Part 2. So in closing, Russia has inferior officers who cannot conduct a successful battle and her "wins" have come with unsustainable losses. Her troops and equipment quality is nose diving and her armies have been routed at least twice and a huge cauldron now exists near
Kherson that has the bulk of her remaining combat power outside of the Donbass. That is not a recipe for eventually victory. Infact that the only way Russia can win would be for Western support to dry up. I do not see that happening. #POTUS is fully committed to supporting
Ukraine as are my political leaders @JohnBoozman, @SenTomCotton, and @RepFrenchHill. Most NATO leaders and many other leaders in the Free World likewise are solid supporters. Holdouts like Scholz who only want to do enough to not get kicked from the Christmas Party invite list
are the minority. Behind them there is a massive effort driven by people like us funding charities like @MriyaAid and #NAFOexpansion is non-negotiable and there are more #Fellas everyday sending donations to the @georgian_legion and fighting Russian dis-info efforts. There are
still several weeks of campaigning ahead and the forecast for the Russians is ruin, fire and HIMARS. So until Ukraine wins on Ukraine's terms: Slava Ukraini! I hope you enjoyed my take down of Scott Ritter's article and please RT and share it. I would love for it to reach him.
There are two ways to tell a truth, words and actions. Actions always speak louder because it is harder for actions to lie. Recently, Russia has been telegraphing that she has lost the war. Not set backs, but lost with no hope of winning.
@DrBrainMD, so a quick thread in answer to your rhetorical question. So the best rounds the Russian's had for the best tanks they had using the 2A46-M5 125mm gun were the 3BM42, 3BM59 and 3BM60. Older tanks have to use older ammunition like the 3BM42 and 3BM42M. Even these modern
Russian rounds suffer from the inherent limitations of the ammo system of the T-series tanks. A quick wiki look claims 900mm RHAe for the best of them. This is unlikely to be enough to penetrate the front of an M1A1/2SEP that has DU armor. The front of the Abrams is often
estimated to be around 1600mm RHAe. The reverse is not true. So even if Russia has not shot off its best APDS rounds they are unlikely to be effective. The reverse however is most decidedly not true. During the First Gulf War the M829A1 silver bullet wrecked T-72's in almost
First off, I am attacking his arguments. His past may gain or deny access to an audience but it is not the argument so I will not use fallacies The articles first error is its mischaracterization of Kleotograd's goals regarding Kyiv. This part of the war
was not designed to pin down UAF units to grease the way for a Russian victory in the Donbass and elsewhere. That is not what happened, but it sets the tone for the entire article. As far as I can tell his article raises the following points 1. Kyiv wasn't a defeat. 2. Russian
Will Kherson surrender (today) or not? Its still trapped regardless and this has taken another 1/3rd of the Russian combat power in Ukraine off the table. That leaves the troops in the Donbass. They have the best logistics, terrain and most of the remaining combat power left to
the Russian Army. What they still don't have is competent leadership, good training, espirit de corps or unification of will and purpose. Would you want to be a Russian soldier there? Pressure from the North, the ZSU is still fighting hard around Bakhmut and now word that the
ground combat power in Kherson is about to go belly up and start smelling like a bad fish. Tick tock, tick tock M'fer the time is coming. Its really hard for authoritarian regimes to survive this kind of repeated shock to the system. Will the fall of Kherson and another major
I will start off today with a shout out to @LanguageIearner his updates are essential reading given the fast moving pace of the war recently. In particular I want to zero in on the claim that Russia has begun issuing D-1 (M1943) 152mm howitzers to LNR/DPR forces. This is an old
gun that is itself a modified version of a gun designed before Hitler invaded Poland. While in and of itself not that noteworthy, after all Ukraine has also been handed US made WWII era M101 howitzers it is noteworthy because Russia had so many other more modern guns. We have
already seen the Russians issue D-20 guns made in the 1950's and 60's and now those are apparently used up and Russia is pulling out kit used to shell Berlin. Since Russian and separatist troop numbers are not expanding the only reason is massive attrition. Some combination of
So information has been coming at us firehose style and it can be difficult to build a comprehensive picture. We know things look good but how good is it really? There are a few video posts and a Russian messaging campaign that viewed together and in context say a lot. I will
walk you through what I see. First, Russia is claiming that her "pullback" from Kharkiv was done to further her own war aims. I mean survival can be a war aim, but what does the evidence say. Adding to this Denis Pushilin is claiming his troops have it under control. Really?