comment: >
  
  I don’t think that either Russian or Ukrainian AA would be considered trivial to any country other than the US
context: I still believe it comes down to how logistic and production fare on the battlefield rather than firepower and tactics. Sure these tanks would help however russian logistic is still holding.
  Himars made Kherson possible >
  
  Russian logistics are holding (mostly, the lack of quality steel is really hurting them) at the strategic level, but they're struggling at the tactical level. 
  I don't know if it was by design or not, but NATO slow-walking artillery in stages to the Ukrainians has been devastating to Russian supplies. Every time we roll out a new artillery system that increases the range of Ukrainian fire missions, Russia loses a whole mess of ammo and supply depots and is forced to push them even further back. 
  We can't do much about Russia's ability to railroad in supplies from all over their country, even the far reaches in the east, but it's becoming increasingly hard for Russia to move shells from the unloading points to the front line. It's one of several reasons Russia's artillery usage has fallen off heavily. 
  My worry is that Russia is using this as an opportunity to rework their critically worn barrels. I wish we had some more information on that. We had all kinds of stories in late Q3 and early Q4 of 2022 about Russian artillery barrels reaching end-of-life, but very little since. >
  
  Because those reports ultimately turned out to be erroneous or overblown.
  There have been many other “almost” crises for the Russian military reported by the media that have never come to fruition. I think, despite their early and current failures, we are underestimating Russian endurance in this conflict. >
  
  I guess mainly because Russian tactics don’t take their millitary loss of life (and Ukrainien civilians) into account. This has always been typical Russian doctorine. Which is how they won many battles through history. But that was against opponents who had limited supply. Now is a different story. I mean yes the US has the biggest firepower in the world but their logistics is on another level.
  Edit: added “Ukrainien civilians” >
  
  To be honest neither does Ukrainian tactics. 
  There have been many reports of The UAF using anti retreat troops, the same type we criticized Russia for. Ukraine is also sending poorly trained young men into the Bakhmut meat grinder, while many commanders have been urging them to fall back to another line of defense to prevent further loss of life.
  Ukraine is certainly in the “right” in this conflict, but they share the same Soviet mentality that we so decry the Russians for. They are trying to present an image of themselves to us that we will recognize and want to support, which is understandable in their situation, but we need to understand the different between reality and the image they want to portray on the media.
  They are fighting valiantly, but it isn’t the land of western values, heroism, and tolerance many have come to believe it is. It is a former Soviet country  that deals with extensive corruption, and only began attempting to reform very recently. It isn’t a perfect place, and admitting that doesn’t make you “pro Russia,” just realistic. 
  The fact remains Ukraine is dealing with a lot of the same cultural issues Russia is in this war, we just don’t hear about it or want to think about it.
  That said, if you really want to help Ukraine and the Ukrainian people, you have to seek out the information from soldiers on the ground fighting there, not the MoD, and develop an opinion on the situation from there.
  Additionally, with regard to Ukrainian civilians, I is unfortunate that the UAF has put them in more danger than they need to be in. They were advised to use Molotov cocktails against Russian forces, which forfeits their civilian status. Moreover, it has been admitted by many Ukrainian fighters that weapons and equipment is transported regularly in humanitarian aid vehicles, which in turn makes all such vehicles a target. I understand it is a desperate fight, but some of the actions of the UAF have put civilians in additional danger. >
  
  Don't forget about mine fields Ukraine set up in contrast to the treaty they signed in 97 >
  
  Yeah. 
  I understand why they might do that, given the existential crisis they now face, but it is upsetting how resistant people are to acknowledging the fact that they have broken the terms of their own agreement in using a most horrible weapon system.
  We need to call them out, or we risk supporting a horrible regime in the interest of defeating another horrible regime, like the Cold War. 
  We can support Ukraine but condemn their violation of international law. We can support Ukraine but be realistic about the situation on the ground. Not only can we, but we must. >
  
  I am really curious about when they will start using the Bradley's.  Think those will be a real help in blocking the new Ruzzian attacks. >
  
  Not just Bradleys, there are also light tanks like the CV90 that people are overlooking while focusing on the main battle tanks (Leopard, Challenger, Abrams etc.) Ukraine is getting hundreds new IFVs on top of the tanks. >
  
  The Bradleys themselves are scarier than most light tanks. Bradleys scored more confirmed T72 kills during the Gulf War than any other platform by a HUGE margin. They are also incredibly robust and easier to maintain in the field than MBTs which gives them unparalleled versatility. They can also provide their own infantry support unlike most MBT platforms. Bradleys are not a threat to be taken lightly. >
  
  What I find really strange is that we are back to Tanks and Trenches. 
  I remember chatting with my US Mil roommates, and the Airforce dude would always brag AF get the most girls and Army/Marine/Navy guys are just sitting ducks in a future war. 
  And here are Ukraine and Russia reenacting WW1.5. >
  
  Both Ukraine and Russia have militaries with Soviet heritage, meaning that they’re focused more on air defense than air offense. The end result is that neither side is able to deploy their air assets effectively due to large amounts of effective AA 
  You could argue that drones have filled the gap but they are still in a somewhat developmental phase >
  
  Ukraine also doesn't have the advantage of having spent decades developing offensive air platforms and doctrines that can trivialize Soviet air defense. >
  
  For a country Ukraine's size I don't think that would be possible no?