Thursday 18th of April 2024

the US has announced it will send 31 abrams battle tanks... will it be enough?......

NATO's best tanks are going to Ukraine, what will it mean on the battlefield?

Kiev will get what it demanded from the West, but will it be enough?

Tank supplies to Ukraine from NATO members is the top news story this week. Kiev has been calling for these weapons from its western sponsors since the beginning of the Russian offensive, and it looks like now, eleven months into the fighting, these demands are being met.


By Mikhail Khodaryonok


The US has announced it will send 31 Abrams main battle tanks. In a hastily scheduled speech on Wednesday, President Joe Biden noted that they are complicated to operate and maintain, so the US will provide Kiev with “parts and equipment necessary to effectively sustain these tanks on the battlefield.”

It was also confirmed, the same day, that the German government will send Leopard 2A6 tanks from its own stock and will allow other nations, such as Poland, to transfer German-made machines, to Ukraine. On January 14, London announced plans to ship its Challengers 2s to Kiev, while it now seems inevitable that Paris will supply AMX-56 Leclerc vehicles.

Russian experts and journalists have been locked in a heated debate over the differences between these western main battle tanks and the Russian T-90s, comparing their armor, guns, accuracy, active and passive protection systems, maneuverability, fire-control systems, ammunition, and many other attributes.  

At the end of the day though, these discussions lack any practical value. The battlefield is the only litmus test for the advantages and drawbacks of any type of weapon or military equipment. Reliable statistics on combat use are all that is required for a comparative analysis of modern main battle tanks, if it is to be credible.

Another thing to remember is that all tanks are vulnerable to modern anti-tank systems, so the question is, how many NATO tanks are going to make their way to Ukraine?


How many tanks does Kiev need?

To simplify calculations, we’ll be using an armored division, the main structural and tactical unit of armored forces in the former Soviet republics, as our yardstick. According to Soviet manuals, an armored division must have 296 tanks, 230 infantry fighting vehicles, 54 self-propelled artillery systems, over 2,000 regular vehicles, and almost 12,000 soldiers and officers.

How many divisions does Kiev need? At least one per each of the three main fronts — in Lugansk, Donetsk, and Zaporozhye. The line of contact in the special military operation zone right now is 815 km long, making three divisions too modest an amount to make a difference, but let’s disregard this for the time being.

Three armored divisions combined would have a total of about 900 tanks. Apart from that, another armored division may be necessary on the Belarusian front, which could see some very heavy fighting. In case of an escalation there, an armored division or a similar unit in reserve is a must, which drives the number of required tanks up by 300 to 1,200.

Finally, no commander-in-chief can do without his own reserve, the so-called reserve of the supreme high command. Without at least one armored division, this reserve cannot really count as such, which means another 300 tanks for a required total of 1,500.

Another thing to consider is probable Ukrainian losses during offensive operations. The average daily losses of an armored unit in this case stand at 10 to 15%. About 15 to 20% of incapacitated tanks are typically irrecoverable losses, while the rest require repairs (general maintenance for 30 to 50%, medium-level repairs for 15 to 30%, and an overhaul for 10 to 20%).

Simply put, at least another 300 tanks are required to offset losses during combat operations. This gives us a figure of 1,800 tanks, which must be considered an absolute minimum.

These are very approximate and somewhat simplistic calculations, yet they give us ballpark figures.


How many tanks will Kiev get?

So far, NATO countries have earmarked tanks for Ukraine numbered in the dozens. This is only a fraction of the hypothetical minimum.

Great Britain and Poland have officially pledged an armored company each, respectively consisting of up to 14 tanks. Germany will supply a similar amount, while the US is preparing the supply of 31 Abrams heavy weapons.

At a recent meeting of the US-led Defense Contact Group at Ramstein Air Base in Germany, officials from 12 countries discussed sending a total of about 100 tanks to Kiev, if Berlin were to give the green light, which, according to an ABC report, it has done.

Rheinmetall could additionally supply a total of 139 tanks to Ukraine, including 88 Leopard 1s and 51 Leopard 2A4s, yet the German manufacturer concedes that only 29 of them could be shipped before the summer of 2023.


What impact will NATOs tanks have?

Will all these tanks see combat any time soon? Let’s consider the example of the M1 Abrams, which is seen as one of the symbols of US military power.

A small number of these tanks manned by poorly trained crews and lacking full-scale maintenance and supply infrastructure support would most likely yield negative results. They will fail to change Ukraine’s fortunes on the battlefield, while images of burning American tanks will likely hurt US public opinion.

Thus, one of America’s premier weapons, the pride and joy of its defense industry, will be humiliated on the battlefield for a long time. This is something the Pentagon can’t allow to happen under any circumstances.

Therefore, before any actual fighting happens, evacuation teams, tank repair units, and spare part supplies must be in place, while crews must receive superior training to handle American tanks.

Last but not least, the first deployment of US main battle tanks in Ukraine must be accompanied by a significant Ukrainian army success, at least at the tactical level, which would necessitate no fewer than 200–300 (maybe even 400–500) tanks.

Otherwise, supplying the M1 Abrams to Ukraine makes neither military nor political sense. Transferring them one company (10 to 15 tanks) at a time would only mean that this equipment will burn on the battlefield without making any significant impact or even catching anyone’s attention.

So far, according to known data, Russia has not had any significant trouble dealing with enemy equipment. This is something on which both the Russian Ministry of Defense and most Western analysts seem to agree.

Since the launch of the military operation, according to Lieutenant General Igor Konashenkov, the Russian Ministry of Defense spokesman, Russian forces have destroyed 376 planes, 203 helicopters, 2,944 UAVs, 402 anti-aircraft missile systems, 988 MLRVs, and 3,898 field artillery guns and mortars.

As well as 7,614 tanks and other armored vehicles.


No room for complacency

It’s very likely that the first NATO tank companies will be used as training units for Ukrainian crews, while Poland will initially provide maintenance and repair capacity for servicing German or American tanks.

One shouldn’t think, however, that training will stretch over a very long time. It can take just weeks to do a full training program, while teaching T-64/84 crews to fight in the M1 Abrams or the Leopard 2A5 could be completed in a matter of days.

What matters in the reports about the West mulling tank supplies to Ukraine is not the tanks themselves as much as the breaking of a taboo, which, until recently, prevented the transfer of heavy western-made armored vehicles to Ukraine.

Once this taboo is broken, there is every reason to assume that, sooner or later, Kiev will receive not only the 1,800 western main battle tanks it badly needs, but much more than that.

At that point in time and maybe even earlier, Ukraine will be able to create a strike force on the Zaporozhye front for example. If a force like that succeeds in breaching Russian defenses, it could cover the 82 km to Melitopol in less than three days, which would dissect the whole depth of the Russian defense in this region.

With this in mind, the Russian armed forces must achieve tangible military and political results long before western arms supplies reach their full potential.







Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky has called on Western countries to supply fighter jets and long-range munitions, urging for more weapons just hours after the United States and Germany agreed to send heavy battle tanks.

Speaking in a video address on Wednesday, Zelensky thanked his German and American counterparts for their decision to send tanks, but quickly shifted to Ukraine’s need for additional arms.

“We must also open deliveries of long-range missiles to Ukraine, it is important – we must expand our cooperation in artillery,” he said, adding that his country also requires fighter jets, and that “speed and volume are key now.”

Washington’s decision to send 31 Abrams tanks broke a stalemate with Berlin, which had refused to send its own Leopard 2 tanks or allow allies to re-export them to Kiev unless the United States followed suit. Ukrainian officials had long pleaded for heavier armor, specifically the M1 Abrams, among other advanced weapon systems from the West.

A top advisor to Zelensky, Mikhail Podolyak, told the Telegraph on Wednesday that he expects Ukraine’s patrons to provide long-range missiles eventually, claiming they would be “part of the negotiation process” for the next weapons delivery to Kiev.

“Right now we are seeing a sharp change in sentiment among the political elites of European countries, who understand that we need to transfer all equipment, including armored vehicles,” he said. “And we will reach, I am sure, no doubt, an agreement on long-range missiles.”

The advisor added that “Only these missiles will make it possible to destroy almost the entire infrastructure of the Russian rear army.”


Citing unnamed sources, the Telegraph reported that the UK government has “not ruled out” longer-range missiles, but currently has no plans to supply them. Washington has previously refused Ukraine’s requests for ATACMS surface-to-surface missiles, which have a range of around 190 miles (305km), though it is unclear whether that, like the M1 Abrams decision, might be subject to change.

Moscow has repeatedly called on Western countries to halt the flow of weapons into Ukraine, saying the arms will only prolong the conflict and make a negotiated settlement impossible. Russia’s ambassador to the US, Anatoly Antonov, condemned the upcoming tank shipments as “another blatant provocation,” insisting the hardware will be “destroyed” by Russian forces.









the truth.......

by Andrew Korybko

Zelensky's former adviser, Alexei Arestovitch, is literally risking his life to tell Ukrainians the hard truth they so urgently need to hear. 

Kyiv is unlikely to beat Russia, whose prediction matches the latest public assessments by US and Polish officials, and that outcome is undoubtedly due in part to the vicious (and potentially deadly) infighting between Ukraine's leaders.

 Arestovich thus rendered a patriotic service, but he could ultimately pay for it with his life.

Zelensky's former adviser, Alexey Arestovich, who resigned under immense pressure after recognizing inadvertently the guilt of kyiv in the Dnipropetrovsk/Dnipro tragedy this month, is risking his life to tell Ukrainians the truth about the NATO proxy war against the Russia. 

According to him, it is unlikely that his side will win in this conflict since kyiv would have already missed many military-political opportunities that Russia ended up seizing and which therefore made it superior in some respects, he said.

With this in mind, Arestovich gave credit to the terrible warning from Polish President Andrzej Duda according to which Ukraine might ultimately not survive the Russian special operation .

According to this former adviser, this provocative remark suggests that Zelensky and his ilk are hiding the hard truth from the Ukrainian people.

He breaks all the taboos of the country and thus puts his life in immediate danger.

He went even further by implying that his former boss' team is full of infighting saying that "We're only invincible until we're at each other's throats."

This is particularly outrageous in light of last week's helicopter crash outside kyiv which ended up killing the minister of the Interior Denis Monastyrsky and his team, in particular after Zelensky said in Davos that there was " no accidents in wartime ».

Arestovich has always had an independent streak, even during his previous tenure as Ukraine's de facto chief propagandist, but now he's gone totally 'rogue' in the context of his country's so-called 'political correctness'. 

He no longer cares about hiding the truth, but reveals what his former boss would obviously prefer to keep hidden, which is that kyiv is unlikely to beat Russia just like US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley, [had] said before.

Arestovich's implied revelation that there is serious infighting within the Ukrainian government and the insinuation that the interior minister might even have been killed as a result of this is what really crossed the line. kyiv red, however.

It's one thing to repeat what U.S. and Polish officials just said, 'politically incorrect' though that may be, but quite another to suggest that Ukraine's infighting isn't just deadly for those caught in the resulting crossfire (perhaps even literally as in the case of Monastyrsky) but is also responsible for the probable loss of kyiv in the NATO proxy war against Russia. No Ukrainian official so far, whether former or currently in service, had dared to share these hard truths.

Arestovich's time as Ukraine's de facto chief propagandist has led him to generate enormous trust among the masses. It remains significant despite the so-called "misstep" last week in which he inadvertently admitted kyiv's guilt in the Dnipropetrovsk/Dnipro tragedy. 

People believe what he says, which is why Zelensky and his ilk are likely to view his last words as a direct threat to their power. Arestovich could soon be assassinated by the SBU unless he flees first.

There is also the possibility, slim as it is, that some elements of Ukraine's powerful military intelligence support him. In this scenario, he could find himself under their protection and thus be allowed to continue dropping his truth bombs on Zelensky, the purpose of which would be to generate anti-government sentiment before regime change against him (whether democratically before the next spring elections of 2024 or via a color revolution or even some kind of coup).

Andrew Korybko






zelensky is a nazi.......


world war three is started by a stupid german woman........


the heartland explained...


wishful non-thinking....


holocaust day.....