Rigby5
Diamond Member
Wow, you sure do blather about things you know nothing about!
First, the U.S. and NATO can easily afford the Anti-Tank weapons. Russia can not afford to send their best tanks to Ukraine, becuase Russia's economy is tiny. Russia may have some very advanced weaponry, but they don't have the economy to manufacture in mass quantities.
Russia lost ~600 tanks attacking Kyiv, so it's obvious that these anti-tank weapons are very effective.
Russia's attempt to capture Kyiv was a total failure that resulted in massive Russian casualties. So far it looks like the Ukrainians will destroy the Russian army in eastern Ukraine. The Russians haven't gained any ground since their recent attack began.
Not true.
The US and NATO can NOT afford these javelin missiles.
They are not just a rocket, but have sophisticated computer guidance and sensing system.
They cost about $120k each, and over half miss.
So far, Russia has not sent in a tank newer than a 1972, which means they are pretty much worthless.
You do not at all understand economics either.
The "cost" of weapons in Russia is essentially ZERO, because they do not pay anyone for them, but simply make them themselves.
They can make an almost unlimited number, depending on how much raw materials they want to invest.
You a misunderstand the over all strategic facts.
Russia has over 150k tanks, to have lost 0.4% of their tanks.
And no, there is no chance of the Ukrainians being able to continue to ambush the Russians in Eastern Ukraine.
That is because the natives there are going to be Russian instead of Ukrainian, so will pinpoint the location of any Ukrainian forces, the opposite of what happened in the west.
In the east, the Russians will be able to ambush the Ukrainians.