Putin dismisses importance of U.S.-supplied weapons to Ukraine
Putin dismisses importance of U.S.-supplied weapons to Ukraine
Ukraine claimed Tuesday to have carried out a destructive attack on Russian air assets using new longer-range ballistic missiles donated by the U.S.
A Russian missile attack killed two civilians in an apartment building in southern Ukraine on Wednesday, local authorities said, as President Vladimir Putin dismissed the importance of a new U.S.-supplied weapon that Kyiv used to execute one of the most damaging attacks on the Kremlin’s air assets since the start of the war.
Putin told reporters that Russia “will be able to repel” further attacks by the U.S.-made Army Tactical Missile System, known as ATACMS.
Ukraine claimed it used those missiles to destroy nine Russian helicopters, as well as ammunition, an air defense system and other assets at two airfields in Russia-occupied regions on Tuesday.
Since everything Putin says is a lie, every Ukrainian ally should increase their ammunition exports.
I mean, when your whole war strategy is to use the bodies of your people to soak up all the ammo of your enemy I'm pretty sure anyone supplying ammo to them is going to make a pretty big difference.
Counterpoint: Russia lost something like 30 million people in WW2 and still won.
You're gonna need a lot of bullets
Counter counter point: the Polish Soviet war of 1920 is a far better point to begin any comparisons, seeing as russia was the aggressor, and was humiliated multiple times.
A second double counter point, sources certainly vary on exact figures but a lot of the “Russians” killed in WW2 were the Ukranians, especially in the early stages as they were essentially sacrificed with minimal defenses to stall for time. They’re not exactly looking to that ever happening again.
The Sowjet Union (not just Russia) lost 13 million soldiers during the Second World War, over the duration of about 6 years.
You can hardly even compare WW2 to the Ukraine conflict. Very few variables are the same.
The only major similarity is that Russia hasn't changed their tactics or command structure that much.
Unless Russia gets invaded directly, it's highly unlikely that they will be able to mobilize as many bodies as they did in WW2 anyway.
Counter-counterpoint: we have a lot
You're gonna need a lot of bullets
Bet
I'm pretty sure it has been proved that the weapons supplied by the US dismisses the importance of Putin.
I'm just going to point out that we made this thing in the 90s to fight an enemy we didn't expect this thing to do more than mildly wound.
This wasn't a great wunderwaffen, this was just our version or advanced artillery, and here it is shattering parts of the Russian army at a stroke.
The greatest generation would be so confused.
The US has spent decades preparing to fight an enemy on equal technological footing, and now that it turns out that enemy never made it past the 1970s technologically or organizationally, the US is basically fighting with lasers against muskets.
China might be able to bring more to the table but that's looking questionable.
Disregarding the nuclear option, I suspect a direct conflict with Russia would, while costly, end up much like the middle east, where the enemy only succeeds with guerilla tactics and throwing bodies at the problem, but can never hope to actually win.
So, he's admitting that he's done such a bad job of conquering Ukraine that he'd still be failing even without western assistance?
My main takeaway here is that the new weapons will soon redraw the front lines of this war and providing them was clever, according to my Putin filter.
So basically it's US weapons making a huge difference. . always be bullshitting pooty.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Ukraine claimed it used those missiles to destroy nine Russian helicopters, as well as ammunition, an air defense system and other assets at two airfields in Russia-occupied regions on Tuesday.
Putin, speaking to reporters during a visit to Beijing, conceded the ATACMS creates an additional threat but he insisted that the weapon would not change the situation along the 1,500-kilometer (932-mile) front line.
Russia’s ambassador to the U.S., Anatoly Antonov, described Washington’s decision to supply the ATACMS as “reckless” and “a grave mistake” that won’t alter the war’s outcome.
However, the areas are well defended and it is “highly unlikely” the Russians will accomplish their goal of a major breakthrough, it said in an assessment posted on social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter.
Wednesday’s attack killed two Ukrainian civilians and wounded at least three others when a Russian missile struck a building in the central district of the southern city of Zaporizhzhia, the region’s Gov.
Russia’s defense ministry, meanwhile, claimed its forces shot down 28 Ukrainian drones in the Belgorod and Kursk regions and in the Black Sea area.
The original article contains 413 words, the summary contains 181 words. Saved 56%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
It would be awesome to see Putin giving some sort of address talking about how some weapon doesn't pose a threat and then in the background some military asset gets destroyed during the address.
Assuming he's on the same side of the Urals as Ukraine. Maybe he's playing it safe and is staying in the part of Russia that's in Palin's backyard.