[aliyfarah]

I think it's telling you don't mention what exact 'special forces gear' were provided. As far as I can tell all that was provided were some machine guns and helmets, and don't see any mention of anything useful like night vision goggles, radios etc. Even if these forces were fully specced, SF equipment for a few hundred soldiers would make zero impact on a conflict like Ukraine.

It's interesting to see lately how people use their pet random social/political issue and try draw some parallel with the Russia/Ukraine war.

[stametseater]

Swimmer delivery vehicles, and rebreathers.

> I think it's telling you don't mention what exact 'special forces gear' were provided.

I think it's telling that you think this is telling.

[aliyfarah]

> That gear, vastly superior to old Soviet equipment, is now being used by Russia against Ukraine.

> Swimmer delivery vehicles, and rebreathers.

How exactly are these underwater gear being used by Russians in their invasion?

Are you saying these were used to blow up their own pipelines?

[CamperBob2]

Oh, well, OK, if it was only some basic crowd-control gear such as machine guns and what-not, no biggie, I guess. We cool.

[luckylion]

The original argument was that Russia used it as a pretense to get the equipment to then use it in Ukraine. Did you think Russia didn't have any machine guns before 2014?

[stametseater]

Who said machine guns? aliyfarah, the guy who's trying to discredit the point.

[aliyfarah]

They did provide machine guns. [1]

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/hisutton/2020/06/11/image-shows...

[CamperBob2]

Try that argument with the ITAR people sometime, see how it works out for you.