Arming Ukraine

Poland - 28x MiG-29
Bulgaria - 16x MiG-29, 14 SU-25
Slovakia - 12x MiG-29

We've got weapons coming in from all over—Australia, Canada, Finland, Sweden, even little old Luxembourg..
Ukrainian pilots are already in Poland

Visegrád 24
@visegrad24
BREAKING:

Ukrainian pilots have arrived in Poland to begin taking control of fighter jets donated by EU countries, a Ukrainian government official told POLITICO.

Poland will donate 28 MiG-29s.

NATO AWACS will also be flying over Poland, providing the necessary information.

https://twitter.com/visegrad24/statu...57396745846795

Visegrád 24
@visegrad24
The head of a foreign volunteer unit says that about 400 international volunteers have signed up since Sunday, including around 50 Americans and 70 Brits.

https://twitter.com/visegrad24/statu...63569708519431

John Perez13 said:

The Ukrainian side claims they reached an agreement allowing their pilots to use operational airfields in Poland. I don't know how smart that move is. Putin could easily launch a ballistic missile at those airfields and just say, "See? I told you so." Anyway, the Ukrainians are saying they've been handed 70 aircraft. Mostly MiG-29s, maybe 25 of them. Who knows what kind of condition they're actually in? Besides, what happened to the rest of the Ukrainian fleet? Sure, they lost some airfields, but the planes were tucked away in hangars or buried in hillsides. They didn't manage to wipe out 300 planes sitting on the ground.

And honestly, this is a high-stakes situation that could easily escalate the conflict; the trigger is essentially being set. It isn't a particularly clever move, considering that aircraft alone don't provide a decisive advantage in a modern war.

Based on what we know, Russia has already neutralized or destroyed much of the Ukrainian military airfield infrastructure and radar systems.That was the work of the Russian Kalibr—cruise missiles, for those who want to Google the Iskander series—which carry a circular error probable of about twenty meters. When you factor in that Russia possesses top-tier electronic warfare capabilities, the utility of those old MiG-29s becomes minimal or non-existent. You're left with whatever remains of Ukraine's radar surveillance, especially since Russian radar coverage extends across all of Ukraine and its surroundings. You can look at the precedent in Syria, or consider the operational range and radar footprint when these systems are integrated with S-300 or S-400 air defense missile systems.



A cruise missile is simply a tool used when you need to eliminate a specific target with precision.Planes are incredibly expensive, there is always the constant risk of a crash, and training pilots is an enormous investment. The Ukrainians lack the resources for modern warfare, specifically the highly sophisticated electronic equipment required for jamming everything in sight.

Now we just wait to see if Russia, as a form of retaliation (and most likely, the Kalibr is just waiting for the signal), decides to strike the Polish airfield where those planes originated before they even make it back to Ukraine. When you make moves this risky, you have to be prepared for the fallout.

I had assumed the Americans in Poland were a bit more prudent. Now we know; as I've noted before, war happens, and weapons get spent.🍿

Do you honestly think sitting on your couch behind a screen gives you more insight than military strategists, analysts, the armed forces, or NATO command? I'm convinced they already account for everything you’re typing, and then some. They’ve factored it in a thousand times over.

Ukraine Has Lots of MiG-29s, but IT Might not have Enough Pilots
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidax...enough-pilots/

Even before things kicked off, they were already running short on MiG-29 pilots. I guess it was always an issue.

Now you've got this legendary "spirit of Kyiv" thing going on, claiming 15 Russian planes shot down—which, if you do the math, is probably more than the total number of MiG-29s ever actually built. Maybe.

AndrewX, great article. Nice work.
Everything is much clearer now. Honestly, I agree with what the guy above said. Those 50-odd planes won't mean a thing without the necessary infrastructure; they’re basically just flying supply trucks. The Russians will pick them off the moment they cross the border from Poland. It would be just like when NATO flew jets out of Avian and the Russians shot down those Migs over Brooklyn.

The real question is why on earth is Poland pushing for this if even us laypeople on this forum can see the flaws? Maybe they want to bait Putin into striking Polish airfields, forcing NATO to jump straight into Ukraine so we all go down in flames together.

It feels like NATO and the EU are playing a dangerous game here, almost as if they’re trying to trigger World War III by pumping weapons into Ukraine, including fighter jets now.

Does anyone honestly believe Russia is just going to sit on its hands and watch this? They aren't going to ignore it; expect preemptive strikes on airfields, supply convoys, or even—most dangerously—NATO transport planes. If you were sitting in the Russian General Staff headquarters, how would you react to a massive buildup of weaponry for your rival while you're sitting there as a global nuclear superpower? We aren't talking about Mexico or some minor banana republic here; we're talking about the Russian Federation.

Why pour gasoline on an already raging fire and provoke Russia like this?

I don't recall seeing the Russians arming Afghanistan, Syrians, Libyans, or Mexicans on this kind of massive scale back when Western powers were running operations against them.

I was just reading this piece featuring Davor Stern, whom I consider an incredibly sharp and level-headed expert, and I find myself agreeing with his thesis. The hypocrisy coming out of Europe right now is beyond disgusting.

https://www.b92.net/info/vesti/index...nav_id=2114183

Former American Minister of Economy Davor Stern analyzed the fallout from the sanctions against Russia, as well as the standing ovation President Zelenskyy received at the European Parliament.

Speaking to CNN, he noted that the applause Zelenskyy received after addressing MEPs at the European Parliament's emergency session regarding the situation in Ukraine didn't convince him one bit that the European Union is actually unified on this issue.

“When the attack on us happened, nobody showed up. No one was applauding us; we were left entirely on our own. What bothers me even more—having served as minister and leading the country through accession talks—is that after Storm, we were hit with a seven-year embargo, yet now there is all this talk about fast-tracking Ukraine's entry. Look, I support Ukraine, but this double standard from the EU is frustrating. Believe me, when it comes to sanctions and everything else happening within the EU, every single member state is looking out for its own interests first," said Davor Stern.

The real question is how objective Stern actually is. He built much of his career working closely with Russia, so you have to wonder if emotion or vested interests are clouding his judgment.

In my opinion, Russia is displaying that classic "fallen empire" syndrome—the same psychological hang-up the British used to deal with. It’s like an aging athlete who refuses to admit they’ve been passed by the clock, even when everyone else can see it clearly.

Aside from its nuclear arsenal, Russia isn't a major global player anymore. They try to gain leverage by acting more aggressive and inflating their importance, much like a small, loud dog barking at a much larger one. But if the bigger player decides to call their bluff and push back, the little guy doesn't stand a chance.

A lot of modern Russian power is just pure bluffing and aggression used to mask economic and military weaknesses. Because of that, they can only win if the West stays divided or too afraid to take risks. That gives a dictator a natural edge over democracies. However, if those two factors disappear, Putin loses that advantage. Given how badly he’s losing the propaganda and diplomatic war right now, a Russian escalation conflict against the West would be suicidal.

I honestly think Putin played with fire for way too long, and now the whole thing is finally blowing up in his face.

bluemason3 said:The real question is how objective Stern actually is. He built much of his career working closely with Russia, so you have to wonder if emotion or vested interests are clouding his judgment.

In my opinion, Russia is displaying that classic "fallen empire" syndrome—the same psychological hang-up the British used to deal with. It’s like an aging athlete who refuses to admit they’ve been passed by the clock, even when everyone else can see it clearly.

Aside from its nuclear arsenal, Russia isn't a major global player anymore. They try to gain leverage by acting more aggressive and inflating their importance, much like a small, loud dog barking at a much larger one. But if the bigger player decides to call their bluff and push back, the little guy doesn't stand a chance.

A lot of modern Russian power is just pure bluffing and aggression used to mask economic and military weaknesses. Because of that, they can only win if the West stays divided or too afraid to take risks. That gives a dictator a natural edge over democracies. However, if those two factors disappear, Putin loses that advantage. Given how badly he’s losing the propaganda and diplomatic war right now, a Russian escalation conflict against the West would be suicidal.

I honestly think Putin played with fire for way too long, and now the whole thing is finally blowing up in his face.

But at the end of the day, they have the most powerful nuclear arsenal on the planet. The question remains: is it worth getting into a massive brawl over just one Ukraine?

Why doesn't the West respect their sphere of influence and maintain a peaceful status quo? I don't recall seeing Russians trying to install military bases or missiles in Mexico or anywhere else in the Americas since the Cuban Missile Crisis.

If they were making moves in South America, I’d understand why the West is reacting—that would be a direct counter. But this?

Why wasn't the agreement regarding NATO expansion into former Soviet republics respected? If the Baltic states joined as a final warning, why demand the whole hand when they already got a finger? Look, try putting yourself in the Russian position for a second instead of viewing everything through our narrow lens as Americans who think we’re globally significant when, realistically, we're just riding bicycles in circles.

I don't see Russia holding all the blame in this conflict.

Attacking someone based on physical traits like height is cheap... and that's being kind. What can you even say about an old, senile Biden who can't remember what he said yesterday, or that court jester Johnson...

In a nuclear war, there are no winners. So, phrases like "turning Russia into a wasteland" don't offer much comfort to me. 😁

If we're talking extremes, Russia actually has the advantage here... they have "only" 145 million people spread across 17.5 million square kilometers...

On the flip side, Europe is packed like sardines with over 550 million people. Just imagine what nuclear strikes from the sea, from under the sea, from silos, and from mobile launchers would do to a place that cramped.

It would be a total regression back to the Stone Age...

Personally, I don't think Ukraine is worth this. Let international agreements ensure the country remains neutral—meaning no joining any alliances, no militarization, and then establishing mutual economic cooperation with everyone.

Something like Finland—but without a massive standing army.

What would anyone lose there? Everyone wins. And before 2014, that was exactly how it worked.

The reason nobody attacks them directly is because they have nukes. But let’s be clear: nuclear weapons are a tool for deterrence through mutually assured destruction, not a way to project power when you're fighting a war outside your own borders.

If someone starts threatening the first aggressive use of a nuke, they’re opening a Pandora's box. The other side isn't just going to back down easily.

There are a lot of variables at play here.

When we talk about spheres of influence, we're talking about strength—something that looks pretty questionable regarding Russia, especially on the economic front. Honestly, the US having significant influence in our backyard near Italy is probably a good thing for us. 😁

All this talk about NATO promises is just naive propaganda. It's completely irrelevant whether some American politician from three generations ago made a vague promise to someone, somewhere. It doesn't matter.

Whether you call it hypocrisy or not, the difference between what's happening in the Middle East and what's happening here is that this is in our own neighborhood. Europe sees a direct threat to its stability, and there's a long history of aggressive Russian politics involved. Even the USA isn't the deciding factor here. What really changed compared to previous Russian military moves is how unexpectedly unified Europe became. They're facing a serious threat on their own soil, and I doubt Putin helped by making those imperialist, Soviet-nostalgic comments. The USA isn't doing anything fundamentally different than before; it was Europe that stepped up, which in turn allowed the USA to push for stronger sanctions.

The USA hasn't fought wars on its own borders in a long time. Certainly not in Canada, and definitely not in Mexico in modern times, even if there have been some low-key activities there.
The US prefers using the carrot, while Russia prefers the stick. You can't really be surprised that nobody wants to be in that dictator's "sphere of influence."

As for neutrality and NATO, that's just propaganda fodder, not Russia's only motivation.
The gas fields around Crimea, which could allow Ukraine to break the Russian monopoly on the European market, are a much bigger issue than NATO—especially since Russia destabilized the region in 2014, making NATO entry impossible anyway.

That whole mantra about the Finnish model exists because it sounds better for propaganda to say "we're afraid of NATO" rather than admitting "we want to strip someone of their resources and, ideally, their independence, sovereignty, and even their identity." A neutral Ukraine just isn't possible; Russia won't let them dictate a policy that could wreck its own economic and strategic interests. Ukraine will either be occupied, partially occupied, a pseudo-independent satellite, or militarily strong enough to compete with Russia—which is easiest to achieve through NATO.

The problem for Ukraine is that it might be too late now to get Crimea back, but they should have raced to join NATO, just like the smart folks in the Baltic states did as soon as they gained independence.
There's simply no other way to protect their interests.

And as for the current situation? I have no clue. I'm stuck in the middle.

Word on the street is the Ukrainians might have actually managed to capture an M270 MLRS unit.
I’m dropping this here in the arms and equipment thread because, honestly, seeing how much gear the Russian military is now funneling into Ukraine is getting pretty wild.

Oryx@oryxspioenkop The Ukrainian Army just captured a Russian M270 MLRS. 💥

https://twitter.com/oryxspioenkop/st...97710429425672

Sorin1 said:Our opponents were just as much cowards as we were—Mexicans.
If you had Russians on the other side, that’s a whole different ballgame. Just so we're clear, the West isn't obsessed with Mexico—that's just us being obsessed with them. They're actually fixated on Russia. ☕

So, what's the deal with the Russians?

So you're saying they're on the same level as the USA and China? Yeah, right. I mean, I haven't exactly seen that happen in real life.

Without nukes, they’re basically on par with Turkey, and honestly, that might even be giving them too much credit.

Carl Lee27 said:Word on the street is the Ukrainians might have actually managed to capture an M270 MLRS unit.
I’m dropping this here in the arms and equipment thread because, honestly, seeing how much gear the Russian military is now funneling into Ukraine is getting pretty wild.

Oryx@oryxspioenkop The Ukrainian Army just captured a Russian M270 MLRS. 💥

https://twitter.com/oryxspioenkop/st...97710429425672

It’s a cool clip, but it’s small potatoes. If this turns into a long-term conflict, everything hinges on how well the West can maintain the supply chain. If the Russians cut them off, the Ukrainians will run dry fast. If they don't, the opposite might happen eventually, just over a longer timeline. 🤷

bluemason3 said:The reason nobody attacks them directly is because they have nukes. But let’s be clear: nuclear weapons are a tool for deterrence through mutually assured destruction, not a way to project power when you're fighting a war outside your own borders.

If someone starts threatening the first aggressive use of a nuke, they’re opening a Pandora's box. The other side isn't just going to back down easily.

There are a lot of variables at play here.

When we talk about spheres of influence, we're talking about strength—something that looks pretty questionable regarding Russia, especially on the economic front. Honestly, the US having significant influence in our backyard near Italy is probably a good thing for us. 😁

All this talk about NATO promises is just naive propaganda. It's completely irrelevant whether some American politician from three generations ago made a vague promise to someone, somewhere. It doesn't matter.

Whether you call it hypocrisy or not, the difference between what's happening in the Middle East and what's happening here is that this is in our own neighborhood. Europe sees a direct threat to its stability, and there's a long history of aggressive Russian politics involved. Even the USA isn't the deciding factor here. What really changed compared to previous Russian military moves is how unexpectedly unified Europe became. They're facing a serious threat on their own soil, and I doubt Putin helped by making those imperialist, Soviet-nostalgic comments. The USA isn't doing anything fundamentally different than before; it was Europe that stepped up, which in turn allowed the USA to push for stronger sanctions.

The USA hasn't fought wars on its own borders in a long time. Certainly not in Canada, and definitely not in Mexico in modern times, even if there have been some low-key activities there.
The US prefers using the carrot, while Russia prefers the stick. You can't really be surprised that nobody wants to be in that dictator's "sphere of influence."

As for neutrality and NATO, that's just propaganda fodder, not Russia's only motivation.
The gas fields around Crimea, which could allow Ukraine to break the Russian monopoly on the European market, are a much bigger issue than NATO—especially since Russia destabilized the region in 2014, making NATO entry impossible anyway.

That whole mantra about the Finnish model exists because it sounds better for propaganda to say "we're afraid of NATO" rather than admitting "we want to strip someone of their resources and, ideally, their independence, sovereignty, and even their identity." A neutral Ukraine just isn't possible; Russia won't let them dictate a policy that could wreck its own economic and strategic interests. Ukraine will either be occupied, partially occupied, a pseudo-independent satellite, or militarily strong enough to compete with Russia—which is easiest to achieve through NATO.

The problem for Ukraine is that it might be too late now to get Crimea back, but they should have raced to join NATO, just like the smart folks in the Baltic states did as soon as they gained independence.
There's simply no other way to protect their interests.

And as for the current situation? I have no clue. I'm stuck in the middle.

What are they going to get back? Something that wasn't even theirs to begin with—Khrushchev gave them Crimea by decree back in '54 just to make administration easier. And they were gifted New Russia by Lenin exactly 100 years ago. Then Maidan happened just 8 years ago. You see, the Kremlin loves symbolism.
Ukrainians have known since 2014 that Crimea is gone for good—they should probably thank Victoria Nuland for that.
Those gas fields near Crimea? I doubt they could ever replace Russian reserves. Gas is just one small link in the whole UK/US vs. Russia conflict. In this scenario, the EU is basically like Paraguay, Botswana, or Laos. ☕
Arming Ukraine? I mean, all those anti-aircraft systems might not even matter if Russia manages to trap them in pockets before they even arrive. I guess you have to wonder how they'll actually get the gear delivered. And honestly, I don't really get why these European countries were so quiet when there was still a chance to prevent this whole mess. It’s like they were just sleeping through everything and suddenly woke up once the Russian invasion actually started.
Then again, people are probably going to blame Moscow for what comes next, because this isn't going to go on forever.

bluemason3 said:It’s a cool clip, but it’s small potatoes. If this turns into a long-term conflict, everything hinges on how well the West can maintain the supply chain. If the Russians cut them off, the Ukrainians will run dry fast. If they don't, the opposite might happen eventually, just over a longer timeline. 🤷

Everyone knows the Ukrainians aren't going to get what they need—the West is just doing this to mess with Moscow, and honestly, Ukraine is probably heading toward total destruction. I guess you have to wonder who's actually pulling the strings here. Good for them, I suppose.

Carl Lee27 said:Word on the street is the Ukrainians might have actually managed to capture an M270 MLRS unit.
I’m dropping this here in the arms and equipment thread because, honestly, seeing how much gear the Russian military is now funneling into Ukraine is getting pretty wild.

Oryx@oryxspioenkop The Ukrainian Army just captured a Russian M270 MLRS. 💥

https://twitter.com/oryxspioenkop/st...97710429425672

And what good does that actually do, once you've emptied the launcher?The Ukrainians didn't buy any TOS-1 rockets, which means they have absolutely nothing left to reload that launcher with. A launcher is secondary; it's just a delivery platform. Without the actual TOS-1 rockets, which the Ukrainians don't have in their inventory, you're missing the most vital piece of hardware and technology in the entire equation.☕

Richard Cooper3 said:What are they going to get back? Something that wasn't even theirs to begin with—Khrushchev gave them Crimea by decree back in '54 just to make administration easier. And they were gifted New Russia by Lenin exactly 100 years ago. Then Maidan happened just 8 years ago. You see, the Kremlin loves symbolism.
Ukrainians have known since 2014 that Crimea is gone for good—they should probably thank Victoria Nuland for that.
Those gas fields near Crimea? I doubt they could ever replace Russian reserves. Gas is just one small link in the whole UK/US vs. Russia conflict. In this scenario, the EU is basically like Paraguay, Botswana, or Laos. ☕
Arming Ukraine? I mean, all those anti-aircraft systems might not even matter if Russia manages to trap them in pockets before they even arrive. I guess you have to wonder how they'll actually get the gear delivered. And honestly, I don't really get why these European countries were so quiet when there was still a chance to prevent this whole mess. It’s like they were just sleeping through everything and suddenly woke up once the Russian invasion actually started.
Then again, people are probably going to blame Moscow for what comes next, because this isn't going to go on forever.

Great.

So when are the Russians giving back f***ed Königsberg?

I find myself constantly wondering why ANYONE finds it acceptable for the "West" and the "East" to sit around negotiating what happens to a country like Ukraine—which alliances they join, which nations they partner with, and how their foreign policy is shaped.

Watching this top-down perspective, where these "middle" countries are treated as if they don't actually matter, as if their own desire to participate in certain groups isn't even relevant... honestly, it’s exhausting to witness.

We hear terms like "Russian sphere of influence" or "American sphere of influence." To be blunt, I can't stand either side. If you want a specific country to be on your side, then help them. Offer a hand. Build genuine, good neighborly relations. Don't try to micromanage them and their people. It turns my stomach, both the powers involved and those who think labeling something an "interest zone" justifies these actions—just as "developing nuclear weapons" didn't justify the USA being in Iraq.

Frankly, who gives a damn if it's considered part of a "Russian sphere of influence"? If the people there want to join NATO, let them join NATO. If they want to align with Russia, let them align with Russia. If they want to buddy up with the Eskimos, let them. It shouldn't be anyone's business—not the USA, not Russia, not Europe, not China, or anyone else for that matter.

Think about it this way: how would YOU feel if your next-door neighbor told you, "I'm going to kill you if you so much as say hello to the guy across the hall."

bluemason3 said:The reason nobody attacks them directly is because they have nukes. But let’s be clear: nuclear weapons are a tool for deterrence through mutually assured destruction, not a way to project power when you're fighting a war outside your own borders.

If someone starts threatening the first aggressive use of a nuke, they’re opening a Pandora's box. The other side isn't just going to back down easily.

There are a lot of variables at play here.

When we talk about spheres of influence, we're talking about strength—something that looks pretty questionable regarding Russia, especially on the economic front. Honestly, the US having significant influence in our backyard near Italy is probably a good thing for us. 😁

All this talk about NATO promises is just naive propaganda. It's completely irrelevant whether some American politician from three generations ago made a vague promise to someone, somewhere. It doesn't matter.

Whether you call it hypocrisy or not, the difference between what's happening in the Middle East and what's happening here is that this is in our own neighborhood. Europe sees a direct threat to its stability, and there's a long history of aggressive Russian politics involved. Even the USA isn't the deciding factor here. What really changed compared to previous Russian military moves is how unexpectedly unified Europe became. They're facing a serious threat on their own soil, and I doubt Putin helped by making those imperialist, Soviet-nostalgic comments. The USA isn't doing anything fundamentally different than before; it was Europe that stepped up, which in turn allowed the USA to push for stronger sanctions.

The USA hasn't fought wars on its own borders in a long time. Certainly not in Canada, and definitely not in Mexico in modern times, even if there have been some low-key activities there.
The US prefers using the carrot, while Russia prefers the stick. You can't really be surprised that nobody wants to be in that dictator's "sphere of influence."

As for neutrality and NATO, that's just propaganda fodder, not Russia's only motivation.
The gas fields around Crimea, which could allow Ukraine to break the Russian monopoly on the European market, are a much bigger issue than NATO—especially since Russia destabilized the region in 2014, making NATO entry impossible anyway.

That whole mantra about the Finnish model exists because it sounds better for propaganda to say "we're afraid of NATO" rather than admitting "we want to strip someone of their resources and, ideally, their independence, sovereignty, and even their identity." A neutral Ukraine just isn't possible; Russia won't let them dictate a policy that could wreck its own economic and strategic interests. Ukraine will either be occupied, partially occupied, a pseudo-independent satellite, or militarily strong enough to compete with Russia—which is easiest to achieve through NATO.

The problem for Ukraine is that it might be too late now to get Crimea back, but they should have raced to join NATO, just like the smart folks in the Baltic states did as soon as they gained independence.
There's simply no other way to protect their interests.

And as for the current situation? I have no clue. I'm stuck in the middle.

Just quoting to bump the thread. 👍

Richard Wilson4 said:Great.

So when are the Russians giving back f***ed Königsberg?

F*** Königsberg. I guess there’s no surrender until Russian America is finally back under the wing of the motherland!!!1!!
🙂

Richard Cooper3 said:What are they going to get back? Something that wasn't even theirs to begin with—Khrushchev gave them Crimea by decree back in '54 just to make administration easier. And they were gifted New Russia by Lenin exactly 100 years ago. Then Maidan happened just 8 years ago. You see, the Kremlin loves symbolism.
Ukrainians have known since 2014 that Crimea is gone for good—they should probably thank Victoria Nuland for that.
Those gas fields near Crimea? I doubt they could ever replace Russian reserves. Gas is just one small link in the whole UK/US vs. Russia conflict. In this scenario, the EU is basically like Paraguay, Botswana, or Laos. ☕
Arming Ukraine? I mean, all those anti-aircraft systems might not even matter if Russia manages to trap them in pockets before they even arrive. I guess you have to wonder how they'll actually get the gear delivered. And honestly, I don't really get why these European countries were so quiet when there was still a chance to prevent this whole mess. It’s like they were just sleeping through everything and suddenly woke up once the Russian invasion actually started.
Then again, people are probably going to blame Moscow for what comes next, because this isn't going to go on forever.

I?
Borders have always been fluid. Depending on which era you decide to focus on, you could frame Russia as either a tiny, insignificant state or a massive empire spanning half a continent. Honestly, that logic applies to pretty much any country out there.

The whole concept of "historical rights" is legally hollow. It doesn't serve as a foundation for anything, let alone the bedrock of the international order, which relies on the inviolability of borders in their current state. If anyone should be held accountable for shaking that up, it’s the U.S.—they were the first to really challenge that status quo with Mexico, creating a pretty awkward precedent for everyone else.

Look, regardless of how people try to spin it or who they blame, Ukraine's borders were internationally recognized by the UN. That includes recognition from Russia, if I recall correctly.

At that point, any loss of her territory isn't about justice—it's just an act of aggression. And unlike what happened in Mexico, the international community hasn't really bought into it.

----------

It’s nowhere near the scale of the Russian reserves, but by European standards, it’s massive. This could potentially fuel Europe for several decades—just enough to bridge the gap while we transition toward renewables.

On the other hand, the European Union gas market is a massive deal for Vladimir Putin—not just for the cash flow, but because it gives him serious leverage to squeeze them.

-----------------------

The Afghans really gave Americans a run for their money using nothing but AKs, homemade explosives, and whatever small arms they could get their hands on.

The Ukrainians will likely end up better armed, and they have the numbers on their side. Meanwhile, Russia simply doesn't have the economic staying power to fund an endless war against the United States. It’s worth remembering that even when they were at the height of their global power, they still got pushed out by the Afghans. That drain was a major factor in the collapse of the Soviet Union, much like how Russia today lacks the resources for a prolonged conflict. A bottomless money pit like this, paired with heavy sanctions, could easily become the catalyst for the current Russian government's downfall.

Compared to Afghanistan, Ukraine has a lot more uneven terrain to work with. If Russia tries to take the whole country, they’re going to be getting hit by guerrilla tactics indefinitely from the western regions—areas that aren't just flat plains, but are also much more nationalistic. On the other hand, if Russia decides to call it quits and just focuses on holding onto the coast, Crimea, and specific provinces to destabilize whatever's left, who knows where that leads. If Ukrainians stay motivated and the West keeps the supplies flowing, they might still be able to bleed Russia dry. Then again, Russia could always force them into a ceasefire within those established borders.
We'll see.

--------------

If we don't get those sanctions tightened up, Russia is going to turn into North Korea within a few years. They’ll just be some economically irrelevant nuisance sitting on a pile of nukes. All the major trade and logistics flows will eventually just reroute around them anyway, making it completely pointless to bother picking a fight.

This whole "problem" is built on that tired, self-serving myth about how much influence Russia actually wields—it’s a lot higher than their actual capacity suggests. If Russia were truly that significant, they wouldn't be sitting under all these sanctions right now; we simply wouldn't allow it. It's the same logic as the US: we aren't going to let anyone slap sanctions on the United States, no matter what they try to pull.