"Abrams tanks failing in Ukraine?" Topic

The Abrams is one of the world's best tanks, but Ukraine managed to lose three of them in their first week on the battlefield in the Russia Ukraine war – and even more have been destroyed since then. Russia has been taking out these 4.3million dollar war machines with cheap 'piranha' drones laden with explosives. But is that enough to stop these US-supplied weapons? And how are the armies of the future going to protect their expensive military hardware from the new threat of drone warfare?

Daily Mail on Youtube: link

Ukraine is not fighting the war the Abrams was designed to fight. Massive air support, deep fires from cruise missiles and aircraft and attack helicopters. Large numbers of tanks and IFVs with on call artillery in unlimited numbers.

Penny packets with no air support, limited artillery, probably not in teams with Bradley IFVS. No surprise they are getting hit hard.

Bunkermeister

The war has changed. And the role of tanks has changed in it too.

link

There is now video evidence of seven Abrams destroyed. One was destroyed by a Russian tank, the other by a Russian high-precision projectile "Krasnopol", one was destroyed by the Lancet, the rest by FVP drones.

link

I don't think any tanks are doing well in Ukraine, Russian or Free World, in many ways this war may well be remembered as the Drone War.

Drones are now a problem in any theater of operations.

It is interesting that the revolution in military affairs was carried out by terrorists from ISIS:

dzen.ru/a/WhcrpngAGW81Nvoc

Be interesting to see how the other modern tanks are faring. The Russians had the same problems with their new tanks at the start with drones and similar. Unless there is a "Battle of Kursk 2" or similar, it is highly unlikely that the mantle of best tank is going to be tested properly. Right now, it seems armour is a sh*t magnet for everything.

Yes the M1A1 has to have some sort of Anti-Drone system. And possibly a little more armor. Just like any new system like the drone, an anti-drone system is the answer. As with AT Guns, they were introduced when AFVs hit the battlefield in numbers. As did AAA when aircraft became standard in war.

And again, along with new tech in most cases tactics must evolve as well.

IIRC the M1A3 has better armor protection. But I'm sure effective anti-drone systems are being worked on.

Again, the cycle is generally Measure – Countermeasure – Counter-countermeasure … repeat …

As I posted on another thread here :

link

I thinks drones are rapidly changing modern warfare. Maybe the era of air forces and tanks is starting to wane given the type of warfare being fought today.

Long term between the developments in AI and the effectiveness of what will be considered crude drones by future standards, robots are increasingly the future face of warfare.

Virtually every nations plans for 6th generation fighters involves drone wingmen. The Ukrainian successes with naval drones is likely only a precursor for unmanned surface and underwater drones of significant sophistication. It will take a bit longer for ground forces as terrain and clutter make for much more difficult targeting but most militaries are working on autonomous ground combat as well, such as the US Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle as a Bradley replacement. Sooner of later actual humans may not be decision makers in the kill chain.

High intensity warfare in 2050 will likely feature significant robot v robot combat with less humans directing the machines.

Look…how stupid are people? You are putting a heavy tank, alone or in penny packets, in an encumbered environment and have it getting pounded by 5, 10, 30 or more drones. Yes, it's gonna take a pounding. Yes, it's probably going to be a mobility kill if not a total loss as the drones hit it from every bad angle.

A tank is NOT the answer to everything. It IS the answer to a lot of things. But when you deploy them in singles, you can bet it will be fired on by everything including the kitchen sink.

Are you driving these tanks, balls-out, firing on the move, hunting and supported by all the gas? No? Whiskeytango, my friend.

The Abrams is a phenomenal tank. But using them as they have been and it's like using a F22 as a cargo plane.

And let's be honest…these aren't American crews nailing dinnerplates while roving over encumbered terrain.

First off, these aren't M1A2 SEPV3s, which are the latest with all of the sensors, additional armor, etc. Instead, these are stripped down, older versions that are being used as mobile pillboxes (shades of the Iran-Iraq war). I saw some footage the other day of some Abrams providing long range artillery support! Second, the Ukrainians don't practice large scale operational maneuvers and are basically plugging holes at the moment.

I still contend that a U.S. armored brigade with the latest version of the Abrams, dedicated artillery support, AH-64s on the flanks, and on call air support would cut through the Russian defenses in little to no time and be off to exploit the rear areas.

"A tank is NOT the answer to everything. It IS the answer to a lot of things. But when you deploy them in singles, you can bet it will be fired on by everything including the kitchen sink…"

Well, I saw a video with 23 Russian tanks in attack and all of them were decimated in minutes…

Single or not… seems the tank is dead for military future in big wars…

Armand

aegiscg47, Tango01 right. This doesn't work anymore. If you do not have absolute superiority over the enemy on the battlefield, any number of your tanks will be destroyed in a matter of minutes. The battlefield is now oversaturated with means of destruction, for which destroying a tank is not a problem. Now a tank on the battlefield is just a highly mobile and armored artillery piece. And even this is a very dangerous activity. Russian Lancets are now massively attacking armored vehicles and artillery 70 km from the front line. Enemy reconnaissance drones are constantly inspecting your positions… Now even in the rear, artillery (and tanks) are forced to act on the "hit and run" principle. Two or three shots and you need to quickly change position – either drones, or missiles, or high-precision projectiles are already moving in your direction… This situation can only be corrected by tactical nuclear weapons, but their use is almost 100% guaranteed to lead to a global nuclear war.
And drones on the battlefield are now even chasing single soldiers…

Although Russian "turtle tanks" are working… For now. But they are in such "tuning" – they are no longer tanks, but rather armored personnel carriers.

The Russian Turtle Tank Is The Weirdest Armored Vehicle Of The Ukraine War. The Craziest Thing Is, It Might Actually Work.

link

A selection of videos from the Zala company of strikes by the Russian Lancet drone for May 2024. The drone operates at a distance of up to 70 km behind enemy lines.

vk.com/video-36847450_456243435

New versions of the drone carry both high-explosive and shaped charges and can operate day and night. The operator only determines the target – the complex is aimed at it independently, in automatic mode.

High intensity warfare in 2050 will likely feature significant robot v robot combat with less humans directing the machines.

Yes as AI and tech evolves less humans will be on the battlefield in harm's way. But I think humans will always have a role to play. But more of those will be taken by AI, 'bots, etc.

Augustus +1

these aren't M1A2 SEPV3s, which are the latest with all of the sensors, additional armor, etc. Instead, these are stripped down, older versions that are being used as mobile pillboxes

Yes the Ukrainians don't have latest version, the M1A2 SEP3[I called it is the M1A3]. Only IIRC The Ukraine only has M1A1s(?).

Second, the Ukrainians don't practice large scale operational maneuvers and are basically plugging holes at the moment.

Yes, they are not that adept at fighting combined arms. Regardless, they have killed and destroyed around 50% of Russia's ground assets.

still contend that a U.S. armored brigade with the latest version of the Abrams, dedicated artillery support, AH-64s on the flanks, and on call air support would cut through the Russian defenses in little to no time and be off to exploit the rear areas.

Yes, I agree totally, the Russians continue to show little knowledge of modern mobile combined arms warfare.

seems the tank is dead for military future in big wars…

As I have often said a military that knows how to fight modern combined arms maneuver warfare the Tank is still a very useful component of the combined arms team. Yes, now with the drone being the newest weapon on the battlefield. And is demonstrating how very useful they are if properly used.

Again, just like any new system like the drone, an anti-drone system is the answer. As with AT Guns, they were introduced when AFVs hit the battlefield in numbers. As did AAA when aircraft became standard in war.

"Although Russian "turtle tanks" are working… For now. But they are in such "tuning" – they are no longer tanks, but rather armored personnel carriers" True, but plenty of the turtle tanks are no longer working.

Never mind now the Chinese have been given the go ahead to develop mines in Moscow Oblast all will be well!

Tally Ho!

Simple Aegis like systems will be needed to defeat suicide drones. Radar guided miniguns will be the answer. They'll take out a lot of vultures, but that is tough.

Yes it appears smaller Drones can be taken out with full automatic weapons like Mini-Guns, etc. Just like SPADA systems. But can they be small enough with radar to be mounted on MBTs ? I don't know at this point. But tech evolves as I said.

There is a similar paradigm with SPADA moving with the MBTs, etc., or providing overwatch, SAM umbrella, etc. That is not a new tactic.

I'd think e.g. the old quad .50 cal. being Radar guided. Or the M163 SPADA[20mm mini-gun mounted on an M113 chassis] even the old M42 with radar. Stinger, Chapparral, or other ADA missiles would not be as good as a full automatic weapon, e.g. .50, 25mm, 35mm, etc. vs. smaller drones. ADA missiles are good for larger drones and of course aircraft.

FWIW –

The M6 linebacker is an air defense variant of the M2A2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicle. It retains the 25mm cannon and 7.62mm machine gun of the unmodified M2 but replaces the TOW missile launcher with a launcher that fires the stinger missile. Designed to counter the threat posed by low flying aircraft (attack jets, helicopters and in some cases cruise missiles and unmanned aircraft). Initially an order for 99 Linebackers was placed and the system entered service in 1997. However, the system was phased out of service in 2005-2006. This appeared to be the end of the M6 platform until BAe displayed an updated M6 Linebacker system labeled ‘M-SHORAD'. This featured several upgrades over the original system. For example, the M-SHORAD were equipped with a top turret pHMR search radar, a fire control radar, a jammer to defeat drones, an upgraded 30mm chain gun and the ability to mount AIM-9X in the erectable launcher. While the US army did proceed with the M-SHORAD platform, they elected to mount the system on the Stryker platform instead of the Bradley.

Note the anti-drone jammer …

Augustus+1

I guess they can always give them back.

An outstanding design is the Abrams. Not effective is the crew is poorly trained. Or ineffective due to bad tactical use.

I agree TimePortal and I have heard it said, "A weapon is only as good as its crew and leadership." …

Plus, as we see the drone is a fairly new weapon introduced to the battlefield. There will be learning curve as how to best defend against it. And it appears a number of systems are being developed or even fielded in an anti-drone role.

I can say this with little doubt … the Ukraine's MBTs, Infantry, etc. have performed much better in most engagements vs. the Russians.

For those of us who looked across the Iron Curtain in the 1970s and 1980s, it is hard to grasp how poorly the Russians have preformed.

The situation on the map suggests the opposite. Especially considering that the Russians are forced to fight with one hand (they stupidly allow NATO to use all means of reconnaissance and weapons targeting in favor of Ukraine with impunity). If all military assets that were directly involved in the conflict were destroyed, regardless of their affiliation with supposedly "neutral" countries, the situation would be completely different. Some half-wild Houthis in skirts and slippers on their bare feet allow themselves to shoot down enemy drones and attack NATO ships, and Putin still can't decide to start fighting like an adult… Shame.

As for losses, they can be judged by the only currently verifiable figures – the number of prisoners of war. There are currently 1,348 Russian military personnel and 6,465 Ukrainian soldiers in captivity.

In this regard, it would be very interesting to know how a Russian soldier who surrendered to the enemy is received when he returns home… (if they let him do it)…

Armand

Especially considering that the Russians are forced to fight with one hand (they stupidly allow NATO to use all means of reconnaissance and weapons targeting in favor of Ukraine with impunity). If all military assets that were directly involved in the conflict were destroyed, regardless of their affiliation with supposedly "neutral" countries, the situation would be completely different.

Providing intelligence to an ally is not a military act, is it?

And what could Putin do about it? Are you suggesting he should strike NATO assets?

link

link

link

link

YouTube link

How soldiers returning from captivity are greeted can be seen in the video. Such videos are shown on all central television channels after each exchange of prisoners of war. Returning soldiers are often greeted by relatives right at the airport.
Military personnel released from captivity are first sent to a military hospital for examination, and, if necessary, they are provided with appropriate treatment.
An operational check is also carried out to find out under what circumstances the serviceman was captured and how he behaved in captivity. If the actions of a serviceman do not contain elements of a crime (voluntary defection to the side of the enemy or deliberate transfer to the enemy of entrusted weapons or secret military information), then he receives paid leave (about two months) for rest and recovery. I am not aware of cases of soldiers returning from captivity being put on trial, which is natural – the one who committed the crime is unlikely to want to apply for an exchange.
A mobilized soldier may, at his request, be transferred to the reserve. The contract employee will serve out the term according to the contract if he does not have medical indications for dismissal.
During the period of captivity, the serviceman retains all payments and benefits due to him.

Editor in Chief Bill, if I aim a gun and someone pulls the trigger to shoot an American soldier, is that an act of war on my part? I think the answer is obvious. This is not the same as giving someone a gun with which he can defend himself… The Russian leadership is simply cowardly, it still hopes for the prudence of the West. Cretins))) But you will put pressure on them and they will still start shooting down your scouts and spotters. In any case, a major war is 80% likely – so why chop off the dog's tail piece by piece? This is not humane))) Enough with the stupid games. The West is waging a full-fledged war against Russia, simply using Ukrainians as cannon fodder. That's why the Maidan was started.
You say directly that you need the strategic defeat of Russia, and then its dismemberment. It's time for us to accept this challenge – it is inevitable in any case. For the West, the defeat of Ukraine will also represent the end of hegemony. You've staked too much on this card. So there is not much choice for all parties.
And yes, Russia will most likely lose. But before this it will inflict such damage on the West that it will still lose its position. It's a pity that others will take advantage of this)))

That would have been a more frightening threat two years ago than it is now.

Are we to assume Russian nukes are more reliable than all the other weaponry we've seen on display?

You can easily check)))
Your weapon also looked scary at first. Now it stands at the trophy exhibition in Moscow))) But finding shells for Ukraine is a problem for the whole of NATO.

I've seen yours up close, and they didn't impress me much- although remarkably intact, since their Iraqi crews had plainly had the sense to realize they wouldn't save them.

We're pretty good at retooling quickly, when we have to. It's one reason your posts aren't being translated from German.

"The West is waging a full-fledged war against Russia"-Cuprum

If we were doing that this would be over already. Russia can't handle Ukraine they will never handle the West…

"You say directly that you need the strategic defeat of Russia, and then its dismemberment."-Cuprum

More like strategic containment. As far as dismemberment goes we watched the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, the collapse of the Soviet Union and Russia will dismantle itself.

If the US really wanted to destroy Russia, it could easily have done it in the Fifties, when we had complete nuclear superiority, and the Russians had almost nothing in the way of delivery systems.

Nine pound round, you know, Arab armies using American technology never impressed anyone either)))
The US did not attack the USSR in the 50s for one simple reason: the USSR would have responded by attacking Europe and capturing it. Moreover, hostilities would also involve the use of nuclear weapons. Even in case of victory, what would the United States do with this destroyed world?
Hmm… I wonder if the United States could evacuate and set up 50% of its production to a new location within a year, and even in the conditions of gigantic and unsuccessful military operations, as the USSR did in 1941-42? I really doubt…
"In total, during two stages of evacuation – from June 1941 to February 1942 and in the spring-summer of 1942 – 2,743 enterprises, including 1,523 large ones, were transported from the western and southern regions of the country to the east. The largest number of factories (550) were taken from Ukraine, almost the same number (498) – from the capital region, 109 enterprises were evacuated from Belarus and 92 – from Leningrad. Most of these enterprises – 667 – ended up in the Urals, 322 – in Siberia, 308 – in Central Asia and Kazakhstan, and 226 – in Russia. in the Volga region. During the same time, a total of over 20 million people were evacuated from the west to the east of the USSR – 12.4 million in the first stage and 8 million in the second. The vast majority of them were located on the territory of the RSFSR, mainly in the Urals and in the region. Siberia, about a quarter – in Transcaucasia, Kazakhstan and the republics of Central Asia."

Dragon Gunner:
YouTube link

Only one side would have been using them, because the Soviet Union didn't have a delivery system that outranked an Oscars. Had it come to it, SAC would have burned down every outhouse in the old Soyuz, and everyone knows it. We didn't because destroying it was never our aim, just as it isn't now. Your armies wouldn't have moved twenty miles from their smoking railheads- just like they wouldn't have in the Second World War without American and British trucks.

You can whine about Arabs all you want; I saw the inside of those BMPs and T-72s, and it wasn't hard to take the measure of the culture and organizations that produced them. They were complete crap.

Your trucks appeared in significant numbers in Russia in 1944. By that time, Germany was already in agony. And in general, the USSR received three times less assistance than Great Britain. And you call this help decisive? Nonsense.

The Germans during World War II also had a low opinion of the weapons of the Russian army at first))) But the war ended in Berlin, not in Moscow.

Here are American plans for nuclear strikes on Europe in the event of war with the USSR. Perhaps the American military of that time understood something better than the current ones?

Putin (Cuprum) Issues Rare Statement on Ukraine War Losses

link

Armand

Cuprum, a less intellectually dishonest man would conclude that plan was clear evidence that NATO had no intention of invading Eastern Europe or Russia, and was instead planning defensive action. But that would interfere with the line you're peddling, now, wouldn't it?

Funny, but as far as I remember, the German line from north to south on January 1, 1944 stood entirely on prewar Soviet territory, was within artillery range of Kiev, and still blockaded Leningrad. That's a long way from broken. The 1944 offensives were possible in their full depth only because the other allies had furnished it with the logistical mobility to supply it at a great distance from its railheads.

But I'm sure that's not how the "History of the Great Patriotic War for the Soviet Union, 1941-45" tells it.

As far as I remember, the First World War ended, despite the fact that not a single Allied soldier set foot on German soil. To bring the enemy to surrender, it is not at all necessary to seize his territory. The war would simply have lasted a little longer, that's all.

If you think that the Soviet version of history is still being studied in Russia, then I can only sympathize with you. You missed a lot of interesting research)))

On the contrary, your posts on Soviet history are strong evidence that its influence was deep and permanent.

While I am quite sure that Stalin and his creatures would have made a negotiated peace if they could have done so, any treaty that Adolf Hitler would have agreed to would have looked more like the one that codified Russia's defeat in WWI than the victorious conclusion the Allies arrived at.

9LBS +1

@cuprum2, your chest-beating goes too far. Without America the Axis would have won. And the US fought two very different wars at the same time. Despite British/Commonwealth contributions, the US played the key role in winnig the Pacific War, building massive fleets and amphibious forces to defeat Japan that no other nation could have.

And, without America the Allies could not have won in Europe. The Soviet role should not be under emphasized -- they fought doggedly against a brutal and competent enemy (which was also their former ally when they acted in concert with the Nazis carve up Poland!) and suffered heavy casualties. The Crossing of the Dneiper River was akin to dozens of D-Day landings. But neither should it be over emphasized.

1. Without the Lend Lease program and US munitions and supplies the USSR could not have stayed in the fight for the crucial period where losses outstripped manufacturing. Yes, the Uk started Lend Lease, but it was a trickle compared to the US. In total, the U.S. deliveries to the USSR through Lend-Lease amounted to $11 USD billion in materials: over 400,000 jeeps and trucks; 12,000 armored vehicles (including 7,000 tanks, about 1,386 of which were M3 Lees and 4,102 M4 Shermans); 11,400 aircraft (4,719 of which were Bell P-39 Airacobras) and 1.75 million tons of food. The US also shipped millions of tons of raw materials and fuel, hundreds of thousands of radios and other equipment.

Roughly 17.5 million tons of military equipment, vehicles, industrial supplies, and food were shipped from the Western Hemisphere to the USSR, 94% coming from the US. For comparison, a total of 22 million tons landed in Europe to supply American forces from January 1942 to May 1945. It has been estimated that American deliveries to the USSR through the Persian Corridor alone were sufficient, by US Army standards, to maintain SIXTY Soviet combat divisions in action.

2. That's in addition to the US' direct combat role in the war, from the air armadas that pummeled the Reich to the landings in North Africa that helped defeat Rommel, the Italian Campaign that saw the fall of Mussolini, and of course the military actions from D-Day to VE-Day, all while simultaneously arming the rest of the Allies.

So it's historically fashionable to dismiss the US' critical role and efforts in Europe, but the aid was decisive.

Here are American plans for nuclear strikes on Europe in the event of war with the USSR.

Highly suspect -- and remember that the US could have conquered the entire planet after WW2, and no country could have stopped it – including the Soviets. The US fielded even more advanced strategic bombers. The first flight of the B-35 intercontinental bomber was in 1946. It had a combat range of almost 4,000 miles and flew at 44,000 feet -- above ALL Soviet fighters and air defenses. Carrying EIGHT 49kt nuclear bombs (twice the power of Hiroshima), a US fleet of B-36 bombers could have reduced the Soviet Union to a sea of radioactive slag at NO RISK to the United States. Not to mention the US airfleet of almost 4,000 B-29 long range bombers, and some 12,000 B-17 bombers.

US bombers staging from England, France, Iran and Japan could range across all but the most remote areas of the Soviet Union. No place to hide, no place to run from US bombers. Boomity boom boom, buh bye!

So be thankful that then, as now, the US doesn't want to conquer Russia. We'd have preferred to trade with you. sadly US domestic politics and Russian paranoia screwed that up. And NATO was withering away -- the only thing that kept NATO from dissolving was Putin's belligerence.

In fact, all Putin had to do to end the great NATO threat was NOTHING. Just do nothing -- don't invade your neighbors, don't assassinate rivals on British territory, don't threaten nuclear war from time to time. NATO was fading out, both Germany and France were tired of US leadership in European defense matters and were agitating to reduce NATO to a coffee club while they created the new EuroArmy -- which would have been totally toothless.

So Putin's paranoia is the cause of all of this.

Like the way he went back and added a bunch of stuff after I had already replied? Makes the conversation look very different, doesn't it?

SB Minis, nail on the head, NATO was looking more and more irrelevant until Putin decided to invade the Ukraine,

Tally Ho!

It was such an irrational policy, it leaves you wondering just what the dominant causal factor in modern Russian politics really is- fear of authority, residual effects of Soviet propaganda, or maybe just fetal alcohol syndrome?

SBm +1

Nick +1

9LBS +1

(4,719 of which were Bell P-39 Airacobras)

My Mom, before she was my Mom, built parts for the P-39 during WWII. She was a real "Rosey the Riveter"…

NATO was looking more and more irrelevant until Putin decided to invade the Ukraine,

And not only that, Finland and Sweden joined NATO after Putin invaded Ukraine. Wow, talk about miscalculations !

residual effects of Soviet propaganda, or maybe just fetal alcohol syndrome?

Yes I agree !

Nine pound round, the problem is that the negotiations on a separate peace with the Nazis were not led by Stalin, but by Western "democracies")))
And yes, I sometimes come back to add to my answer those facts and figures that I don't remember exactly. I'm just checking my words first. You can also change your answer if necessary.
And if someone has problems with alcohol, you shouldn't project them onto your opponents. But I understand that a person who has no other arguments will begin to discuss the personality of his opponent instead of the subject of the dispute itself. More proof that you are wrong…

SBminisguy, no one denies the US role in the defeat of the Japanese in the Pacific theater. I even think the United States could win a one-on-one battle here, although of course it would cost more effort and require more lives.

The USSR was never an ally of Nazi Germany, since there was no alliance treaty and no military treaty at all. The treaty on the division of spheres of influence is something else. And this agreement is only the result of the Munich Agreement, when it became clear in the USSR that Western democracies were not going to fight Hitler and fulfill their obligations. It was necessary to take care of one's own safety alone. Was Poland an ally of the Nazis when it occupied Czechoslovakia with them? Following your logic, this is so. By the way, would you like to introduce an ally for Germany into your game?)))

Here is a schedule of deliveries from the allies by year. The most difficult time for the USSR was 1942. At this moment, vast territories of the USSR were captured, the gigantic production capacities remaining in the occupied territories were lost, as was a third of the country's population, which also remained in these territories. The evacuated enterprises were taken to unequipped areas, where new factories were rapidly created (just imagine the volume of work performed – after a year, one and a half thousand new enterprises began to produce huge volumes of military products. The machines were installed and were already working in the snow, while the walls of the workshops were built around them.. .) So only in 1942 was the defeat of the USSR really possible. After that, Germany was already doomed. Look how much Lend-Lease help came in 1942.
I do not belittle the importance of the help of the allies and thank you very much for this help. But I cannot call it decisive… Remove the deliveries of 1945 from these figures (when they already decided little in reality) – and you will see that in fact at least a third of the figures you named did little to ultimately defeat the Nazis (although of course they still alleviated the situation of Soviet citizens experiencing the hardships of the war).

Think, by the way, what would happen to the world if the USSR fell, and the Nazis and Japanese took control of its resources? What if Germany and Japan had direct rail connections between themselves? How would the war then develop? In fact, the allies invested not in saving the USSR, but in their own security. And you should be grateful that more than 70% of Germany's armed forces were destroyed on the Eastern Front. Is not it so?

You know, you certainly could have conquered the whole world in the 50s, but for some reason you couldn't conquer even small Korea… Of course, it was only your "good will" that prevented you)))

Putin (and Gorbachov and Yeltsin before him) did nothing. As a result, we faced the danger of American nuclear weapons appearing 400 km from Moscow. Maybe to restore parity we need to return Russian missiles to Cuba? I hope you will not do anything in this case either?

The USSR was never an ally of Nazi Germany, since there was no alliance treaty and no military treaty at all.

Your sophistry does not impress. Stalin found it favorable to ally with Hitler to back stab Poland, period. It came back and bit the Russians in the a$$ big time, didn't it?

I do not belittle the importance of the help of the allies and thank you very much for this help. But I cannot call it decisive… Remove the deliveries of 1945 from these figures (when they already decided little in reality) – and you will see that in fact at least a third of the figures you named did little to ultimately defeat the Nazis (although of course they still alleviated the situation of Soviet citizens experiencing the hardships of the war).

Your revisionism does not impress. US aid sustained 60 Soviet divisions in the field, and the impressive mobility of latter war Soviet advances was only due to 400,000 American Trucks and Jeeps. Soviet battlefield coordination was due to hundreds of thousands of US radios shipped to the USSR. The Red Army and Airforce enhanced through thousands of planes, tanks and AFVs.

Blah blah blah, you use up what little good will I have left for you on such foolishness. All it takes is to say:

1. Yes, an Allied effort and US actions and aid were crucial in winning the war

2. Yes, the Soviet Union played a key role in the defeat of the Nazis and sustained the greatest allied losses, for which we are grateful.

BUT -- then Stalin broke the Yalta agreement and started the Cold War. All he had to do to gain more influence in Europe was…wait for it… NOTHING! His belligerence forced the United States to reverse course and re-arm.

See, the US has a history of wanting to go back to peace after war is over and dismantles its military as it did after the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the US Civil War and WW1. In fact the US was on track to achieving the most rapid disarmament in human history for a Great Power after WW2…but then Stalin happened.

And in response the US first slowed disarmament and then thought it could avoid a large standing Army by emphasizing air power and nukes and signaled its intent not to develop empire by creating all of the global political structures we still use today -- the UN, global trade agreement structures, joint security arrangements, etc. It even created the IAEA to retard war nukes while promoting nuclear energy. Silly Americans, what were we thinking!

Stalin and the Russians didn't think that way. But then the USSR and China encouraged North Korea to attack South Korea and then the US had to go on a general re-armament. We didn't "defeat" North Korea because we didn't want to. We wanted to establish status-quo instead of nuking it flat like MacAthur wanted to do.

We're in an abnormal time period for the US. The US is in a weird place where we risk becoming more like Russia in that we have an out-in-the open Oligarchic Political Class that has aspirations of unrivaled global hegemony. They kept the US Cold War agencies at full throttle when they should have been dismantled when the USSR collapsed, and think they can control the world -- only they are idiots, thankfully. None of their master plans work well, and all the end up doing is causing chaos. Hopefully we'll be able to sort that out through the next election.

And here's the reality about how most Americans think about Russia -- the DON'T! They don't know much and don't care. They don't care to conquer Russia, they don't care to attack Russia. We have our own problems (see above) with out of control illegal immigration, political lawfare, a carpy economy, a senile president and ruling class and a culture war. Don't have time to consider marching on Moscow -- so get over yourself and quit making us have to pay attention to Russia again.

In the meantime, aside from jingoism and "Rah Rah Russia" -- what does Russia get from the Ukraine War? Hundreds of thousands of young Russian casualties? Economic uncertainty? Hundreds of billions of Rubles worth of charred metal? And if you win and capture Ukraine -- how's that gonna work out for you? You couldn't pacify Afghanistan, do you think Ukraine will be easier?

Seriously, all you had to do was not be bullies and a$$holes and we could have peace and prosperity. Now look at the fine mess you've made!

So you consider Poland an ally of Hitler in 1938? Ok))) Everything else is sophistry.

You can call the facts revisionism as much as you like, but the facts will not cease to be facts)))

Blame for the emergence of the past and current Cold Wars undoubtedly lies with both sides of the conflict. And I don't see any possibility of finding out whose fault is greater. Everyone acted stupidly, thinking they could get what they wanted by force. But if I can recognize the cause of the previous Cold War as the export of communist ideas by the Soviet Union, then the cause of the new Cold War is the desire for US world hegemony and the export of neoliberal "values". You are no longer a stronghold of democracy – you are colonialists and a corrupt, depraved society. Yes, in today's world this, unfortunately, is the norm. But you are no longer any better than others.

What does Russia gain from the war in Ukraine?
- Preservation of the state (many Western politicians have repeatedly publicly stated their desire to divide Russia into parts, just as you once divided Yugoslavia or Libya). This includes eliminating the direct military threat – prohibiting the deployment of NATO troops along the entire western border of Russia.
- Exit from the dictates of the United States and the global institutions created by you (IMF and the like). We will trade where we want and with whomever we want. Russia doesn't care about the bans that the United States dictates to other countries.
- Freedom of development (you don't hide the fact that you are interested in containing the development of Russia).
For starters, that's enough.

Once we achieve all of these goals, then we will talk about peace and prosperity. But for everyone.

And Ukraine is just the tip of your spear aimed at our chest…

"Development," eh? Well, that's a new euphemism for it. When people have to repurpose words to obfuscate the things they're defending, it's always a sign that some lying is going on.

We didn't conquer Korea for a good reason: we didn't want it.

There would have been no Second World War without the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact, and the fact that it takes you seven full paragraphs to try to explain your country's culpability away without succeeding is pretty grimly amusing.

I wasn't mocking you- I was mocking your country's culture of terror and booze.