>

Can we all agree Ukraine is getting a little demanding? They are essentially telling others what to do while criticising the response of those helping.
No jets until you finish your tanks. >

Let's just lease them an aircraft carrier. Temporarily suspend everyone's Enlistment and commission. And have them be volunteers for Ukraine. Look at that loophole it's awesome >

That ain't no loophole. That's legal bullshitting for putting an American aircraft carrier in war against Russia. If it's a full strike force, it could dominate, not just Ukraine and the Russian border but pretty much all of Eastern Europe on its own.
Also, how much would you charge per week of war? $1B? $3B for a full month? Double that for all logistics support. Add another 75% of that for the entire strike force, including subs. Nuclear SLBM with turn key nuclear strike is a cool $500B deposit for each missile (95% of that back at end of conflict), 5X that if you actually fire it wit full payment in escrow. >

Best I can do is $20 >

Haha that got me good. >

What's funny is you think I'm kidding.
I literally only got $20 on me. >

:( >

Ok fine. I probably have some change on my dresser too. >

Let’s bring in the experts then. I know a guy, he’s gonna come down and check it out and if he agrees we’ve got a deal. >

Ask the PM of the Netherlands, they are happy to send some over! >

At this point, the Netherlands can just disband their entire fighter jet squadron, just like what they did to their tanks. >

I mean, they are pretty safe sending everything, even if they had no army nobody would dare attack them, USA likes to complain that nobody spends as much as them on defense but it and all of NATO would throw 110% of its force on anybody trying something at a fellow nation. >

I don't really understand why nearly everybody in Europe can't spare virtually their whole equipment stores. Russia is fully focused on Ukraine and America will slap them like a fly if they try anything, and who else will attack them? Their economically codependent neighbors they've been in a union with for decades? A few, like France, like to send the army to play colonial every now and then but most European militaries really have virtually no use for their equipment except for a theoretical war with Russia. And as it happens, there's a fantastic opportunity to use this equipment to destroy the Russian military right now with no casualties of their own! It seems like the biggest no-brainer of all time.
Please nobody say "but they need training and supplies too" yeah I know. That can be provided too. >

Because being completely dependent on the US for defense is stupid in a world where it's theoretically possible for one of the "America First" crowd to get elected and unilaterally pull the heart out of NATO Temple of Doom style. Until they establish a joint EU army they need to at least pretend they can defend themselves. But, if they establish a joint EU army, would they need NATO any longer?
I guess the bigger domestic problems are twofold. The first is that any EU army would be much more expensive than what they have now because the French would demand expeditionary capability so they could still play Imperialist in Africa as the mood takes them or they won't play ball. Any unified EU army without France simply won't function. The second is probably more fundamental, if the EU has an army and Belgium doesn't then Belgium doesn't have the monopoly on force that makes governments sovereign. Belgium would have to ask the EU to do military stuff on their behalf, which is precisely the same start of the process that turned the US from a collection of independent nations with a common market and foreign policy into a single nation. As long as people don't conceive of the EU as the nation then it's impossible for small European nations to give up their arms. >

Hopefully Russia will become too weak to keep providing support for the US Republicans. Or release their blackmail on them. Either of those. >

Eh, they provide support to anyone and everyone they think would pick fights. You see an awful lot of Russian propaganda coming from older leftist publications in Europe, too. They didn't reject free money at a time when they're fading in relevance.
It's just that the extremely far right fringe was energized and organized for first time since the John Burke Society collapsed in the early 1990s. Mainstream Republicans aren't going anywhere, even the ones who compromised their own ethics to work with Trump. It's the MTG and the Lakes of the world that are going to be losing key patrons.
Russia couldn't give less of a fuck ideologically. I mean, they famously organized an anti-immigrant rally in Texas and also organized the counterprotest. It's just that the extreme left is extremely disorganized, so there aren't that many groups to pour funding into. Even the ton of cash put in the BLM stuff didn't go much of anywhere, but that's mostly because the Facebook groups and web pages were run by grifters who just shamelessly stole the money. >

About two or three days ago, a boat or ship was included in the daily update, did anyone see/read any details regarding that? >

The US should just transfer them a big chunk of our reserve fleet so they can have a Blue Water Navy. Too bad Enterprise is being dismantled, I'm Sure Ukraine could make use of that to raid the Russian coast with jets. >

Are you going to DoLittle it and just try to take off from the deck without a catapult on a 1-way trip?
You can't just take an aircraft and make it work with a US carrier. The Russian style have ramps for a reason.
With that said, I like the where your head is at. >

Give ‘em the Mighty Mo, Alabama, and the Texas too! Let’s bring all the classics out for one final cage fight >

Sounds a probable F-16 announcement coming after the next Ramstein meeting. Hopefully the next generation of Ukrainian fighter pilots are getting a head start with their training somewhere… >

I'm fairly sure there were reports early on in the war that ukrainian pilots were training in the US. It'd be about the right time for them to have finished their training as far as I'm aware (a year?) >

Yep, people were shitting their pants hoping it was the A10 from what I remember. >

I’m a certified military expert from Reddit Comments Section School and according to my knowledge A10 would be of no use in this conflict - no air superiority and a lot of AA capabilities on the Russian side. >

But F-16's would be? Would Ukraine suddenly have air superiority with 2 dozen F-16's?
The only fighter either side appears to still be using are Su-25's, which are the Soviet version of the A-10. >

F-16s are much more survivable in contested airspace compared to an A-10.   The A-10 has basically had all the defensive equipment possible added to it.    
I did a paper on this while in the Air Force and worked with a few people from the Air Force Weapons School.   
The A-10 is awesome,  it’s a flying tank.  But it’s highly susceptible to any semi-modern manpads or AA missiles. >

A-10:  I'm kinda slow, so I'm built to take it like a champ.  One engine, half a wing, a third of a tail, fucking bring it.  Shoot at me all you want, I'll probably still make it home.
Modern weapons: I see... and how much do you like big internal explosions?
A-10: Well... not very much. >

That’s… actually almost like an ELI5 of the A-10. Which is what makes it so deadly against nations without modern missiles, or groups- ie the Taliban. But damn near worthless if there are SAMs in the area, or contested airspace.
117’s and the like cleared the way against those kinds of facilities even in Persian Gulf. Of course they are retired but even if they weren’t I can’t see us giving them out. F-16’s and/or the Eurofighter seem the most likely, with the F-16 being far more likely. >

Hell, 87 F-111s killed over 1500 Iraqi heavy armored units, with none damaged or destroyed. 144 A-10s didn't break 1000 Iraqi heavy armored units, 2 pilots were killed, 6 aircraft were shot down, and 28 were destroyed from ground fire. Hell, A-10 got pulled from the front lines there by Gen. Horner (allied air commander), because it was the most lost airframe of the war by a sizable margin.
Zooming in a high speeds, using advanced sensors to identify the target 30 miles out, and dropping a bomb accurate to within 5ft, ended up being more effective than flying barely faster than a helo, circling around to visually identify the target, and then doing gunruns that in testing couldn't even kill base model M-60s from the 1950s.
The A-10 does... fine for counter insurgency where there's no SAMs or ground fire. Against anything else, it's a flying coffin. Su-25s can survive, somewhat, over Ukraine l, because they're over 50% faster. They can fly in, shoot their shot, and scoot home before they're shot down. A-10 can't. Hell, the Army's Blackhawk replacement is almost as fast as an A-10 is... >


Hell, 87 F-111s killed over 1500 Iraqi heavy armored units, with none damaged or destroyed.

It’s hard to imagine any weapon system has ever destroyed tanks at scale as efficiently as F-111s and GBU-12s. 4 bombs for 4 tanks in one sortie wasn’t at all uncommon, and probably would’ve happened even more if the high command had been quicker to stop the A-10s, F-16s and Harriers from trying to kill tanks with dumb bombs during the day, as all their missed attempts made for a lot of infrared clutter. >

If you haven't noticed by now, this whole process of giving better and better weapons to Ukraine is going to be a slow process because they need to normalize it over time. It's too bad that it's going to take more time and many Ukrainians plus another 100,000 Russians will have to die because of it. The problem is we're not going to start World war III over the issue by rushing everything. People have finally figured out the media cycles in this world. In 6 months nobody cares about what happened 6 months ago. It's now normal. If this war goes on for years we will be handing over battleships and bombers. >

Zelensky: please gib nukes
The West: no fucking way
....
Okay here you go,
just dont point them at mainland russia. >

We can't give away nukes because of the nuclear proliferation treaty >

And the moment you do that, a whole bunch of Western geopolitical rivals - Iran, Venezuela, etc will suddenly get Russian nukes as well if they want them. >

They trying to get everything before April/May. That is when both sides are mostly likely to pull out all the stops. >

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 85%. (I'm a bot)


Germany's offer of 14 Leopard tanks has prompted calls for more heavy armour by Ukraine's government as it formally announced its forces' retreat from the eastern town of Soledar after nine months of bloody battle.
Dmytro Kuleba, Ukraine's foreign minister, said: "So the tank coalition is formed. Everyone who doubted this could ever happen sees now: for Ukraine and partners impossible is nothing."I call on all new partners that have Leopard 2 tanks in service to join the coalition and provide as many of them as possible.
Germany had been put under heavy pressure to agree to provide Leopard 2 tanks with Poland's prime minister, Mateusz Morawiecki, describing the apparent dithering in Berlin as "unacceptable".


Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: tank^#1 Ukraine^#2 forces^#3 Leopard^#4 decision^#5 >

Well damn, not even a day after the green light on the tanks >

No surprise, Melnyk asked for Tornados last week. >

Well damn Jackie I can't control the weather. >

2025: NATO agrees to build a death star for Ukraine >

If you give a Ukraine a HIMARS...
Then they will want Main Battle Tanks to go with it...
If you Give the Ukraine a Main Battle Tank, they they will want F-16s to provide air cover! >

And if you give them F-16's....? >

Then you need to give them B-2's to go along with it! >

Then you gotta give them their nukes back, to arm the b2. >

And if you give Ukraine Nukes and break up Russia, Ukriane is going to want to disarm again. 
And if Ukraine disarms....
Then Russia is going to want to invade them again! >

The optimist in me (as much as I am usually NOT one) says fighters may be on the table more now than ever what with tanks being sent to Ukraine. >

Makes no sense. Air defense on both sides are too good. NATO focused on air superiority/dominance where USSR/CIS focused on air denial. At most we could give them Wild Weasels and that is a massive skill that only the best/ suicidal pilots do to take out SAMs. >

Ya I don't think that would be a good idea. Even Russia has to sit their planes outside the warzone and lob missiles into Ukraine. Just too much AA right now. >

Really, you don't just jump into a jet and a start flying and fighting. My neighbor flys and trains in f16's. He's out every day. >

Microsoft flight simulator says otherwise. I'm confident I could match any ace pilot toe to toe in the air. >

If you're toe to toe, you've already crashed your plane! >

So, call it a draw? >

Only if OP's life is cheaper than that of a Russian conscript. >

Thank god Germany doesn't have any F-16s. This time PiS/Russian division division will have to look for another target. >

Someone asked for germanys Tornados...which exist only to carry nuclear warheads at this point >

A real populist asked for it, so don't bother >

Just show us the rest of the shopping list already. CH-47? >

They had to beg for tanks . They are doing , what’s working because somehow every country seem to have small but powerful group  oppose to helping Ukraine. Like some of these countries been co op by Russian operatives lol >

F-16s are not unreasonable. Training is obviously the major hurdle, but it's a work horse and not an extra special snowflake. Production line recently restarted and they are quite reasonably priced for a quality multi-role fighter. Used ones in good condition are plentiful and could be freed up with some horse trading. >

What's next on his wishlist, nuclear warheads? >

Boris Johnson: what are we waiting for?! >

“This is common sense policy that all Brits should be able to stand behind” >

F-16 will probably be the next one to be discussed >

I seriously hope F-16 comes to Ukraine. >

In an Unpredictable move, the US has transfered Ukraine all of its F-22 raptors. One Pentagon official said "The dinosaurs deserved to be free to hunt as they were meant to" >

It would be a beautiful sight in the skies of Ukraine, but F-22 still in service by USAF. >

We actually are already talking about retiring them, but even then sending them to Ukraine would never happen. Still, a man can dream. >

If you give Ukraine a cookie... >

Man, Scholz barely pressed enter on that Bundesregierung press release, and Zelensky is already asking for jets now. >

I mean it makes sense. Ukraine's (public) negotiating technique is quite consistent. Make a seemingly outrageous demand, keep talking about it whilst smaller requests are being fulfilled, now seeming more reasonable (IFV's for example). Then when those are delivered how big of a step are some tanks (not the 300 demanded but 50). Rinse repeat. I expect Ukraine to ask for a 100 fighters, and they will get a dozen in half a year, and after regular deliveries. >

What do they want next, the Death Star? >

Best we can do is AT-ATs >

They got “yes and” classic improv! >

can they ask for them.. with pilots included? >

The quickest way to end this conflict between Russia and the Ukraine is to simply supply the Ukraine with everything they need. This will force Russia’s hand to take any compromise that allows them to save face. it’s quicker, and cheaper. >

They want a whole freaking military?! >

Well, that escalated quickly! >

I give it six months before Ukraine asks for gravity bombs and bunker busters. Less than a year and they will want stealth fighters and nukes. >

I thought the whole “ proxy” thing was supposed to be secretive >

We're you born after the cold war ended? It was never secretive, it was all done out in the open, you just denied it. Nobody ever saw a bunch of T72s driving around in a foreign country and said huh I wonder who made those. >

They are welcome by the free tanks btw >

They’ll end up getting them. In a year Ukraine is going to be armed to the teeth. Russia is fucked. >

2024, Ukraine: "Hey maybe can we get our nukes back" >

Scholz has denoted ground troops & fighter jets a red line today. >

It's interesting how he always points out that he wants to avoid getting NATO countries involved in the war in this context.
I don't really understand how sending tanks and fighter jets is such a big difference.
Both are weapon systems that Ukraine would use.
At be the moment he is drawing the red line at jets, but I wouldn't be surprised if the line is moved within a few months. >

Pretty simple really, Because that’s the line between
I’m a country that exports military hardware, has intelligence sharing agreements and regularly participates in multinational military training exercises
And
I’m (my own military) an active combatant in a war aligned against you. >

Sure, but why is the line between tanks and jets? Giving jets to Ukraine would not make NATO an active combatant. >

Yeah I guess I misunderstood you. Agree that there is no difference between tanks and jets in that premise so it falls to another case. This is the completely wishy washy part of it.
The risk analysis thought process, which is slowly evolving, for the NATO countries has been that if a specific piece of hardwear that can quickly strike deeply into Russia we’re delivered then it would be likely be too much of a provocation to Russia and could end in a strike or series of strikes outside of Ukraine as retaliation.  That’s also where the offensive / defensive weapons question comes in. ICBMs and even Intermediate range missiles are pretty much purely offensive, especially so when their range exceeds the largest straight line distance completely within the borders of Ukraine. Given enough time all those pretenses may be dropped entirely but for now, the view on providing jets is they provide to great of a potential to strike inside Russia itself. Tanks just don’t have that range in practice. 
For the no fly zone and boots on the ground, it’s fairly simple.
For just hardwear and not combatants, it’s just risk/benefit analysis and makes sense that it’s slowly dialing up. >

Good point, if offensive and defensive qualities as well as range are the main consideration, then it makes sense to withhold jets but deliver tanks.
My fear is that we will realize to late that Russia never had the guts to attack NATO countries and then we might find out that we sent too little too late. >

I think we all can see, from German Helmets at the beginning to now main battle tanks, in practice everyone from NATO (bar Poland) has incrementally moved toward more “offensive” capabilities in each support package provided while watching Russias reaction to each time.   
Constant recalibration of the risk/benefit analysis >

Jeez, why dont they just ask us to fight the war for them? >

Give them an inch and they will take a mile >

So what Russia did after Crimea? >

I don’t care about either side. I just want the war to end faster so I would like to hear that they will receive F-16’s. >

You don’t care about either side?
One of these sides is getting invaded in a way we haven’t seen in 80 years. Before that, these things were way more common. We don’t want that world anymore. >

Dude? Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria… Vietnam for god sake… >

100,000 soldiers killed in anyone of those by a western power In a war of conquest?
Which one of these was a war of conquest? >

US military planes: over 13,000
Russian military planes: 3,000 >

So send 10,000 planes to Ukraine so the USA and Russia have an equal amount. >

Send it all! >

Tanks need air support! >

foot-in-the-door >

All you war mongers seem to be enjoying this war a little too much. >

Next they will ask for Nukes. >

If Ukraine didn't give their nukes to Russia in exchange for Russia's word not to attack Ukraine the war would have never happened. >

Time for the 3000 black F-35 of Ukraine >

may as well send nukes and carriers while we are at it lol.. i mean seriously.. will just save the step where they ask for it. >

Heck. Hand them over any Area 51 top secret weaponry as well. >

Okay, this is getting to be a bit much.  The paint on this tank decision isn't even dry yet, and this guy is asking for MORE.  
I am all for helping out Ukraine, but this incremental process of requesting more lethal equipment will end up putting all of us in a predicament from which there might be no turning back.  
I know this is not a popular belief around here, but Russia WILL USE NUKES if it feels threatened enough or begins to significantly lose this battle.  Again, a nuclear war must be avoided at all costs, and if this means telling Zelensky that his incremental requests must reduce, then so be it. >


…or begins to significantly lose this battle

I mean, why help then if you’re afraid of Russia losing? >

Seriously. If Russia loses they'll use nukes? So... just give up, because if defeat is inevitable then why bother? What bunk logic.
If Russia uses nukes they'll use them. We can't stop them if they choose to do so, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to protect Ukraine and all their neighborinf countries who'd be next.
Because that's really what's at stake. Ukraine falls, then Moldova is next... then everybody else. They don't have armies to stand up, and would likely fall pretty fast. >

When the Russians nuke Kyiv and indiscriminately kill millions of people, will you still stand by your beliefs? >

If they do, yes... because at least epooe fought for their right to be free. They refused to surrender.
You don't kowtow to a dictator because your afraid. If you're scared of nukes maybe you need to evaluate your priorities. Mass murder and genocide is not something you lay down and accept. >

Wouldn't nuking a city like Kyiv be genocide and mass-murder? >

Yes, and Russia would be at fault. They'd doom themselves for generations. >

But, you'd be okay with it, though, and I don't understand why.  Nuclear war is far, far worse than any deal Ukraine might be able to make with Rissia.  
If genocide and mass murder are to be prevented or rendered unacceptable, as you said, and if, like you said, nuking a city is genocide and mass-murder, shouldn't we be looking for ways to prevent it? >

I didn't say I'd be okay with it. Don't be obtuse.
Surrendering because a genocidal dictator is trying to steal your country is an absolutely batshit opinion. You're asking Kyiv to lay down and surrender, and by proxy, every other country in the area Russia plans to roll into next.
Putin refuses to negotiate unless Ukraine surrenders and let's him win. But you know that, and you're arguing in bad faith. Russia's economy is likely to collapse alone due to sanctions and the sheer amount of brain drain from Russians fleeing. What are they going to do, nuke themselves? >

You said, "If they do [drop nukes], then yes [you'd stand firm in your beliefs".  That is very much so being "okay" with it.  
If the current situation leads not only my people but the rest of the entire world to complete devastation and death, then I would like to think that I would have a moral obligation to do everything in my power to avoid this.  If that means making concessions that might hurt me in the short term, then so be it. >

I don't think you quite understand what's happening there >

I get that & I've never been involved either, but the geopolitical consequences of not providing support to Ukraine would have enormous repercussions in the future. >

I mean…. That’s a bit much. >

May hellfire rain upon the fascists. There is no more room on earth for them. >

Chill. Even though I hope Ukraine will be victorious also Russian soldiers are humans with people who love them. It‘s not like every Russian soldier is a clone of Putin. >

They're soldiers. Sad, but they joined to invade and kill Ukrainians. They knew what they were signed up for, so as long as they're doing Putin's bidding, they need to be pushed back to the Russian border. >

Mandatory conscription exists. They didn't all decide to join the  Russian military to invade and kill Ukrainians >

Good point... Still, they're there to kill Ukrainians, so they have no choice other than to defend themselves. >

Definitely >

Don’t get me wrong, that other western countries will be giving Ukraine tanks is potentially a major turning point in the war. However, let’s not overestimate the actual impact today’s announcement of US donating 31 tanks and Germany donating 14 Leopards. In this war, Ukraine has destroyed over 3,000 tanks and Russia is estimated to have over 10,000. I know these new tanks are better than what the Russians have but for the US/Europe to make a real impact, I would have liked to see 1,000+ tanks today. >

I would be willing to wager half, if not more, of those 10 000 tanks Russia supposedly has are little more than rusted out husks of what they once were. And Ukraine has already appropriated or destroyed damn near 1000 of the operational ones. >

Aren't many countries in the process of swapping out their f-16s with f-35s, or whatever they're called?
The old stuff is still good. Ship it off, for the Ukrainians to use. >

Ukraine has the right to rule over the Ukrainian sky's........ Fk puti....fk Russia. >

All that’s needed for proper combined arms combat team attacks, maybe add some attack helos . My Pepee can only get so hard >

Write your reps and help Ukraine get what they need. I am not content watching our respective states feed the war just enough to keep it going indefinitely -- killing hundreds of people a day on both sides. I want Ukraine's borders restored now. I want Russia to run home whimpering with its tail tucked between its legs now. Don't you? Tell your reps they will not get another vote from you if you don't see them advocate harder for Ukraine. >

Now i want submarine, then a nuke. Papa Germany get it for me or i gonna cry annoyingly. >

honest question. If a few tanks and fighter jets are going to make a difference, what the hell would Russia do in a war with NATO?!?! Assuming no nukes. >

"Assumimg no nukes"
Ehm NUKES. They have them, they would use them. No need to exclude them >

Exactly - Russian military doctrine calls for the use of non-strategic (ie tactical / battlefield) nuclear weapons to make up for the technological gap in conventional weapons.
The strategic nuclear weapons are reserved for if those fail and Russian forces are significantly deteriorated. >

Holy shit talk about needy >

Well they are fighting a war for the very survival of their nation and war is a bottomless pit that devours man and material quite fast. >

Damn Ukraine asking for too much.  Why don’t they stop the corruption among their politicians first >

Why don't we save some money and bomb all Russia  bases and call a day. >

Cause there very likely wouldn’t be a next day.
Got the feeling that the Russian dead hand system has had a revival in the last couple of months >

Vietnamese were braver than this. >

If you give a mouse a cookie, amirite? >

There's a big difference between tanks and planes.
You can train a tank crew and their mechanics for about $1million in about a year...
You can train a single fighter pilot in closer to 2 years (to be a green faces rookie) For about $10mil each. And furthermore the aircraft mechanics need almost double the training and There's more of them.
For those wondering why the disparity, Tanks are meant to be repaired and maintained in the field. Planes are NOT. Planes whip a pilot around at 6gs while they try to outwit another guy being whipped around at 6gs and try to analyze their relative turning radius at speed compared to the other aircraft. >

They will never be content. Fighter jets have little use in such a war. >

Lmaooooo it’s never enough. At least with these tangible goods instead of straight stimulus they can’t engage in the typical corruption. >

It'll never be enough until everyone else is bankrupt >

Give Ukraine what it needs to get this war over with as quickly as possible.  Time for generals, not the politicians to take charge. >

Do it, give them what they need they’ll topple the corrupt regime and hopefully send Russia on a path of peace and stability, we’ve been waiting for this >

Could I ask roughly how old you are?  I’m going somewhere with this not just asking for the hell of it. >

Early 40’s >

Okay so we both grew up in the same time period, I remember when the Berlin Wall came down watching it on tv and I remember watching the Soviet Union collapse.  I also remember the lines of people waiting hours in the hopes of getting a loaf of bread.  I also remember how quickly the corruption spread afterwards.  
My point here is, while Putin and his like need to go, we should also be careful what we wish for.  Unless planning is done ahead of time, it’s not a stretch to see a return of the days after the fall of the Soviet Union. >

Regardless the deck needs to be shuffled,  hopefully we have some card sharks to stack the deck in favor of the free world. >

Am I incorrect? Aren't we phasing out our A-10s?  That is a bad MF. >

Lol A-10’s have been obsolete against anyone with a SAM system since their inception.  They are of zero use without complete air superiority. >

I’ve never heard of anti-aircraft being mixed into air superiority. The US had air supremacy over Iraq in the Gulf War and still lost jets to AA fire. >

And those were probably Soviet AA batteries so............ >

They were but any aircraft is vulnerable to that, not just the A-10. That’s why I commented regarding air superiority. If anything the A-10 would perform better against AA because they’ve come back with engines missing. >

Give the Ukrainians a wing of A-10s. You want to intimidate some Russians? There ya go! >

I like the A-10 but it's pretty overhyped and not as useful and people believe. Russia would knock them out of the sky. >

I thought those were secretly in the works for a while already due to the time it takes to train pilots? >

Let's just get this shit over with so the survivors can evolve and build space ships and travel the stars! >

I don't really think it's big possibility, but do we have any idea what will happen after this war "ends" with all the equipment ? Would they just send it all back or do we think part of it would stay in Ukraine's hands to act as deterrent to Russia ? >

Ok Ukraine next time you war can you pre order it's easier on all of us that way. You see Russians camping on your border make sure the Amazon order is in.
That last sentence is a Ronald Reagan quote from the 80s. The actor not the president. Also biff became president in 2016 so Marty really screwed up the timeline. >

I agree, but it's gonna take time to train Ukrainian pilots familiar with ComBloc jets on NATO jets
possible stop gaps are the former ComBlocs in NATO to lend-lease their SUs and Migs that are capable of mounting western weapon systems.
I know Czechia and Poland have adapted their Migs to mount NATO equipment already >

Great >

If you give a mouse a cookie >

Russia: “You… You are just just this close to us using nuclear Weapons against any of you!!” >

If your gonna provide tanks… shouldn’t Jet Fighters be provided for air support… >

There would be a lot less war if the leaders would be in front on the front lines. >

Give a mouse a tank, and he’ll want an air force. >

Mr Z is tireless. It is amazing what good a non politician can achieve if they get into office through chance. >

“Tanks for the memories.” >

A 10 might do the trick. >

Good, send them what they ask for/need. >

Zelensky is seriously going to see Russia defeated with arms acquired via the “If you give a mouse a cookie” method.
What strange times we live in! >

Are they just little greedy,  they just got alot stuff, and now they are asking for more.