Russia - threadbanned users in OP

Let's hope so. It's been a very difficult start to the year for Ukraine and at the very least this buys them time. Importantly it also buys the EU time to finally get its act together because the US might not deliver a package like this again.

And with every passing year scumbag Putin gets a bit older and more vulnerable and maybe more fractures will appear internally in Russia.

Still not worth the effort, if not even crazier. The reason those converted sports planes are getting through is because, apart from a few structural beams and the engine, there’s next to no metal involved in their construction and as a result, their radar cross section is pretty much as small as you can go. Also, they’re relatively quiet and the engine noise can easily be confused with a moped or something similar.

Compare that to an A-10, or indeed any combat aircraft approaching retirement in the west, which is an all-metal design and has a correspondingly massive radar cross section that will show up clearly on any air defence radar. Also, anyone who hears such a thing go by will know that that was a combat aircraft that just passed by. Besides, you’d be throwing away an aircraft that, despite its flaws and age, is still a highly capable combat platform in the right environment, with a ton of weapons hard points.

Would old MIGS not be scrapped for parts?

I say we just nuke Moscow from orbit...only way to be sure.

Get that reference and see what Russians are to humanity now

Any "peace treaty" not guaranteeing post war borders & Ukrainian territory by NATO forces won't be viable as Russia won't be stopped from tearing up such an agreement at a future date & invading the rest of Ukraine. The tankies & useful idiots, far right & hard left vermin won't want this as they demand total Ukrainian surrender as always, whilst "calling for peace", then demanding NATO be abolished.

Ukraine giving away the currently occupied lands to Russia means it would not be a viable state without proper defensive access to the Black Sea. Whilst parts of Donbas region could be handed over, both the south coast & Azov sea region & Crimea being also given to Russia would never happen unless Ukraine is totally conquered.

Maybe parts of Crimea & the Azov south coastal region could be a United Nations demilitarised zone, ensuring Ukrainian access to the inland sea coast after a peace treaty. That's all Russia will potentially get, Donbas & a bit more if Ukraine decides to do a deal IF NATO agrees to secure Ukraine's borders. To do so would require having defendable territories against a future Russian invasion.

I don't see any future peace treaty for another 2 or 3 years, even then there might be a ceasefire & no peace settlement, with Ukraine being in limbo, similar to the Korean peninsula. Until then the war will continue as both sides are essentially not beaten in a military capacity for a long time yet.

The EU & Western European governments now need to properly step up & ensure more substantial aid arrives in Ukraine by the end of the year. Everything Ukraine needs should be supplied unless Europe wants to deal with 10 million refugees displaced by a Russian victory, which would cost every European citizen much more in financial costs than giving Ukraine proper military & civil aid & assistance.

I totally agree (as a non US citizen) but I think it's important for people to understand that there is no magic money tree. Someone has to pay for all the aid given to other countries and that in the end is the tax payer and consumers. It's easy to say that the US, the EU or Ireland should give them everything they need but in the end someone has to pay and every penny paid is a penny that cannot be invested elsewhere.

With all that said, I fully back the EU, the US or any country supplying weapons to Ukraine. It has to be shown that the invasion of a country for expansion and/or a resource grab is not acceptable and will come at a heavy price to the attacker.

Just looking at the numbers for the USA economy at the same time is also relevant as the largest economy of one country in the world with a gross annual national product of over 25trillion dollars the new aid bill for Ukraine to assist it in its struggle against putin's terrorists amounts to less than a quarter of a percent of the GNP figure. The benefits to the US economy in sales of what it produces directly to Ukraine and also with a potential for an improved world economic outlook with a reduced threat from an expansionist military/terrorist nation then this investment could pay back financially to the USA multiple times over particularly if it helps bring peace back to eastern Europe where the USA has an interest in growing trade. It might be a marginal cost to tax payers in the USA this year that will very likely lead to economic growth that would lead to a lower tax burden on US tax payers in years to come.

So, for the umpteenth time, what does this "peace" look like, in your eyes?

Seems like Chasiv Yar is in trouble. There's been footage of russian SU34s flying overhead providing close air support with impunity.

Sooner the aid (assuming AA ammo included) arrives, the better.

I think we've got it at this stage. You're delighted Ukraine is getting weapons but you're inordinately concerned about the USA balancing its books in the long term.

Ok one last reply. I am concerned about the USA's long term economic health, yes. They are a global powerhouse and could plunge the world into a major recession were they to get into major financial difficulty. That would impact global security and more wars would result.

I presume you're all over the Donald Trump thread so, what with his unfunded tax cuts for billionaires?

Why would China want to destroy europe?

This really is a conversation for another thread (and another forum really) but large economies that have their own central banks are not pocket books. Everything doesn't need to add up and everything doesn't need to be paid back. All of that debt that the Americans have accumulated will never be paid back fully.

A certain type of politician (usually a Republican) brings it up as an excuse when something that they don't wish to fund gets proposed. When it comes to tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the wealthy (such as Trump's only major piece of legislation which cost $1.9 Trillion over 10 years) they suddenly aren't bothered about the national debt.