I think we are saying the same thing here. No one has sent the MiGs because of the concerns over Russian escalations, even though they may have wanted to send them. What was interesting was how the US supported Poland sending the jets by themselves, but not through an American military base.
Ukrainian here, few days after announcement about jets was made I was on my grandmother's farm which located 10 km from polish border and I heard a lot of aircrafts which were flying really low but weather was very cloudy so I didn't see anything maybe it is just coincidence but still kinda suspicious. Also Ukraine inherited around 650 4th generation fighter jets/ attack aircrafts from Soviet union some of them were sold some of them recycled but many were in unworking condition. So I believe that many of those aircrafts were brought to life because I spotted a lot of mig 29 which were taking off from Lviv international airport on which territory located Lviv Aircraft Repair Plant pretty often since December 2021.
And there is a difference in weapons systems. It is pointless to give them fighter jets that don't have the ability use NATO standardized ordnance or fighter jets that use ordnance faster than the logistics can supply from the initial zero inventory. The reasons not to supply NATO fighter jets are plentiful.
5:55 Ah I see, they should give the jets to Switzerland. We have experience in partially dismantling things so we can sell them without violating some law. We will just remove the wings or whatever, ship the parts independently to Ukraine and then claim we never sent them fighter jets, we only send them streamlined cars and wings.
The hot potato argument reminded me of Ukraine asking for Australian Bushmaster armored personnel vehicles. At the time there was a reluctance to give Ukraine heavy vehicles so when the request was made on live tv of the Australian parliament it was guaranteed to get noticed. The Australian military immediately thought tanks would be better but our Abrams tanks were due for retirement so the suggestion was made that we give them to Poland as training vehicles and they give some Russian tanks to Ukraine. But the real purpose of the request was to motivate the US to supply heavy weapons as the threat of coming second to Australia in the supply of armored vehicles was some thing they didn't want to deal with. So a few days after the request Australia has processes in place to ship APV's to Ukraine but no one cares because we came second to the billions in weapons sent from the US
No more billions to Ukraine while here in the U.S. we can’t afford gas or food. Also our corrupt government has given all of our baby formula to illegal aliens and Ukrainians for free. It’s disgusting.
There are a lot of limiting factors involved. The USA would give more, but the USA needs to get approval from the EU and Poland or Romania. The USA does not have any territory bordering Ukraine. Also, if it were not for the Black Sea being locked in by Turkey, then the US Navy could do a lot more. I would really like to see the Russians try to blockade the US Navy from any other area, except the Black Sea.
To add, other than Soviet era and post Soviet era weapons used by Ukraine against Russia, the fuel used by Ukraine and other NATO nations most likely came from Russia itself. You can argue that Russia is playing both sides of the conflict.
Ukraine has its own oil and natural gas production and stockpile. Ukraine can sustain its own military off of its production alone, but they have cut all non essential civilian travel specifically to restrict usage. and Ukraine has roads and pipelines to the Balkans and western Europe, so its just as easy to import oil from other countries.
That's more in interests of Russia than it is in interests of europe. Sure without gas and oil it'll be tough for europe, but those gas and oil are the only things somehow holding russian economy from complete collapse
@@colRobinOlds this also means more economic alliances will form between russia and asia. Now if you can imagine numbers like 40% of natural gas germany has comes from russia , 80% of greece's also from russia. Like i think a rough estimate of 45%ish of EU's gas deposits come from imports. But we dont understand that it will hurt us a ton if we instead buy from the US , with all the transportation costs bein higher ...
@@theduke7539 dude europe is the biggest importer of russian oil so even if ukraine buys oil from europe it is still russian oil. That is one of the reason why europe is not sending aircrafts because if russia stop sending oil to europe, the europian will freeze to death in winters and also everything in europe will become more expensive cause even the factories and industries in europe uses russian oil.
Doesn't matter if the US sends a 100 F-35's there, because they damn as shit aren't sending the pilots with them. And Ukraine doesn't have any pilots to fly good fighters like Hornets, F-35's, F-22's, Typhoons, Rafales, Gripens etc. So it doesnt matter if they get NATO fighters, they have no pilots for them.
How about 3000 region locked Nuclear armed Nike missile for defense (with an exception) and around 300 million Big Mac of illegals for lend lease (service guaranteed citizenship per head of family with 40 hectare of land in Siberia and a Toyota Hilux with couple of Javelin?
The "upgrades" to the Polish Fulcrums don't consist of sensitive avionics. You're thinking of the Slovak MiGs that were upgraded with Israeli kit. The Polish airframes really only received IFF comms, which would not be utilized in Ukraine in the first place, and TACAN, which is not sensitive whatsoever.
the only thing Poland will do with its MiGs is that it will protect Slovak airspace because Slovakia sent all its MiGs to Ukraine in exchange for F-16s and Gripen
As a bartender I've learned one thing. If a fight starts, try to calm it down and break it up.... Unless it's two Russians. In that case, try to get them outside to settle it, if you get in the middle of it, you'll only get fucked up as both sides will eventually swing at you for "trying to help the other"
“And remember, president putin had previously threatened to use the N-word!” Dude I had a panic attack when you said this, I dropped my phone trembling and started choking on my tears 😭
Undoubtedly, the threat of nukes is keeping the supply engagements to defensive weapon supplies. Jets would not make a difference without large numbers and proper tactical implementation. Russia, unfortunately, has SAMs that can reach from their territory to Ukraine. It’s already been difficult for Ukraine to take on many missions. Added jets may not even be able to fly due to SAM coverage. Per dollar, there’s more difference that can be made with drones and man-portable asymmetric warfare equipment. The time to bring them operational is effectively zero, which is huge operationally. Regarding country statements, NATO and the EU simply need to cooperate better and get their stories down. They have been consistent with their behaviors far more than the occasional statements that have been cherry-picked. What they are spending money on shows their involvement, not their statements. Lastly, any arms sales decision has to make its way through significant bureaucracy, for a good reason. These checks and balances ensure that decisions aren’t as swift as what someone says randomly. The final outcomes will be in line with considered decisions, and statements will only give clues to leanings, as opposed to actual policies.
russian sam is terrible tho. Their rocket systems are terrible in general, most of the time their rocket is worth more than the equipment it destroys lol.
@@justaguy363 he cant, he's not correct. The s300's are one of the best anti aircraft systems in the world, and the russians have even better ones. They might be expensive, i cant say, but they're certainly effective
@@seancostello4158 indeed. Russian anti air systems are actually decent. A robust anti-air capability has long been part of soviet and Russian doctrine to counter Nato air-power. Though this does have to assume the systems are properly maintained and operated by competent crews. While on the whole the Russian military is pretty poorly trained, the Russian troops operating their newer systems are generally at least somewhat competent. But against kinda outdated fighters like mig-29s, even with less than ideal maintenance and a pretty poorly trained crew, they can still pose some level of danger. At the same time even old fighters like mig-29s are still expensive compared to other weapons. Operating them is also difficult since there needs to be infrastructure in place to rearm, refuel, and maintain the planes as well as runways. Basically fighters are not a cost effective weapon to send Ukraine and their is pretty high risk of losing the jets to anti-air systems.
Yep most people think that just because you give a Fighter Pilot a plane they can fly and use it as a weapon with only a few hours training. Even if that was true they need several hours of maintenance after each flight or two. The black boxes need Avionics Test Sets to diagnose them and highly trained technicians to use those Test Sets to fix those black boxes. Even with that you need special power requirements, specialized spare parts, not to mention the Engines, Hydraulic and Airframe Test Fixtures and parts. All this takes years to set up, build and train technicians to do this highly specialized work. So just giving Ukraine F-16's, F-15's or A-10's or any airplane except what they're already set up to fly and maintain wouldn't have any effect for at least two years. The best play is to give them systems they're already used to and ones easy to train on. You're video was spot on. Best Wishes & Blessings. Keith Noneya Former US Navy Avionics Depot Repair Technician & AT1 USN/USNR-TAR Retired.
@@willek1335 I agree 100% with you, and I don't think it will end in the next two years. Only that right now we need to arm Ukraine with weapons they can use right now, and NATO allies need to start some training programs now to get the ball rolling for the future. Best Wishes & Blessings. Keith Noneya
Poland offered to send their 28 jets via the US. The US actually considered it, but eventually decided not to. This is less clear-cut than it looks in hindsight.
@@RobBCactive US put Poland under pressure with their "green light" and it was made public without even basic consultation with polish autorities, but when we want to comply and give 1/3 of our fleet but share responsibility they deem whole thing too dangerous for US. Soo its seems they wanted us to risk everything, and have no reel reasurences we get any help in case russia get involved.
To answer the last question: yes. But similarly, in that hypothetical scenario, Russia probably wouldn't have invaded. Or they would have had more capable conventional forces with which to invade. I think military posturing, including nuclear deterrence, is all a game of poker. You want to make the other side believe you will go through with an attack if they don't back down. The best way of doing that may be to be prepared to actually going through with it. But what matters is if that other side believes that you will. Are you bluffing, or do you hold the cards?
Comment sounds funny, because I copied it to large parts from an old comment to not have to rewrite everything. Will not happen, unless Putin would be completely careless about his people and he takes the destruction of Russia in purchase. With the supplies we are it completely in international law, would even have the possibility to send troops. Should Ukraine allow/ask for it, of course won't happen, but to clarify the framework. Conventionally Russia would have no chance against NATO, not militarily, not economically and not via cultural soft power. Remains the nuclear option, the fear of which is just gladly exploited by the Putin fanboys to create more panic, so that they get their way for Russia and deliveries are stopped. If Putin is not a complete madman, this option is not possible. Never heard of the MAD doctrine? Some escalation levels are missing and there were clearly more critical moments in the past, in Korea Soviets and U.S. jets shot each other down, in Vietnam there were 10 thousands of Soviet "observers". Russia's territoriality is not threatened. Putin does not have sole control of nuclear weapons, at least 6-7 other people, from 3 pillars/parts of Russia must pass on their part of the code, including the Defense Minister. Clearly these are most likely Putin loyalists, but the will also think about committing virtual suicide and giving up everything for Ukraine. Also, NATO and Russia have said a few weeks before the war to nuclear conflicts that the use of these should not be an option for any state. That would not make sense and would be a paradox: Russia sacrifices itself to get their goals in Ukraine, but when they use nuclear weapons, they have nothing more of their successes.
I have already written a longer text about the atomic bomb, I can only repeat myself: The threat of the atomic bomb is part of the Russian game. You can only understand that if you come from that culture. Russia does not respect the West, there are jokes in talk shows about sending a bomb to Washington and one to London afterwards. Russia is deliberately using that to intimidate because they know that the diplomatic West will shit their pants if even the word "nuclear" is mentioned. I can give you a few reasons why neither the Russians, nor the Ukrainians believe that Putin will detonate the nuclear bomb. Someone who is so worried about his life will not risk being blown up. It's psychological. Apart from that, he has children. 2. the ignition is not like in a cartoon. The whole thing goes through several areas of responsibility minimum 7 people are involved and Putin does not have it in his hands alone. And there will always be a reasonable one in such a long chain. Believe that. 3. he sells the whole thing as a "liberation mission" to free Ukraine and annex it to Russia through a pro-Russian anti-Western government. He could never sell a nuclear strike to his own people. No one in Ukraine is toying with this idea and certainly not in Russia. It is only the West that rotates. One simply has to understand that the strongest weapon of Russian propaganda is not the atomic bomb, but the game in the head with our fear of the atomic bomb which consequently makes us stop thinking strategically.
Somehow youtube does not allow me to link an article from the "Russian International Affairs Council". My comment is always deleted, but I can recommend the articles on some topics, there are also Russian ambassadors etc. co-write the articles, give interviews also not directly on state line, but unusually neutral, if you read between the lines.
That's why we are taking small steps over the red line. Not enough to rock the house but small enough to challenge it, then another one, and another one. By the time we are way past the red line, it's too late for Russia to react to it.
@@vyros.3234 I think he's talking about the Migs. Like how the US and Canada went around a rule in WW2 leading to creation of airports smack in the border between the US and Canada. It's funny and ingenious. Putin won't appreciate the humor though.
@@acctsys Yeah but I think he means to 'steal' one of those aircraft requires training. The very act of getting it ready to fly, taking off, making it to where you're going and landing safely is a fair amount of knowledge and training, even for a pilot and ground crew experienced in another similar aircraft.
@@Mal101M Ah yes, the only Air defense system we have is destroyed, I love my country... But fr though, we know nothing and we even wanted to send MIGs to Ukraine, the only fighter jets we have, so because of our "generosity" we'll give our whole army to Ukraine
keep in mind, back in ww2. after the santa cruz debacle both sides never never engaged again for almost two years and when they met, the pilot experience showed in the battle of the philippine sea. Now planes are even more difficult and expensive than before so it would take months and years to train.
That Windows 11 joke got me. I installed W11 on launch day, then back in February it stopped working. No explorer, no search, no start nothing. Had to "downgrade" back to W10, and my computer has been working flawlessly ever since. Great video by the way.
@@Craigx71 I've actually been considering that. I used to run dual boot Linux/Windows about 10 years ago, but moved solely to Windows because of compatibility issues. I know that today most of those issues aren't here any more, but I think I've been holding off purely from habit. Thanks for the reminder to stop procrastinating, and to look into this again haha.
I don't know when you made this video but back in April US officials confirmed that several nations had sent planes and parts to Ukraine, so your title was false before it was even uploaded. Congress recently passed a bill to start training Ukrainian pilots how to fly American fighter jets officially. And recently Ukraine has received other aircraft from neighbors as well, like North Macedonia.
Firstly, the US did - from what I see and I explain below - send Ukraine MiG-29's that we bought from Romania after the collapse of the USSR. We bought them after finding out that Iranians were looking at buying them. Pentagon spokesman Kirby did say we sent 'airframes' and 'parts' and then wouldn't elaborate further. The press started asking about the airframes part the next day and he responded this time just saying Ukraine has received many parts for the MiG-29's. And like magic, 25 MiG-29's appeared in Ukraine. Poland was not backfilled with F-16s, which the US was willing to send to them as brand new units that were supposed to be going to Taiwan, which only leaves the US as the potential supplier. Second, the US base is in Germany, not the United States. It's much harder for us to make a call that could impact Germany than if it were on our own soil. Third, that S-300 system Russia found Ukraine had been using after they destroyed it was very likely also American, as we had sent the units we bought in the 90's to study (though I forget where we got them from exactly at the moment) to Ukraine.
The foreign S-300s were from Slovakia. The U.S. backfilled Slovakia with Patriots. The S-300s that the U.S. acquired came from Belarus in the 1990s. Rumor has it they're also on their way.
The thing is, we (Poland) already made a deal to purchase a fleet of 32 F-35s from the US, back in early 2020 and paid at least some of the agreed upon 4.6 billion $. The jets were supposed to be arriving gragually between 2024 and 2026. So we do not give a damn about not switching our MiGs for "brand new" crap US doesn't want or need. Give us the good shit we paid for.
Great question at the end, using hindsight and seeing how hard Ukraine have hit ruzzia Its pretty clear a head to head with a full NATO response would wipe the floor with ruzzian armour, aircraft is still a bit unclear but I think the Patroit SAM would give good results.
I am from Slovakia and I do not know that we have 12 Migs. Maybe 2 od them can fly. We can help only with spare parts. Ukranians do not need jets, their tractor drivers are biggest Putins problem.
Maybe I am mistaken but I think Slovak Migs were upgraded with Israeli kit, If it's true then no way the Israelis will allow you to donate such stuff and especially not to an open conflict where such technology can be stolen.
The video is misleading, poland did WANT to send Su-29s to ukraine. It was actually NATO opposing this decision and US refusing to participate in the transfer process. The statement at the beginning is simply false. At the time of writing of this comment, Slovakia is sending their fighter jets to ukraine, for which Polish air forces will protect their sky untill the end of 2022. Now, what is the true reason that the initial transfer of Polish jets was not succesfull, we don't know. THe main speculations are that Polish aircraft are constantly modernized and NATO was afraid that the avionics and systems would fall into russian hands.
Although, I’m unsure of the scale of the new Lend Lease that the US has made. I have heard that the US is willing to trade legacy tanks to EX Warsaw Pact so a country like Poland can transfer their soviet tanks to Ukraine. Maybe this can apply to Fighter Jets, of course under the table.
@@Butter_Warrior99 there won't be much of a difference between what happened to Russian t72 and what's going to happen with polish super old t72s Already there's a news that out of 200 20-30 are already destroyed while bringing them by rails due to missile strikes
@@Butter_Warrior99 Yea , but somewhere i think this is more like providing fuel to ongoing fire Russia has large no. Of troops/weapons/etcetc They won't stop ,and if Ukraine too dosent stops then casualties will cross limits Surrendering is more of a logical and practical way rather than going inn for a stupid war where you know casualties will be done on both sides in masses And not to mention that if Putin feels like he is loosing, things are going out of hand which we don't seriously know what's going on , he won't take long to use the N thing. And to escalate things even more, Finnish and Sweedish are adding candles on the poisonous cake.
@@isserdigan2835 it was a transfer from poland to us then Ukraine when there were talks about humanitarian corifors still in discusion bethen ukrain and russia. You can search it on any search engine. RUclips doesn't let me post links in coments for a long time so i can't bring sources
Cool - if true, that's grat news. But it may very well be intended as mere spare parts - surely war would increase the wear and tear on the aircraft, such that a bunch of replacement parts for quick recovery would be essential for continued use. Could also be in part as to why Russia is reluctant to commit sorties - its stockpile of spare parts may soon run out, who knows?
@@roadent217 21 were purchased in the late 90s from Moldova to keep out the hands of Iran. The "official statement" from the US is 2 were used as RED air by the Air Force...From what I understand all 21 went to Ukraine and all of them were operational aircraft.
It's not just that, if they have any good planes that risks getting captured and now Russia knows the technology it's the same reason why you are supposed to destroy a tank after it's taken out of commission so the technology can't be stolen
Sending fighters into Ukraine would set off every radar system that Russia has. If you have radar signatures coming into an active warzone from NATO countries, it will look like an attack.
The solution to the problem with crossing the Ukraine border is to tow the aircraft across the border line. MIGs are.made to be able to take off from highways. Thus no one is using a NATO state as a point of origin It is a weapon of war. Trying to make a distinction between offensive and defensive weapons is nonsensical. All may depending on use be either. Putin trying to dictate what is or isn't allowed by the west and what is or is not an escalation is ludicrous. Russia started this war. They are NOT the victim.
For the exact same reason, or lack thereof, Putin cannot be negotiated with in good faith. NATO must not defend non NATO, lest the treaty becomes useless as free ridership will grow. I think it is generally understood that weapons that aren't very effective at invading another country, but effective at defending a territory are defensive weapons.
@@acctsys Supplying Ukraine with weapons to bleed Russia's military dry is a defense of NATO by proxy, since Russia is basically the only credible threat in the region. Assuming nukes don't fly, once the Russian military dies, it's over - it will never be a credible threat to Europe's security ever again.
@@andreksjour "Who was torturing and killing civilians in Donbass for 8 years?" Russia. Igor Girkin/Strelkov. Russian volunteers. Putin. Edinaja Rossiya. Dugin. National Bolsheviks. Givi. Motorola. _They're_ the butchers. Look at how Russia is now mobilizing and conscripting every male in the Donbass to die at the meatgrinder in Ukraine. Russia will have ended up genociding the entire male population of the "autonomous republics". The hands of the Ukrainians are comparatively clean.
Then go as a volunteer soldier, my internet warrior. They (Ukrainians) had some camps for "solders of fortune". You can look this up, since, apparently, you have no bloody idea what you are saying.
it's nice to see that they actually recognize the ground team to keep them in the air. I've worked in my time with the American ground team and always made fun of them with how hard it was for them to keep them in the air
Actually, there are some Ukrainian pilots who used to fly F15/16 while were serving US army or exchange experience within USA. I assume the real reason is logistics. Also Poland were asking used F** jets for itself (and it didn't work out)
@@TRPilot06YT yesss. Just becareful about the lifting off part. As lifting from a slightly high speed gives the Russians the legality they needed tp shoot it down
Poland is willing to hand over a lot of weapons to Ukraine (more than 200 T-72 tanks are a good proof of this), but some of them require an international agreement. I don't understand why this comes out in public sometimes. In my opinion, it shouldn't.
Two years for someone to get qualified is beginning from zero, though, and your training is sprayed among many other activities and time flying depends on availability of aircraft and instructor; in other words, when there's literally no urgency at all. But I mean, learning to fly from zero civil aircraft literally takes TWO MONTHS. I have friends who got a private license and said it was easier than getting a driver's license (I should mention it's a lot harder to get a driver's license where I live, but it's not *hard* by any means). Obviously fighter jets are a different story, they are unstable by design (for maneuverabiltiy), but I'm talking about the 80-20 curve. Seriously, the idea that an experienced fighter would take two years to learn to fly a plane one generation ahead and not even learn to fight with it in that time frame is so absurd it's hard to even laugh about it. It's just something no one should be saying ever. MiG-29s are from 1970, while F-16s are from 1978; the F-16s tecnology is way ahead, but that's more about manufacturing capabiltiy than anything; these planes were designed for the same settings, to be used with the same strategy, and the basics of flying a fighter jet are the exact same. I mean, would you say an average F-16 pilot would take two years to learn to fly an F-35? And these planes were like 35 years apart (base models). Finally, language is no barrier at all. There's very little English needed to fly jets, you don't need to read texts, it's more like configuring an old TV menu--and I had to specify because it's literally less complicated than a Smart TV menu. The few words used are usually already common knowledge words even among people who don't speak English. And even if you did, these are not your average Ukraninans, fighter pilots are probably at least in the 15 percentile in ingelligence. Like, you do realize people learn English around the world, ffs? It's people native to English-speaking countries who are lazy. In Ukraine, most people in urban areas between ages 20-35 certainly do. You're obviously right about logistics, though. And, of course: the US and its allies who have the F-15s, F-16s, F-18s, F-22s and F-35s don't want any secrets falling into enemy hands. I'm sure many secrets were stolen at this point, but there's stuff that's just that much easier to copy from a physical sample rather than from a plan. These planes not only risk crashing, they will also be hand-delivered to the Russians should they win the war.
where did he said that a trained pilot would have 2 years of training to be transfered to another system? are you watching the save video as I did? because the one I'm watching it says it will take 2years for a new pilot(just learned how to fly) to be able to fully unlock the full capabilities of his fighter, and it would take months for a experienced or trained pilot to transfer to a new system not weeks as the Ukranians said it would take just weeks for their experienced pilot to be trained to fly and fight with the F15.
@@nitonono4143 No, he didn't say that it takes 2 years to transfer. But I didn't say that he said that, either. He used the two year figure as an anchor for a discussion where different people would give different estimates. But by doing that, he establishes a point from which to argue. Like, if you say you want to sell your car for $20k, you anchored that price. Someone might haggle down the price to $18k, but someone else who can pay 2k would probably be uncomfortable at bidding, especially within a more collectivist society (where such social effects are stronger). That's how discussions work, it's actually a method of persuasion that's listed under psychology books, and it works amazingly well. For instance, people might look at a painting and say it's worth like 200 dollars, but placas like auctions use that technique through the whole "bidding starts at 500" thing, and that same person who thought it was worth 200 USD might now buy it for 2000. The mere fact that the bidding started at that made the person trust that there are external factors that they don't know which indeed make it worth that price; that it's not just a technique by the auctioneer--even though many times it is. So I argued that the two year figure was nowhere near a good place to anchor the estimates. Because even though he said it would be "months", not "weeks", by previously anchoring the time at 2 years that now means it would certainly not be 6 or 8 weeks (which might well be) even though these figures are actually 1.5 and 2 "months", respectively, and it would not be absurd to call 6 or 8 weeks "weeks". Because he first anchored at 2 years, and now "months" would probably be AT LEAST 4-6, even if you consider they are already advanced pilots. It's all very subjective, but it's how our mind works. Maybe you didn't understand that way because unlike what you said, he did not say it would take two years for a new pilot to unlock the full capacities of his fighter. If that were the case, one might expect that the 2 year figure be reduced by a lot. But what he said is that it would take two years of training for someone to become THE LOWEST LEVEL pilot, who could FLY BUT NOT FIGHT. He actually used those words.
Every point you made is not true. Not at all. It may be difficult for you to believe it take so much time to learn to fly US fighter jets but it actually does. You can train someone to take off and land only would take months but of course operating a fighter jet involves much more than than. Sending up F-15, F-16 pilot with a months of training is suicide. Even if they trained for 24 hours a day for month.
It would be great if some non NATO countries would donate some planes. But, a bigger challenge is where do you park them, so the Russians can't track them back to their nests?
Russia has threatened to use nukes, but they would never actually follow through on that promise unless invaded or declared war upon by another nuclear power. Also, the sponsor for this video is really interesting. Definitely going to use it lots.
When you see how stupid some of the top military officials sound and how much they threaten, I wouldn't put that possibility past them, especially if the country starts crumbling
@@DemsW Like the Soviet Union, NK and China? They're all in the dumps or on a downward spiral. There are plenty of safeguards in place, Im not too worried about nukes going off.
@@_Addi_ NK nukes probably wouldn't reach the US before getting shot down. China has too much to lose and nothing to win. Soviet Union was enough of a threat that the us spent trillions preventing it. Russia on the other hand has nothing to lose and the power dynamic there is way more fragile.
Cheapest modern fighter is the J7 at 5.9m USD purchase price (plus PM,fuel,ammunition, pilot etc). Most expensive man portable SAM launcher is the Javelin at 249,700 USD. No maintenance required. Still gives them air superiority. I believe we use the term “more bang for your buck”
Well, The world should send old Mig 29s to Ukraine. The donating countries could be reimbursed for them by giving US 'mothballed' aircraft for replacement. In reality, Ukraines airbases/runways are mostly all torn up right now though. One thing that does need to happen is to supply Ukraine with Longer range SAMS. The Manpad SAMS that they have been given are Good, actually Very Good but the ceiling is too low. If they're not going to have aircraft to fight high altitude Russian aircraft, then they need SAMS that are capable to fly hundreds of miles and take down aircraft at altitudes over 40,000 feet. Right now, Russian bombers are taking off and launching cruise missiles from inside Russian airspace. The Ukrainians need a weapon to destroy these bombers. These are the aircraft firing cruise missiles into schools and hospitals killing women and children. They need to be stopped. Take Care, John I wonder if YOUR women and children were being TARGETED (not killed by mistake), would you think Jets and/or long range Surface to Air Missiles were important and/or needed... desperately????
But why are ukranian soldiers living and fighting in schools and hospitals without evacuating civilians? U blame attacker that they hit while defender chooses where they get hit?
The most important division in the army is the logistics supply. There's a saying that you can't have a war without a railway. The movement of tanks, toothpaste, rocket launchers etc, etc. All this has to be moved by rail. The question is, why haven't the Russians attacked the rail network, bridges, rail lines and locomotive stabling and maintenance infrastructure? Thanks for a great presentation.
Unlike mortars bullets and rifles, fighter jets can't be just handed to Ukraine, Fighter jets have a complex maintenance that in itself is beyond Ukrainian capacity. They'll either lose the jets to airfield bombing or crash them. One jet costs Millons, you could arm a while city in that budget. It makes more sense to arm the Ukrainians with small weapons. They're working just fine.
That's exactly what we think in this case - world is too afraid of russia. We're 3 months into full scale war already, and by this point, our pilots could have mastered F-16s. It wouldn't take them 2 years, since that's what it takes to train jet pilot from scratch, our pilots have years of training and combat experience, they know English, they trained along with NATO pilots.
Simple answer is, US didn't supply them to avoid war escalation to world war, blockage of supplies from Russia. Others were either afraid of both US & Russia or minding their own business.
Break free from the echo chamber by comparing news coverage from diverse sources around the world.
Try Ground News today: ground.news/notwhatyouthink
Hi
How we didn't want to send MiG 29 to Ukraine?
We did want but we didn't send for the reason you said in video
I think we are saying the same thing here. No one has sent the MiGs because of the concerns over Russian escalations, even though they may have wanted to send them. What was interesting was how the US supported Poland sending the jets by themselves, but not through an American military base.
Ukrainian here, few days after announcement about jets was made I was on my grandmother's farm which located 10 km from polish border and I heard a lot of aircrafts which were flying really low but weather was very cloudy so I didn't see anything maybe it is just coincidence but still kinda suspicious. Also Ukraine inherited around 650 4th generation fighter jets/ attack aircrafts from Soviet union some of them were sold some of them recycled but many were in unworking condition. So I believe that many of those aircrafts were brought to life because I spotted a lot of mig 29 which were taking off from Lviv international airport on which territory located Lviv Aircraft Repair Plant pretty often since December 2021.
“The only country that has sent fighter jets into Ukraine… Is Russia.”
- not what you think
also,
"President Putin has previously threatened to use the N-word."
Russia
@@tranquoccuong890-its-orge "Nukes"
Oh you mean that the Polish fighter jets where made in Russia and therefore Russia sent the fighter jets to Poland, then from Poland to Ukraine?
The only country giving bombs, troops, tanks, missile, attack helicopter and jets daily. And they say Putin were heartless.
Wait a minute...
I'm really sitting here trying to take this seriously and then he goes "Putin has threatened to us the N-word" fucking genius comedy
🤓
had me dying laughing lol
Honestly it may do more damage than a real nuke with the thickness of skin in the world.
@@cmdr1911says the guy whining about imaginary people
@@NotWhatYouThink w
Nobody but Russia has sent fighter jets to Ukraine. 😂🤣😂🤣 That cracked me up.
then realize that the Russians today have an insight into the entire military technology of the West.
@опр дбр the joke is much simpler than that.
@@scubaguy007 in today's madness from Nazism, which is called democracy, you no longer know who is thinking what!
Simple answer: It will take months to learn how to fly U.S aircrafts and/or any other because Ukraine wants MiG-29 and Su-27
Thanks
Simple answer: Russia will declare war on any country that does.
And there is a difference in weapons systems. It is pointless to give them fighter jets that don't have the ability use NATO standardized ordnance or fighter jets that use ordnance faster than the logistics can supply from the initial zero inventory.
The reasons not to supply NATO fighter jets are plentiful.
Well, no country would escalate a nuclear situation. Put your own mask first before assisting others.
More than months. Atleast 2 years, minimum.
5:55 Ah I see, they should give the jets to Switzerland. We have experience in partially dismantling things so we can sell them without violating some law. We will just remove the wings or whatever, ship the parts independently to Ukraine and then claim we never sent them fighter jets, we only send them streamlined cars and wings.
You know the trouble is real when the EU's defence secretary doesn't know what a fighter jet is
Same PFP 😳
He is an aeronautical engineer actually.
@@znrctrnn even worse
Nah, he knows. He just being a politician.
In all fairness, he is not defense secretary, and the EU has no army, so he may be excused?
The hot potato argument reminded me of Ukraine asking for Australian Bushmaster armored personnel vehicles. At the time there was a reluctance to give Ukraine heavy vehicles so when the request was made on live tv of the Australian parliament it was guaranteed to get noticed. The Australian military immediately thought tanks would be better but our Abrams tanks were due for retirement so the suggestion was made that we give them to Poland as training vehicles and they give some Russian tanks to Ukraine.
But the real purpose of the request was to motivate the US to supply heavy weapons as the threat of coming second to Australia in the supply of armored vehicles was some thing they didn't want to deal with. So a few days after the request Australia has processes in place to ship APV's to Ukraine but no one cares because we came second to the billions in weapons sent from the US
No more billions to Ukraine while here in the U.S. we can’t afford gas or food. Also our corrupt government has given all of our baby formula to illegal aliens and Ukrainians for free. It’s disgusting.
But you played your part well and forced the US to haul ass 👍
20 Bush master APC's that 's great, good on ya Australia but that would not make America embarrassed to send more heavy weapons
There are a lot of limiting factors involved. The USA would give more, but the USA needs to get approval from the EU and Poland or Romania.
The USA does not have any territory bordering Ukraine. Also, if it were not for the Black Sea being locked in by Turkey, then the US Navy could do a lot more. I would really like to see the Russians try to blockade the US Navy from any other area, except the Black Sea.
The U.S. was not quick off the mark but we're getting our shit together--and look at Germany!
Slovakia has just donated their entire MiG-29 fleet
To add, other than Soviet era and post Soviet era weapons used by Ukraine against Russia, the fuel used by Ukraine and other NATO nations most likely came from Russia itself. You can argue that Russia is playing both sides of the conflict.
Ukraine has its own oil and natural gas production and stockpile. Ukraine can sustain its own military off of its production alone, but they have cut all non essential civilian travel specifically to restrict usage. and Ukraine has roads and pipelines to the Balkans and western Europe, so its just as easy to import oil from other countries.
That's more in interests of Russia than it is in interests of europe. Sure without gas and oil it'll be tough for europe, but those gas and oil are the only things somehow holding russian economy from complete collapse
@@colRobinOlds this also means more economic alliances will form between russia and asia. Now if you can imagine numbers like 40% of natural gas germany has comes from russia , 80% of greece's also from russia. Like i think a rough estimate of 45%ish of EU's gas deposits come from imports. But we dont understand that it will hurt us a ton if we instead buy from the US , with all the transportation costs bein higher ...
@@theduke7539 not true Ukrainian oil refineries have been hit and many fuel depots have been hit they are running out
@@theduke7539 dude europe is the biggest importer of russian oil so even if ukraine buys oil from europe it is still russian oil. That is one of the reason why europe is not sending aircrafts because if russia stop sending oil to europe, the europian will freeze to death in winters and also everything in europe will become more expensive cause even the factories and industries in europe uses russian oil.
Doesn't matter if the US sends a 100 F-35's there, because they damn as shit aren't sending the pilots with them. And Ukraine doesn't have any pilots to fly good fighters like Hornets, F-35's, F-22's, Typhoons, Rafales, Gripens etc. So it doesnt matter if they get NATO fighters, they have no pilots for them.
How about 3000 region locked Nuclear armed Nike missile for defense (with an exception) and around 300 million Big Mac of illegals for lend lease (service guaranteed citizenship per head of family with 40 hectare of land in Siberia and a Toyota Hilux with couple of Javelin?
Damn as shit is a new one.
How about A-10 since the air forces insists on retiring them, might accidentally turn some British into mince meat?
Poland has soviet aircraft
Just train them
this is definitely the first sponsor that actually feeds into the content of the actual video. well done
The "upgrades" to the Polish Fulcrums don't consist of sensitive avionics. You're thinking of the Slovak MiGs that were upgraded with Israeli kit. The Polish airframes really only received IFF comms, which would not be utilized in Ukraine in the first place, and TACAN, which is not sensitive whatsoever.
and how do you know that?
Ether a pilot of said migs or one of those military "enthusiasts" who did digging.
They can slap on gps with double stick tape like russia is doing lol.
the only thing Poland will do with its MiGs is that it will protect Slovak airspace because Slovakia sent all its MiGs to Ukraine in exchange for F-16s and Gripen
Actually, polish migs were upgraded by IAI in Israel. So you may want to look further into it;I did already.
The front-on shot of the Mig in flight is beautiful!
It is a good looking plane
As a bartender I've learned one thing.
If a fight starts, try to calm it down and break it up.... Unless it's two Russians.
In that case, try to get them outside to settle it, if you get in the middle of it, you'll only get fucked up as both sides will eventually swing at you for "trying to help the other"
This channel's sense of humor has never failed to make me laugh out loud, thanx!!!
😅👍🏼
“And remember, president putin had previously threatened to use the N-word!”
Dude I had a panic attack when you said this, I dropped my phone trembling and started choking on my tears 😭
Undoubtedly, the threat of nukes is keeping the supply engagements to defensive weapon supplies.
Jets would not make a difference without large numbers and proper tactical implementation. Russia, unfortunately, has SAMs that can reach from their territory to Ukraine. It’s already been difficult for Ukraine to take on many missions. Added jets may not even be able to fly due to SAM coverage.
Per dollar, there’s more difference that can be made with drones and man-portable asymmetric warfare equipment. The time to bring them operational is effectively zero, which is huge operationally.
Regarding country statements, NATO and the EU simply need to cooperate better and get their stories down. They have been consistent with their behaviors far more than the occasional statements that have been cherry-picked. What they are spending money on shows their involvement, not their statements.
Lastly, any arms sales decision has to make its way through significant bureaucracy, for a good reason. These checks and balances ensure that decisions aren’t as swift as what someone says randomly. The final outcomes will be in line with considered decisions, and statements will only give clues to leanings, as opposed to actual policies.
russian sam is terrible tho. Their rocket systems are terrible in general, most of the time their rocket is worth more than the equipment it destroys lol.
@@dvls442 lmfao
@@dvls442 according to ?
Please provide sources 👀
@@justaguy363 he cant, he's not correct. The s300's are one of the best anti aircraft systems in the world, and the russians have even better ones. They might be expensive, i cant say, but they're certainly effective
@@seancostello4158 indeed. Russian anti air systems are actually decent. A robust anti-air capability has long been part of soviet and Russian doctrine to counter Nato air-power. Though this does have to assume the systems are properly maintained and operated by competent crews. While on the whole the Russian military is pretty poorly trained, the Russian troops operating their newer systems are generally at least somewhat competent.
But against kinda outdated fighters like mig-29s, even with less than ideal maintenance and a pretty poorly trained crew, they can still pose some level of danger.
At the same time even old fighters like mig-29s are still expensive compared to other weapons. Operating them is also difficult since there needs to be infrastructure in place to rearm, refuel, and maintain the planes as well as runways.
Basically fighters are not a cost effective weapon to send Ukraine and their is pretty high risk of losing the jets to anti-air systems.
Yep most people think that just because you give a Fighter Pilot a plane they can fly and use it as a weapon with only a few hours training. Even if that was true they need several hours of maintenance after each flight or two. The black boxes need Avionics Test Sets to diagnose them and highly trained technicians to use those Test Sets to fix those black boxes. Even with that you need special power requirements, specialized spare parts, not to mention the Engines, Hydraulic and Airframe Test Fixtures and parts. All this takes years to set up, build and train technicians to do this highly specialized work. So just giving Ukraine F-16's, F-15's or A-10's or any airplane except what they're already set up to fly and maintain wouldn't have any effect for at least two years. The best play is to give them systems they're already used to and ones easy to train on. You're video was spot on. Best Wishes & Blessings. Keith Noneya Former US Navy Avionics Depot Repair Technician & AT1 USN/USNR-TAR Retired.
The war has been going on since 2014. What makes you think it ends tomorrow, or within the next couple of years?
@@willek1335 I agree 100% with you, and I don't think it will end in the next two years. Only that right now we need to arm Ukraine with weapons they can use right now, and NATO allies need to start some training programs now to get the ball rolling for the future. Best Wishes & Blessings. Keith Noneya
And bunches of spare parts, technicians, mission specialists. simulators, etc.
@@willek1335 possible hyperinflation and recession
@@Thunderbyrd. For sure, if Ukraine is going to join NATO and they should we need to get started on this now. Best Wishes & Blessings. Keith Noneya
Fantastic reporter and news style. It's just not a regular news, u made interesting funny and full of information.
Poland offered to send their 28 jets via the US. The US actually considered it, but eventually decided not to. This is less clear-cut than it looks in hindsight.
Right, I was extremely unimpressed with Poland's publicity stunt, it looked like a populist political game to me. A dangerous thing to do in war.
The populists are against this neocon farce of a war.
imo the US wanted to test russia's reaction at the expense of Poland
Mig-29 don’t have enough range to reach Ukraine from the U.S. base in Ramstein. That was a publicity stunt, not a serious proposal.
@@RobBCactive US put Poland under pressure with their "green light" and it was made public without even basic consultation with polish autorities, but when we want to comply and give 1/3 of our fleet but share responsibility they deem whole thing too dangerous for US. Soo its seems they wanted us to risk everything, and have no reel reasurences we get any help in case russia get involved.
Clear, deep, and well researched. Hot potatoes have become mashed potatoes.
my wife is hungry and wants to eat, but its not as easy as you think.
Is she that big? :O
To answer the last question: yes. But similarly, in that hypothetical scenario, Russia probably wouldn't have invaded. Or they would have had more capable conventional forces with which to invade.
I think military posturing, including nuclear deterrence, is all a game of poker. You want to make the other side believe you will go through with an attack if they don't back down. The best way of doing that may be to be prepared to actually going through with it. But what matters is if that other side believes that you will. Are you bluffing, or do you hold the cards?
Comment sounds funny, because I copied it to large parts from an old comment to not have to rewrite everything.
Will not happen, unless Putin would be completely careless about his people and he takes the destruction of Russia in purchase.
With the supplies we are it completely in international law, would even have the possibility to send troops. Should Ukraine allow/ask for it, of course won't happen, but to clarify the framework.
Conventionally Russia would have no chance against NATO, not militarily, not economically and not via cultural soft power.
Remains the nuclear option, the fear of which is just gladly exploited by the Putin fanboys to create more panic, so that they get their way for Russia and deliveries are stopped.
If Putin is not a complete madman, this option is not possible.
Never heard of the MAD doctrine?
Some escalation levels are missing and there were clearly more critical moments in the past, in Korea Soviets and U.S. jets shot each other down, in Vietnam there were 10 thousands of Soviet "observers".
Russia's territoriality is not threatened.
Putin does not have sole control of nuclear weapons, at least 6-7 other people, from 3 pillars/parts of Russia must pass on their part of the code, including the Defense Minister.
Clearly these are most likely Putin loyalists, but the will also think about committing virtual suicide and giving up everything for Ukraine.
Also, NATO and Russia have said a few weeks before the war to nuclear conflicts that the use of these should not be an option for any state.
That would not make sense and would be a paradox:
Russia sacrifices itself to get their goals in Ukraine, but when they use nuclear weapons, they have nothing more of their successes.
I have already written a longer text about the atomic bomb, I can only repeat myself:
The threat of the atomic bomb is part of the Russian game. You can only understand that if you come from that culture. Russia does not respect the West, there are jokes in talk shows about sending a bomb to Washington and one to London afterwards. Russia is deliberately using that to intimidate because they know that the diplomatic West will shit their pants if even the word "nuclear" is mentioned.
I can give you a few reasons why neither the Russians, nor the Ukrainians believe that Putin will detonate the nuclear bomb.
Someone who is so worried about his life will not risk being blown up. It's psychological. Apart from that, he has children.
2. the ignition is not like in a cartoon. The whole thing goes through several areas of responsibility minimum 7 people are involved and Putin does not have it in his hands alone. And there will always be a reasonable one in such a long chain. Believe that.
3. he sells the whole thing as a "liberation mission" to free Ukraine and annex it to Russia through a pro-Russian anti-Western government. He could never sell a nuclear strike to his own people.
No one in Ukraine is toying with this idea and certainly not in Russia. It is only the West that rotates. One simply has to understand that the strongest weapon of Russian propaganda is not the atomic bomb, but the game in the head with our fear of the atomic bomb which consequently makes us stop thinking strategically.
Somehow youtube does not allow me to link an article from the "Russian International Affairs Council".
My comment is always deleted, but I can recommend the articles on some topics, there are also Russian ambassadors etc. co-write the articles, give interviews also not directly on state line, but unusually neutral, if you read between the lines.
That's why we are taking small steps over the red line. Not enough to rock the house but small enough to challenge it, then another one, and another one. By the time we are way past the red line, it's too late for Russia to react to it.
Kind of sounds like north korea.
What has happened to the F16 the allies promised Ukraine stop messing about get them sent now.
Just park them by the border. If they happen to get "stolen" by Ukrainian pilots....well...🤷♂️
Like the video said they would need to trains for at least a year in the planes. But Poland did have 200 t-72s randomly go missing near the border.
@@vyros.3234 I think he's talking about the Migs. Like how the US and Canada went around a rule in WW2 leading to creation of airports smack in the border between the US and Canada. It's funny and ingenious. Putin won't appreciate the humor though.
@@acctsys Exactly. Finders keepers!! 🖕Putin
@@acctsys Yeah but I think he means to 'steal' one of those aircraft requires training. The very act of getting it ready to fly, taking off, making it to where you're going and landing safely is a fair amount of knowledge and training, even for a pilot and ground crew experienced in another similar aircraft.
"Russia reported destroying S-300 launchers that were provided by some EU state to Ukraine"
...awkwardly laughing in Slovak...
@@Mal101M Ah yes, the only Air defense system we have is destroyed, I love my country... But fr though, we know nothing and we even wanted to send MIGs to Ukraine, the only fighter jets we have, so because of our "generosity" we'll give our whole army to Ukraine
keep in mind, back in ww2. after the santa cruz debacle both sides never never engaged again for almost two years and when they met, the pilot experience showed in the battle of the philippine sea.
Now planes are even more difficult and expensive than before so it would take months and years to train.
That Windows 11 joke got me. I installed W11 on launch day, then back in February it stopped working. No explorer, no search, no start nothing. Had to "downgrade" back to W10, and my computer has been working flawlessly ever since. Great video by the way.
@@Craigx71 I've actually been considering that. I used to run dual boot Linux/Windows about 10 years ago, but moved solely to Windows because of compatibility issues. I know that today most of those issues aren't here any more, but I think I've been holding off purely from habit.
Thanks for the reminder to stop procrastinating, and to look into this again haha.
@@Christopher_S lots of software and games are specifically designed for windows and don't work on other OS
I don't know when you made this video but back in April US officials confirmed that several nations had sent planes and parts to Ukraine, so your title was false before it was even uploaded. Congress recently passed a bill to start training Ukrainian pilots how to fly American fighter jets officially. And recently Ukraine has received other aircraft from neighbors as well, like North Macedonia.
and also poland but they were never flown there
I ain’t sure why this comes under the category “not what you think”. This was exactly what I thought. The issue has been covered pretty thoroughly.
That's just the channel's name....
Firstly, the US did - from what I see and I explain below - send Ukraine MiG-29's that we bought from Romania after the collapse of the USSR. We bought them after finding out that Iranians were looking at buying them. Pentagon spokesman Kirby did say we sent 'airframes' and 'parts' and then wouldn't elaborate further. The press started asking about the airframes part the next day and he responded this time just saying Ukraine has received many parts for the MiG-29's. And like magic, 25 MiG-29's appeared in Ukraine. Poland was not backfilled with F-16s, which the US was willing to send to them as brand new units that were supposed to be going to Taiwan, which only leaves the US as the potential supplier.
Second, the US base is in Germany, not the United States. It's much harder for us to make a call that could impact Germany than if it were on our own soil.
Third, that S-300 system Russia found Ukraine had been using after they destroyed it was very likely also American, as we had sent the units we bought in the 90's to study (though I forget where we got them from exactly at the moment) to Ukraine.
Came from the zoo here at Tonopah test range. They warehouse and also test foreign military equipment here in the Nevada test ranges.
The foreign S-300s were from Slovakia. The U.S. backfilled Slovakia with Patriots. The S-300s that the U.S. acquired came from Belarus in the 1990s. Rumor has it they're also on their way.
u just spoke all factz
The thing is, we (Poland) already made a deal to purchase a fleet of 32 F-35s from the US, back in early 2020 and paid at least some of the agreed upon 4.6 billion $. The jets were supposed to be arriving gragually between 2024 and 2026.
So we do not give a damn about not switching our MiGs for "brand new" crap US doesn't want or need. Give us the good shit we paid for.
Love your videos
Great question at the end, using hindsight and seeing how hard Ukraine have hit ruzzia Its pretty clear a head to head with a full NATO response would wipe the floor with ruzzian armour, aircraft is still a bit unclear but I think the Patroit SAM would give good results.
Ukraine has not jut russia hard
Holy shit my sides went to Mars when you made the hot potato analogy. Omg that is brilliant writing lmao
I am from Slovakia and I do not know that we have 12 Migs. Maybe 2 od them can fly. We can help only with spare parts.
Ukranians do not need jets, their tractor drivers are biggest Putins problem.
Maybe I am mistaken but I think Slovak Migs were upgraded with Israeli kit, If it's true then no way the Israelis will allow you to donate such stuff and especially not to an open conflict where such technology can be stolen.
@@itzikashemtov6045 I do not know how can izraels upgrade ours jets that they can fly again. :D We send to Ukraine S300.
The video is misleading, poland did WANT to send Su-29s to ukraine. It was actually NATO opposing this decision and US refusing to participate in the transfer process. The statement at the beginning is simply false. At the time of writing of this comment, Slovakia is sending their fighter jets to ukraine, for which Polish air forces will protect their sky untill the end of 2022.
Now, what is the true reason that the initial transfer of Polish jets was not succesfull, we don't know. THe main speculations are that Polish aircraft are constantly modernized and NATO was afraid that the avionics and systems would fall into russian hands.
Poland doesn't have su 29s what are you talking about
Yesyesyes, you're right, I was referring to mig-29, not sukhoi 😞
Drones are much more cheaper than an aircraft
What a beautiful segue into the sponsor!
10/10.
Although, I’m unsure of the scale of the new Lend Lease that the US has made. I have heard that the US is willing to trade legacy tanks to EX Warsaw Pact so a country like Poland can transfer their soviet tanks to Ukraine. Maybe this can apply to Fighter Jets, of course under the table.
Poland already delivered 200+ T-72 tanks.
@@SHVRWK, As I’ve heard. I hope the Ukrainians use them well.
@@Butter_Warrior99 there won't be much of a difference between what happened to Russian t72 and what's going to happen with polish super old t72s
Already there's a news that out of 200 20-30 are already destroyed while bringing them by rails due to missile strikes
@@aarshbhushan1062, True. But the fact Poland is doing something, is better than watching the chaos.
@@Butter_Warrior99 Yea , but somewhere i think this is more like providing fuel to ongoing fire
Russia has large no. Of troops/weapons/etcetc
They won't stop ,and if Ukraine too dosent stops then casualties will cross limits
Surrendering is more of a logical and practical way rather than going inn for a stupid war where you know casualties will be done on both sides in masses
And not to mention that if Putin feels like he is loosing, things are going out of hand which we don't seriously know what's going on , he won't take long to use the N thing.
And to escalate things even more, Finnish and Sweedish are adding candles on the poisonous cake.
Please give me my medal
See,I used the magic word
lol, need to make it to top 3 😅
Or #4 to get a participation trophy 😉
Heyy which editing software do you use the quality of editing is damm lit
A correction here poland was for sending jets to Ukraine but they were advised by the usa to not do it
Wrong. US was trying to force Poland to give it directly to Ukraine. But Poland said here are the jets. You give them yourselves.. 😂😂
@@isserdigan2835 it was a transfer from poland to us then Ukraine when there were talks about humanitarian corifors still in discusion bethen ukrain and russia. You can search it on any search engine. RUclips doesn't let me post links in coments for a long time so i can't bring sources
6:07 the Windows 11 burn was brilliant
Your the best
The US sent them MiG29s they had bought up years ago to keep out the hands of someone else. They labeled the shipment as aircraft "parts".
Cool - if true, that's grat news.
But it may very well be intended as mere spare parts - surely war would increase the wear and tear on the aircraft, such that a bunch of replacement parts for quick recovery would be essential for continued use.
Could also be in part as to why Russia is reluctant to commit sorties - its stockpile of spare parts may soon run out, who knows?
@@roadent217 21 were purchased in the late 90s from Moldova to keep out the hands of Iran. The "official statement" from the US is 2 were used as RED air by the Air Force...From what I understand all 21 went to Ukraine and all of them were operational aircraft.
Did the aircraft parts make it through customs?
Opening caught me off guard.
It's not just that, if they have any good planes that risks getting captured and now Russia knows the technology it's the same reason why you are supposed to destroy a tank after it's taken out of commission so the technology can't be stolen
Sending fighters into Ukraine would set off every radar system that Russia has.
If you have radar signatures coming into an active warzone from NATO countries, it will look like an attack.
The solution to the problem with crossing the Ukraine border is to tow the aircraft across the border line. MIGs are.made to be able to take off from highways. Thus no one is using a NATO state as a point of origin
It is a weapon of war. Trying to make a distinction between offensive and defensive weapons is nonsensical. All may depending on use be either. Putin trying to dictate what is or isn't allowed by the west and what is or is not an escalation is ludicrous. Russia started this war. They are NOT the victim.
And Ukraine's war is NOT our war. Those Ukrainians are trying to drag us all into their war. Not going to happen.
For the exact same reason, or lack thereof, Putin cannot be negotiated with in good faith. NATO must not defend non NATO, lest the treaty becomes useless as free ridership will grow.
I think it is generally understood that weapons that aren't very effective at invading another country, but effective at defending a territory are defensive weapons.
@@acctsys Supplying Ukraine with weapons to bleed Russia's military dry is a defense of NATO by proxy, since Russia is basically the only credible threat in the region.
Assuming nukes don't fly, once the Russian military dies, it's over - it will never be a credible threat to Europe's security ever again.
Who was torturing and killing civilians in Donbass for 8 years?
@@andreksjour
"Who was torturing and killing civilians in Donbass for 8 years?"
Russia. Igor Girkin/Strelkov. Russian volunteers. Putin. Edinaja Rossiya. Dugin. National Bolsheviks. Givi. Motorola. _They're_ the butchers.
Look at how Russia is now mobilizing and conscripting every male in the Donbass to die at the meatgrinder in Ukraine. Russia will have ended up genociding the entire male population of the "autonomous republics". The hands of the Ukrainians are comparatively clean.
As a UK citizen, I would whole heartedly give myself up for what I believe is right. I would stand with Ukraine as other countries have stood with us.
British prisoners say that it's not your war and you ll be used
Then go as a volunteer soldier, my internet warrior. They (Ukrainians) had some camps for "solders of fortune". You can look this up, since, apparently, you have no bloody idea what you are saying.
it's nice to see that they actually recognize the ground team to keep them in the air. I've worked in my time with the American ground team and always made fun of them with how hard it was for them to keep them in the air
Hmmm. That's exactly what I was thinking. Where was the "not what you think?"
Actually, there are some Ukrainian pilots who used to fly F15/16 while were serving US army or exchange experience within USA. I assume the real reason is logistics.
Also Poland were asking used F** jets for itself (and it didn't work out)
"Remember, President Putin had previously threatened to use the "N-word"
-Not what you think
Because they'll just crash them
Not that Russia has a good airforce aswell, given their recent performance... or lack of it
It's taken a while but thankfully this is now changing...
“Threatened to use the nightmother-word” lmao
So what you’re saying is if they drive on the roads to Ukrainian air bases in the Ukrainians can use them without it being a problem
Not sure if that would make it ok.
But ground transport would be tricky, if possible at all.
Yeah, since they're not flying into Ukrainian airspace, we can just use the thruster, put it on 5% and taxi all the way to Ukraine
Sooo, you can just roll them from a hill into Ukraine?
@@TRPilot06YT yesss. Just becareful about the lifting off part. As lifting from a slightly high speed gives the Russians the legality they needed tp shoot it down
@@nitsu2947 damn, how much do i need to rent a tractor for a day then?
Poland: am I a joke to you?
Thank you very much for the clarification
Poland is willing to hand over a lot of weapons to Ukraine (more than 200 T-72 tanks are a good proof of this), but some of them require an international agreement. I don't understand why this comes out in public sometimes. In my opinion, it shouldn't.
Because retaliation missiles on polish bases come in public lime light.
Didn't about 100 of those tanks went "missing" a couple of weeks ago?
To be fair that coming out to public opinion might be exactly what doomed the entire operation
Two years for someone to get qualified is beginning from zero, though, and your training is sprayed among many other activities and time flying depends on availability of aircraft and instructor; in other words, when there's literally no urgency at all. But I mean, learning to fly from zero civil aircraft literally takes TWO MONTHS. I have friends who got a private license and said it was easier than getting a driver's license (I should mention it's a lot harder to get a driver's license where I live, but it's not *hard* by any means). Obviously fighter jets are a different story, they are unstable by design (for maneuverabiltiy), but I'm talking about the 80-20 curve.
Seriously, the idea that an experienced fighter would take two years to learn to fly a plane one generation ahead and not even learn to fight with it in that time frame is so absurd it's hard to even laugh about it. It's just something no one should be saying ever. MiG-29s are from 1970, while F-16s are from 1978; the F-16s tecnology is way ahead, but that's more about manufacturing capabiltiy than anything; these planes were designed for the same settings, to be used with the same strategy, and the basics of flying a fighter jet are the exact same.
I mean, would you say an average F-16 pilot would take two years to learn to fly an F-35? And these planes were like 35 years apart (base models).
Finally, language is no barrier at all. There's very little English needed to fly jets, you don't need to read texts, it's more like configuring an old TV menu--and I had to specify because it's literally less complicated than a Smart TV menu. The few words used are usually already common knowledge words even among people who don't speak English. And even if you did, these are not your average Ukraninans, fighter pilots are probably at least in the 15 percentile in ingelligence. Like, you do realize people learn English around the world, ffs? It's people native to English-speaking countries who are lazy. In Ukraine, most people in urban areas between ages 20-35 certainly do.
You're obviously right about logistics, though. And, of course: the US and its allies who have the F-15s, F-16s, F-18s, F-22s and F-35s don't want any secrets falling into enemy hands. I'm sure many secrets were stolen at this point, but there's stuff that's just that much easier to copy from a physical sample rather than from a plan. These planes not only risk crashing, they will also be hand-delivered to the Russians should they win the war.
where did he said that a trained pilot would have 2 years of training to be transfered to another system? are you watching the save video as I did? because the one I'm watching it says it will take 2years for a new pilot(just learned how to fly) to be able to fully unlock the full capabilities of his fighter, and it would take months for a experienced or trained pilot to transfer to a new system not weeks as the Ukranians said it would take just weeks for their experienced pilot to be trained to fly and fight with the F15.
@@nitonono4143 No, he didn't say that it takes 2 years to transfer. But I didn't say that he said that, either. He used the two year figure as an anchor for a discussion where different people would give different estimates. But by doing that, he establishes a point from which to argue. Like, if you say you want to sell your car for $20k, you anchored that price. Someone might haggle down the price to $18k, but someone else who can pay 2k would probably be uncomfortable at bidding, especially within a more collectivist society (where such social effects are stronger). That's how discussions work, it's actually a method of persuasion that's listed under psychology books, and it works amazingly well. For instance, people might look at a painting and say it's worth like 200 dollars, but placas like auctions use that technique through the whole "bidding starts at 500" thing, and that same person who thought it was worth 200 USD might now buy it for 2000. The mere fact that the bidding started at that made the person trust that there are external factors that they don't know which indeed make it worth that price; that it's not just a technique by the auctioneer--even though many times it is. So I argued that the two year figure was nowhere near a good place to anchor the estimates. Because even though he said it would be "months", not "weeks", by previously anchoring the time at 2 years that now means it would certainly not be 6 or 8 weeks (which might well be) even though these figures are actually 1.5 and 2 "months", respectively, and it would not be absurd to call 6 or 8 weeks "weeks". Because he first anchored at 2 years, and now "months" would probably be AT LEAST 4-6, even if you consider they are already advanced pilots. It's all very subjective, but it's how our mind works.
Maybe you didn't understand that way because unlike what you said, he did not say it would take two years for a new pilot to unlock the full capacities of his fighter. If that were the case, one might expect that the 2 year figure be reduced by a lot. But what he said is that it would take two years of training for someone to become THE LOWEST LEVEL pilot, who could FLY BUT NOT FIGHT. He actually used those words.
Every point you made is not true. Not at all. It may be difficult for you to believe it take so much time to learn to fly US fighter jets but it actually does. You can train someone to take off and land only would take months but of course operating a fighter jet involves much more than than. Sending up F-15, F-16 pilot with a months of training is suicide. Even if they trained for 24 hours a day for month.
It would be great if some non NATO countries would donate some planes. But, a bigger challenge is where do you park them, so the Russians can't track them back to their nests?
Russia has threatened to use nukes, but they would never actually follow through on that promise unless invaded or declared war upon by another nuclear power.
Also, the sponsor for this video is really interesting. Definitely going to use it lots.
Russia can use smaller tactical nukes. Not the powerful one as it will destroy and polluted other countries with radiation.
@@rohzpopper4922 No, they cannot use those either, nor would they.
When you see how stupid some of the top military officials sound and how much they threaten, I wouldn't put that possibility past them, especially if the country starts crumbling
@@DemsW Like the Soviet Union, NK and China? They're all in the dumps or on a downward spiral. There are plenty of safeguards in place, Im not too worried about nukes going off.
@@_Addi_ NK nukes probably wouldn't reach the US before getting shot down.
China has too much to lose and nothing to win.
Soviet Union was enough of a threat that the us spent trillions preventing it.
Russia on the other hand has nothing to lose and the power dynamic there is way more fragile.
Simple- You suddenly cant expect someone who has been driving a Ford to drive a Lamborghini...
bravo Poland !
Lithuania sent our whole air force to Ukraine that being 4 L39s
Aint much, but it's honest work, *farmer tips hat*
Cheapest modern fighter is the J7 at 5.9m USD purchase price (plus PM,fuel,ammunition, pilot etc). Most expensive man portable SAM launcher is the Javelin at 249,700 USD. No maintenance required. Still gives them air superiority. I believe we use the term “more bang for your buck”
I fell in love @ 0:29 😍
Well, Arms Industry is not a Charity Organisation. Air force with all its accompanying costs is expensive.
Well, The world should send old Mig 29s to Ukraine. The donating countries could be reimbursed for them by giving US 'mothballed' aircraft for replacement. In reality, Ukraines airbases/runways are mostly all torn up right now though. One thing that does need to happen is to supply Ukraine with Longer range SAMS. The Manpad SAMS that they have been given are Good, actually Very Good but the ceiling is too low. If they're not going to have aircraft to fight high altitude Russian aircraft, then they need SAMS that are capable to fly hundreds of miles and take down aircraft at altitudes over 40,000 feet. Right now, Russian bombers are taking off and launching cruise missiles from inside Russian airspace. The Ukrainians need a weapon to destroy these bombers. These are the aircraft firing cruise missiles into schools and hospitals killing women and children. They need to be stopped.
Take Care, John
I wonder if YOUR women and children were being TARGETED (not killed by mistake), would you think Jets and/or long range Surface to Air Missiles were important and/or needed... desperately????
But why are ukranian soldiers living and fighting in schools and hospitals without evacuating civilians? U blame attacker that they hit while defender chooses where they get hit?
First 🥇
🥇
@@NotWhatYouThink thank
u
The most important division in the army is the logistics supply. There's a saying that you can't have a war without a railway. The movement of tanks, toothpaste, rocket launchers etc, etc. All this has to be moved by rail. The question is, why haven't the Russians attacked the rail network, bridges, rail lines and locomotive stabling and maintenance infrastructure?
Thanks for a great presentation.
Moral: If A country without the help of other countries is not able to stand up for itself, should think hard before provocation or going to war.
this is like when your parents get you one of those cheap "pc gaming and streaming kit"
but its fighting themed 😂
As German, don't worry. We have trucks to carry the transport on ground. We don't need to fly them into the Ukraine air space.
Missed opportunity: "Putin dropping N-bombs"
Excellent
Poland offered to send their migs to Ukraine in exchange for americans replacing them with F-35. USA said nay! You are not even on the buying list.
Meanwhile, the U.S. is training Ukrainian pilots to fly F-16s.
This Administration is just a Joke. Bunch of clowns.
Apparently Poland have actually moved the old Migs too ukraine for parts etc
"And remember- president Putin had previously threatened to use the N-word."
gold lol
Poland has reason to fear. HIstory has not shown a willingness of the US or Europe to come to Polands aid. To the shame and embarrassment of both.
Glad you got a sponsor!
1 year later, not only are they giving them fighters, they are about to get American made (but not sourced) F-16s as well.
Unlike mortars bullets and rifles, fighter jets can't be just handed to Ukraine,
Fighter jets have a complex maintenance that in itself is beyond Ukrainian capacity. They'll either lose the jets to airfield bombing or crash them.
One jet costs Millons, you could arm a while city in that budget. It makes more sense to arm the Ukrainians with small weapons. They're working just fine.
Be everyone is sackless.
That redhead at 30 sec thou…
That's exactly what we think in this case - world is too afraid of russia. We're 3 months into full scale war already, and by this point, our pilots could have mastered F-16s. It wouldn't take them 2 years, since that's what it takes to train jet pilot from scratch, our pilots have years of training and combat experience, they know English, they trained along with NATO pilots.
Did you know house just passed 40 billion Ukraine aid bill while the whole country is struggling from inflation
It is Full of Corruption!
They sent in repeatedly batchs of migs 29 and su 25s. Totall about 60 planes were handed to ukraine already.
Yes, the response would have been different. Unfortunately I agree with this video, this war only strengthened the nuclear deterrence theory.
With all the fake news and slanted articles circulating, this is the FIRST TIME I’ve heard the phrase “Confirmation Bias,” used. Thank you for that.
This is not true, Poland wanted to send their jets but was blocked by the US
Update, few days ago Slovakia and Polland agree to send their Migs 29.
The thing about war is everyone loses
Simple answer is, US didn't supply them to avoid war escalation to world war, blockage of supplies from Russia. Others were either afraid of both US & Russia or minding their own business.
This is exactly the reason I thought it was.