I am not very good at graphics, but I tried to draw up an explainer for the Ukrainian Kupiansk Offensive:
Redish = the territory occupied by russia
• yesterday Ukrainian troops liberated Balakliia (Blue 1)
• during the night Ukrainian troops moved to Volokhiv Yar (Blue 2) 1/n
• currently Ukrainian troops are advancing to Shevchenkove (Blue 3)
Once Ukrainian troops have firmly established themselves in these three settlements, the russian forces in the black hatched area must retreat North or will be crushed by Ukrainian forces.
2/n
Once the black hatched area is cleared Ukraine can move its M777 up and take the rail and road junctions, and russian supply depots in Kupiansk under fire.
The outer yellow rings show the range of M982 Excalibur rounds for precision strikes and the inner yellow rings show
3/n
the range of unguided M795 155 mm projectiles.
With Kupiansk (upper red circle) under artillery fire, the russian supply line to its forces around Izyum (lower red circle) becomes unusable.
If Ukraine then uses M777 fired Excalibur projectiles and M142 HIMARS fired M31A1
4/n
GMLRS rockets to take out the bridges over the Oskil river (the four purple pentagons) and whatever pontoon bridges the russians try to build, then the russian forces West of the Oskil river are trapped, just like the russian forces in Kherson.
5/n
This will give Ukraine two options how to finish the russians:
• either advance and take Kupiansk (Green 4) and then battle the trapped russians into surrender or
• leave an escape route for the russians between Shevchenkove and Kupiansk and then hammer them with
6/n
artillery, TB2 drones, and rocket artillery when they flee North.
The first option guarantees annihilation for 10,000+ russians, but will also cause many Ukrainian casualties, while the second will brutally decimate the fleeing russians, with minimal Ukrainian losses.
7/n
No matter what options the Ukrainians choose, the russian forces West of the Oskil are doomed, as putin doesn't have 5-6,000 fresh troops for a counter attack.
This offensive (like the Kherson Offensive) makes excellent use of rivers, and while the Kherson Offensive ensures
8/n
that russia can never launch an attack on Mykolaiv, the Kupiansk Offensive ensures that russia can never launch an attack on Sloviansk.
And with no chance to take Sloviansk, russia has also lost the Battle of Donbas.
putin is a moron, and now all can finally see that.
9/end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
These are the 🇬🇧 UK's HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales aircraft carriers.
First, as you can see in this picture, only one actually carries aircraft. The UK barely had enough money to buy the F-35B for one. For the other the Blairites expected the US Marine Corps 1/9
to provide the required aircraft, because the two carriers were bought so the Royal Navy could fight alongside the US Navy against China in the Pacific.
But the US does NOT want the British carriers anywhere near its carrier strike groups, because the UK carriers would slow
2/9
down a US carrier strike groups, as the UK did not have the money for nuclear propulsion.
And as the UK doesn't have the money for the ships that make up a carrier strike group (destroyers, frigates, submarines) the UK expected the US Navy to detach some of its destroyers and 3/9
🇬🇧 decline: Only one SSN is operational, three are no longer fit for service and got no crews. One carrier has no air wing and has been sent to rust away. The other carrier only has an air wing when the RAF cedes a third of its fighters. Only 1 destroyer is operational. The
1/5
frigates are falling apart. New Type 31 frigates won't get Mark 41 VLS or bow Sonar. The RAF took 48 of its Eurofighters apart, because it got no money for spares. The army has just 14 155mm howitzers. The Ajax vehicle is injuring the troops it carries. The Warrior IFVs are
2/5
outdated and falling apart. They amphibious ships are not deployable / crewed for lack of funds. The UK has not anti-ballistic missile system (e.g.Patriot). There is only money for 12 F-35A, the smallest F-35A order on the planet. The tank force is at its smallest since 1938.
3/5
International Law is worthless paper if you cannot and will not back it up with military power.
Dictators do not care for international law. But they fear the US Air Force. The moment the US signaled it would no longer back "international law" putin annexed Crimea and Assad
1/10
gassed his people. International Law is what defence laggards hide behind to not have to spend for their own security (hoping the US will save them from their irresponsibility) .
European politicians like to grandstand about "international law" but NO European nation has the
2/n
the means (nor the will) to the enforce it. European politicians grandstanding about international law always do so in the belief that the US will enforce their balderdash.
So European politicians lecturing the US about "international law" now are utter morons, because they
3/n
All this "NATO is unprepared for the use of drones like the war in Ukraine" is ridiculous, because:
• of course NATO is unprepared for the use of drones like the war IN (!) Ukraine,
• because that is not how a NATO-russia war will be fought. NATO, even just European NATO,
1/4
fields: 244 F-35, 403 Eurofighter, 183 Rafale, 177 modern F-16, 3 Gripen E, and 896 older fighter types.
A total of 1,906+ fighters (without the US Air Force and Royal Canadian Air Force; and with more new fighters entering European service every week).
russia, when counting
2/4
generously can't even put half that fighter strength into the field, and the 1,010 modern European NATO fighters would devastate russia's fighter force.
With NATO air supremacy comes absolute dominance of the battlefield. Every russian moving near the front would get bombed
3/4
Gripen fans keep hyping the Gripen with fake claims & as long as they do, I will counter them:
Scandinavian Air Force officer about the Gripen E: It can either be fully fueled or fully armed or flown from short runways. Never can 2 of these things be done at the same time.
1/25
The Gripen fans keep claiming that the Gripen has a better range than the F-35 and can fly from short runways... then admit that its max. range can only be achieved with external fuel tanks, which weigh so much that the Gripen E can no longer fly from short runways.
2/n
External fuel tanks also mean: the Gripen becomes slower, the radar cross section increases (making detection more likely), the fuel consumption increases,... and even with all 3 external fuel tanks the Gripen E carries 1,340 kg less fuel than the F-35A carries internally.
3/n
Gripen fans continue to spam my mention with claims how fantastic Sweden's Bas 90 and Gripen combination is... and that it would work for Canada's North too...
Ok, let's quickly compare Canada's three northern territories (Yukon, Northwest, Nunavut) and Sweden... ... 1/6
Land area:
🇸🇪 450,295 km2 (173,860 sq mi)
🇨🇦 terr.: 3,593,589 km2 (173,860 sq mi)
The land area of just the three territories (without Canada's 10 provinces) is already 8 times bigger than all of Sweden...
(In total Canada's land area is 9,984,670 km2
2/6
(3,855,100 sq mi) or 22 times Sweden).
Population:
🇸🇪 10.61 million
🇨🇦 terr.: 0.13 million
Sweden's population is 81.6 times bigger than that of the three territories... and if you look at population density:
🇸🇪 23,6/km2
🇨🇦 terr.: 0,013/km2
3/6