There are various estimates of how many "soldiers" (& criminals) RU has mobilized & sent to the front. I'd guess it's equal to or slightly greater than the initial invasion force (190K).
But as I've said many times, these are untrained forces. 3/
RU have been physically moved to "training locations," given shoddy equipment, seen the same poor leadership, & sent to the front without an understanding of what they were to do.
In western language, "their recruiters lied to them!" 4/
The Army in the east - Prigozhin's criminals or Gerasimov's "soldiers" - are not ready for any kind of offensive, large or small. They are "cannon fodder" or "cannon meat."
Putin forces action now, because he's concerned about future UA offensive. 5/
While ordering this, Putin prepares more missile strikes from what he has - planes & ships - to force Ukraine to do two things: fight on the front, and defend the population with air defense.
Putin is also now attacking from N &S with these strikes. 6/
Reconnaissance. Looking for weak spots. Planning operations directed at key locations. Interdicting enemy supplies. Using SOF to hit targets behind the lines. Preparing logistics.
The @GOP is debating on condemning @potus actions on the China Balloon at the SOTU. If they do condemn, after the gang of eight and then other members it will only show how unserious they are about national security.
As I said on Friday, as a former Cavalryman I learned that unless there is an immediate threat, a smart person spends time observing, reporting, and analyzing.
While the immediate reaction may be "shoot it down," experts may provide a more prudent approach.
That happened. 2/
We'll learn @NORADCommand tracked across the Bering Sea, Aleutians, Alaska & then Canada.
Based on experience, there was constant tracking, as has been reported, and immediate risk mitigation (jamming, spoofing, following).
2. It's isn't "learning the tank" I'm concerned about:
--can they quickly learn the capability of the Abrams (& Leopard II) the way it is designed to operate. That's training w/ other tanks, infantry, scouts, drones,artillery, engineers, intel...all more than crew training. 2/
--when the tank - or small critical parts in the tank - break (which they do), & when those small & large replacement parts need replacing, & when it requires daily/weekly/monthly echelon maintenance, will Ukraine have also trained those who do these things. 3/
Woke up this morning to find a thread from someone claiming I posted things that are "100% untrue" about the "M1."
I hesitate to respond to @secretsqrl123 - especially since he posted an insulting tweet (violating my rule #1) - but providing tank insight is important to me. 1/20
"David" is a "former ADA 16/14R & 96B/P (an air defense soldier & intel analyst w/ airborne experience). He is a "master driver & a 22 yr combat vet." To which I say "thanks for ur service."
Don't know how much tank experience he has, but he gets some things right in his 🧵2/
He also gets things wrong.
Since he gives his creds, here are mine:
-37 years in armor.
-served on M60, M60A1, M60A2,M1, M1A1, M1A2
-tank platoon leader, company commander (x2), cav sqdn S3 (in combat), cav squadron Cdr at Armor School (teaching M1 Tank Commanders Course) 3/
In 2000, I was commanding 3/2 Armored Brigade (Arrowhead!), when I received new orders to be prepared to field a new organization with new equipment.
Our Brigade would become the 1st Interim Brigade Combat Team (IBCT), then later the Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT) 2/
While the Abrams tank is named for GEN Creighton Abrams (hero of the Battle of the Bulge), and the Bradley is name after GEN Omar Bradley, the Stryker is named after two Medal of Honor winners - PFC Stuart Stryker (World War II) & SPC4 Robert Stryker (Vietnam) 3/
Military theorists & historians have –in my view, incorrectly- concluded there are 2 types of strategy.
One is annihilation & the other is attrition (or exhaustion).
While these aren’t the *only* strategies, it's helpful to understand them to comprehend Ukraine right now.1/11
A strategy of ANNIHILATION suggests a nation can defeat its enemy by forcing a decision (or series of decisions) by using overwhelming maneuver, effective political & military leadership, and combined actions (like offensive operations, alliances, economics , information, etc).2/
Through history, “battles of annihilation” occurred when a military force is surrounded & defeated & an army is forced to surrender. As a result, the nation no longer resists because it lost its force. (Note: a battle of annihilation isn’t a strategy of annihilation).3/
.@RadioFreeTom nails it again. Yes, it was a big mistake and there must be an investigation & accountability & the govt ought find ways to prevent in the future. But mistakes differ from purposeful actions, lack of remorse, excuses for lying and refusal to return when caught.1/2
I’m going to bet the inquiry into the ones found with @POTUS may show some systemic problems w/ SSO handling as well. That can be fixed. Just admittedly taking govt docs and refusing to return needs to be addressed in a different way.2/2
As a commander, I dealt with improper handling of classified material on numerous occasions. All were investigated. The findings found a range of issues, and punishment also ranged from admonishment to admin action to courts martial. We also learned lessons on fixing processes.