Brandon says US tanks to Ukraine are not an offensive threat to Russia

It's fixing to get ugly.

Next week a boomer and two attack subs to ukraine, for protection.

This is not going to end well for anybody.
I saw a 1 mile long train loaded with M1 Abrams and Bradley Fighting Vehicles sitting on the tracks in Texas on Sunday night. They were pointing south.
Maybe going to Fort Hood or the Gulf to be loaded on to a ship.

Of course, they are no threat to the Russian govt. To be a threat, the Ukrainians need F-15s, not assault rifles or M-1s.

everything that comes out of this administration is straight up retardation. not surprised one bit.

This is from RT, BUT, it is a valid question that I have had and maybe some folks here can clear some of this up? Because, it seems, to me, that we are just pissing in the wind here, with a few of these and a few of those, spread out over time.

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.

Why then are we half assing this support for Ukraine?

They’re not. Russia won’t and can’t do anything about it.