 Russia keeps new T-14 tank, Su-57 out of Ukraine over reputational damage fears. Russia has touted the new T-14 Armata as a highly advanced and formidable tank for dominating the modern battlefield. Yet, there has been no evidence it has seen action in Ukraine or that it has even been deployed there for that matter, according to Business Insider. The publication says that Moscow has also sidelined another much celebrated asset, the supposedly fifth-generation Su-57 fighter jet, raising the question of why the Russian military would leave top weapons behind. The answer, per a new Western intelligence assessment, is that the Kremlin likely fears the reputational damage of losing one of its T-14s in combat. The Russians have described the next-generation T-14 main battle tank, which was introduced in 2015 as cutting-edge weaponry, featuring new technology and automated functions like a remotely operated cannon, sophisticated sensors, onboard drones, and defence against anti-tank weapons. The emergence of the Armata initially sparked concerns among some Western analysts who worried that it might rival NATO tanks like the M1 Abrams, Leopard 2, or Challenger 2. But years into its development, the T-14 program remains plagued by problems such as manufacturing issues, delays, and a reduction in fleet size, all while the tank's reliability has also been called into question. Russia's first Guards Tank Army was supposed to receive the T-14 in 2021 and Moscow was even considering deploying the tanks to Ukraine at one point in early 2023. Kiev has denied Moscow's claims about the tank's involvement and said it hasn't seen any Armata's in battle consistent with the UK's assessment. According to Business Insider, the relationship between the T-14 and the Ukraine war bears similar hallmarks to what British intelligence and aviation experts have previously said about the Su-57, which is Russia's highly touted first attempt at a fifth-generation fighter jet, the kind of aircraft that should be able to make a difference in a war like Ukraine. Russia is highly likely prioritizing avoiding the reputational damage, reduced export prospects, and the compromise of sensitive technology which would come from any loss of the Su-57 over Ukraine, Britain's defence ministry said earlier. British soldiers in Ukraine helping fire missiles German Chancellor Olaf Scholz reveals. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has come under fire from the UK after he suggested that there were British troops operating in the Ukraine conflict. Olaf Scholz said that he would not deliver the long-range Taurus missiles, Berlin's equivalent of a storm shadow as it would require soldiers assisting on the ground, citing the UK and French approach with their own systems. Scholz argued that following the UK would make Germany a participant in the war. The comments were seen as endangering British military and diplomatic personnel on the ground. Scholz went on to say that Taurus is a very long-range weapon and what was done on the part of the British and French in terms of target control and target control assistance can't be done in Germany. Commenting on Scholz's remark Tobias Elwood, the former chair of the British Commons Defence Committee said it was a flagrant abuse of intelligence deliberately designed to distract from Germany's reluctance to arm Ukraine with its own long-range missile system as quoted by the Telegram. The British lawmaker was also sure that the statement would be used by Russia to ratchet up the escalator ladder. German soldiers can, at no point and in no place, be linked with the targets that this system reaches. Scholz insisted, even if operating from German soil, according to the DPA news agency. The German Chancellor stated that it would be not very responsible for his country to risk becoming a party to the war. Meanwhile, the Financial Times quoted an anonymous senior European Defence official as saying that everyone knows that there are Western special forces in Ukraine. They've just not acknowledged it officially. US military warns of environmental disaster after spill in Red Sea caused by Houthi attacks. US CENTCOM has warned of an environmental disaster following an attack by Yemen's Houthis on a cargo ship that caused an oil slick in the Red Sea. On the 18th of February, the Houthis targeted a UK-owned bulk carrier named Rubimar flagged by Belize. The ship was sailing through the Bab Al-Mandeb Strait, connecting the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden en route to Bulgaria from Khor Fakan in the United Arab Emirates when it was attacked by multiple missiles. The Rubimar, a Belize flagged but British-owned bulk carrier, has been drifting in the Red Sea after it was struck by two missiles. The ship, which is feared to be in danger of sinking, is leaking an 18-mile oil spill and carrying 41,000 tons of volatile fertilizer. The 22nd of February attack on the Rubimar inflicted the most significant damage so far on a commercial ship since the Houthis started targeting vessels in November. The Houthis say their attacks on commercial shipping in the Red Sea are in solidarity with the stricken people of Gaza. Scent composted on X that the unprovoked and reckless attack by Iran-backed Houthi terrorists caused significant damage to the ship, which caused an 18-mile oil slick. It has long been feared that the Houthis might extend their actions by disrupting internet traffic and cutting sea cables. 16 small fibre optic lines across the bed of the Red Sea carry about 17% of all international data traffic, including trunk lines connecting Europe with India and East Asia. It was reported on Monday that cables belonging to four big telecom networks including the Asia-Africa-Europe One, TGN Atlantic, Europe-India Gateway and the CCOM system have been damaged in recent months. The cause of the damage has not been identified and natural damage happens relatively regularly. Israeli media reports attributed the damage to Houthi actions but Yemen's Houthi-controlled communications ministry denied involvement.