Ukrainians are screwed anyways and never had a chance of winning against Russia, puppet Zilly is a fool that has destroyed Ukraine.

Smart thinking... but listen to ukrainian drone operators talk about russian electronic capabilities. They take 90% of everything down.

drones can’t fly as high and far as jet f16 also can’t take down russian planes with missiles

A drone needs a connection to work. If Russia saturates the area with EM waves the Drone loses signal and crashes uselss.

$60 million would buy you a new one. These F16's are all pretty much end of life...

You are not correct but not everyone has a war mind. keep flipping those Burgers.

Words of wisdom.

It's harder to be poor than to get rich. At least in relatively free nations.

Your point is that the Russians will shoot back? Thanks for the revelation, Boris.

Hi S400, I'm an AGM-88E AARGM, fired from an F16. Nice to meet you as well, and believe me when I say that the pleasure is all mine.

​​@@jklappenbachHi, agm-88! I'm 9m335.

@@jklappenbach Your plane WILL NOT survive Russian SAM defended skies, it never has.

@@jklappenbach Funny u think u have a chance but Range is Everything. And u dont got it.

Thats a fresh reference, thumbs up:P

"A bunch of things must have gone wrong if you're listening to this. Whatever happened, you must be real scared...."

Unfortunately we just lost Chappie Sinclair....I guess Doug is no longer his wingman.

Why is nobody talking about F-18s?

Doug Masters and a great mixtape 😀😀😀

And he was flying as a stress relief. There is this photo of him in a cockpit (Boeing 314-A) with a cigar. Yeah, can totally imagine him giving a thumbs up in a P-51, unless he had a British plane to give a thumbs up in. :p

Or the photo of him at a river that separated him and the frontline?

He was a pilot also

The Russians say zelenski was trained by the British MI6 to move Ukrqine away from the Russian influence! So probably part of his learning

Ive also seen Churchill firing an M1A1 Carbine somewhere

It was originally Nathan Bedford Forest “I always make it a rule to get there first with the most men”, often misquoted since as “The firstest with the mostest”. A brilliant tactician and master of what is now called manoeuvre warfare, but also with some less savoury aspects to his character.

Yeah, Winston always did this kind of stuff. These guys don't know their history.

There were also some badass photos of him holding a Tommy gun… while smoking a cigar haha

@@timgosling6189 Nathan Bedford Forest was an awful human being in important ways, but also a genuine, natural military genius.

It might have been a BOAC Boeing 314A flying boat

Actually it’s way worse. Your government organized a coup in Ukraine in order to change to a pro-NATO regime, and funded the most anti-Russian factions without caring about who they really were (extremists), caused a civil war, then whispered sweet nothings in the ears of the Ukrainian people who found themselves in a totally avoidable conflict, and now it’s a matter of time before abandoning them, leaving hundreds of thousands killed and wounded behind, their country mortgaged to your funds and banksters, millions migrating and basically imposing on EU economies.

Even worse is when they aren't abandoned and win they become the enemy a few years later (ie. the Mujahideen vs the Soviets, Ho Chi Minh vs Imperial Japan, Saddam Hussein vs Iran, etc)

Oh,they never really had any chance of victory.Those Rush-keys just never gonna let NATO surround them.Bad idea.

To be an enemy of the US is dangerous, but being a friend is absolutely fatal.

​​@@davidmorris8509 The war in Ukraine never had anything to do with NATO. As long as Ukraine refused to become a Russian puppet state like Belarus this war was inevitable even if NATO literally ceased to exist after the end of the cold war.

Keep.in kind that Vipers and NATO BVR missiles, plus full.utilization of HARM, will almost certainly *reduce* the long range fires threat to Ukraine overall, by pushing back Russian launch platforms directly (the BVR missiles) AND indirectly (reducing Russian air defenses, thus allowing older aircraft to operate closer to the launching platforms' current operating areas). Clearing the air picture even a little bit will likely open more opportunities for Ukrainian air power to target Russian forces on the ground as well. Abandoning the air fight to focus on the ground fires is surrendering an entire axis of operation and likely degrades Ukrainian defenses overall - Combined Arms means more than just "integrate the infantry, armor, and tube artillery".

Dispersed operations are somewhat fantasy. Maybe you do land and take off from different airfields but at most you keep the infrastructure to refuel. Having maintenance and rearmament as part of dispersed operations is just utopian. Operating F-16s from a single airbase would be easier than MiG-29 dispersal, especially since MiG infrastructure doesn't grow of trees and Russia isn't selling.

@@ChucksSEADnDEAD The Swedish air force has been practicing dispersed operations for several decades including rearmament. Our aircraft and support equipment has to some degree been specialized for that but I don't really see why it couldn't be done with an F-16.

@@skunkjobb I can do a front kick and spinning hook kick combo. I've never used it in a real fight. There's a difference between doing it, and actually fighting. Rearmament is the easy part. You drive guy X and Y to place Z with a truck with weapons, land the aircraft at Z, and just bolt the weapons to the pylons. Easy. Actually fixing malfunctions, pilots having the need to sleep and eat, there's a myriad of wrenches that get thrown into your gears when you actually have a live opponent and your resources can't follow the script. Maybe the guys driving the truck with the bombs were ambushed by a spec ops raid. The guys delivering the bombs got shwacked and the truck was set on fire. Now what? Your aircraft lands but can't rearm. Unsurprisingly enough, insurgents targeted American fuel runs during the Global War on Terror. They couldn't shoot the aircraft down but they could hinder operations by targeting the fuel. Dispersed operations are cool, but they drastically make it easier for small teams to insert behind enemy lines and target isolated fuel/weapons runs.

Having been involved in several allies acquiring F-16s & F-15s, this process takes typically takes more than 5 years. Ukraine didn't send us experienced pilots. All we got were brand new recruits that weren't pilots & didn't speak English. They had to be taught to fly & taught English, then taught jet trainers, and now the 1st class is nearing month 8 of the 6th month Beginner Course. Beginner Course. They have a long ways to go to be combat ready. Maintenance personnel didn't start training until this year. No idea if they're experienced troops or new recruits. Are we looking at 3 years of training or 8? I dunno

It really does sound like Taft and the bathtub scenario.

Who is Chappy?

@@wanderlust0120 never watched Iron Eagle????

​@@Mythos1981who?

But 'Poland is the Texas of Europe' Made my Day!😁😁😁

Why is nobody talking about F-18s?

They should send the A Team

@@michalandrejmolnar3715 then why not F-22?? isn't USAF gonna retire that thing anyway?

​@@fatdoi003no and that would put a good chance of 5th Gen American fighter tech falling into Russian hands because Ukrainian pilots are nowhere the skill level of our pilots. And there is no parts manufacturing of anything f22. We can give our old tech (even though we shouldn't even do that). No way we're giving 5th Gen. Are you nuts. And lastly fuck Ukraine, just a little less than Russia.

They got tanks and that did what? Unless they get like 500 jets russia will still outnumber them with better planes etc.

@@Raguel1984 well, if you wait for tanks for almost a year, screaming for counter offensive, I guess, it’s tuff to get a lot from those tanks

@@Raguel1984 i dont think the whole west has 500 jets to spare you see they need to phase out theirs and get new ones which takes time same with other equipments tanks and stuff on the other hand russians dont have to beg and wait for approval thats a key difference in russan advantage

You mean block 20 / 25? The block 25 was an ADF. Ukraine got AMRAAMS and other stuff the MLU’s were upgraded to use.

All F-16s are called the Viper.

@@CWLemoine not really, no. All F-16s are called fighting falcons, only the latest block is called the viper.

@@brunol-p_g8800 how many hours do you have in the F-16? I have 1000.

@@CWLemoinegame, set, match….

Time plays against Ukraine, but somehow even worse against Russia. The videos of defeated assaults have crossed over to straight up snuff. It's not even combat footage anymore.

It's really time for both sides to start going to the peace table.

@@WALTERBROADDUS What peace? Russia doubled down and gambled their entire future on this war. If they strike a peace deal, they lose everything. It's a sunk cost fallacy situation, if they give up they are still a sanctioned nation with a degraded army. Meanwhile Ukraine knows what Russian "peace" entails. Executions and gulags. It's easy for you to say "peace" when it's not you who will be frogmarched into basements.

@@ChucksSEADnDEAD Do you even relize that most of the videos on the western platforms are fakes?

@@ChucksSEADnDEAD exactly. peace deal after all the nazi ruSSians left ukraines soil.

He probably just watched Independence Day, and thought -that's what a president should look like 😄

@@cigarsid7445 and that was in a F-18

That is what a President *should* look like. Unfortunately, we get career politicians, actors, et al.

@@CWLemoine So a president should look like a president being played by an actor in a movie about fighting off an alien invasion?

Why is nobody talking about F-18s?

That's my guess and he's advocating for more ground items while dissing the F-16.

Maybe he is navy and wants A ship.

😂

Blue thunder.....

Americans feel like it's a far, far away war. They will be surprised soon or later.

It certainly has been a disaster for the Russians and a tragedy for the Ukrainians, Boris. The only solution is for you Russians to pack up and leave Ukraine.

He served in a number of wars in various parts of the World. After the Dardanelles fiasco he actually volunteered to serve in the Army in the trenches of France. From Lord of the Admiralty to the trenches, not something you see every day.

@@nerdyali4154 Yes, he commanded a battalion in France. He wasn't exactly staring the Germans eye to eye, but he wasn't very far back at all.

Sir Winston was sn honorary Air Commodore RAF

If F-16s are available and howitzer rounds are not.... also, what would be his plan in, like long term? Hoping to outpound the Russians?

plus it may only take weeks or months to train artillery operator..... but it'll take years to train a fighter pilot....

Putin stating facts? Like when he stated Russia will not invade Ukraine, but couple of days later Russia still invaded. There is wisdom to never trust anything Putin says.

@@fatdoi003and then one mistake near a SAM site and you go back to the chalkboard.

Is a NATO flag a magical protector for not to be engaged? No... If a NATO country supports operations from its territory, as in F-16 landing, rearming, repairing and taking-off to attack Russia, it becomes valid military target. If not almost equal to declaration of war. If they get serviced only in NATO country, by flying them there from Ukraine, and back to Ukraine, where in Ukraine they get armed and prepared... Now that might be questionable... (IMHO still same thing). If a NATO forces in Ukraine service them, they just became valid targets, not as a trainer in boxing corner between rounds... We know very well that supplying weapons to an enemy at the time of war is a participation to the war. Selling weapons to country at the peace time, that is weapons business, and already considered threat. As in when USA placed strategic nuclear missiles to Italy and Turkey in 60's, the Soviet Union took it as a threat. Then USA tried to invade a country that was in trade coalition with Soviet Union, and requested assistance to defend itself, so Soviet Union offered tactical nuclear missiles to defend it's shores against landing/carrier group at time of invasion, and US took it as highest possible threat... Not as Cuba being it, but Soviet Union that provided weapons. Why shouldn't Russia consider NATO military installations and weapons deliveries to Ukraine (Cuba), as direct actions against it?

They need everything, they need to stop complaining and take wherever they get. Nobody owes them anything and need to stop being ungrateful

@@MrTakin00 This. If Trump was President they'd be getting absolutely nothing, so why complain at all about anything. I get it, shit sucks, but be thankful for every little bit of help you get and find a way to make it work. Don't whine about it like an ungrateful child who has to wait until his birthday to get the shiny new toy.

@@RedFail1-1 These "ungrateful children" have lost ~50,000 people in a war they never asked for. The only child here is you.

@@Cozak360 the Ukies shouldn't have been trying to cut off the Water to Russias "Bread-Basket" then; like they already did. Ukraine started this War and has been pushing for it since OBAMA!

@@ligmasack9038 What bread-basket, you silly goose? Pre-2022, Crimea exported ~$6 million worth of goods annually, mainly in poultry. This pales in comparison to both what Ukraine and Russia produce. Russia would have gotten more food for less money per bushel if they kept trading with Ukraine like a normal country. And why is Ukraine obligated to give its fresh water to a territory occupied by a hostile country? Crimea became Russia’s responsibility to supply when they illegally occupied it. “Ukraine started this War and has been pushing for it since OBAMA.” Why would Ukraine, a country of sub-50 million people, with a military that was until recently running on Soviet fumes, push for a war with Russia?It was Putin’s will to invade in 2014, just as it was his will in 2022.

Not Biden's delays, rather it's speaker of the House and Trump puppet Mike Johnson that's doing the delay 'game'...

Besides that i agree on the usability of the F-16s.

They have to be supplied said munitions A jet alone is useless a jet with munitions is also useless, go hop in a jet in dcs that you’ve never flown before and see how effective you are It’s the pilots training of the deployment of those weapons and the supply of the weapons and which weapons are supplied that make the jet lethal

@@g0vernedhitman934 They already have AGM-88 HARM and have so for quite some time now. The way Ukraine has been employing HARM, as described by the OP, could be accomplished with a Cessna. Being able to employ HARM on primary, secondary or targets of opportunity can only help Ukraine.

They are not “Biden’s delays” , they are speaker Johnson’s delays. He is acting under instructions from his MAGA boss Trump to refuse to allow a vote on more aid. He is violating every principle of government. Without him, Ukraine would have received $billions more aid. They are sacrificing Ukraine just to score political points by preventing Biden scoring a victory. It’s disgusting.

That’s useful, but I suspect that the Gripens much more advanced EW suite is a more important factor. Unlike the f16 it stands some sort of chance against a modern SAM.

ukraine roads vs swedish roads?? you kidding right?

@@fatdoi003 300 meters its all its takes.👍

@@djtroopexalibur5997 if only you can find 300m of good roads in country side ukraine.....

@@fatdoi003 yea..thats gonna be a mission.

I remember that. He looked so incredibly dopey with that oversized tankers’ helmet on. That pretty much killed his campaign as I recall.

Did you ever look in a mirror?

Why is nobody talking about the F-18?

@@michalandrejmolnar3715 Ukraine doesn't even have a Navy. They haven't asked for the Hornet and nobody has offered it to them. So why talk about it?

@@Turboy65 Hornets can be used on land and their advantage is that there are 200 of them being replaced by F-35s in Canada, Australia, Switzerland and Finland

@@michalandrejmolnar3715 But they're all older models and of questionable utility in today's battlefield. Plus, you have to get more than just the aircraft, you have to get the whole support package to go along with them. Otherwise they're grounded the first time something breaks.

@@michalandrejmolnar3715 then why not F-22?? isn't USAF gonna retire that thing anyway?

stop voting Democrat...

Also, why should the US carry the weight? Every other country has been getting a free ride at US expense for many decades. Let them prove they are worthy allies.

@@SoloRenegade It's the party that is very cozy to Russia causing suspicion. The issue is allies questioning the US commitment to alliances. Can't promise the world and provide and atlas then expect to be seen as trustworthy.

European freeloader

@@SoloRenegade Do you remember that so far the USA was the ONLY NATO member to EVER call for article 5? :) So much for USA carry the weight.

That's too Deep. I gonna screenshot this and post it. You're indeed very right that 'During war times, the first casualty on both sides is always the truth'. 👍

With Mickey Mouse ears!

No G suit, helmet or mask he would pass out from basic dogfight moves.

They weren't ready in large part because *we* slow walked beginning pilot and maintainer training. And the Pentagon was throwing out wildly inaccurate figures for how long it would take, pretending that the *peacetime training cycle* for taking a would be pilot from "this is an airplane" to "fully mission qualified" was the *only* timeline that was reasonable, instead of saying, "Hey, let's start with *already experienced fighter pilots and jet mechanics* and *transition them* to the new aircraft and TTPs," which would be a far shorter number (for one, you can skip basic flight training and a lot of the basic combat flying training, and focus on the differences in performance, switchology, and how NATO weapons and systems possible with the Viper change the tactics. More like retraining an A-10 pilot to fly a pointy nose fighter than training a butterbar straight from Colorado Springs or Texas A&M and making them an F-16 pilot. The hardest part would be finding enough Ukrainian or Russian speaking instructors for the *maintainers* (Ukrainian pilots are more likely to speak at least some English, especially if they are former active duty who have commercial time.)

The main issue in regards to the F-16 was assuming a peacetime training cycle would adjust to wartime demands. There are also other decidedly more pressing issues facing Ukraine right now anyways. I think that's what the alleged anon is getting at.

@@geodkyt "They weren't ready in large part because we slow walked beginning pilot and maintainer training. " i´m not sure that is really true. While it sure looked like that, it might note be true anyway. The issue is that Ukraine during the early part of the war had very little capacity to train up crews. When hey slowly retain that capacity the slow movement of western politics kind of already cough up to the situation. Maybe they could have gained 1 or 2 month, but i would say, 6 is probobly unlikely. And remember. its not really the pilot training that is the bottle neck. As far as i understand, Ukraine is sending fully certified pilots for training. (they have sent some for basic training as well, but a large bulk of them are already certified pilots). This is basically type training, weapons training and tactics. The issue is the ground crew. While giving the pilots a crash course, or say a war emergency course could cut down on the training considerately, that would not matter. With no ground crew, that would not make any diffrance what so ever. F16 is a fairly maintenance heavy aircraft that need quite skilled personnel. Moving over personnel from older Russian fighters would have very little impact on training time, but have a huge impact on current fleet. And here i feel like F16 might have been the worse choice of aircraft.. Well. i guess, F22 or F15 would be even worse, but those was never on the table. Poland giving them a 14 mig 29 have had a much larger impact on the battlefield so far. In that sense, something like a Gripen would make more sense. Not only that, there is somewhere in the rounds of 70 gripen just sitting around in a bunker doing nothing

@@geodkyt I think you're also forgetting just how different old soviet flight systems are to the F-16. I'm also looking at the transfer of tanks, look at what happened to all of the next gen tanks they were given. All blown up.

@@chigmeister1906 True about the jets but not the tanks. Ukraine has irrecoverably lost about 20% of the western tanks donated, and I would not call Leo2 A4/5/6 Abrams or Chally2 "next gen", maybe the CV-90 and some of the artillery/air defense are of the latest greatest type. But most of what has been given is quite dated.

so true ,its easier to convert a naval fighter jet for land based operations ,seems like a stupid decision by Ukraine to reject them

Yup. The writing's on the wall. Zelensky Has 3 options. A) Surrender now and take what's given to him B) Unconditional surrender to the Russians C) Get overthrown in a military coup by his own military commanders

It still exists. It's just not the highest priority at the moment. But, it might very well become a top priority again later. So building up capacity for it absolutely needs to be continued without further delay.

@@cigarsid7445 I agree

No we're not xD we've sent almost everything we had and our military and political leadership is as bad as it gets. Our "leaders" like to talk big with nothing to show

@@Raguel1984 Poland sent only it's old stuff and ALL of it was paid for by the EU. You are as bad as it gets.

Poland is heavily subsidized by Germany. Like most of EU really. Poland is nothing

@@Raguel1984 If that's really what you think, you might be living in the wrong Country. Where is your Patriotism?

I don't know why people are talking about Poland being a powerhouse but we are not a powerhouse and we will not be a powerhouse in the future. We have a broken political class. Our politicians like to talk a lot but do little. A new party won the last election and there are already ideas in Poland to allocate Polish GDP to the Ukrainian army instead of the Polish army. Despite the opposition of Polish citizens and Polish military personnel, who demand more funding for the Polish army.

It's a matter of time and perspective. Right now Ukraine is getting hammered and they're not getting the basics. They're running low on artillery ammo, air defense missiles, etc. if they run out of these they lose even if they get 30-60 Vipers. If not getting Vipers right now means getting more ammo they'll take that. Both would be ideal, one is vital right now, the other is important but not immediate.

@@josephahner3031 Right now there's about 100 unused Patriot batteries sitting around collecting dust in Europe. The only issue with them is a qualified crew basically has to go with it because not just anyone can operate them. With the F-16 the only obstacle is training, then tens of thousands of 100-1000km range air to surface missiles and bombs can be fired off by Ukraine with precision, taking out barracks, ammo dumps, even moving trains full of ammo, from complete safety. Ukraine is apparently capable of disabling oil refineries deep inside Russia with mere drones, so this would be a HUGE increase in their capabilities as well as in their ability to call in precision air support for defense or attack.

As I pointed out he also pretended to be a jr. Officer to serve on navy ships on short missions. His time taking over a unit in S.Africa as a news reporter and then escaping as a POW is worth a read.

Or Ukrainian genocide of a third of thier own people before the current dictator banned all elections and parties.

You guys started this mess. Now your politicians are weaseling out of this because they have figured out it's a lost cause.

@@DDtch6669 right. Ukraine forced ruZzia to invade them. That makes sense

@@GrantvsMaximvs No, Ukrainians are the least ones guilty in this mess. Uncle Sam is the one that forced them. Just liket he Soviets messed around with the Americans trying to get Cuba in their influence. I my self am from a country where the Yank is interfering. I know when I see it. You can smell it in the air. It's enough to listen to Lindsey Graham to know what the American politicians actually want. Hawks without any shame. War is their priority, doesn't matter how many Ukrainian lives goes to waste.

@@GrantvsMaximvs well.... that's what happened.

Is this a troll or have you watched too many hollywood movies?

Sorry, Louis Gossett Jr is no longer available.

​@reubensandwich9249 It has been done before, with American volunteers (known as Eagle squadrons) flying with the RAF in 1940 and with the Flying Tigers in China from April 1941 to July 1942.

@@reubensandwich9249 That is kind of what the Flying Tigers was

They are busy making KZfaq videos .

Most WW2 fighters were tail draggers. So the plane was always pitched up. Although the bullets or shells had a pretty good range, and could travel over 3 kilometres based on the inclination of the plane. Someone still should check and keep the safety on, as the shells or bullets could just as well drop into an unsuspecting town, village, or people passing by on the dirt road.

Kind of the same current political discourse happening in Australia over AUKUS. The big question is if the US will hold up to their end of the deal given the shaky political landscape.

@@goodshipkaraboudjan thank you for your comment. it proves, the whole world is watching US as a global leader, and spots every case where US fails to deliver on its promise. It has the chance to grind Russian army at low cost by third hands, and yet it is failing to deliver event this little amount of weapens, and even restricting Ukraine from using their own. This will not go unnoticed. US is sending really bad signal to all allies.

@@wojciechczupta9185 Well as we can see the world is closely watching on how "effective" the NATO works together. And currently it seems that nobody really takes threats from the US serious anyway. Iran is starting to get more aggressive along with their allied rebels, so does North Korea and China. The USA simply lost the "World Power" reputation it used to have. I think it is just a matter of time until a world wide conflict starts and it could have been stopped if the west had reacted in 2014 already when russia attacked and annexed the crimea.

Base security? How many 18 year olds with backpacks have been used in this war?

All of that is nice, and probably even necessary. But the urgent NEED is people. Without that all the fancy gadgets don't get the job done.

If you think whatever is left of Ukraine gets to have a military when this war ends, you're living in an alternate reality from me

@@ominousbiscuit Hey, gotta give the Ukrainian's some credits. Unless you are a Putin / Commie Red China supporter or even Trump supporter, then you might just have a 2nd Civil War in the States.

​@@MrNicholas89As long as everyone is given McDonalds and internet there won't be a civil war in USA. No one will want to give up their comfortable life, and many of us aren't even fit for combat. The ones in power just have to keep the lights on and the entertainment coming and people will remain sedated.

once the war is over they'll be buying russian again.

Your neighbors house is on fire, are you going to tell them they can't use the water in your swimming pool to put out the fire because your house might catch fire? The Poles and Baltic states are sending 5-50% of their military budget to help Ukraine, the US sent 5%. In terms of percentage of GDP the US is #30 on that leader board with the Baltic states and Poland in the top 5.

If they had the shells and more guns they wouldn't have backed up in the first place. When they got sent the stuff they were going forward when it got scarce they had to back up. They have millions of people still to fight they can't field em. Same reason Russia never tops a million men in the field. It's about what you can muster and where. Ukraine is being drip fed and still smashed Russia to ribbons. Look at how many tanks they sent. Toys and the fuel/ammo to run em is everything right now.

Don’t worry. Trump will sold Ukraine to Russia as soon as he become president next year.

They recently passed legislation to lower the conscription age

@@jerseyshoredroneservices225 Exactly. Which doesn't square well with the comment made by @bcluett1697. Unless they also remove some of the exemptions and find a way to get men who left to return it still won't be enough. It's what happens in a war with a country that has 5 times the population that you do. We don't have to like it to realize it's true.

@@DeplorableBitterClinger I think it can be enough if they have the right equipment. Russia has been going through five to ten times more personnel than Ukraine has. Even for Russia that's not sustainable and it could get even worse if Ukraine had the equipment and supplies that they need. If the bridge goes down and Ukraine has what they need to really put pressure on the Russians, the Russians will implode without sufficient resupply. I think it all depends on whether or not nato countries want to use their supplies to support Ukraine or if they want to hold onto it so they can fight the Russians themselves. If it were up to me, I'd say supply Ukraine...

Concern trolling

They don't need to be expelled, the cost just need to be to high to continue. Their economy is going down the drain already. Either they will have to withdraw to quell uprisings and protect the regime or their government will collapse, and their army dissolve when logistics and the command structure breaks down. Just like the 90s. The Soviet Union was way more robust than the Russian Federation, and it went belly up.

From February to April 2022 the Russians took 18.6% of Ukraine's territory. From then to October 2023 the Ukrainians took back 9.24%. Since 11 2023 to end of March 2024 the Russians took 0.04% of Ukraine. At that rate, the Russians will reach their march 2023 lines in 5-6 years and their March 2022 in 64 years.

​@@pogo1140what ever helps you sleep at night, but that's not how wars work

@@TheJessfletcher17 or maybe you bought the Russian disinformation because every day they say they captured territory, that they've forced the Ukrainians to retreat. Maybe perhaps you pay attention to the names of what they say they've captured and cross reference the name (the Russians often use the Russian name or the Ukrainian name for the same place). Looking at the control map and comparing it to the one from last year and you realize you have to zoom in to the 10 km map to be able to fine where the line moved

Remember our country lost to dude in sandals armed with nothing more than AK-47s and RPGs we are in no position to s*** on Russia over their current position in Ukraine

​@@AmirShafeek Thanks for the input, Amir.

The rail bridges in the land corridor are in SCALP/Storm Shadow and GLSDB range and have already been struck.

@@cigarsid7445 These railway lines are easy to repair and hard to destroy. With a missile strike Ukraine could effectively disrupt traffice there for a few days at best. And would still have to sacrifce a Cruise missile for that which it can't use for other targets having only very limited numbers of them. It's the same with the few ATAMCS cluster missiles given to Ukraine. In '23 they would have made huge impact in ng the KA-52 bases. Biden deliberately sent them only the moment the counter offensive already failed in Nov'23. Their usage destroyed more than 20 helicopters. 6 months earlier would have meant huge success for Ukraine. But Biden never wanted Ukraine to win (fast). They only wanted Ukraine to hold the lines and now badly miscalculated.

@@utrian4148 Nobody strikes railway lines with cruise missiles, they strike bridges that take months to rebuild. And currently there are several within GLSDB range. Unless the Russians can move the front line 50km north, they will not be able to keep the rail line operational very much

@@cigarsid7445 No, there's only one small river ro cross - Klmius. can even track the planned route on Deepstate maps. And GLSDB is not suitable for those targets. Maybe You missed completely how GLSDB works. And You completely ignore that Russia is preparing this railway line to withstand any attack as best as possible.So You won't find easy vulnerabilities. Ukraine had a window of opportunity to cut the land bridge and take big territories back. But without the tools, Ukraine is doomed to fight bloody battles for minimal gains.

Germany never sent Ukraine Taurus missiles. US called Germany's bluff & exposed them. Germany said it would only send Taurus to Ukraine if USA sent ATACMS, well USA sent a limited number of ATACMS to Ukraine yet Germany still hasn't sent Ukraine any Taurus missiles.

No it's not. Boomers could cope all they want but fighter jets are obsolete.

lol they did, but it's not really a wealthy country and most of the stuff they acquired has been depleted by now calling them entitled freeloaders while they are holding on for dear life is a bit unhinged though

Ukraine is a lot smaller than russia so it has a lot less ressources. The Fact that they even stopped the invasion in the first year is a big surprise. USA and most other countries said "They will be overrun in like 3 days" and now we are in the 3rd year of the war. But i am sure Germany in WW2 would have loved if the allied acted like the western world dows now, no DDay landing, no support for the UK via convoys from the USA, no land lease for the soviet union.....

What offensive? Offensive is gone brother. Was a small fart

To be fair most NATO weapons can be adapted to Russian cold war systems, maybe not extremely good but it can. The old NVA Mig 29 got Sidewinder support when they were adopted by the Bundeswehr and the HARM and Scalp/Storm shadow are already used by Ukrainian aircraft. I also believe that the CEO of MBDA Said that the Taurus KEPD could easily be adapted.

I doubt even if this money was never going to Ukraine in the first place, it would have gone to all the social programs you wanted. They would have just used it for something else, that is not the social program you want or need.

They said the same in 1938. But the only thing more expensive than paying for defence is not paying for it and then having to go to war.

@@marknicholson2281 Where there nukes in 1938? No. Was there a binding treaty in 1938? No. This guy is from the UK, that met its 2% goal for years while other countries still can't meet that basic goal.

@@reubensandwich9249 I’m in the UK too. Article 5 is not binding. If it kicked off and Canada said “We are only going to do maritime patrols over the Atlantic. Then they have complied. If Spain say we are sending a platoon of soldiers and a tank, they have complied. And like us most of the original NATO members have cut massively on defence since the wall came down. And I agree about the 2%. But we are tenth in spending on NATO by GDP. Way behind the USA and most of the former soviet countries. We have only gone over the 2% mark by a couple of decimal points in the last 20 years and it shows. You can’t rely solely on nukes to keep us safe. We only have four missile boats and only one at sea. We could push it to two in an emergency. If Trump pulls out that’s just us and the French with nukes. I wouldn’t like to rely on the French. That means the Russians would only have to find one boat and sink it if they wanted to go first. If they don’t go first there is a good chance a politician will not use them. We have less than 50 fighter jets and only 100 tanks. That’s due to be reduced to 60. We have nothing like HYMARS or Patriot if the Yanks pull out. The Navy has two aircraft carriers without aircraft or support ships. They wouldn’t last a month in a real war. The armed services have been hit by Austerity. We are perfectly safe behind Poland and Germany if Russia tries something. But what if USA China kicks off over Taiwan? We would probably send something to help. And even without a defensive pact it’s highly likely Putin would take advantage and jump in. The Russians have massively increased their defence spending. They have learned lessons. They aren’t the shambles they were two years ago. They are producing new tanks of a design they know that works and they can produce in large numbers. It might not be as good as ours but it’s good enough. They have drones and countermeasures and they know how to use them. Meanwhile we only have a handful. Some of them were designed for long patrols over desert countries and can’t fly if the get wet. In England ffs! The government has the idea that of it kicks off we can order in. You know like PPE at the beginning of Covid. That went well didn’t it? We need to rearm. We and NATO have sent a lot of kit to Ukraine and not replaced it. Ukraine shows just how fast that stuff can go. Putin will never invade NATO? It wasn’t even ten years ago he was having “defensive exercises “ on the doorstep of Estonia. Exactly as he did just before he invaded Ukraine. And we are sitting on our hands hoping for the best. It’s just sticking your head in the sand. Is it certain within 5 years? No Is it even likely within 10 years. No But is there a 10% chance. ? I wouldn’t bet on that. And the cost of a real war is going to really hurt. It won’t be 2% or 3%. It will be 20-40% and destruction and lives lost. We only stopped paying for WW2 a few years back. And that was when we had all the recourses of Empire to help out. We had a massive car and aircraft industry. We made almost everything ourselves. All that manufacturing has gone and we are going to have to buy stuff not make it. And money for other things, hospitals, homes filling in pot holes. That money is there. While you and I are worse off than twenty years ago that’s not true for the top 5%. The harbour near me is full of luxury yachts. While people who have jobs can’t afford to live in a home and are living in vans or cars. There are 2.849,000 millionaires in the UK. And 171 billionaires. 94% of them inherited their wealth. The money is there. We just need to get it back and use it. And I mean get it back. They didn’t get that money by going to the money tree. They got it from us by price gouging fuel and food and not paying a fair wage.

​@@marknicholson2281 They are in shambles my guy. They're using Chinese golf carts in assaults. The Russian 2024 military is a death cult at this point. It's mad max over there.

Negotiations with entity that never upholds its deals is meaningless...

It makes the world more and more like WW2. Finland had to give up its territory to Russia, and Russia ended up going further and attacking Poland. Later, Finland had to fight Russians again with Nazis. I don't see what makes giving up Ukraine territory gonna help stabilizing this current world order.

​@@chrisblack6258 Can't understand that either... "let's just give authoritarian leaders what they want... maybe they'll respect us and won't ask for more !"... bulletproof logic

@@chrisblack6258 you're missing the end of that story. after we (Finland) lost the continuation war we accepted terms of peace back to the 1939 borders and fought with the Russians to get rid of the Germans. Russia never attempted to invade again and we had a relatively good relationship for over half a century until now. not negotiating with Russia would have seen Finland cease to exist. there is morality, and then there is reality. morals, pride nor principals are worth losing your ancestral homeland over.

@@seanprice7645 uhh bud Finland survived DESPITE USSR not because of it and fought alongside Germans AGAINST russians during WW2 ... and even post WW2 relations were "tense" at best ... secondly USSR back then and Russian federation today are incomparable ... even USSR knew that deals have to be adhered to otherwise noone will take anything you put forward seriously ... which Putler doesnt understand ... noone sane will today make any deal with russia because they will not abide by any deal they sign...

Because Ukraine rejected 41 Australian F/A-18 Hornets as "Flying Trash". Canada bought some of the very same F/A-18's because they were newer and in better condition than their own. The Aussie ones in question were given an update in the 1990's and again in the late 2000's so were still a fairly up to date aircraft. Australia operated them as front line aircraft until 2021. But apparently, despite being a far superior aircraft to the much older F-16's (both F-15's and F-16 go back to the early 1970's) Ukraine begged for and eventually received the F/A-18's were still "trash". Australia first received their Hornets in 1984 and the last of them in 1990. Ukraine's problem is they want the latest gear from every nation's arsenal free. Other nations have an obligation to keep their taxpayer money for the purpose of defending their own citizens. Instead, I hope those Aussie F/A-18's are stockpiled for potential future wars. Australia is still using M113AS4's from the pre-Vietnam War era, and ASLAV's which go back to the 1983 LAV-II design. If anyone thinks that age makes them junk, remember the M1 Abrams goes back to 1980, the Bradley goes back to 1981, the and the Russians are using T-54/T-55's that design wise go back to 1948 right now in Ukraine. The problem is simple. In wartime you lose more equipment than you can build or afford to buy. In a global war environment, no one, not even your allies has the production capacity to sell you the gear, and if they do it's only the stuff they don't want because they have better stuff, at inordinately high prices. That's why stockpiles of second tier equipment are so important. It's much easier to upgrade a gun barrel, some missiles, and some fire control systems than it is to build a new tank or fighter from scratch.

@ AndyViant Austrailia received super hornets in 1984??? Really???

@@tysoncott7402 Australia is just one country that has F-18s

@@tysoncott7402 Sorry, Should have said F/A-18 Hornets there not F/A-18 Super Hornets. Thanks for letting me know I'll correct it

@@tysoncott7402 Sorry that's a mistake. Should have said F/A-18 A/B Hornets and not F/A-18 Super Hornets. Thanks for the pickup. I have now corrected it. Australia bought 75 A & B Hornets between 1984 and 1990. These went 3 upgrade processes in between then and 2021, and our final spec was able to be equipped with JDAMs, JASSM's, AMRAAMs and ASRAAMs and Harpoons. Hardly "flying junk". Obviously we are now operating F-35's and F/A-18 Super Hornet E/F and F/A-18G Growlers.

"democracy". Have you not realized there was a couple in 2014?

This is all geopolitics, nothing to do with democracy

This is such a brain dead comment. Ukraine is not part of NATO and this means that NATO was never obligated to send troops to defend it. If Poland gets attacked that’s a different story, that’s article 5.

@@jaimea.3771 just like israel isn't part of nato and yet both us and uk willing to fly to other side of the planet to defend them from drones lmao

@@smh- US and UK are already patrolling parts of Syria. It's also smooth brain to link that to NATO when Turkey, a NATO member, threatend to attack Israel.

Oh, Ukraine has been misinforming about hillarious Russian incompetence and own brilliance since day 1. As result, when unavoidably lies fallen flat, they wittnessed drop in volunteers who were promised safari on Russians and now were faced with spectre of actual combat.