Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[uhhello]

The sheer amount of different brand new systems has got to be a mother fucker to manage though.  Having to keep dudes on the lines while at the same time leveraging the newer tech training required should be some interesting reading after this is all over.  Lots of open source reading showing UKR pilots in the States getting "advanced" flight training.  Will probably see them getting some type of new fighter if they can hold their own this spring and summer.  

[Lawman]

The sheer amount of different brand new systems has got to be a mother er to manage though.  Having to keep dudes on the lines while at the same time leveraging the newer tech training required should be some interesting reading after this is all over.  Lots of open source reading showing UKR pilots in the States getting "advanced" flight training.  Will probably see them getting some type of new fighter if they can hold their own this spring and summer.  

How many Blk30-40 Vipers are out there.

And while people think Omg brand new systems, remember that used to be the norm in a conflict. Look back at how many aircraft we went from paper to actively on the front lines with in WWII or Korea or even Vietnam.

Hell even outside conflict look how many times the primary fighter for the USAF/Navy changed in the 50-60s.

It is not some impossible hill to climb. And if it’s worth real effective qualitative advantage in combat power at the front because these aren’t unproven systems, they are known quantities. We can teach a kid with literally no experience with a tractor or a drivers license to not only be a soldier but be a loader in an M1 in a sum total of weeks. We can absolutely take guys with workable experience in their systems and rapidly grow them to the system we give them. They are worth the logistical burden because of the capability gains and the ability to keep that training nested in survivable combat forces. That’s going to be critical in this attritional fight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[arg]

44 minutes ago, uhhello said:

Everyone's a logistics expert now days.  Certainly they haven't discussed this issue.  WIll probably talk about it in a couple weeks.  

Last thing about fuel. As I mentioned a jet engine can burn anything flammable. JP8 is kerosene based which is a little more volatile than diesel. I think diesel weighs a little more, not sure. JP8 is for airplanes, however in addition to the additives for airplanes, anti-icing for example, the main thing is lubrication. I'm betting JP8 for the tank was some sort of MilSpec for certification.

Anyway, if they run low low I'm sure a farmer can just steal a Russian tank and they can use that fuel.

[Lawman]

Last thing about fuel. As I mentioned a jet engine can burn anything flammable. JP8 is kerosene based which is a little more volatile than diesel. I think diesel weighs a little more, not sure. JP8 is for airplanes, however in addition to the additives for airplanes, anti-icing for example, the main thing is lubrication. I'm betting JP8 for the tank was some sort of MilSpec for certification.
Anyway, if they run low low I'm sure a farmer can just steal a Russian tank and they can use that fuel.

You guys realize the biggest thing that makes a fuel FXX vs FXY is the additive detergents added after refinement right?

Look we’ve got charts on what to do when you run an engine in F24 vs local source off road class diesel or mixes there of. There are defined protocols on ground engines where I can mix a 55 gallon of F24 with regular run of the mill diesel and it’s literally no change you treat it as standard F24. And before anybody asks yes there are more viscous forms of fuel out there, F24/JP8 was a deliberate compromise to get a common fuel across land/air in NATO.

The Ukrainians will absolutely get through this and if the difference is a 690 hour TBO on a part instead of a 700 hour, that’s not really going to make some earth shattering difference.

Oh and for all the gas an M1 uses that’s on the move. It uses less than a T72 when squatting in a DFP, and unlike a diesel that turbine can be fired and slammed on the move without having to regularly cycle to keep the engine warmed. I’ve watched them actually burned less fuel than the non APU equipped Leo’s (and likewise the 72) in field exercises doing static defense because in the winter especially they had to run the engines at idle all the time to keep from having issues related to cold starts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[arg]

5 minutes ago, Lawman said:

You guys realize the biggest thing that makes a fuel FXX vs FXY is the additive detergents added after refinement right?

Look we’ve got charts on what to do when you run an engine in F24 vs local source off road class diesel or mixes there of. There are defined protocols on ground engines where I can mix a 55 gallon of F24 with regular run of the mill diesel and it’s literally no change you treat it as standard F24. And before anybody asks yes there are more viscous forms of fuel out there, F24/JP8 was a deliberate compromise to get a common fuel across land/air in NATO.

The Ukrainians will absolutely get through this and if the difference is a 690 hour TBO on a part instead of a 700 hour, that’s not really going to make some earth shattering difference.

Oh and for all the gas an M1 uses that’s on the move. It uses less than a T72 when squatting in a DFP, and unlike a diesel that turbine can be fired and slammed on the move without having to regularly cycle to keep the engine warmed. I’ve watched them actually burned less fuel than the non APU equipped Leo’s (and likewise the 72) in field exercises doing static defense because in the winter especially they had to run the engines at idle all the time to keep from having issues related to cold starts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hold up, are we arguing? I thought we were on the same page, or at least in the same book. I'm drunk so not sure. Should we discuss JetA?

I was around when we went from JP4 to JP8, it caused a few problems in the Herk world. It was because JP8 was cheaper, not better.

I need a password that I can't remember when I'm drunk.

[Lawman]

Hold up, are we arguing? I thought we were on the same page, or at least in the same book. I'm drunk so not sure. Should we discuss JetA?
I was around when we went from JP4 to JP8, it caused a few problems in the Herk world. It was because JP8 was cheaper, not better.
I need a password that I can't remember when I'm drunk.

I’ve just been seeing this ridiculous “the M1 needs jet fuel!” Bullshit for so long it’s maddening so no if you’ve got the general gist that this tank absolutely will run on diesel (because that’s what JP8 is formulated to basically be) no man you’re miles ahead of a whole lot of idiots out there right now.

I’m just truly amused at people they think that’s this unbelievably difficult problem to solve in a war where long range cruise missiles are routinely hitting hospitals and schools causing mascal events. Getting the right formula of gas in trucks to tanks that can be used is not nearly the long pole in the tent right now. Christ we can source them fuel trucks too. Oh wait… somebody will be along to freak out about how that’s gonna be an impossible logistical problem.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[uhhello]

1 hour ago, Lawman said:

How many Blk30-40 Vipers are out there.

And while people think Omg brand new systems, remember that used to be the norm in a conflict. Look back at how many aircraft we went from paper to actively on the front lines with in WWII or Korea or even Vietnam.

Hell even outside conflict look how many times the primary fighter for the USAF/Navy changed in the 50-60s.

It is not some impossible hill to climb. And if it’s worth real effective qualitative advantage in combat power at the front because these aren’t unproven systems, they are known quantities. We can teach a kid with literally no experience with a tractor or a drivers license to not only be a soldier but be a loader in an M1 in a sum total of weeks. We can absolutely take guys with workable experience in their systems and rapidly grow them to the system we give them. They are worth the logistical burden because of the capability gains and the ability to keep that training nested in survivable combat forces. That’s going to be critical in this attritional fight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Right. So what I said…. 😀

[FourFans]

32 minutes ago, uhhello said:

Right. So what I said…. 😀

Dude, I can tell over the internet that you are the asshat that gets routinely slapped in the squadron bar, regardless of how right or wrong you are.

[pawnman]

7 hours ago, FourFans130 said:

Dude, I can tell over the internet that you are the asshat that gets routinely slapped in the squadron bar, regardless of how right or wrong you are.

[DSG]

14 hours ago, Prozac said:

Not sure how you can use this analogy with a straight face. Ukraine is not a part of Russia. It was part of the Soviet Union, an empire that imploded three decades ago. It didn’t secede & invite the West in. It’s been a sovereign nation with control of its own destiny since the fall of Soviet rule, just like the Czechs, Poles, Latvians, and all the other former Warsaw Pact nations that are now free of the shackles of a totalitarian communist oppressor. The Russians seemed to be fine with this when the Ukrainians had a corrupt government that tended to align more with Moscow than the west. It was when that government started to reform that Putin started annexing territory (again-from an internationally recognized sovereign nation). There is most definitely a moral argument to be made here: do we abandon a country that, the moment it starts moving in the positive direction we’ve been actively encouraging, is invaded by its neighbor? Or do we show some backbone and support them?  Easy decision made even easier by the fact we get to wreck the Russian war machine in the process. To your point, no, this is nothing like Texas seceding with help from our adversaries. 

Of course I can use the analogy with a straight face.  It was part of the Russian Empire (among others) for centuries before the USSR existed, and shares a great deal of heritage.  The Black Sea littoral is a relatively recent conquest under the Tsars (from the Khans) established principally by ethnic Russians (though rebalanced somewhat owning to internal migration over the years).  

The last time a piece of the U.S. tried to leave, Washington prosecuted a bloody war to stop it -- they're presently tearing down the losing side's monuments.  If something analogous were to happen today, Washington's circling adversaries could be expected to leap on their high horse and pontificate about sovereignty, too, and with similar validity.  I'll admit Texas isn't the best analogy -- California under a La Raza-esque government that suppressed the English language and tried to 'Latinize' the remaining Anglophone counties might be a better one.

I don't disagree that failing to back Ukraine when it's substantially acted in accordance with American wishes would set poor incentives.  That's more of a practical argument than a moral one, though.  Morally, if the U.S. were truly interested in conflict avoidance, perhaps it should have kept its word about NATO expansion.  I don't deny that the conflict has turned spectacularly in American favor thus far -- but that was far from preordained.  U.S. policymakers seem to have the Devil's luck.

Again, "sovereignty" is a principle the U.S. respects highly selectively, to put it mildly.  Revisionists love to point out the Kosovo precedent, and for good reason -- there's not really a good answer to it.  I'm not claiming the Russians have the moral high ground, necessarily.  Merely that the principal difference between U.S. and Russian behavior is power.  If you want to call that "relativist," that's fine with me.  I find the widespread need on the part of Americans (particularly in this line of work) to feel like a part of a Marvel movie cast bemusing, personally.

[DSG]

14 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

I'm not entirely following here. Reductionism is useful in theoretical conversation, but it can't be confused for a framework for viewing the real world. 

 

There are no relevant hypotheticals, the real world has already created the scenario. Is Russia being evil in their actions? Is Ukraine to blame for the invasion? Who is right and who is wrong in this conflict?

The world is not black and white, but the many shades of gray do fall on a spectrum that are either more black or more white. Arguing that Ukraine has done something wrong, and therefore a moral judgment cannot be weighed against Russia, is the geopolitical version of saying well she shouldn't have cheated on him if she didn't want to be beaten to death.

 

It really is amazing to me how many people are using other conflicts as some sort of basis for minimizing the obvious moral dilemmas we face in Ukraine. Past acts do not impact the moral characteristics of present conflicts. Right and wrong are not relative. To argue otherwise is too close to post-modernism, which is thoroughly deviod of intellectual substance.

 

It is also remarkable to me that conservatives are now using the same twisted logic that progressives have used for the past decade or two. Well the United States had slaves, so who are we to judge? It's nonsense. Did the chauvinistic kleptocracy deserve to be invaded or not?

 

A fundamental basis for our nation is that we do not inherit the sins of our fathers. Ultimately, there is no United States of America, there are only the people who make it up and the decisions that they make. I don't give two flying s if other people made the wrong decision in the past. My job, my duty as a moral being, is to make the right decision in the scenarios I am faced with. And when I fail, as I have before, I do not get to use that failure as some sort of justification for future inaction.

 

Now, I would not say that the moral nature of international activity binds us to any course, but the Tucker Carlson wing of the Republican party seems hell bent on disputing the moral nature of this particular war, rather than just the appropriate national response, and I find that to be almost laughably obtuse. 

 

 

A moral judgement against Russia may be possible, but I'm just not really interested in making it.  Such judgements are inevitably weaponized, and I'm not inclined to add to the chorus (especially when some of the loudest wailing comes from people I despise).  Call it relativism, a reflexive revulsion to groupthink, partisanship -- it doesn't much trouble me.  If conservatives are muddying the water the way progressives once did, it's for similar purposes -- to reduce support for a conflict for which they're unenthusiastic.  A bit of a chicken-or-the-egg question, to be sure.

I can't say that I have no personal stake in the conflict -- I'm aware that I benefit materially from the present international system.  I won't even say that cheap sushi and smaller iPhones aren't worth killing over -- it comes with the territory.  It's just not something I'm ever going to have any great enthusiasm for.

I wouldn't say that right and wrong are relative, per se.  I would say that moral universals are fewer and different than most would think, and that most pieties that are held up are self-serving.  Viewing morality in a vacuum isn't apt and tends to bias power.

Conservatives are sounding more like progressives did in the past because they've substantially switched places -- the former are the outsiders now.  In fact it's been that way for quite a long time, but they were slow to realize it.  The media has consistently framed Russia and Putin as foreign incarnations of their domestic political foes -- many conservatives are merely reacting in kind to that narrative.

The unanimity of opinion on this board is interesting, though.  Opinion at my unit is considerably more divided, as far as I can gather.  It's not Reddit-level, but it's notably more homogenous.  

[Lord Ratner]

24 minutes ago, DSG said:

California under a La Raza-esque government that suppressed the English language and tried to 'Latinize' the remaining Anglophone counties might be a better one.

Close, except for under this scenario. Mexico/La Raza would be Russia annexing California, and the immoral party. I agree though, it is a much better analogy.

 

25 minutes ago, DSG said:

Morally, if the U.S. were truly interested in conflict avoidance, perhaps it should have kept its word about NATO expansion.

Here we completely agree, though the situation is still quite complicated. This is the only argument I've seen so far that justifies Russia's actions. Informed debaters like you and flea have made it, but it is not a mainstream argument.

You also get to the question of whether or not the world going back on a promise of territorial alignment can justify the widespread slaughter of civilians. I suspect that it cannot. But it at least adds an element of justification. 

Let's also not forget that Ukraine did not join NATO. Maybe it would have, but that was a long way out. You can't preemptively respond to a violation of an agreement. It seems much more likely to me that this was merely used as a pretext for something Vladimir Putin had wanted and planned for a long time. This started in 2014, not 2022.

 

26 minutes ago, DSG said:

Merely that the principal difference between U.S. and Russian behavior is power.  If you want to call that "relativist," that's fine with me.

Yup, this is pretty classical post-modernist. And wrong. 

First, while we have most certainly interfered in the conflicts and politics of other nations, we have not sought to expand our physical empire. That makes us rare amongst modern powers. Seizing the land of another nation is quite clearly different than meddling. And slaughtering civilians by the tens of thousands in pursuit of military, political, or economic goals is also clearly different. To compare the two morally implies no sense of morality at all. And even if we have the same moral past as Russia, that still doesn't affect the moral implications of today's conflict. You cite examples of both countries being immoral then imply that somehow obviates the possibility of judging this conflict. But how can you judge the previous conflicts (by both Russia and the US) as immoral, then be unable to judge present conflicts?

 

So more to the point: Let's ignore the hypotheticals, because we don't need them. We have a very clearly defined situation now that you are clearly educated on. Is Russia acting morally or immorally? Do they have the right to do what they are doing, or not? 

Does Russia have a legitimate claim to Ukraine (they tried taking Kiev), and is a military attack justified in pursuing that claim? 

That doesn't even touch the war crimes. Just the military decision to take Ukraine and (try to) destroy the Ukrainian military in doing so.

 

The historical perspective is useful for judging the present situation, because experience and comparison are important. But stopping short of making the actual judgment negates the entire exercise. I suspect the reason so many of the don't-interfere-in-this-conflict crowd are unwilling to finish the analysis is they don't want to, either consciously or unconsciously, say that an evil is happening but they are willing to let it happen. It's a bad look, even if/when it's the correct call. 

 

But it also makes the debate difficult to the point of satire. Because when the question of morality inevitably comes up and is danced around, instead of talking about the prudence of acting or not acting against evil, we end up talking about whether or not the situation is evil at all, when it is clearly so.

[filthy_liar]

On 1/24/2023 at 6:33 PM, Lawman said:

The system of life you enjoy is build around the framework that for the last 70+ years a developed country could not annex another developed country by force of arms without global repercussions (See Desert Storm).

Failing to get off our collective asses and do something about Russia attempting to upend that system absolutely impacts your ability to “do normal stuff.” Because right now the accepted global norm is at the near bank of the Rubicon in what the accepted global status quo is. Throwing up the isolationist “not our problem,” is crossing that to the other bank which would be an entire new paradigm in the global status quo. One that will very well likely require us to get directly involved in a conflict of arms vs what is now a relatively simple matter of giving a somewhat friend the ability to hobble a definite opponent.

Do you really believe this?

[filthy_liar]

22 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

If you see someone being mugged, and you beat the shit out of the mugger, no one cares why you did it.

Makes sense to me now.  You are disconnected from reality.  On several fronts.  There is so much incorrectness in that sentence I don't know where to begin.  Let's start with...we're not beating the shit out of Russia.  And end with...in the real world, yes, if you beat the shit out of a mugger, there's going to be a wheelbarrel full of people who care why you did it.  

[Lord Ratner]

1 hour ago, filthy_liar said:

Makes sense to me now.  You are disconnected from reality.  On several fronts.  There is so much incorrectness in that sentence I don't know where to begin.  Let's start with...we're not beating the shit out of Russia.  And end with...in the real world, yes, if you beat the shit out of a mugger, there's going to be a wheelbarrel full of people who care why you did it.  

I might be disconnected from your reality, but I don't think that's the one the rest of us live in.

 

You don't think devastating effects are being brought upon Russia? Because the Russian media sure would disagree. They obviously have a very different opinion as to why those effects are being brought upon them. This is the type of nonsense I'm talking about. It is perfectly rational to disagree with our support of the Ukrainians. But denying basic realities because they don't support your position just wastes time.

Next, everyone I know who's acted as a good Samaritan against a violent attacker has gotten a handshake and a pat on the ass from the cops. While the stories of homeowners being charged for shooting a burglar are viral on the internet, they're not representative of what happens in the real world, which again, I'm not sure you are a member of. And some of the biggest self-defense cases have ruled in favor of the defendant. Zimmerman and Rittenhouse to name a couple. 

 

Maybe you live somewhere like California? It's been a long time since I lived there, so I suppose it's entirely possible the insanity there has escalated to the point Californians don't remember how the rest of the country operates. 

 

And finally, do I need to explain how analogies work? 😂🤣

[filthy_liar]

Too much to unpack there.  Don't care if devastating effects are being brought upon Russia.  Good lord.  Not interested in good Samaritans or homeowners/stand your ground/castle law.  I think go back and read my original post.  I don't live in CA.  Yes, pleas explain how analogies work.

[filthy_liar]

To clarify for the internets, I don't care about any of that because I think I understand it.  I think I understand what effects are being felt in Russia.  Its my job.  The cheerleading everytime a youtube video comes out of a Ukranian farmer taking out a Russian MiG are incorrect.

I understand what a good Samaritan is.  The more I read your reply, the more I doubt you have any clue about what I'm talking about.  Internets, right?  Go back and read my original post.

[Pooter]

Maybe we can get back to some basic assumptions we can all agree upon:

Russia military weakened = good

Russia agitated to the point they might go nuclear = bad

Ukraine getting invaded against their will = bad

US spending a crap ton of money on something that's kinda not our business and with no movement toward a clear end goal = probably bad

Deterring Russia/China from future more consequential land grabs = good

 

🤷🏻‍♂️🤷🏻‍♂️🤷🏻‍♂️

 

why it's almost like foreign policy involves lots of complicated trade-offs without a super clear right answer. 

[ViperMan]

On 1/24/2023 at 7:10 PM, The TRON said:

Except they don’t have the logistical capability to employ them.  The Abrams and Leopard both come with huge logistics bills, one of which for the Abrams is a huge thirst for a fuel that isn't diesel like every other tank the Ukrainians have.  Much more we are risking and more than likely giving the Russians a few of our tanks that the Ukranians will inevitably abandon when they break down.  Hell the Brits giving 14 Challenger IIs creates a huge logistics bill for what amounts to 4 platoons worth of tanks.  It sounds great from the talking heads to just give the Ukrainians all this kit, but it has to be sustainable.  We’re making the Ukranian army into a logistics mess with so many different systems only the Germans in World War 2 could dream this up.  On top of all that the West isn't even gearing up to produce what is already being given up...  

I don't think this post is going to age well.

Based on how the war is going so far (for Ukraine), do you seriously think no one in our government has thought of this???

[filthy_liar]

32 minutes ago, Pooter said:

Maybe we can get back to some basic assumptions we can all agree upon:

Russia military weakened = good

Russia agitated to the point they might go nuclear = bad

Ukraine getting invaded against their will = bad

US spending a crap ton of money on something that's kinda not our business and with no movement toward a clear end goal = probably bad

Deterring Russia/China from future more consequential land grabs = good

 

🤷🏻‍♂️🤷🏻‍♂️🤷🏻‍♂️

 

why it's almost like foreign policy involves lots of complicated trade-offs without a super clear right answer. 

Don't like agreeing with Pooter because of you know, covid.  He's not incorrect here.  I don't like him, but he's not incorrect.  I'm confident that he's making life changing decisions right now based on the fact that a rando on the internet does not agree with his covid stuff.  But he ain't incorrect here.

[ViperMan]

On 1/24/2023 at 7:57 PM, DSG said:

I tend to sympathize with your realist take on things, but calling a chauvinistic kleptocracy and vector of hostile (to Russia) foreign influence "innocent" is quite a reach.  There's certainly a strategic and economic case for supporting Ukraine, but the moral one, I find unimpressive.  The U.S. is happy to support ethnic separatism when it suits it (Kosovo) -- presently, its Ukrainian client is violating the tenants of self-determination by forcing the Russophone southeast back under its writ.  And needless to say, America has stepped on far more than its share of weak states.  You can bet that if (say) Texas were to secede and invite Chinese and Russian troops onto its soil, the reaction of Washington would be apocalyptic.  I find the moral outrage to be empty and self-serving, frankly.  

This post has to be satire. You find the *moral* case lacking??? I don't think there has been a clearer moral case since 9/11 or WWII to intervene in a conflict.

It's fine if you want to be a nihilist/relativist. But if you choose to go there, you don't get to judge it on those grounds from either side.

[ViperMan]

23 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

A fundamental basis for our nation is that we do not inherit the sins of our fathers. Ultimately, there is no United States of America, there are only the people who make it up and the decisions that they make. I don't give two flying fucks if other people made the wrong decision in the past. My job, my duty as a moral being, is to make the right decision in the scenarios I am faced with. And when I fail, as I have before, I do not get to use that failure as some sort of justification for future inaction.

[filthy_liar]

ViperMan did you come up with that moral choice on you own?  If you did, you would certainly have come up with that prior to Russia's invasion of Ukraine.  You would certainly be morally opposed to Russia's involvement in Georgia yes? And going back further, Russia's involvement in Afghanistan yes?  Russia is doing what Russia does.  I'm good with the argument of nuke em, they are evil.  But this johnny come lately oh dear god they are picking on Ukraine?  Get the out of here.  Where have you been since 1989?

 

[Lord Ratner]

1 hour ago, filthy_liar said:

Don't care if devastating effects are being brought upon Russia. 

 

3 hours ago, filthy_liar said:

Let's start with...we're not beating the shit out of Russia.

Huh? You're a bot, right? Not even General Chang was this good 😂🤣

[ViperMan]

36 minutes ago, filthy_liar said:

ViperMan did you come up with that moral choice on you own?  If you did, you would certainly have come up with that prior to Russia's invasion of Ukraine.  You would certainly be morally opposed to Russia's involvement in Georgia yes? And going back further, Russia's involvement in Afghanistan yes?  Russia is doing what Russia does.  I'm good with the argument of nuke em, they are evil.  But this johnny come lately oh dear god they are picking on Ukraine?  Get the out of here.  Where have you been since 1989?

Nope. I am morally opposed to all those things Russia did. That's not the point though.

The unstated assumption supporting the logic in your argument is that because I haven't intervened in every conflict where a moral case can be made to intervene, I cannot, therefore, ever intervene upon moral grounds. You don't get to simultaneously deride someone's moral justification for war on that basis, and then immediately turn around and cast moral judgement upon those who wish to intervene on those grounds. At least not using that formulation. Morality isn't our reason for going to war. Morality is our justification. You're looking at morality in warfare in reverse, and just because we don't intervene in every conflict where we could morally justify it, doesn't mean you can wholesale discard morality's role in warfare.

The proper way morality figures into this is as a check on our interests and actions. We first have to ask ourselves if it is in our interest to kill Russians. Check? If so, then you have to ask if it is moral to do so in this case. Presumably the answer to question #1 is always yes. The answer to question #2 is contingent. The role the "moral question" plays in any given conflict is to serve as a check and balance on keeping us from going to war with everyone who has different interests from us.

Look at it this way. Is it in Russia's interest to take over Ukraine (let's take their word for it)? Yes. Question 1, check. Question 2? Is it moral for Russia to take over Ukraine? Nope. Hence, they have no justification for war. If you want to go on a moral crusade and fight every immoral thing in the world, go ahead, but you're going to be pretty busy.

Edited January 26, 2023 by ViperMan
Grammar