I was asked for the reason that putin/russia is so hell-bent on conquering Mariupol.
Let me explain. Thread:
Originally putin assumed the invasion would be a cakewalk, allowing for a quick annexation of Donetsk and Luhansk (dark red). Other regions (light red) would then
1/8
have seen "spontaneous" "people's republics" appear, which would have demanded annexation to russia too.
putin would have slowly dismembered Ukraine after fake referendums, leaving a rump Ukraine under a russian-controlled quisling government.
That plan failed.
2/8
putin now understands that Ukrainians hate russia and will fight a decades long insurgency if russia occupies their country.
putin now also realizes that he has too few troops to conquer and occupy the southern and eastern parts of Ukraine he originally planned to annex.
3/8
putin's new plan seems to be to annex a smaller part of Ukraine.
(russia might even try to take all of Kherson (dark green)).
4/8
This territory would be protected on its western side by the Dnieper river, and the eastern Kharkiv part by the Donets river.
If russia annexes these territories then Mykolaiv, Kryvyi Rih, Zaporizhzhia, Kharkiv are all in easy reach if russia invades again in the future.
5/8
If russia controls these territories then russia controls the water supply for Crimea and can block shipping on the Dnieper.
Mariupol is the second-largest city in these territories and the only major harbor. Mariupol was also the only major Donbas city, that resisted
6/8
russian attempts to take it over in 2014.
Now putin wants to punish the city for having resisted him in 2014; and putin needs the city so he can declare the liberation of Donbas to be complete; and he needs the city before he can annex these territories.
7/8
But putin just needs the city for its symbolic value. He doesn't want the city's people, who defied him before.
Just like Hitler wanted Stalingrad for the symbolism and nothing else, putin wants Mariupol for the symbolism and nothing else. Fascist nihilism then and now.
8/8
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Of course russia can quickly seize the Suwałki Gap and cut of the Baltics from the rest of NATO... but have you had a look at Kaliningrad's border and the flat dry country beyond?
There are 9 Polish brigades in that area (and 11 in reserve, with 4 more forming). Sure russia 1/5
could move 50,000+ men to Kaliningrad to secure the border or build a defence line along the Pregoła river... but those need to be supplied from Belarus, which also is easily invaded unless russia sends 50,000+ troops to secure its flank there. A buildup of 200,000+ russian
2/5
troops in Belarus would be noticed by NATO (and ordinary people in Belarus, who would upload 100s of videos of the arriving russians).
In summary the main risk isn't that russia suddenly seizes and fortifies the Suwałki Gap... the main risk is that russia starts building up
3/5
The North Atlantic - one of the key battles in a russia-Europe war.
If Europe is defeated here, which with Europe's current forces and capabilities, is almost certain to happen... then russia can nuke the UK without fear of retaliation.
This will be a unsettling thread:
1/40
This battle will be very different from the battles in the Black Sea and Baltic Sea, which I discussed in an early thread, which is linked below.
To understand the North Atlantic Battle we need to look at Imperial Germany's WWI submarine campaign,
2 days ago I did a thread about the reasons russia can't defeat Ukraine and yet is still a deadly threat to Europe and NATO (link to the thread the next tweet).
Today I will talk about three of the fronts of a russia-Europe war: 1) Black Sea 2) Baltic Sea 3) North Atlantic
1/36
These three fronts will be air and sea battles, while Finland and the Baltics will be air and land battles; about which I will talk in another thread in the coming days.
I do not believe the US under control of Trump or Vance would come to the aid 2/n
• russia has no chance to defeat Ukraine
• russia is a deadly threat to NATO and the EU
Both of these are true... because as of 2025 Ukraine fields a far more capable military than NATO's 30 European members combined (!).
Let me explain.
1/39
As of August 2025 russia fields more than 1,3 million troops; at least half of which are fighting in or against Ukraine.
Ukraine has an estimated 1 million troops... maybe even 1,1 million troops. NATO's European members have double that: some 2.2 million troops, but 2/n
(there is always a "but" with European militaries):
• with more than double the personnel European NATO members manage to field only 20% more combat brigades than Ukraine. Partly because Western navies and air forces are bigger, but mostly because in all European militaries 3/n
People forget that for most if its history Europe was much, much more militarized than even during the Cold War.
Italy, from the end of the Third War of Independence in 1866 to 1939 fielded always 360-400 battalions, which fell to 110-115 during the Cold War, as the US
1/14
backed its European allies with the its massive air force. Today Italy fields 41 battalions (infantry, tanks, recon, special forces, rangers).
Likewise the British Army fielded for most of its history (especially after the 1908 Haldane reforms) 450-480 battalions, which came 2/n
in three types: 150-160 regular battalions (of which a third was always in India), around 100 reserve battalions to provide replacements for the regular battalions, and 200-220 territorial battalions, which (at least on paper) could not be deployed overseas. The British Army
3/n
And this is how Berlin would look like 3 days after putin attacks Europe... because Germany doesn't have the air defence ammo to defend any of its city for more than 2 days.
1/12
This is Copenhagen.
And this is how Copenhagen would look like the morning after putin attacks Europe... because Denmark doesn't have any air defence to defend itself.
2/12
This is Paris.
And this is how Paris would look like a day after putin attacks Europe... because France only has SAMP/T air defence systems, which is as of now has very limited capabilities against ballistic missiles.
3/12