[dabigv13]

Just saw this bit- sea sparrows would greatly expand the potential stocks of missiles the west can supply Ukraine for air defense, another sign the west is signaling long term commitment.

Cool that Ukraine has figured out how to use their familiar Buk launchers with them.

The package will for the first time include radar-guided Sea Sparrow anti-air missiles, which can be launched from the sea or on land to intercept aircraft or cruise missiles. In a bit of battlefield innovation, the Ukrainian military has managed to tweak its existing Soviet-era BUK launchers to fire the Sea Sparrow, two people familiar with the matter said. Up to this point, Taiwan has been the only country to operate the ground-launched version of the missiles, while the U.S. and multiple allied navies use the ship-mounted version.

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/paulmcleary/status/1611155617158254593?s=20&t=tiulaBefcmzYDSckcMkfBA[/tweet]

[dabigv13]

Just saw this bit- sea sparrows would greatly expand the potential stocks of missiles the west can supply Ukraine for air defense, another sign the west is signaling long term commitment.

Cool that Ukraine has figured out how to use their familiar Buk launchers with them.

The package will for the first time include radar-guided Sea Sparrow anti-air missiles, which can be launched from the sea or on land to intercept aircraft or cruise missiles. In a bit of battlefield innovation, the Ukrainian military has managed to tweak its existing Soviet-era BUK launchers to fire the Sea Sparrow, two people familiar with the matter said. Up to this point, Taiwan has been the only country to operate the ground-launched version of the missiles, while the U.S. and multiple allied navies use the ship-mounted version.

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/paulmcleary/status/1611155617158254593?s=20&t=tiulaBefcmzYDSckcMkfBA[/tweet]

[TrumpCard]

I wonder how much of the new military aid package had to be delayed until after the NDAA and omnibus spending bills passed Congress right before the holidays.  I'm guessing that's a major reason we're only seeing some of this gear being promised to Ukraine now.  If true, it's unfortunate that political wrangling that's mostly unrelated to the situation in Ukraine actually cost lives and prevented Ukraine from making more progress on the battlefield.

[TrumpCard]

I wonder how much of the new military aid package had to be delayed until after the NDAA and omnibus spending bills passed Congress right before the holidays.  I'm guessing that's a major reason we're only seeing some of this gear being promised to Ukraine now.  If true, it's unfortunate that political wrangling that's mostly unrelated to the situation in Ukraine actually cost lives and prevented Ukraine from making more progress on the battlefield.

[Goose]

Just saw this bit- sea sparrows would greatly expand the potential stocks of missiles the west can supply Ukraine for air defense, another sign the west is signaling long term commitment.



Cool that Ukraine has figured out how to use their familiar Buk launchers with them.


https://twitter.com/paulmcleary/status/1...DSckcMkfBA

This is indeed potentially a very important advancement. The ESSM itself was a bit of a "kludge" evolved from an RIM-7 missile. NATO has a LOT of ESSM Block I missiles that are basically obsolete. These missiles are SARAH only with no "active mode" seeker. The good news is that all the missile (once launched) requires to hit a target is that the target be illuminated by a CW radar in I/J (old guys X) band. The BUK has a CW illuminator in X band. Perfect match. There is one possible glitch in using it that I hope they have determined isn't a problem. The remaining task was figuring out how to physically launch it from a BUK, which I guess they have figured out. I don't know if they intend to mount it on the TELAR of the BUK or instead use a MK-29 launcher. Either way could work.

This is a big deal because it allows Ukraine to shoot down more Russian cruise missiles with a weapon they have in some numbers and a missile NATO has in some numbers. The CW illuminator is a good target for anti-radiation missiles, but cruise missiles, particularly the Shahed 136/Geran-2 don't carry those :-). It also allows the BUK systems to continue their anti-aircraft role when they run out of the existing Ukrainian missile stocks.
For those that are interested, a good document on the capabilities of the BUK is http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Engagemen...ocId926428. Search for 9S35 Fire Dome and you will find the right section.

The only "downer" in this is the limited acquisition capability of the BUK itself. It was designed to be part of an IADS where acquisition was to be performed by other systems. It isn't used that way in this war. The BUK itself can acquire only in a 120 degree sector in a relatively narrow elevation beamwidth relatively slowly. That means it kind of needs to know where the targets are coming from. By contrast, an NASAMS covers 360 degrees with good elevation coverage at least twice as fast. It is also probably true that the BUK can't provide mid-course corrections to the ESSM via an uplink (although that isn't "for sure". They may have figured that one out too). Against low-flying slow cruise missiles, that wouldn't much matter as the illuminator won't need to "blink" (and wouldn't have time to anyway).

[Goose]

Just saw this bit- sea sparrows would greatly expand the potential stocks of missiles the west can supply Ukraine for air defense, another sign the west is signaling long term commitment.



Cool that Ukraine has figured out how to use their familiar Buk launchers with them.


https://twitter.com/paulmcleary/status/1...DSckcMkfBA

This is indeed potentially a very important advancement. The ESSM itself was a bit of a "kludge" evolved from an RIM-7 missile. NATO has a LOT of ESSM Block I missiles that are basically obsolete. These missiles are SARAH only with no "active mode" seeker. The good news is that all the missile (once launched) requires to hit a target is that the target be illuminated by a CW radar in I/J (old guys X) band. The BUK has a CW illuminator in X band. Perfect match. There is one possible glitch in using it that I hope they have determined isn't a problem. The remaining task was figuring out how to physically launch it from a BUK, which I guess they have figured out. I don't know if they intend to mount it on the TELAR of the BUK or instead use a MK-29 launcher. Either way could work.

This is a big deal because it allows Ukraine to shoot down more Russian cruise missiles with a weapon they have in some numbers and a missile NATO has in some numbers. The CW illuminator is a good target for anti-radiation missiles, but cruise missiles, particularly the Shahed 136/Geran-2 don't carry those :-). It also allows the BUK systems to continue their anti-aircraft role when they run out of the existing Ukrainian missile stocks.
For those that are interested, a good document on the capabilities of the BUK is http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Engagemen...ocId926428. Search for 9S35 Fire Dome and you will find the right section.

The only "downer" in this is the limited acquisition capability of the BUK itself. It was designed to be part of an IADS where acquisition was to be performed by other systems. It isn't used that way in this war. The BUK itself can acquire only in a 120 degree sector in a relatively narrow elevation beamwidth relatively slowly. That means it kind of needs to know where the targets are coming from. By contrast, an NASAMS covers 360 degrees with good elevation coverage at least twice as fast. It is also probably true that the BUK can't provide mid-course corrections to the ESSM via an uplink (although that isn't "for sure". They may have figured that one out too). Against low-flying slow cruise missiles, that wouldn't much matter as the illuminator won't need to "blink" (and wouldn't have time to anyway).

[TrumpCard]

More specifics on the current round of military aid from the US to Ukraine:
https://twitter.com/JackDetsch/status/16...OW_9wsAAAA

[TrumpCard]

More specifics on the current round of military aid from the US to Ukraine:
https://twitter.com/JackDetsch/status/16...OW_9wsAAAA

[dabigv13]

Another first- US supplying Paladin self propelled artillery. These are upgraded versions of the M109 that were previously supplied.

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/JackDetsch/status/1611447761966362624?s=20&t=Y5aoIncIxD0Kff16wvHD2Q[/tweet]

[dabigv13]

Another first- US supplying Paladin self propelled artillery. These are upgraded versions of the M109 that were previously supplied.

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/JackDetsch/status/1611447761966362624?s=20&t=Y5aoIncIxD0Kff16wvHD2Q[/tweet]

[dabigv13]

Good article on the Sea Sparrow and Buk capabilities and how they may work together.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/se...to-ukraine

[dabigv13]

Good article on the Sea Sparrow and Buk capabilities and how they may work together.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/se...to-ukraine

[Goose]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/pentagon-ramp...04440.html

This article confirms that the US will be supplying combined-arms training to groups of 500 Ukrainian troops in Germany. This indicates that by June, if not before, Ukraine will have some kind of striking force that can move with both speed and power.  I would not be surprised if the training duration was on the order of two months long, and that Ukraine would also have to do some exercises afterwords in Ukraine to ensure they were "ready". Maybe it can be done faster, but I kind of doubt it.

The 500 troop class size is slightly smaller that a "typical" US Army battalion. That isn't really enough to form an effective striking force. You would need four to six such classes amalgamated together to form a regiment. That regiment would have to train as a unit, which would further delay it's IOC. I am not sure what the prospective organizational unit will be in Ukraine. It might be a battalion sized unit, but the Russians have amply demonstrated that is probably too small to operate on it's own. We shall see what evolves.

[Goose]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/pentagon-ramp...04440.html

This article confirms that the US will be supplying combined-arms training to groups of 500 Ukrainian troops in Germany. This indicates that by June, if not before, Ukraine will have some kind of striking force that can move with both speed and power.  I would not be surprised if the training duration was on the order of two months long, and that Ukraine would also have to do some exercises afterwords in Ukraine to ensure they were "ready". Maybe it can be done faster, but I kind of doubt it.

The 500 troop class size is slightly smaller that a "typical" US Army battalion. That isn't really enough to form an effective striking force. You would need four to six such classes amalgamated together to form a regiment. That regiment would have to train as a unit, which would further delay it's IOC. I am not sure what the prospective organizational unit will be in Ukraine. It might be a battalion sized unit, but the Russians have amply demonstrated that is probably too small to operate on it's own. We shall see what evolves.

[TrumpCard]

The training schedule makes it look like the US is now planning for this to be a longer term conflict. Until now, the mantra was getting the Ukrainians stuff they can put to good use almost immediately. Now we’re seeing equipment, systems, and strategies that require a significant amount of lead time. I’m guessing the Ukrainians can figure out the Bradleys by the beginning of Spring. But combined arms maneuvers?  Doesn’t that require air support?  Are F-16s next?  Also, 50 Bradleys is like 1 battalion’s worth of IFVs. If a strike force requires 4+ battalions, the US is gonna need to send a lot more Bradleys or tanks or both.  I’m guessing we won’t see this in full display until Fall.  More realistically maybe next year.

[TrumpCard]

The training schedule makes it look like the US is now planning for this to be a longer term conflict. Until now, the mantra was getting the Ukrainians stuff they can put to good use almost immediately. Now we’re seeing equipment, systems, and strategies that require a significant amount of lead time. I’m guessing the Ukrainians can figure out the Bradleys by the beginning of Spring. But combined arms maneuvers?  Doesn’t that require air support?  Are F-16s next?  Also, 50 Bradleys is like 1 battalion’s worth of IFVs. If a strike force requires 4+ battalions, the US is gonna need to send a lot more Bradleys or tanks or both.  I’m guessing we won’t see this in full display until Fall.  More realistically maybe next year.

[Goose]

The training schedule makes it look like the US is now planning for this to be a longer term conflict. Until now, the mantra was getting the Ukrainians stuff they can put to good use almost immediately. Now we’re seeing equipment, systems, and strategies that require a significant amount of lead time. I’m guessing the Ukrainians can figure out the Bradleys by the beginning of Spring. But combined arms maneuvers?  Doesn’t that require air support?  Are F-16s next?  Also, 50 Bradleys is like 1 battalion’s worth of IFVs. If a strike force requires 4+ battalions, the US is gonna need to send a lot more Bradleys or tanks or both.  I’m guessing we won’t see this in full display until Fall.  More realistically maybe next year.

Hard to say exactly what the "plan" is at this point. Being able to physically operate the Bradleys is different than really being able to "use" them. A NATO combined arms operation will have at a minimum helicopter gunship support and undoubtedly has attached FACs to call in air support as needed. Ukraine probably can't operate that way anytime soon. Ukraine isn't going to operate exactly like NATO, just like the UK doesn't operate exactly like the US does. That is OK, so there may be a way Ukraine can get a rapidly moving striking force going that is infantry heavy by US standards, but that infantry would be riding in Bradleys and M113s. They are also getting lots of M113s which are "good enough" if you aren't fighting armor.

As far as F-16s go, I don't see that happening, unfortunately. Unless there has been lots of pilot training going on that we don't know about, it would require an absolute minimum of six months to generate some marginally effective F-16 pilots. That would be really pushing it. Maintenance would also be a big issue training wise. The way to do this would have been to take Ukrainian pilots who have no planes and "new" pilots who have no experience at all to the US and train them on a contingency basis. AFAIK, that didn't happen. Even then you get a force that has no "old heads" with F-16 experience, which isn't good. However, in war you sometimes have to tolerate that. Since we didn't do that, the delay time to develop an operational force is long enough it probably is not considered viable.

[Goose]

The training schedule makes it look like the US is now planning for this to be a longer term conflict. Until now, the mantra was getting the Ukrainians stuff they can put to good use almost immediately. Now we’re seeing equipment, systems, and strategies that require a significant amount of lead time. I’m guessing the Ukrainians can figure out the Bradleys by the beginning of Spring. But combined arms maneuvers?  Doesn’t that require air support?  Are F-16s next?  Also, 50 Bradleys is like 1 battalion’s worth of IFVs. If a strike force requires 4+ battalions, the US is gonna need to send a lot more Bradleys or tanks or both.  I’m guessing we won’t see this in full display until Fall.  More realistically maybe next year.

Hard to say exactly what the "plan" is at this point. Being able to physically operate the Bradleys is different than really being able to "use" them. A NATO combined arms operation will have at a minimum helicopter gunship support and undoubtedly has attached FACs to call in air support as needed. Ukraine probably can't operate that way anytime soon. Ukraine isn't going to operate exactly like NATO, just like the UK doesn't operate exactly like the US does. That is OK, so there may be a way Ukraine can get a rapidly moving striking force going that is infantry heavy by US standards, but that infantry would be riding in Bradleys and M113s. They are also getting lots of M113s which are "good enough" if you aren't fighting armor.

As far as F-16s go, I don't see that happening, unfortunately. Unless there has been lots of pilot training going on that we don't know about, it would require an absolute minimum of six months to generate some marginally effective F-16 pilots. That would be really pushing it. Maintenance would also be a big issue training wise. The way to do this would have been to take Ukrainian pilots who have no planes and "new" pilots who have no experience at all to the US and train them on a contingency basis. AFAIK, that didn't happen. Even then you get a force that has no "old heads" with F-16 experience, which isn't good. However, in war you sometimes have to tolerate that. Since we didn't do that, the delay time to develop an operational force is long enough it probably is not considered viable.

[TrumpCard]

Do you see an end to this conflict in the next 6 months?  I’m not sure I do. If the US is coming around to the view that Ukraine needs a long term plan, I see no reason to withhold fighter jets. Even if this particular hot period of the conflict were to end within 6 months, Ukraine would need a viable military to defend itself in case of future attacks. May as well get started on that now. Aside from the long term need for a viable army, the threat of having western fighter jets available by Fall, or even by next year, might help Ukraine achieve a more favorable peace deal.

[TrumpCard]

Do you see an end to this conflict in the next 6 months?  I’m not sure I do. If the US is coming around to the view that Ukraine needs a long term plan, I see no reason to withhold fighter jets. Even if this particular hot period of the conflict were to end within 6 months, Ukraine would need a viable military to defend itself in case of future attacks. May as well get started on that now. Aside from the long term need for a viable army, the threat of having western fighter jets available by Fall, or even by next year, might help Ukraine achieve a more favorable peace deal.

[Goose]

Do you see an end to this conflict in the next 6 months?  I’m not sure I do. If the US is coming around to the view that Ukraine needs a long term plan, I see no reason to withhold fighter jets. Even if this particular hot period of the conflict were to end within 6 months, Ukraine would need a viable military to defend itself in case of future attacks. May as well get started on that now. Aside from the long term need for a viable army, the threat of having western fighter jets available by Fall, or even by next year, might help Ukraine achieve a more favorable peace deal.

I don't have any idea how long this conflict will last. Either side could unexpectedly collapse tomorrow. OTOH, both sides are trying to project a posture that they will fight "as long as it takes". One side is undoubtedly wrong about that, anybody's guess as to which one. I do agree with your belief that the US needs to prepare for the eventuality it will be a "long" war and that Ukraine will need a viable defense in the future. I am of the opinion that we are not actually looking that far ahead, unfortunately. It would have been wise to start training pilots and ground crews back in early 2022 just in case we eventually decided to send F-16s. That way the Russians would face an effective fighting force they were not prepared for that could be very effective immediately. Given that we didn't do that "then", we should do so "now".

The problems with announcing the delivery of F-16s to Ukraine and subsequently starting the steps necessary to actually implement that decision are not trivial. First, any escalateory response by Russia would probably be immediate. Ukraine would bear the cost of the "gift" for six months or more before the gift helped them any. Russia may do nothing, but that isn't a given. Second, Russia would be given the opportunity to both attempt to interfere with the delivery of the F-16s and also to develop a strategy to counter this new force. The chaos that Ukraine suddenly having an air force could inflict on surprised and unprepared Russian forces in Ukraine is brobdingnagian. Forfeiting that surprise would be extremely unwise IMO.

Whether or not the US is seriously anywhere near deciding to deliver F-16s to Ukraine is unknown to me, but I tend to doubt the US thinks they could politically get that through the congress right now. I am also pretty sure our NATO allies, at least some of them, would regard it as too risky. That is why I like the idea of preparing to do it, doing the training etc, and also preparing the political ground. This can be done without getting "approval" from anybody. That way, once it is possible, we have the option of doing it (or not) and getting maximum benefit. Ukraine would get the jets as soon as they would get them anyway.

[Goose]

Do you see an end to this conflict in the next 6 months?  I’m not sure I do. If the US is coming around to the view that Ukraine needs a long term plan, I see no reason to withhold fighter jets. Even if this particular hot period of the conflict were to end within 6 months, Ukraine would need a viable military to defend itself in case of future attacks. May as well get started on that now. Aside from the long term need for a viable army, the threat of having western fighter jets available by Fall, or even by next year, might help Ukraine achieve a more favorable peace deal.

I don't have any idea how long this conflict will last. Either side could unexpectedly collapse tomorrow. OTOH, both sides are trying to project a posture that they will fight "as long as it takes". One side is undoubtedly wrong about that, anybody's guess as to which one. I do agree with your belief that the US needs to prepare for the eventuality it will be a "long" war and that Ukraine will need a viable defense in the future. I am of the opinion that we are not actually looking that far ahead, unfortunately. It would have been wise to start training pilots and ground crews back in early 2022 just in case we eventually decided to send F-16s. That way the Russians would face an effective fighting force they were not prepared for that could be very effective immediately. Given that we didn't do that "then", we should do so "now".

The problems with announcing the delivery of F-16s to Ukraine and subsequently starting the steps necessary to actually implement that decision are not trivial. First, any escalateory response by Russia would probably be immediate. Ukraine would bear the cost of the "gift" for six months or more before the gift helped them any. Russia may do nothing, but that isn't a given. Second, Russia would be given the opportunity to both attempt to interfere with the delivery of the F-16s and also to develop a strategy to counter this new force. The chaos that Ukraine suddenly having an air force could inflict on surprised and unprepared Russian forces in Ukraine is brobdingnagian. Forfeiting that surprise would be extremely unwise IMO.

Whether or not the US is seriously anywhere near deciding to deliver F-16s to Ukraine is unknown to me, but I tend to doubt the US thinks they could politically get that through the congress right now. I am also pretty sure our NATO allies, at least some of them, would regard it as too risky. That is why I like the idea of preparing to do it, doing the training etc, and also preparing the political ground. This can be done without getting "approval" from anybody. That way, once it is possible, we have the option of doing it (or not) and getting maximum benefit. Ukraine would get the jets as soon as they would get them anyway.

[thatboy]

Is this any cause for concern?: Kevin McCarthy 'agreed to cut aid to Ukraine' to secure US speaker role

[thatboy]

Is this any cause for concern?: Kevin McCarthy 'agreed to cut aid to Ukraine' to secure US speaker role

[Goose]

Is this any cause for concern?: Kevin McCarthy 'agreed to cut aid to Ukraine' to secure US speaker role

I don't think there is really much danger there, as long as the vast majority of the House Republicans support aid to Ukraine. There will be a comfortable majority of Democrats and Republicans to pass it. That is yet another reason the actions of the 20 or so that held up the selection was stupid. McCarthy doesn't need their votes except on things that split along party lines. In those instances, it is probable the 20 or so will support the bill in question. They may try to move it even further to the right, but they can only do that until the point other Republicans say they won't support the bill in that case. Such concessions by McCarthy are pretty meaningless for that reason.

[Goose]

Is this any cause for concern?: Kevin McCarthy 'agreed to cut aid to Ukraine' to secure US speaker role

I don't think there is really much danger there, as long as the vast majority of the House Republicans support aid to Ukraine. There will be a comfortable majority of Democrats and Republicans to pass it. That is yet another reason the actions of the 20 or so that held up the selection was stupid. McCarthy doesn't need their votes except on things that split along party lines. In those instances, it is probable the 20 or so will support the bill in question. They may try to move it even further to the right, but they can only do that until the point other Republicans say they won't support the bill in that case. Such concessions by McCarthy are pretty meaningless for that reason.

[dabigv13]

Yeah I think there is definitely reason for concern that the Speaker of the House has talked about reduced aid, and has demonstrated by action and now agreement that he will be beholden to the far-right, pro-Russia faction of his party.

Biden still has a lot of freedom of action when it comes to sending existing US weapons as aid. But sending new gear to Ukraine could be held up by McCarthy or the pro-Putin hard right who are holding him hostage.

Certainly a debt-ceiling standoff could affect normal military and government functioning as well in negative ways for Ukraine.

[dabigv13]

Yeah I think there is definitely reason for concern that the Speaker of the House has talked about reduced aid, and has demonstrated by action and now agreement that he will be beholden to the far-right, pro-Russia faction of his party.

Biden still has a lot of freedom of action when it comes to sending existing US weapons as aid. But sending new gear to Ukraine could be held up by McCarthy or the pro-Putin hard right who are holding him hostage.

Certainly a debt-ceiling standoff could affect normal military and government functioning as well in negative ways for Ukraine.

[M T]

pro-Russia faction

I believe this discussion has careened over the line into politics.  I suggest backing off.

[M T]

pro-Russia faction

I believe this discussion has careened over the line into politics.  I suggest backing off.

[dabigv13]

Pretty certain that "politics" are in bounds in this thread as long as it's related to the conflict in Ukraine. War is inherently political.

[dabigv13]

Pretty certain that "politics" are in bounds in this thread as long as it's related to the conflict in Ukraine. War is inherently political.

[Softball Fan]

Yeah I think there is definitely reason for concern that the Speaker of the House has talked about reduced aid, and has demonstrated by action and now agreement that he will be beholden to the far-right, pro-Russia faction of his party.

Biden still has a lot of freedom of action when it comes to sending existing US weapons as aid. But sending new gear to Ukraine could be held up by McCarthy or the pro-Putin hard right who are holding him hostage.

Certainly a debt-ceiling standoff could affect normal military and government functioning as well in negative ways for Ukraine.

Would you provide some names of Congressmen who are backing Putin in this war?

[Softball Fan]

Yeah I think there is definitely reason for concern that the Speaker of the House has talked about reduced aid, and has demonstrated by action and now agreement that he will be beholden to the far-right, pro-Russia faction of his party.

Biden still has a lot of freedom of action when it comes to sending existing US weapons as aid. But sending new gear to Ukraine could be held up by McCarthy or the pro-Putin hard right who are holding him hostage.

Certainly a debt-ceiling standoff could affect normal military and government functioning as well in negative ways for Ukraine.

Would you provide some names of Congressmen who are backing Putin in this war?

[dabigv13]

Sure, here are a few examples of what I mean.

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/HeartlandSignal/status/1506328524986241028?s=20&t=ZHZzAYArHZwFVQ6hI_WrTg[/tweet]

[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/RepGosar/status/1524...u1H2pqPjOw[/tweet]

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/mattgaetz/status/1610418897970409472?s=20&t=xDy1Now1cYFjR26eepxojg[/tweet]

[dabigv13]

Sure, here are a few examples of what I mean.

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/HeartlandSignal/status/1506328524986241028?s=20&t=ZHZzAYArHZwFVQ6hI_WrTg[/tweet]

[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/RepGosar/status/1524...u1H2pqPjOw[/tweet]

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/mattgaetz/status/1610418897970409472?s=20&t=xDy1Now1cYFjR26eepxojg[/tweet]

[martyup]

Keep this up and we'll have to shut down this thread.  That would be a shame.  Please keep it about the Russian invasion of the Ukraine and leave domestic politics out of it.

[martyup]

Keep this up and we'll have to shut down this thread.  That would be a shame.  Please keep it about the Russian invasion of the Ukraine and leave domestic politics out of it.

[cardcrimson]

So tempting to reply, but I agree. Please keep domestic politics and personal political bias out of this thread.

[cardcrimson]

So tempting to reply, but I agree. Please keep domestic politics and personal political bias out of this thread.