True, but this was a SU-35.
The deal is not specifically for Ukraine so up in the air where the weapons will go.
The su25 is a ground attack aircraft designed to provide close air support on the ground ,it's not designed for air2air combat ,vs a high speed , high manoeuvreable jet like the Mig 29 ,it's going to end the same way every single time
The Irish Times mahhh full of wannabe big time Charlie's. What they say is ego driven by journalists.
As for why the US is slow suppling long range weapons, I am still undecided myself.
A story on CNN says the Russian communist party in the est is showing signs of turning on Putin. Can't link story as using my phone to post.
I don't accept that. The Russian war of aggression is an attack on a peaceful European democratic society. Other conflicts may or may not be justified, but Putin's war is on a totally different level.
And even if you accept that France was somehow in the wrong in Rwanda, does that mean that no French government can ever again call out warmongering ever?
Eh? Not sure your worry follows from that article. The arms industry has to be overjoyed, though. Maybe they'll now not have to sell as many AR-15's to teenagers.
Hypocrisy is very much a pre-21st century religious construct and you'd be hard pushed to find anyone who cares about it or who knows why it might be important any more except maybe excitable politicians.
A bit worrying that the Ukrainians might not get those weapons. I hope US politicians weren’t ‘got at’ by the arms industry, it wouldn’t be the first time.
See my post above. The MiG-29 is extremely agile, has a lot of thrust available to her, can carry quite a large number of missiles and sports a helmet-mounted targeting system for some of its missiles. If you let it get close, you WILL have a fight on your hands.
How is a M29 taking out an su35??
Russian pilots poorly trained or something?
The MiG-29 is an absolutely lethal dogfighter once you get in close. Despite her age she's extremely maneuverable, carries a whole lot of weapons and has a helmet mounted display/targeting system, at least for some of her missiles, so I'm not surprised at this. In the hands of a competent pilot, she's still an absolute killer.
The Air Force Command reported that our MiG-29 (4th generation) shot down a Muscovite Su-35 fighter (Generation 4 ++) in the skies over the Kherson region.
Here is a first for Ukraine.
Ukraine MiG-29 destroyed a russian Su-35c in air combat over the Kherson regionhttps://defence-ua.com/news/pershij_pishov_mig_29_povitrjanih_sil_znischiv_rashistskij_su_35s_nad_hersonschinoju-7531.html
That and the endless boot-to-the neck they've lived with since the Tsars. It's a basket case of a country. Not sure if it's fixable and they have nukes.
I think the average Russian has a really infantile mentality from being repressed, lied to and treated like children for so long by their Orwellian rulers.
Can't wait to see my first burning Terminator.
We all know about Russia's global malevolence, nothing new or worth discussing there 😐️
Also are you amazed or unamazed?
So which is it? You've just contradicted yourself here, are the Ukrainians going to take back Donbass or not?
Anyways Ukraine won't be going past February 24th lines
With Manafort I'd believe anything. Thing is, it's not that he's some evil puppeteer. He's a guy who is or was good at advising political campaigns and lobbying. Its just a job. He's in it for the money (and im sure there are many more on the US/ukraine side over profiteering too) . As for Russia and its plans for ukraine, you don't have to dig very deep into their state to work out their objectives but who knows what their long term game is.
All we can judge is what we do know. And we do know that russia invaded a sovereign nation. That requires serious justification. We know the reasons put up by putin himself do not justify an invasion, even if they were true (nazis and all that nonsense). The "provocation " bit is just too vague.
Im consistently Unamazed about how superbly concerned you are about western weaponry and Ukrainians defending their own country than you are about Russia's global malevolence for the last two decades.
Amazed I tell you. Amazed !!
Yesterday you said Ukraine were going to take back all the territory with their large reserves currently in training?
The rather mind-numbingly obvious problem to the "Realist" view that Russia was provoked into these actions, is that an equally valid reading of the situation is that NATO membership of bordering countries should have been sped up as it is only non-NATO members that Russia is invading and by constantly engaging in armed actions against their non-NATO neighbours they are solely responsible for the desire to join a defence organisation.
When someone points out hypocrisy, calling it 'whataboutery' doesn't make the hypocrisy go away.
Sorry, to be clear I'm talking about the areas that the Russians have already destroyed and genocided. The newer long-range stuff could be handy.
It's cutting your nose off to save the rest of your body.
Barring a massive turnaround or Putin having an epiphany Ukraine will have to do some pretty horrific **** going forward to finish things.
That the Ukrainians, given the choice, would choose to totally destroy Donbass region rather than liberate it is total nonsense. Absolute nonsense.
You talk about having a buffer zone to prevent more landgrabs in future, but your solution is to literally cede the land so that while Russia wont have it, neither will Ukraine. Cutting your nose off to spite your face.
"Go **** yourselves."
Having a buffer would at least give time to prepare and help prevent more quick landgrabs in the future.
Which option would you go with bearing in mind the Russians have already pretty much genocided large areas of it already?
Assuming there is a surviving & functioning Ukrainian state either on a reduced territory, or back at pre-war lines, Ukraine's army will still have these weapons bar ones used, destroyed, or lost to Russia.
I just can't see there being a problem with these leaking out via corruption or carelessness and being acquired and used by random "non state actors" like terrorists or criminals. Ukraine may be a country with corruption issues before the war, but I don't think it is on extreme level of Afghanistan, Syria or Iraq or such.
Obviously if Ukraine is annexed, or the govt. or military fragments or loses authority over most of the country under pressure of the war then there is a big danger of large amounts of Western supplied weapons ending up with God knows who, but it doesn't seem likely Russia can achieve that now.
How do you propose Ukraine justifies to the world the bombing to smithereens of civilians in the Donbass then? Unlike Russia, Ukraine is reliant on donations of heavy weapons - I doubt the donors would be best pleased to learn that instead of trying to reclaim territory and fight the Russians, their donated weapons are being used to quite literally bomb the donbass into oblivion for the sake of.. well I dont know really. There really is little strategic sense in doing it. Take it back sure, but bomb it just out of spite? What do the Ukrainians gain from that?
Also its easier to defend a built up area than a flat desolate one, so the buffer idea doesnt really work that well either
The parts that are already 90% destroyed and emptied of Ukrainian people, what use are they? They're a sink that also allows for enemies to attack.
Ideally Ukraine would take everything back and make it shiny and gleaming. Realistically though the Russians have been spending a decade trying (and partly succeeding) in overhauling the areas they could. There's a few choices
1) Let the Russians have it to do with as they like. **** that.
2) Spend (likely 10s of) billions to try to get back to 2013. And look how that turned out. And now it's full of Russians. **** that.
3) Have it still nominally be Ukrainian land but actually have a useful buffer in a part of the country.
If there's another option I'm missing I'm all ears.
"some lunatic with a little stockpile of javelins and the like"
This is happening because of a lunatic with a stockpile of Nuclear weapons
It would impoverish the Ukrainians more than the Russians by destroying their most productive land and resources and leaving them unusable/irretrievable. It makes no sense as a strategy and I doubt that anyone in the Ukrainian army or political sphere would consider the idea of endless bombings of Donbass as a long term strategy
Strong, they produce far times more than they consume. Take Lagos with 25m in that City alone, they rely on Wheat from Ukraine. Nigeria is not self-sufficient in almost all the crops and exports little food to earn foreign exchange.
Nigeria's population has doubled in 20 years, from 100m to 200m and continues to double. They need The Black Sea open for business as does many others.
If in 20 years the world is scrambling for food, who will suffer at the hands of the super powers, Africa. The world is becoming a scary place. Control on the population on the planet is vital to the survival of it.
Tbf once you've heard one nuclear threat you've heard them all.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e050b53be62f0ae2404c620976170938.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w2.vanillicon.com/v2/282101dc2976956f9dfc87f7a2ef2413.svg)
