Thread by @J1MMYJAMJAM

@clement_molin has rightly pointed out what we can see from space - but there is an interpretation of this he has missed. Something the evidence has suggested for a while now that won't be popular with either side.
Let's discuss 🧵/1

/2 Clement shows the defined line of fields 'returning to nature' and infers this is a result of the fighting.
But that's not quite right. These fields are the result of farmers not planting them - an important point with implications that are hard to ignore

/3 In Ukraine, the major crops are planted the year prior - specifically, in around mid-to-late September. These crops then start to emerge in spring and by June are clearly visible, ready for harvest in July.

/4 What that green band tells us, is that a conscious decision was made *last year* not to plant these fields - There'd be wheat there now if they were.
Here's where the line was last September when that decision was made, and what the area looked like planted last June

5/ Now for the controversial part.
This suggests that last year it was decided that *Blue would retreat* - and this area was earmarked for planting something else: Mines.
The new fortifications correlate with this area, and it's these minefields *Red is intended to cross*.

6/ Clement also points out the forests. They have been intentionally deforested.
This is also evidence of a planned retreat: they mark where Blue intends to fall back to.
*They've removed the cover those forests provide in front of the line for when Red advances toward them*.

7/ The strategy to defend Ukraine is the 'unmanned hellscape'. Many talk of lack of manpower, but this strategy doesn't rely on men. It relies on mines, drones and *territory to cross* - all of which Ukraine has in abundance. What we see here is a part of that strategy.

8/ Through a series of planned retreats, Blue will create additional sections of this hellscape - digging their heels in along the way to allow more to be created. The fortifications we see are not intended to stop the enemy, but to shape his attack & slow his advance through it.

9/ I submit, this retreat has already happened.
It likely started a month or so ago and what we're watching play out now is Red filling that void left behind: A void infested with mines, drones, ditches and wire designed to inflict maximum casualties *in exchange for territory*

10/ Obviously, with how this war is presented online, this idea is not going to be popular. Both sides use territory as a metric of success, and neither the idea of ceding it or it being ceded is something that aligns with how they see things - but that is irrelevant to the game

11/ Blue's primary objective isn't the defense of Ukraine, it is *the attrition of Red*.
The best way to attrite an adversary is to make him fight an expendable opponent across a vast expanse of open terrain purpose designed to do it.
That is the unspoken truth, and it is working

/12 That's an uncomfortable thought, but it's important to understand as we analyse decision-making going forward. Our strategy doesn't align with our stated goals, but it's the best strategy for attriting a numerically superior foe in a battlespace that favors the defender.

/13 As you watch flags get raised over towns, look for narratives being made to fill the gap the lack of combat footage associated with those advances has created. This will be a sign of what I'm describing here. A planned retreat is something neither side will likely tell you.

/End Never made a thread before, not sure if anyone will see this. If you did, thanks for reading it. Been dwelling on this for a while. Credit to @clement_molin for his outstanding work, and @M0nstas and @Playfra0 who's extensive work provided evidence that led to this. o7

/Addendum The unmanned hellscape strategy is fascinating to me, but it's worth pointing out, Red's approach to tackling it is fascinating as well. Their tactics are often misinterpreted and mocked as a result. If anyone is interested in a different take on that, let me know.