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
In February 2022 putin declared war on Europe & his army marched on Kyiv.
Since then European EU/NATO nations have added and/or are forming these active (!) battalions to their armies:
(Worst 2 countries are of course the two loudmouths)
Europe has to realize that there are two global military powers that it will have to find an arrangements with to safeguard its future security:
🇺🇸 the US
🇺🇦 Ukraine
These two have the highest defence materiel production output, and troops from these two are present in the 1/9
highest number of nations around the globe (Ukrainian troops are fighting russians in every nation, where russia has allied with the regime; a will to fight our enemies that is sorely lacking in the rest of Europe).
Minor powers like the UK or middling powers like France,
2/9
can't provide as much security (troops, defence equipment, tech innovation, will to fight, etc.) as Ukraine or the US.
While Ukrainians fight, innovate and produce vast amounts of war materiel, Europe continues to fiddle as the fire of war spreads across the continent.
3/9
Fellow Europeans on here claiming that Europe doesn't need the US to fight off russia are delusional:
Does Europe have enough cruise missiles? No.
Is Europe investing to fix this? Also no.
Does Europe have enough tanker aircraft? No.
Is Europe investing to fix this? Also no.
1/6
Does Europe have enough maritime patrol aircraft? No.
Is Europe investing to fix that? Also no.
Does Europe have any ballistic missiles? No.
Is Europe investing to fix that? Also no.
Does Europe have enough SEAD/DEAD aircraft? No.
Is Europe investing to fix that? Also no.
2/6
Does Europe have enough logistic units aircraft? No.
Is Europe investing to fix that? Also no.
Does Europe have enough air defence? No.
Is Europe investing to fix that? Also no.
Does Europe have enough recon satellites? No.
Is Europe investing to fix that? A bit.
3/6
On 2 April 1982 Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands.
3 days (!) later a 🇬🇧 Royal Navy task force left the UK to retake the islands.
That task force included: 2× aircraft carriers, 8× destroyers, 16× frigates, 6× attack submarines... a fleet bigger than today's Royal Navy. 1/8
22 Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships provided logistic support... in total 127 ships sailed, and the Royal Navy still (!!) had enough destroyers, frigates, submarines to fulfil its NATO obligations.
It was an awesome display of military power, professionalism, courage and grit. 2/n
On 28 February 2026, after weeks of tension, the Iran War began... and even though the UK had been asked by the US for bases weeks earlier, the Royal Navy was caught wholly unprepared... and then it took the Royal Navy 10 days (!) to get 1× destroyer out of port, which after
3/n
To give you an idea, why European militaries prefer US-made weapons to European-made weapons:
Europe militaries urgently need a ground launched cruise missile capability... the US already had such a (nuclear) capability in 1983, then dismantled all of its BGM-109G Gryphon
1/10
ground launched cruise missiles after signing of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.
russia of course broke this treaty after putin came to power and after 15 years of ignoring russia lying about it Trump finally ordered to withdraw from the treaty in August 2019.
2/n
Just 16 days after withdrawing from the treaty the US Army began to test launch Tomahawk cruise missiles form land (pic) and in June 2023 (less than 4 years later) the US Army formed the first battery equipped with the Typhon missile system.
And as Raytheon has a production 3/n
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