U.S. President Donald Trump told Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy last year that he had “no cards” in the fight against Russia. But since the meeting, Ukraine has shown it can take the war to Russia.
It’s not an order of magnitude walk back. I was being generous earlier. I compared $1m in attack to $2m for defense which is 1:2. It’s $50k per drone vs $200k for defense. That’s 1:4.
There are tons of videos of them being shot down by guns.
Then the Russian army wouldn’t have asked for a gun-less Pantsir specifically because of drones. Yes a gun can hit a drone. But if guns were effective they would have ordered a missile-less Pantsir with only guns.
Re: no defense. The numbers are for successful attacks. So Ukraine is costing Russia more for defense than they spend in attacks AND inflicting damage.
Russian army is very obviously using both types of Pantsir. I don’t know if you were aware, but armies don’t just stock up one variant of the weapon.
And, again, Ukraine has empty shelves now, its only access to sea blocked off, large numbers of gas stations destroyed, and rail system being decimated. Pretty much every strike Russia does, which happen on far bigger scale, hits because Ukraine has no effective AD at this point as Ukrainians themselves admit. So, let’s apply the same logic in reverse. If Ukraine is costing more for Russia in AD than it costs Ukrainians to attack, then what is it costing Ukraine having no AD in aftermath of much larger Russian attacks. Try to think really hard about this.
Russian army is very obviously using both types of Pantsir.
They use what they have but they asked for a missile only version because it worked better. Again, if guns were more effective, a gun only version would have been requested. The opposite occured. I didn’t say a gun couldn’t work only that it wasn’t effective to the point that the Army requested the removal of the guns.
then what is it costing Ukraine having no AD in aftermath
That is completely irrelevant to the cost argument that you contested. Stay on topic.
It’s as if Russia army has enough of one type of system and wants more of a new variant. But here you are making leaps of logic based on that.
That is completely irrelevant to the cost argument that you contested. Stay on topic.
Excuse me, the destruction of infrastructure and logistics has no cost? Try to put at least a bit of effort into your trolling to make it less obvious.
If Ukraine is costing more for Russia in AD than it costs Ukrainians to attack, then what is it costing Ukraine having no AD in aftermath of much larger Russian attacks. Try to think really hard about this.
Try to think yeah hard on this Russia said three days. Has it been more than 3 days? Totally. Did Russia start out with an overwhelming disparity of both stockpile and deployable units? Absolutely, right? Is Russia keeping up with missile production? No. Are their allies supplying them at or near cost? Nope, not at all. How about Ukraine? At times whole others are just exchanged for infrastructure or resource deals.
So all in all. Russia is at best eeking it’s way through a war it started by surprise with a neighboring non peer or even remotely near peer nation and barely not losing. Congrats on your hypothetical and n not particularly likely pyrrhic victory because Russia lost most of its trade, most of its trading partners and are rapidly losing refinery production which you didn’t really mention however unsurprising that may be. Ukraine isn’t a major oil producer or refiner and Russia certainly was but they’re also having gas strikes because they can’t keep up production.
Except that Russia never said three days, you’ll find no statement from any Russian official saying anything of the sort. The whole narrative came from General Milley during an interview with Fox News, where it was presented as a rough estimate of what American forces might do. The fact that you didn’t even know this basic fact shows how utterly unequipped you are to have this discussion.
So all in all, you’re an utter ignoramus who is unable to engage with reality, and there’s no point trying to have a discussion with you. Hilarious that in your attempt to dodge the question, you revealed yourself as a clown. Life must be hard for somebody of your intellectual stature. I’m truly sorry.
It’s not an order of magnitude walk back. I was being generous earlier. I compared $1m in attack to $2m for defense which is 1:2. It’s $50k per drone vs $200k for defense. That’s 1:4.
Then the Russian army wouldn’t have asked for a gun-less Pantsir specifically because of drones. Yes a gun can hit a drone. But if guns were effective they would have ordered a missile-less Pantsir with only guns.
Re: no defense. The numbers are for successful attacks. So Ukraine is costing Russia more for defense than they spend in attacks AND inflicting damage.
Russian army is very obviously using both types of Pantsir. I don’t know if you were aware, but armies don’t just stock up one variant of the weapon.
And, again, Ukraine has empty shelves now, its only access to sea blocked off, large numbers of gas stations destroyed, and rail system being decimated. Pretty much every strike Russia does, which happen on far bigger scale, hits because Ukraine has no effective AD at this point as Ukrainians themselves admit. So, let’s apply the same logic in reverse. If Ukraine is costing more for Russia in AD than it costs Ukrainians to attack, then what is it costing Ukraine having no AD in aftermath of much larger Russian attacks. Try to think really hard about this.
They use what they have but they asked for a missile only version because it worked better. Again, if guns were more effective, a gun only version would have been requested. The opposite occured. I didn’t say a gun couldn’t work only that it wasn’t effective to the point that the Army requested the removal of the guns.
That is completely irrelevant to the cost argument that you contested. Stay on topic.
It’s as if Russia army has enough of one type of system and wants more of a new variant. But here you are making leaps of logic based on that.
Excuse me, the destruction of infrastructure and logistics has no cost? Try to put at least a bit of effort into your trolling to make it less obvious.
Sure.
Try to think yeah hard on this Russia said three days. Has it been more than 3 days? Totally. Did Russia start out with an overwhelming disparity of both stockpile and deployable units? Absolutely, right? Is Russia keeping up with missile production? No. Are their allies supplying them at or near cost? Nope, not at all. How about Ukraine? At times whole others are just exchanged for infrastructure or resource deals.
So all in all. Russia is at best eeking it’s way through a war it started by surprise with a neighboring non peer or even remotely near peer nation and barely not losing. Congrats on your hypothetical and n not particularly likely pyrrhic victory because Russia lost most of its trade, most of its trading partners and are rapidly losing refinery production which you didn’t really mention however unsurprising that may be. Ukraine isn’t a major oil producer or refiner and Russia certainly was but they’re also having gas strikes because they can’t keep up production.
So yes. Obstinate or ignorant, likely both.
Except that Russia never said three days, you’ll find no statement from any Russian official saying anything of the sort. The whole narrative came from General Milley during an interview with Fox News, where it was presented as a rough estimate of what American forces might do. The fact that you didn’t even know this basic fact shows how utterly unequipped you are to have this discussion.
So all in all, you’re an utter ignoramus who is unable to engage with reality, and there’s no point trying to have a discussion with you. Hilarious that in your attempt to dodge the question, you revealed yourself as a clown. Life must be hard for somebody of your intellectual stature. I’m truly sorry.