. Even if we exclude the fact that Ukraine was recently thoroughly armed by Western colleagues and had a second-rate army compared to Russia. What is this supposed to mean? in your opinion, the Russian army should have defeated the entire Ukrainian army in two weeks? Or are you somehow trying to compare the historical wars of other leading powers? And we are not talking about tanks in general, but about the damage suffered in general.
Many photos do not reach your eyes with losses from the Ukrainian side.
You tell me what it means when Ukrainians sink your flagship in the Black Sea and you proudly post a picture of a burned down buggy but even that had an ATM which was unscathed probably placed for the purpose of taking that photo to show that this was a combat vehicle. Talk about shamelessness.
Russians keep posting pictures of abandoned or captured ATM launchers, many of which were just empty tubes of single-use launchers where you lose so many large and expensive equipment so quickly.
What also shocks me is that the Russian Armed Forces are supposed to be able to defeat the entire NATO without resorting to nukes,. but all I hear is complaints about the amount of weapons flowing to Ukraine from the west. That's not even NATO!
Russia wanted to "demilitarize" Ukraine, and it ended up doing the exact opposite, losing a huge amount of its own weaponry in the process. Not clever in my opinion.
With Crimea and the Donbass you've had the upper hand and the world still feared Russian military before it got exposed, and now the reason so many countries are giving Ukraine free equipment is because they know they can defeat Russia even if it resorts to nuclear weapons.
