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.
No, Pantsir also has guns for close range interceptions, and you’ve just walked back your original claim by an order of magnitude. But even if we take your 200k number, how would you say that compares to not having AD at all which is the case in Ukraine? Do you think it’s worse having all your infrastructure destroyed or better, if it is a matter of attrition which side do you think is coming out ahead here?
Guns are very much effective against large and slow drones that Ukraine sends into Russia. There are tons of videos of them being shot down by guns. It sounds like you’re really out of your depth here. You also dodged my question here.
You’re being obtuse. You’re taking about small arms which is cheap and relatively effective at close range given the cost. A patsir uses 30mm which are $100 each fired at a rate of several thousand a second.
I very clearly referred to the question from the earlier comment. I’m sorry that I didn’t account for the fact that you can’t even hold as much context as a chatbot.
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.
Excuse me, the destruction of infrastructure and logistics has no cost?
You argued that Ukraine spends more to attack than Russia spends to defend. That was proven wrong. That Russia is also losing infrastructure in the attacks is irrelevant to your original claim.
No, I argued that the economic cost for Ukraine is far worse than it is for Russia. And I also pointed out that your numbers are pulled out of your ass. I’m sorry you have poor reading comprehension and couldn’t understand my original claim. I’ll make sure to use small words going forward.
As I already said, if they have enough variants with guns, they would want to expand the new variants in addition to that. Evidently you’re still struggling with this concept. Sad.
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.
No. It was Putin who told a reporter a few weeks and an American general laid out the fact they intercepted their plans and said they would have had it done in 3 days. So your point is that I was of by what potentially 7 days? Forgive that utter crime, remind me again how many days have they been in conflict? More than 7 than what’s your point dumb dumb.
I am not the person you asked a question you unobservant fuckwit.
I cited my source, feel free to provide yours. It’s hilarious how you can get idiots to guzzle propaganda uncritically, and you can be sure they’re going to be too dumb to check if any of it is true. You are an utter imbecile.
No, Pantsir also has guns for close range interceptions, and you’ve just walked back your original claim by an order of magnitude. But even if we take your 200k number, how would you say that compares to not having AD at all which is the case in Ukraine? Do you think it’s worse having all your infrastructure destroyed or better, if it is a matter of attrition which side do you think is coming out ahead here?
Guns aren’t effective against drones which is why the Pantsir-SMD-E was ordered which removes the guns to add more missiles for drone defense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantsir_missile_system
Guns are very much effective against large and slow drones that Ukraine sends into Russia. There are tons of videos of them being shot down by guns. It sounds like you’re really out of your depth here. You also dodged my question here.
You’re being obtuse. You’re taking about small arms which is cheap and relatively effective at close range given the cost. A patsir uses 30mm which are $100 each fired at a rate of several thousand a second.
I’m not being obtuse at all, do feel free to engage with the question I asked though.
You didn’t ask a question in the comment I responded to further proving your obstinance.
I very clearly referred to the question from the earlier comment. I’m sorry that I didn’t account for the fact that you can’t even hold as much context as a chatbot.
That was me dumb dumb, read once… Ever…
you sure are a dumb dumb
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.
You argued that Ukraine spends more to attack than Russia spends to defend. That was proven wrong. That Russia is also losing infrastructure in the attacks is irrelevant to your original claim.
No, I argued that the economic cost for Ukraine is far worse than it is for Russia. And I also pointed out that your numbers are pulled out of your ass. I’m sorry you have poor reading comprehension and couldn’t understand my original claim. I’ll make sure to use small words going forward.
As I already said, if guns were effective, they would ask for a variant that had only guns. They didn’t do that.
As I already said, if they have enough variants with guns, they would want to expand the new variants in addition to that. Evidently you’re still struggling with this concept. Sad.
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.
No. It was Putin who told a reporter a few weeks and an American general laid out the fact they intercepted their plans and said they would have had it done in 3 days. So your point is that I was of by what potentially 7 days? Forgive that utter crime, remind me again how many days have they been in conflict? More than 7 than what’s your point dumb dumb.
I am not the person you asked a question you unobservant fuckwit.
I cited my source, feel free to provide yours. It’s hilarious how you can get idiots to guzzle propaganda uncritically, and you can be sure they’re going to be too dumb to check if any of it is true. You are an utter imbecile.