sent Ukraine 31 M1A1 Abrams, when they should have slowly been training Ukrainians to use and maintain them, and instead sent them 300 over time. They can easily afford it given that they have thousands in storage that they never intend on using again.
t.me
Ukraine has lost that many from a fleet of only 31. The blame lies in Western opinion influencers that spent the entire 2022-2023 shitting on Russian tanks while over glorifying Western MBTs. So when the Russians figured out that Abrams and Leopards burn just as easily as "shit" T-series tanks, they just couldn't help themselves.I find it hilarious that some are mentioning the fact that Ukraine has lost 6-7 M1A1 Abrams MBTs. They're not some kind of super weapon. They're just a quality MBT. That said, at this stage the M1A1 models are 30+ years old.
The United States does not have 8000+ Abrams (of all models) in their inventory (including 3500 in storage) because they're some kind of super weapon. To the contrary they built that many expecting plenty of attrition in a potential land war in Europe against Russia.
The Problem is that USA
There is going to be attrition. They're going to get knocked out by drones, ATGMs, artillery shelling, etc. Such is the nature of war. But this is the war the Abrams was built for. If USA sends Ukraine adequate quantities to equip multiple tank brigades, we could see them have a much larger impact.
www.thetimes.co.uk
Lol what the actual f*** is this article lmaoUkrainian soldiers defend Western freedom, NATO's sacrifice is still too small - The Times
Ukraine is paying a heavy price for protecting the freedom of Europe
The alliance must join forces to help Kyiv at a critical moment, the publication’s analysts write.
“Nevertheless, it is in embattled Ukraine that the future shape of Europe is being decided, and NATO as a whole is united in the need to provide the government in Kyiv with any assistance short of direct military intervention to overcome the expansionist ambitions of Vladimir Putin,” the publication writes. .
The Times view on Nato and Ukraine: Sharing the Burden
As the alliance reaches 75 its role is more essential than ever. It is right to plan for an uncertain future in which the US may not underwrite Europe’s defence
That might be true for countries like georgia, but most of the europe is in EU and NATO, so yes I would feel safe even if my border was next to Russia because they will never attack a NATO member, they would get destroyed in a week.
Your answer shows a lack of understanding of geopolitics and history.
launched a significant 3am drone attack on the Morozovsk air base in Russia 
. The base is home to several dozen SU-34 and SU-24 aircraft. It also is home to a significant aircraft repair facility owned by the Russian Defence Ministry.
a massive drone attack on an airfield in Morozovsk, Rostov region. Local governor Golubev claims that about 40 air targets of the Ukrainian Armed Forces were destroyed during the shelling. The electrical substation is damaged.More than 10 explosions occurred in Yeisk today, local Telegram channels report. There is also a military airfield of the occupiers.Bloomberg: The United States will invite Russia to support a UN resolution on the non-placement of nuclear weapons in space.The metro has been temporarily stopped in Kharkov. This is due to the situation in the energy system, the company’s press service reported.I can assure you if any nato member would be attacked, NATO would be at war with the attacking country and do anything in its power to stop them.
