Russia - threadbanned users in OP

Ssshhhh

Report that russian advances in Soledar may not have been very significant:

And not for the first time, we hear of retreats and Russian forces regaining control only for a counter attack and bang, the following day the Ukrainians are back in. The Russians are so desperate for gains, they're getting sucked in everytime.

That's great news,apparently there are lots of tunnels there that the Ukrainians used to their advantage.

The orcs advanced,the AFU in small cells would then attack from the rear,place mines,or sabotage the orcs equipment.

Again depending variant and equipment on said aircraft,the Brazil deals involves license agreements to produce assembly in Brazil , it's really simple the Brazilian Gripens are the latest and larger Gripen E /F variants which is different to earlier model's A-C

Get F16s lol.

The Swedish JAS 39 Gripen, of variants C and D, is notorious for being one of the cheapest new 4 or 4.5 generation fighter jets around. Its cost could go as low as $30 million per piece, a bargain for such an advanced machine. 

Its latest variants, the E and F, changed that. While they are still much cheaper to operate than 5th generation fighter jets, the cost of one such jet has more than doubled. An explanation of that lies in jets’ differences: almost everything, except for the airframe, got upgraded. New radar, engine, avionics, improved weapons systems – very little remained of the old Gripen. 

In 2012, the new-generation JAS 39 was expected to cost over $100 million. It is only in the latest years that Saab managed to reduce the price, and with the reduction, the Gripen once again became a sought-after jet on the international market.

https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/27553-top-10-most-expensive-fighter-jets-in-2021

Why are we surprised/ not surprised

...

You have to look at it from Khordorkovsky's point of view... I'd say that he may be planning a return to Russian politics in the great upheaval that's expected. So he cannot make the Russian people a scapegoat,,, that position is reserved for Putin and his minions.

If you're referring to the Budapest Memorandum, I see no clause which explicitly obligates the US to directly intervene on Ukraine's behalf if attacked by Russia.

1. Respect the signatory's independence and sovereignty in the existing borders.
2. Refrain from the threat or the use of force against the signatory.
3. Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by the signatory of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.
4. Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".
5. Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against the signatory.
6. Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments

The US has been providing much assistance to Ukraine, beginning from 2014 and increasing from there in terms of weapons and training, and this isn't even in the case of nuclear weapons being used, per clause 4. I have a feeling that some terms were left deliberately vague upon the original drafting as diplomats on either side would have been keen not write themselves into a corner over Ukraine. Zelenskyy has said that he's dubious over Western commitment to the Budapest Memorandum, but then his M.O. has always been maximum pressure, and if he thought that assistance meant direct intervention, I don't know if he really believes that or if it's a case of reach for the stars and grab the moon, similar to asking NATO to close the sky. He knew he wouldn't get that, probably, but he'd take everything short of it.

The US was never going to go to war with Russia to protect Ukraine risking plunging all of Eastern Europe in to war and the use of nuclear weapons.

Ukraine have been provided defensive equipment to protect themselves.

That is all the west can do unfortunately.

It's likely that NATO has always known Russia was a paper tiger in terms of its conventional military. I don't think it's on that basis that NATO has hesitated to have a direct confrontation. It seems to be the policy not to go toe to toe with nuclear powers, and it seems like that's still being followed.

Forest how many NATO troops are in UA?