Impressive thread was done by the @Black_BirdGroup about defenses in the south. In relation to this subject, I'd like to add additional insights and context. My intention is not to critique their presented report, but to emphasize crucial details that need to be added. 🧵Thread
2/ Frequently, I see analysts focusing on visible defenses. This could foster the perception that the first defensive line is where fortifications are visible through satellite imagery, based on the presence of features like dragon's teeth, trenches, or anti-tank ditches.
3/ In my perspective, this tendency can be attributed to the Streetlight effect - an observational bias wherein people exclusively search where it's easiest to look. In the context of satellite imagery, this translates to focusing on only visible defense structures.
4/ However, considering on-ground reporting, it's worth noting that virtually every tree line has been fortified to some extent. These fortifications range from concealed positions for ATGM and machinegunner teams to discreet well-protected individual positions
5/ In this short timelapse video spanning from May to August, I've highlighted fortified zones that mappers often chart. However, by looking at damages it's evident that the true theater of combat was across all tree lines visible in the area.
6/ Which brings me to the point where I contest the definition of the first defense line by looking at anti-tank trench with pyramids, considering that there were dozens and dozens of manned tree lines with defense positions which were already destroyed or captured by our forces
7/ This distinction holds significant weight, as statements such as "Ukrainian forces haven't reached the first line of defense" could be misleading. In reality, our forces have gained control over numerous tree lines that constitute major defensive formations.
8/ Ultimately, the destruction of enemy forces and assets positioned within these tree lines carries greater significance than obstacles like dragon's teeth and AT ditches, which can be circumvented in under 20 minutes when the enemy is suppressed or lacks the resources to resist
9/ In this final clip north of Robotyne, most tree lines have been heavily shelled due to intense battles fought over each one, making this hidden defensive formation more important than the widely discussed mapped lines.
I'd like to fix my earlier statement. Saying "20 minutes" might sound dismissive due to the battle's complexity, so it's inaccurate. I aimed to show that poorly manned or unguarded positions aren’t the biggest issue, but "20 mins" is incorrect statement.
10/ P.S.: I believe the main battle is ongoing, leading to the deployment of russian strategic reserves. This implies we should avoid statements like "Ukraine hasn't reached the first defense line," even though they might eventually retreat to the "Surovikin line."
11/ I'd like to retract my comment about 20 minutes. Using "20 minutes" might come across as dismissive considering the complexity of the battle. My intention was to highlight that unmanned or undermanned positions aren’t the biggest issue, but "20 mins" is incorrect statement.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Breaking: On October 13, Russia’s Government Legislative Commission backed a Defense Ministry bill allowing the use of reservists for defense-related tasks in peacetime. The measure expands the military’s authority to call up reservists for wartime needs. 🧵Thread:
2/ According to the draft law, “special assemblies” are military call-ups for specific defense missions during armed conflicts, counterterrorism operations, or when forces are deployed abroad. Only reservists will be subject to these special assemblies.
3/ Russia’s mobilization reserve consists of individuals who have voluntarily signed contracts to remain in reserve. Putin established the country’s mobilization manpower reserve in 2015 through an executive decree.
Our report on Russia’s tank production and expansion plans has, predictably, drawn significant attention and generated many questions. Rather than replying individually, we decided to answer the most common ones - and even address questions about the Armata. 🧵Thread:
Russia’s T-90 tank production in 2024 reached around 240 units, including both new and modernized tanks. But internal planning papers analyzed by Frontelligence Insight show Moscow’s plan to lift output by 80% and launch production of a new T90 variant. 🧵Our Special Report:
2/ Our investigation began with what appeared to be a routine document: Uralvagonzavod requested “IS-445” engine RPM sensors from Zagorsk Optical-Mechanical Plant (ZOMZ) for a project listed as “Product 188M2.” This single line became the starting point of a larger discovery
3/ Digging deeper, we identified “Product 188M2” as the T-90M2, the latest variant of the T-90M (Product 188M). A careless online bio from a Russian engineer posted on Russian Scientific and Engineering Union revealed its name: “Ryvok-1", which roughly can be translated as Dash-1
Recently, @CITeam_en has raised some good and bad points about verifying the authenticity of RU mil documents. I’ll start with a pushback: the notion that the legitimacy of Russian documents can be judged by whether they have all the formal characteristics is outdated:
2/ While it is true that all classified documents follow strict protocols, the reality of war is far messier. Most documents are produced internally, shared outside of formal chains: in Excel, Word, or PDF formats and shared through messengers, email, or other convenient channels
3/ I have personally reviewed hundreds, if not thousands, of pages of Russian documents: leaks, data from captured phones or submissions to our team, that contained sensitive information. Yet only a tiny fraction carried any formal classification stamps, despite being valuable
Despite progress, including holding Pokrovsk, inflicting tangible casualties, and striking Russia’s oil and gas infrastructure, it would be dangerous for Europe to assume that “Ukraine has this.”
The battlefield situation has improved but remains suboptimal.
🧵Thread:
2/ The recent negative dynamics in Kupyansk show that the fundamental issue of Ukraine’s military remains: it is forced to operate in a fire-brigade fashion, reinforcing threatened sectors of the front such as Pokrovsk at the cost of other directions.
3/ As our team’s investigation into desertions shows, Russian troops are abandoning their posts at increasingly growing rate. Yet desertions still remain more frequent on the Ukrainian side, and Moscow is more effective at returning its troops to the front.
The Ukrainian project @hochuzhit_com has published a photo of a document with Russian losses over 8 months, from January to September 2025. According to it, total KIA numbers 86,744, roughly 10,843 per month, which is very close to our earlier estimates. Total losses are 281,550
2/ The published document contains a breakdown by units. Our team will work tonight to verify whether the numbers match the Russian documents we have on hand, but at first glance, it appears authentic. Notably, over 33,966 are listed as MIA, so the majority of them are likely KIA
3/ This is very close to our earlier estimates published in July and August, which pointed to 8,400–10,500 KIA per month. These estimates have proven to be quite accurate, demonstrating that our methodology is precise and reliable