Putin declares he can ‘finish off’ Ukraine - Unleashes New Strikes

[Tigerace117]

An invasion of Russia is not necessary. It can be bled dry by attrition until it collapses under its own unsustainability and internal strife.

The idea that Russia is about to collapse is not supported by any of the facts on the ground.

What “internal strife”? There are no meaningful secessionist movements in Russia.

 

[Tigerace117]

Russia is interestingly like late stage Nazi Germany in the way they WAY over estimate their capabilities.

The U.S. is the last country that has any room to talk about overestimating its capabilities.

 

[Tigerace117]

More like what Russia keeps doing and more deflection from the topic I see.

No, mass “strategic bombing” to break the will of the civilian populace was US doctrine for decades, practiced in both Korea and Vietnam

 

[jmotivator]

The U.S. is the last country that has any room to talk about overestimating its capabilities.

 

[Tigerace117]

The last twenty years demonstrates that clearly, no matter how desperately you try and avoid it.

 

[jmotivator]

The last twenty years demonstrates that clearly, no matter how desperately you try and avoid it.

It's not the military power that's lacking, it's the political will. It's the reverse in Russia, they have all the will and their military is shit.

 

[dandolo2k]

You either didn't read it or didnt understand it. But your denial and disingenuous assertion doesn't change the fact that you're wrong and are too embarrassed to admit it. I know it, you know it, everyone else knows it, and its there for all to see.

Nope . everyone can read this article and clearly see that you are LYING.
Share a quote that says anything about presidential powers in this article.
Waiting. ...

 

[dandolo2k]

Which could mean America should not send Tomahawks to Moscow either?

I believe US support for Ukraine has much more to do with balkanizing the Russian Federation than in does with promoting freedom in Ukraine

This is exactly the true objective of Ukrainian Coup (2014) , Georgian "revolution", Chechen wars and other terror activity against Russia
The aim is to destroy the country , turn it into bunch of banana republics , and plunder it , grab its natural resources, enslave population , annihilate Russian identity.

 

[Gordy327]

Nope . everyone can read this article and clearly see that you are LYING.
Share a quote that says anything about presidential powers in this article.
Waiting. ...

Read the article! Its all there.

 

[Tigerace117]

It's not the military power that's lacking, it's the political will. It's the reverse in Russia, they have all the will and their military is shit.

The fact you can count the number of Abrams Ukraine has left on one hand and they don’t really want more pretty clearly shows otherwise.

 

[Gordy327]

No, mass “strategic bombing” to break the will of the civilian populace was US doctrine for decades, practiced in both Korea and Vietnam

Those were actual wars we were engaged in and before the advent of smart weaponry. Civilian targets and cities often had military ot industrial complexes, which made them valid targets.

 

[Tigerace117]

Those were actual wars we were engaged in and before the advent of smart weaponry. Civilian targets and cities often had military ot industrial complexes, which made them valid targets.

“Shock and awe” was literally just the same doctrine under a new name with slightly different aircraft.

 

[jmotivator]

The fact you can count the number of Abrams Ukraine has left on one hand and they don’t really want more pretty clearly shows otherwise.

Ukraine didn't drop the M1 Abrams, they just changed their supplier. Australia is donating them.

To put the armor comparison is perspective, the US donated 80 Abrams MBTs to Ukraine that have been squaring off against Russian T-72s. They just recently lost the last of the 80 donated Abrams. They now have ~50 Abrams donated from Australia.

In that same time Russia has lost 1,200 T-72s and a total of 4,000 total tanks lost.

4,000 Destroyed: Russia’s Tanks Are Suffering in Ukraine

According to Oryx, more than 1,200 T-72s were destroyed in the first year of fighting alone.

nationalinterest.org

That's a 15-1 loss rate by the Russians just counting MBT-vs-MBT.

 

[Gordy327]

“Shock and awe” was literally just the same doctrine under a new name with slightly different aircraft.

More like strategic bombing. It was a tactic from WWII. Russia certainly has no issues with targeting civilians.

 

[The Mark]

Well hey at least we are lowering the price of milk, right?

RIGHT....?

U.S. Milk Prices (1995-2025)

Interactive monthly chart and 30 years of historical data from 1995 to 2025.

www.macrotrends.net

No.

 

[pedex]

The Russian economy sucks. People don't talk much about that.

What do you think Ukraine's is like?

 

[dandolo2k]

Read the article! Its all there.

Still NO citation , no quote.
Everything is clear with you and your posts.
They are ALL pure disinformation .

 

[Tigerace117]

Ukraine didn't drop the M1 Abrams, they just changed their supplier. Australia is donating them.

To put the armor comparison is perspective, the US donated 80 Abrams MBTs to Ukraine that have been squaring off against Russian T-72s. They just recently lost the last of the 80 donated Abrams. They now have ~50 Abrams donated from Australia.

In that same time Russia has lost 1,200 T-72s and a total of 4,000 total tanks lost.

4,000 Destroyed: Russia’s Tanks Are Suffering in Ukraine

According to Oryx, more than 1,200 T-72s were destroyed in the first year of fighting alone.

nationalinterest.org

That's a 15-1 loss rate by the Russians just counting MBT-vs-MBT.

Except the vast majority of Ukraine’s tanks are inherited T-72s and T-64s, and has lost at least a thousand tanks in total.

So the pretense that there’s a “15 to 1” kill ratio in favor of the Abrams is just comically nonsensical.

 

[Tigerace117]

More like strategic bombing. It was a tactic from WWII. Russia certainly has no issues with targeting civilians.

It was a tactic designed specifically to target Iraqi civilian morale, just as the US tried in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[CaughtInThe]

What do you think Ukraine's is like?

You mean with Russia invading and dropping bombs on them?

Hell, the reason Putin wants parts of Ukraine is for their economy.

 

[jmotivator]

Except the vast majority of Ukraine’s tanks are inherited T-72s and T-64s, and has lost at least a thousand tanks in total.

So the pretense that there’s a “15 to 1” kill ratio in favor of the Abrams is just comically nonsensical.

It's not comically nonsensical. If the Ukrainians ALSO lost "at least 1000 T-72s and T-64s" over the 2 years and they JUST lost their last US donated Abrams it just proves what a shit platform the T-72 actually is.

The cost of a T-72 is between $500k and $1m and it has very weak Top and under side armor (The Javelin Missile attacks from a high arc developed specifically to defeat T-72s). This is made worse because the autoloader is protected by the weak top armor that lacks the reactive armor of the sides, meaning that penetrating top shots from Javelins or drones have a high rate of cooking off the ammunition, leading to a high death rate of T-72 crews.

The Abrams is $19m but far more durable and equipped with more reactive armor and far superior optics and main gun control. The difference was in stark display during the Gulf War where Iraq was unable to engage Abrams at the same range. In the Gulf war 9 M1 Abrams were lost while Iraq lost 150 T-72s.

The only tank that really rivals the Abrams is the German Leopard, but it's roughly twice the price of the Abrams.

The T-72 is a good tank if survival of the crew is low on your priorities ... and the enemy isn't running Abrams tanks.

 

[Tigerace117]

It's not comically nonsensical. If the Ukrainians ALSO lost "at least 1000 T-72s and T-64s" over the 2 years and they JUST lost their last US donated Abrams it just proves what a shit platform the T-72 actually is.

The cost of a T-72 is between $500k and $1m and it has very weak Top and under side armor (The Javelin Missile attacks from a high arc developed specifically to defeat T-72s). This is made worse because the autoloader is protected by the weak top armor that lacks the reactive armor of the sides, meaning that penetrating top shots from Javelins or drones have a high rate of cooking off the ammunition, leading to a high death rate of T-72 crews.

The Abrams is $19m but far more durable and equipped with more reactive armor and far superior optics and main gun control. The difference was in stark display during the Gulf War where Iraq was unable to engage Abrams at the same range. In the Gulf war 9 M1 Abrams were lost while Iraq lost 150 T-72s.

The only tank that really rivals the Abrams is the German Leopard, but it's roughly twice the price of the Abrams.

The T-72 is a good tank if survival of the crew is low on your priorities ... and the enemy isn't running Abrams tanks.

The fact Ukraine’s lost so many Abrams pretty clearly shows otherwise. Crying “it did well in Iraq” is meaningless; Saddam’s military was not at all good at conventional warfare.

Ukraine didn’t even receive its first Abrams tanks until six months into the fact, and took so many losses it pulled them off the front lines…. Another fact you conveniently ignore.

You are trying to credit, for example T-72s killing other T-72s to the Abrams killing T-72s, because the poor performance of America’s much heralded wunderwaffe against the Russians is totally humiliating for the US.

 

[jmotivator]

The fact Ukraine’s lost so many Abrams pretty clearly shows otherwise. Crying “it did well in Iraq” is meaningless; Saddam’s military was not at all good at conventional warfare.

... you do realize that between Ukraine and Russia they've lost 2,500 Russian AFVs, and 2,500 MBTs between them in that same time?

Ukraine didn’t even receive its first Abrams tanks until six months into the fact, and took so many losses it pulled them off the front lines…. Another fact you conveniently ignore.

Wrong. They were relegated to mobile artillery because their gun and optics gave them a distinct advantages at 1+km engagements.

You are trying to credit, for example T-72s killing other T-72s to the Abrams killing T-72s, because the poor performance of America’s much heralded wunderwaffe against the Russians is totally humiliating for the US.

No, I'm pointing out what the world has known for years: The T-72 is a death trap. M1 Abrams crews tend to survive even when the tank is destroyed.

Saying that Abrams have been "humiliated" by the loss of 80 tanks over the course of the war while promoting the prowess of a tank that has suffered 2,500 losses in the same conflict is just bizarre... but you do you.

But by all means keep thinking the Russian tanks are great. T-72s are a great way to waste valuable tank crews.

But I'm sure Russia will roll over Ukraine any day now.

It should also be pointed out that the biggest negative for the Abrams tanks in Ukraine is that they are piloted and maintained by novice Ukrainian crews. The same can't be said for the Russian T-72 crews... what's left of them.

 

[Tigerace117]

... you do realize that between Ukraine and Russia they've lost 2,500 Russian AFVs, and 2,500 MBTs between them in that same time?



Wrong. They were relegated to mobile artillery because their gun and optics gave them a distinct advantages at 1+km engagements.



No, I'm pointing out what the world has known for years: The T-72 is a death trap. M1 Abrams crews tend to survive even when the tank is destroyed.

Saying that Abrams have been "humiliated" by the loss of 80 tanks over the course of the war while promoting the prowess of a tank that has suffered 2,500 losses in the same conflict is just bizarre... but you do you.

But by all means keep thinking the Russian tanks are great. T-72s are a great way to waste valuable tank crews.

But I'm sure Russia will roll over Ukraine any day now.

It should also be pointed out that the biggest negative for the Abrams tanks in Ukraine is that they are piloted and maintained by novice Ukrainian crews. The same can't be said for the Russian T-72 crews... what's left of them.

You do realize Iraq lost dozens of Abrams tanks against ISIS, right? Saudi Arabia’s Abrams tanks didn’t perform any better against the Houthis in Yemen, as it turns out.

The multiple news articles pointing out Ukraine withdrew the handful of Abrams tanks left from the frontlines very clear contradicts your narrative, sorry

In reality there have been reports about the Abrams’ underperforming going back over a year at this point.

The “game changing” Abrams didn’t accomplish anything of the sort, as it turned out.

But I get the US clings desperately to fantasies of its wunderwaffe sweeping all before them, no matter what actually happens on the battlefield

It should be pointed out there’s no shortage of “best in the world” American gear the Russians have left burning wrecks, actually.

 

[jmotivator]

You do realize Iraq lost dozens of Abrams tanks against ISIS, right? Saudi Arabia’s Abrams tanks didn’t perform any better against the Houthis in Yemen, as it turns out.

LOL again I point to 2,500 lost T-72s in Ukraine in 2 years.

Most of the Abrams losses in Ukraine and Yemen are to bad tactical deployment. The Abrams, like the T-72, is built for combined arms tactics, something that Ukraine can't do because it lacks battlefield dominance (even with all those T-72s!) and Saudi Arabia has demonstrated they don't know how to deploy MBTs either. Saudi Arabia uses MBTs like they trained for their use by playing Battlefield 6.

And, again, you seem to think you can gather important information about the abilities for the Abrams from 100 battlefield losses but nothing can be gathered from 2,500 T-72 losses in Ukraine.