not an easy thing to define the genesis of a conflict, but in this case, I don't think it's difficult at all.

For those of us who are old enough to remember, there's a very strong case to say Gorbachev did more for the benefit of humanity than any other person who lived in the 20C. Prostrated himself before the West to the utter horror of most of his countrymen, inflicted economic and social chaos on them, brought the entire Soviet bloc to the verge of ruin.

The USSR could have bumbled along poorly for decades longer, maybe even had a revival despite having destroyed much of their credibility with their own people, but he realised something had to change and he had the power to do it.

There was such a wonderful feeling all around the world. The Cold War was over - the future was gonna be bright, prosperous and peaceful, surely?

So how did the West thank Gorbachev and Russia by extension?

We went from agreeing not to move NATO 'an inch east of Germany' to the era of Clinton enormous NATO expansion (to combat who and what exactly?), to now having a nuke capable missile base in Poland 100km from the Russian border and wanting to install more in Ukraine. The same Western Alliance who felt it was acceptable to bring the world to the brink of nuclear war over missiles in Cuba being too close to America, has zero qualms about doing the exact same thing to Russia except even closer and effectively saying - 'what are you gonna do about it?'

Putin tried to join NATO (naively thinking it could evolve to be something more than an entirely anti-Russian organisation now the USSR had fallen), he's made endless speeches publicly and privately about red lines and not militarising his borders or neighbours, leaving major powers to their own sphere of influence etc. - what good have any of his political attempts for different outcomes done?

Which political option hadn't he already exhausted?

The same bloke who got letters every other day from family members of the 14,000 people killed in the Donbass during Ukraine's 8yr civil war? A war we never used to hear about in the media because everything about it was murky and impossible to put into context for a Western audience without a half hour history lesson to begin.

These days our media have conveniently fixed the need for a history lesson by entirely removing all the Russian context from the sotry.

War is the worst of choices, but the West has gone in up to its neck for far less than what caused Putin to act.





And yet, every time he's been asked, since the outset of the conflict, Putin has said Russia is willing to sit down for peace talks.

When you ask Zelensky, he says, after we take back the Donbass and Crimea, we might think about it.

Is Putin really the sole impediment to peace?

Except Putin started the war in donbass with his Russian commandos.

 

[Sir_Loin]

This is beyond disappointing

I think his overarching point is the lack of transparency. Which is not surprising given the sensitivity of the subject.

I’m a big fan of Mick Ryan but there’s a reason why we’re disposing of them and not donating them

 

[Cap]

I think his overarching point is the lack of transparency. Which is not surprising given the sensitivity of the subject.

I’m a big fan of Mick Ryan but there’s a reason why we’re disposing of them and not donating them

I believe they had an accident?

But still, if Ukraine have a different risk/reward analysis, let them have it and save the scrapping fee.

 

[Sir_Loin]

I believe they had an accident?

But still, if Ukraine have a different risk/reward analysis, let them have it and save the scrapping fee.

Yeah they’re just not safe to fly in Australian conditions. It was a shocking procurement decision to make when you have tried and tested Blackhawks that we’ve now gone back to.

Part of me agrees with you but there’s another part of me that says if their safety record isn’t great then why give them to Ukraine. I’m conflicted on it.

 

[Millky95]

Except Putin started the war in donbass with his Russian commandos.

Shhhh, they don't like that part