As a point of information, in the first Gulf War (1991) Iraq had 5,500 main battle tanks, most of which were probably T-62s; the US committed 594 of its MIA1 Abrams tanks to the war. By the end of the war around 3,000 Iraqi tanks were destroyed. Of course not all were destroyed by other tanks. A number were probably destroyed by A-10 aircraft and other types of anti-tank weapons.
But from what I’ve read the men being sent to slaughter are the released prisoners, or disposables to Russia
I’ve read that probably no more than 5% of Wagner are pardoned convicts. And Prigozhin has recently stated that he’ll not hire any more. He fears or has seen convicts say yes to Wagner, so as to gain their freedom, then surrender to the Ukies at the first opportunity.
To your point, the overwhelming majority were destroyed by aircraft, abandoned, or destroyed by aircraft after being abandoned. There were relatively few instances of tank-on-tank battles where the Iraqi tank was actually manned and functional. But they did happen, mostly around KCIA.
Germany searched boat suspected of carrying explosives used for Nord Stream pipelines attack The German federal prosecutor's office searched a boat in January that was suspected of carrying explosives used in the Nord Stream 1 and 2 gas pipeline detonations in September, according to a statement from the prosecutor’s office. "The Office of the Attorney General of Germany had a ship searched from January 18 to 20, 2023 in connection with a suspicious ship rental," the statement details. "The evaluation of the seized traces and objects is ongoing. The identity of the perpetrators and their motives are the subject of ongoing investigations," it said.
Ukraine should drop crates of cellphones for the Russians. I love listening to/reading the intercepted phone calls back home. (Except one: A call from a Russian soldier to his wife was intercepted. During that call she affirmatively gave him permission to rape Ukrainian women. You could tell the guy at first didn't believe it or thought he was being set up, but confirmed she was fine with him doing it. Animals.) Edit: Found it:
It’s not a terrible idea, bombing them with burner phones. With a professional military, you could count on 9 out of 10 soldiers following orders and turning in or destroying any they found. And you could count on good NCOs policing up 9 out of 10 of what remained. But with an army comprised of criminals and conscripts as well as having a weak NCO corps, I’m betting a goodly number of soldiers would say, “[To heck with] Vlad and his [silly] rules. Free phone. Wait till I tell Petra about what’s going on out here.”
Thanks for giving a well laid out, thoughtful and articulate answer to the question, without all the tribalism. I am very close to where you are on this overall, but I think the solution probably lies somewhere in the middle. A settlement that gives Moscow their extra layer of security against Ukraine going full NATO down the line, while at the same time allowing Ukraine to maintain their democracy and most of their sovereign land. I think you cut the military aid to Ukraine after such a settlement, because that’s one of the reasons we are here. But only with the understanding that these agreements or treaties are null and void if Russia makes any further incursions or breaks the ceasefire. Another 2014 style agreement, but without sending more lethal aid to Ukraine afterwards. Again, with the understanding that if Russian so much as sneezes on Ukraine, all bets are off at that point and the NATO agreement is null and void. Unfortunately, this probably means Crimea remains under Russian occupation. As well as the Donbas regions they currently hold. Essentially Ukraine signs a neutrality pact or makes it a part of their constitution with respect to not joining NATO. Then the blood shedding, destruction of and refugee crisis abates in Ukraine. I don’t see a scenario where Ukraine is able to fully remove Russian troops from Ukraine on their own. And if we step up our lethal aid to Ukraine in an even more significant manner, the Russians are just going to escalate more and the risk of full blown war with Russia grows and grows until it becomes inevitable at that point. All the while, what’s left of Ukraine will be turned to rubble. So essentially, I’m for deescalation assuming the terms are reasonable and provide a longstanding solution to the crisis.
I have to strongly disagree. "This paragraph " I think you cut the military aid to Ukraine after such a settlement, because that’s one of the reasons we are here. But only with the understanding that these agreements or treaties are null and void if Russia makes any further incursions or breaks the ceasefire. Another 2014 style agreement, but without sending more lethal aid to Ukraine afterwards. Again, with the understanding that if Russian so much as sneezes on Ukraine, all bets are off at that point and the NATO agreement is null and void." This is total appeasement, a failed concept. We do not cut military aid, even after a negotiation since Russia will have no reason not to revisit another lightening strike on Kiev, depose the Ukraine government, immediately stage elections, and have their puppet installed... game over. We've seen this numerous times. A watered-down 2014 style agreement won't slow Putin at all. Russia is 100% the cause of "Then the blood shedding, destruction of and refugee crisis ( removed word) in Ukraine." Russia will now have a border with NATO. The buffer idea is already another failed concept.
Russia is not capable of “full blown war”, they can’t even take Ukraine. They can commit terrorism, they can saber rattle with nukes, but the one thing that has been made clear they are no longer a military superpower and haven’t been for a long time. If they had made quick progress into Ukraine then obviously they would have been looking immediately at neighboring countries. The likelihood of further aggression is likely why even China hasn’t actually given Russia much help. Even China doesn’t want to see a quick Russia victory, they don’t want to see a new Russian “empire” or U.S.S.R. - but they don’t want a total collapse either. They want Russia to remain a viable partner in their little axis of evil (Iran, NK, China, Russia), but China wants to be the boss.
So your peace plan is to allow Russia to keep all that they have stolen? Don’t forget Russia already signed one peace treaty when Ukraine gave back the nuclear weapons that Russia had put on their soil. You act as if Russians h honor treaties or act like rational human beings.
I think China is studying weaponry, and strategy, very, very, very closely in Ukraine. They have no real interest in having the matter resolved.
I would add that in the relatively few tank on tank battles the Abrams completely outclassed the Iraqi tanks. Just my recollection, I recall that the Abrams were able to take out the Iraqi tanks at a range beyond the capabilities of Iraq's Soviet era tanks.
