In Germany @derspiegel, @welt, @ntvde and in Austria @derStandardat write that "the Ukrainian Offensive has failed"... ...
That is wild nonsense.
This nonsense happens, because all of them interviewed the same expert, who doesn't understand Ukraine's Offensive phases, of
1/25
which there are at least 5, and we're barely in the middle of Phase 1 - Attrition & Interdiction.
I wouldn't have to do this thread, if i.e. @derStandardat wouldn't confuse the Ukrainian Army's Assault brigades, with the National Guard's Offensive Guard brigades, but...
2/n
The reason people don't consider Ukraine's Phase 1 a success comes from people being used to US/NATO wars, in which Phase 1 is purely air power.
Phase 1 is meant to attrition enemy forces and interdict/disrupt their lines of communication. The West uses fighters and bombers, 3/n
and cruise missiles for that.
During the 1991 Gulf War 1,700+ coalition combat aircraft needed 37 (!) days and 100,000+ sorties to attrition the Iraqi forces enough to trigger the ground campaign. And 288 Tomahawk cruise missiles were fired at Iraqi targets. 4/n
During the 2003 Invasion of Iraq coalition combat aircraft flew 41,000 sorties and fired 802 Tomahawks at Iraqi targets.
This time the coalition skipped the attrition phase and went directly to Phase 2 - Close Air Support = bombing a road to Baghdad for the 1st Marine and 5/n
3rd Infantry divisions.
Ukraine doesn't have any of this air power; and so Ukraine is forced to replace fighters and bombers with GMLRS, Excalibur, Storm Shadow and drones.
Whereas in US and NATO operations the sky is continuously swarming with fighters and bombers looking 6/n
for enemy positions and vehicles to annihilate, all Ukraine has in the air are drones, which look for russian equipment, ammo points, command centers, logistic points, etc. but the drones can't bomb these objects.
Once a drone spots a target, the drone operator has to request
7/n
mensuration, the results of which are then transmitted to either a M142 HIMARS or M270A1 MLRS launcher, which will enter the target's coordinates into a GMLRS rocket; or transmitted to a M777, PzH 2000, M109A6 or Archer howitzer, which will enter the target's coordinates into 8/n
an Excalibur projectile; or the data is transmitted to the Ukrainian Air Force's 7th Tactical Aviation Brigade, which will enter the target's coordinates into a Storm Shadow...
Did you notice that all of these take time? Ukraine can only hit russian equipment that is static. 9/n
Unlike Western fighters, which can hit the passenger seat of a driving car, Ukraine can only hit russian vehicles and objects that are static. A massive drawback.
Even worse: a US fighter jet can fly deep into enemy territory, and hit a dozen targets 500km behind the front, 10/n
while Ukraine's range is limited to:
Excalibur range: 40 km
GMLRS range: 84 km
Storm Shadow range: 500+ km, but only in limited numbers
Ukraine is massively handicapped by the time it takes to hit a russian target and by the range of its systems. (GLSDB will improve HIMARS 11/n
range but the production line is not yet running...)
Now if you're russia, all you have to do it to park your heavy equipment outside of GMLRS range and Ukraine can't hit it.
It makes no sense to use a expensive Storm Shadow missile to hit i.e. a russian T-90M tank...
12/n
Still Ukraine must attrition russia's heavy equipment before it can begin Phase 2 of the offensive... and the only way to do it is to bait russian forces into GMLRS and Excalibur range.
And Ukraine is doing this right now by attacking the russian lines with four of the ten 13/n
All other brigades (i.e. 35th Marine, 68th Jaeger, etc.) are merely supporting these four brigades. 14/n
A further six brigades can be deployed for this phase. Now the russians are in a dilemma: either bring their heavy equipment forward and risk losing it to GMLRS and Excalibur or leave their heavy equipment out of range and allow Ukraine an unexpected early breakthrough
15/n
through the russians lines... well, the russians decided to bring their equipment forward and Ukraine is hitting it relentlessly.
Still it is a far, far slower process than air power... and unlike in an air campaign Ukraine is losing troops and vehicles... and this has led 16/n
to some analysts declaring the Ukrainian Offensive a "failure"... it is NOT. These "analysts" and "experts" just fail to understand the Ukrainian plan.
And they fail to understand that Ukraine gets stronger every day: Ukraine readied 35 (!) brigades for the offensive, by
17/n
raising new units, splitting existing units, pulling units out of the front and refreshing them... and just 4 of 35 are in the fight now.
All the others are at the training grounds - training every day to improve their skills; AND incorporating the lessons learned in the 18/n
offensive so far.
And every day troops return from training in NATO countries and Sweden; and new equipment arrives - the Offensive Guard brigades started out as light infantry... and are now getting tanks from Germany and Denmark, turning them into mechanized formations. 19/n
So many troops return from training in Europe that Ukraine recently formed three new brigades; and as the russians have stopped attacks in the South and along the Donetsk front, Ukraine recently pulled two elite brigades out of the front to freshen them up for the offensive.
20/n
How can an offensive have "failed" if more than 90% of forces are still training for the offensive?
I do not know when the next Phase of the Ukrainian Offensive will begin... but I am sure it is not tied to a date or certain geographic locations.
21/n
I assume the next Phase will be triggered when Ukraine is confident it has destroyed a certain % of the remaining russian howitzers, rocket launchers, electronic warfare systems, air defense systems; and degraded russian logististics by striking russian supply lines, and 22/n
destroyed most of the russian ammo dumps and command posts... you know, the exact same parameters that triggered the ground campaign of Operation Desert Storm in 1991.
Ukraine's Offensive has barely begun. And due to the lack of air power Phase 1 will take far longer than 23/n
people are used to... but journalists need to come up every day with a fresh new drama.
But the real story here is how many more forces Ukraine is readying, how many more forces Ukraine and NATO are training, and how much more equipment the West needs to donate for these
24/n
new units.
In Phase 3 Ukrainian forces will slice through russian lines and liberate Mariupol; will cross the Dnipro and liberate Northern Crimea; and will destroy russia's army in the South.
Ukraine's victory is inevitable. We just need a bit of patience.
25/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