Ukraine, Russia attacks, Coming Russia attacks etc...

 

Ukraine war briefing: 

Putin yet to retaliate in full force 

over Operation Spiderweb, officials say

Sun 8 Jun 2025 02.34 EDT

2:30 on Sunday afternoon

when everybody is paying attention right?

(Just wanna point out:

Iran carried out implosion tests

 for nuclear weapons development, IAEA reports

Came out late Sunday night.

Ive been doing this for close to 50 years now.

(Privately for most of that time :-)

The timing of these two articles

is simply not an accident.)

"Diplomat predicts 

‘huge, vicious and unrelenting’ 

assault,"

(I 100% agree, and nothing we have seen in the last few days

 comes close to what

we should expect to see happening.

"Well why do you say that Drew?"

Because:

“President Trump said 

we’ll know in two weeks 

whether he’s being strung along,” 

(By Putin)

Graham said."

After talks with Zelenskyy and Macron, 

US senators warn: Putin ‘is preparing for more war’

AP 06/01/2025)

"though "a Russia expert" thinks Moscow 

is unable to escalate much 

beyond current level of attacks."

They simply couldn't be 

any more incorrect

and they have been previously

as well.

Gotta point out

most of the 

"the experts" 

said the Russians 

were not gonna invade.)

"What we know on day 1,201.'

(2:30 Sunday afternoon)

'Vladimir Putin’s threatened 

retaliation against Ukraine over its drone attack on Russia’s bomber fleet has not happened yet in earnest, despite heavy bombardment of Kharkiv and Kyiv the past two days..."

(You can make that four days in a row now:

Ukraine says Russia launched 

the biggest overnight drone bombardment of the war

AP Updated 7:58 PM CDT, June 9, 2025

That was reported on the 9th 

about the attacks on the 8th.

Russian strikes in Ukraine hit Kyiv and kill two in Odesa

BBC 6/10, 

reporting on attacks on 6/09.

"Russia has launched one of its largest strikes on Kyiv, injuring four people and causing widespread damage across seven of the capital's ten districts, officials said.'

The overnight attack was "one of the largest strikes on Kyiv", Zelensky said on social media.'

(This aint nothing but the warm up

for whats coming, the "diplomat' will be proven correct. 

Why?

Well, largely because when we, or Israel, 

or US and Israel moves on Irans nukes?

Then Russia will unleash its:

‘huge, vicious and unrelenting’ assault,"

on Ukraine.

Simply put,

why do it now?

 When the coming attack 

on Iran is so close?

“President Trump said 

we’ll know in two weeks 

whether he’s being strung along,” 

(By Putin)

Graham said.")

"and is likely to be a significant, multi-pronged strike soon, US official(s) have told Reuters. 

"One senior western diplomat anticipated a “huge, vicious and unrelenting” assault by Moscow.'

(Who ever they are?

Knows whats up.)

"Michael Kofman, a Russia expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said Russia might seek to punish Ukraine’s SBU domestic security agency which orchestrated last weekend’s assault, possibly employing intermediate-range ballistic missiles, as well as targeting defence manufacturing sites. Still, Kofman suggested Russia’s options for retaliation may be limited, as it was already throwing a lot of its military might at Ukraine. “In general, Russia’s ability to substantially escalate strikes from what they are already doing – and attempting to do over the past month – is quite constrained.”

(Im gonna just absolutely destroy 

that position here in a lil bit.)

"The Ukrainian drone attack – called Operation Spiderweb – likely damaged about 10% of Russia’s strategic bomber fleet and hit some of the aircraft as they were being prepared for strikes on Ukraine, according to a German military assessment. Maj Gen Christian Freuding told a YouTube podcast that “more than a dozen aircraft were damaged, TU-95 and TU-22 strategic bombers as well as A-50 surveillance planes”. He said “only a handful” of the A-50s exist and can now no longer be used for spare parts."

"Despite the losses, Freuding did not see any immediate reduction of Russian strikes against Ukraine, noting that Moscow retained 90% of its strategic bombers, which can launch ballistic and cruise missiles in addition to dropping bombs. “But there is, of course, an indirect effect as the remaining planes will need to fly more sorties, meaning they will be worn out faster, and, most importantly, there is a huge psychological impact.”

(It takes very few of these assets 

to launch what they launch 

against Ukraine.)

'Freuding said Russia had felt safe in its vast territory, which also explained why there was little protection for the aircraft. “After this successful operation, this no longer holds true. Russia will need to ramp up the security measures.”

(Or just obliterate Ukraine, or both. 

But that is a very valid point he makes about why the aircraft were so unprotected and it applies to US in the Indo-pacific as well:

The United States Can’t Afford to Not Harden its Air Bases

War on the Rocks January 15, 2025)

Now to just demolish the following nonsense:

'Kofman (Michael Kofman) 

suggested Russia’s options for retaliation 

may be limited, 

Does the "Expert" not know the Russians have the largest inventory of nuclear warheads of any country on earth?

Or that they have already warned multiple times over

that they will use them ?

Or that attacks on strategic assets (such as the bombers that were hit) is justification for their use under their Russians Nuclear doctrine?

So how are their options for retaliation limited exactly?

A lot of these "talking heads' you see on various pod cast, broadcast TV etc, 

are paid to push 

the western propaganda narrative, 

and this instance here

is nothing but a blatant example of that.)

"...as it was already throwing a lot of its military might at Ukraine. “In general, Russia’s ability to substantially escalate strikes from what they are already doing – and attempting to do over the past month – is quite constrained.”

Four nights in a row 

of the largest strikes yet 

tell a completely different story.

Not to mention:

NATO chief calls for 400% boost 

in the alliance’s missile defenses

Defense news 06/09/25

Why then

 is the head of NATO suggesting that?

if, as "Russia expert" Michael Kofman says:

"Russia’s ability to substantially escalate strikes...

is quite constrained.”

??????????

It's nonsense and he knows it.

More from that defense news article:

'Rutte plans to say in a speech at the Chatham House think tank in London that NATO needs thousands more armored vehicles and millions more artillery shells, as well as a 400% increase in air and missile defense.'

“We see in Ukraine how Russia delivers terror from above, so we will strengthen the shield that protects our skies,” he plans to say.'

“Wishful thinking will not keep us safe. We cannot dream away the danger. Hope is not a strategy. So NATO has to become a stronger, fairer and more lethal alliance.”

(They weakened their air defenses

 by giving Patriot missile batteries to Ukraine 

which Russia has since taken out.

Thursday, May 29, 2025

A Dangerous Air Defence Shortage Three Parts

Long story short?

NATO countries donated Patriot missile batteries to Ukraine

(at 2.5 billion a clip mind you) 

and Russia has just obliterated them.)

NATO’s Rutte: ‘We’re all on the eastern flank now’

"Military alliance chief makes the case for gargantuan defense spending increase as Vladimir Putin lurks."

Politico June 9, 2025

(The Baltic states and Poland 

have been warning about this for a long time.)

"...he warned that Russian President Vladimir Putin could launch an attack by 2030."

"Russia could be ready to use military force against NATO within 5 years. Let’s not kid ourselves, we’re all on the eastern flank now," 

(Compare that with:

“President Trump said 

we’ll know in two weeks 

whether he’s being strung along,” 

(By Putin)

Graham said.")

"The fact is, danger will not disappear even when the war in Ukraine ends," he added. 

(VS our "expert's" analysis of:

"Russia’s ability to substantially escalate strikes...

is quite constrained.”)

"Last week, NATO defense ministers approved fresh so-called capability targets — meaning new requirements for military equipment to implement the alliance’s regional defense plans against a potential Russian attack."

(Yo, Kofman baby, if:

"Russia’s ability to substantially escalate strikes...

(against Ukraine)

is quite constrained.”

as you suggest?

then why is NATO sounding the alarm 

about a coming Russia attack?)

"While the details are classified, 

the priorities include 

air and missile defense, 

(Thursday, May 29, 2025

A Dangerous Air Defence Shortage Three Parts

Think that wasn't planned?

To make air and missile defense systems 

in short supply?

Thursday, October 20, 2022

I thought they were out of missiles?

"They dont fight wars like we do.")

"...large formations of land forces, 

long-range capabilities and logistics."

'NATO allies need “a 400 percent increase in air and missile defence… 

(Russia "expert"  Michael Kofman

"Russia’s ability to substantially escalate strikes...

(against Ukraine)

is quite constrained.”)

"Our militaries also need thousands more armored vehicles and tanks, millions more artillery shells, and we must double our enabling capabilities, such as logistics, supply, transportation, and medical support,” Rutte said Monday.'

(I got news for ya, one side has been getting ready for this since the 2007 Munich security conference, and one side aint been, and the side that aint been, is 18 years behind and simply aint gonna catch up.)

"Governments are also on track to purchase more warships, drones, long-range missiles and aircraft 

— including at least 700 U.S.-made F-35 warplanes, 

he added.'

(For some perspective on "700 F-35's"

We have built 1170 in 19 years.

Yeah so, good luck with all of that.

See note above about:

"one side has been getting ready..."

"When it comes to ammunition, 

Russia produces in three months 

what the whole of NATO 

produces in a year," 

Rutte warned." 

(Might wanna add,

its been that way for a long time

18 years or so, already.)  

I've had problems with  

"Russia Expert"

Michael Kofman's analysis previously

as well:

Friday, November 29, 2024

I

"MYRE: Yeah, absolutely. I spoke with Michael Kofman at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He recently returned from Ukraine, where he visited front-line areas. 

He described this as a war of attrition 

that neither Russia nor Ukraine can sustain."

"This is how Russia fights 

and wins wars.

Its what they do.

They simply outlast you."

I guess:

"Michael Kofman 

at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace."

He either doesn't know 

what the fuck he is talking about?

Or he is spreading 

US government propaganda

Because apparently?

He didn't get the memo.

See also:

Friday, April 12, 2024

Somebody has been trying to tell ya...

"Gen. Christopher Cavoli, the head of U.S. European Command, said Thursday that Russia’s army has grown by 15 percent since before the invasion of Ukraine, raising the alarm that Russian forces are reconstituting “far faster” than initial estimates suggested.

“The size of the Russian military is bigger today 

than when the war started,” he said."

“The army is actually now larger — by 15 percent — than it was when it invaded Ukraine,” he said in written testimony. “Over the past year, Russia increased its front line troop strength from 360,000 to 470,000."

"Cavoli said in his written testimony that Russia is expected to produce more ammunition than all 32 NATO allies combined per year and is on track to “command the largest military on the continent and a defense industrial complex capable of generating substantial amounts of ammunition and materiel in support of large scale combat operations.”

Thats "the head of U.S. European Command" last year

as compared to our "Russia expert" Michael Kofman's who:

"described this as a war of attrition that neither Russia nor Ukraine can sustain."

(Opps, yet again there Michael Kofman,

 strike two homie,

at this rate?

 I'm gonna put you out of business buddy.)

Monday, April 3, 2023

Remember

"Ammunition availability might be the single most important factor that determines the course of the war in 2023," US defense experts Michael Kofman and Rob Lee wrote in December for the Foreign Policy Research Institute, adding that Ukraine will depend on international stockpiles and production for access to the ammunition it needs."

(the course of the war, 

not just 2023)

VS

"When it comes to ammunition, 

Russia produces in three months 

what the whole of NATO produces in a year," 

Rutte warned." 

See Also:

Thursday, October 20, 2022

I thought they were out of missiles?

"Not one "expert", not one? is even suggesting that the Russians are sandbagging for the real conflict when it comes? Why? Not even one is suggesting as much? Why?)

“If Russia had a limitless supply of PGMs, I think that they would still strike civilian targets, because that’s what the Russian way of warfare is,” Muzyka said.

("They dont fight wars like we do.")

"He said analysts did not have confirmed information about Russian missile stocks or production levels, and judgments were based on the decline in usage of PGMs and Moscow’s greater reliance on less accurate missiles."

(Thats faulty logic, black or white thinking, it is ignoring the possibility of other options that do exist.

Another example: Russia isn't using as many precision guided missiles as it was before, therefore it's stockpiles of such weapons must be running low. That argument just flat out ignores the other possibilities that exist.)

"...if the Russians had access to a large stock of PGMS, they could probably inflict a similar damage to Ukrainian armed forces, but they haven’t."

(Maybe because they want this conflict drug out? 

Because it benefits them 

and hastens the fall of the US and the West?

Thats not even a remote possibility 

as to why they are engaging in this conflict 

in the manner they are?

No "expert" ever thought of that?

I have a hard time believing that, I really do.

Remember the Fiona Hill interview piece I

 did a few days ago? What did she say?

"Time is not on our side."

So if you could destroy a country pretty much at will, but dragging it out benefits your side long term and hurts more serious foes abroad than the foe you are engaged with? why wouldn't you conduct the conflict in such a manner as is being waged?")

“They actually failed to,” he continued. “They even failed to interdict the main Ukrainian supply roads. They failed to destroy bridges, railway, railway intersections, and so on and so forth.”

(Yeah, they are saving it for later...duh...)

Adding the comment below today:

Or they wanted it in tack 

as much as possible?

Monday, April 3, 2023

Remember

when we were being told the Russians were running out of ammo?

Going to war? Good news! The United States is 13 years behind in ammunition production, NYT reports

March 25, 2023

"Missile and munition stockpiles are dwindling as the US continues to send aid packages to Ukraine."

"Since production capacity changed after the Cold War, the US can no longer keep up with wartime demands."

"The United States' commitment to support Ukraine against the Russian invasion appears to have rattled the stability of the domestic stockpile of missiles and munitions."

('They dont fight wars like we do" 

somebody been trying to tell ya.

They will run you out of weapons first.

THEN, comes the real war.

And you don't 'switch' to a war of attrition 

as some have suggested 

following the Russian convoy to Kiev's stall.

You plan it out years in advance.

We got caught with are pants down, 

people know it and they are trying their best

 to keep you in the dark about it.

Somebody has been saying all of this for a long time now...)

Now also consider:

Monday, June 9, 2025

"A new IAEA report reveals 

Iran carried out undeclared nuclear tests,..."

"The fact that it carried out 

various explosive tests 

also suggests that 

Iran is further along 

in other skills needed 

for developing a nuclear bomb, 

besides just enriching uranium, 

than many observers 

may have thought."

Now tell me

WHAT HAVE THE EXPERTS 

GOT RIGHT SINCE COVID?

The only way

our world

will make any sense to you 

is seeing it 

through the proper lenses:

Those Rose colored

by the blood of Christ.

Matthew 24:3-4

"...what shall be 

the sign 

(as in singular)

of thy coming, 

and of the end of the world?

4 And Jesus answered 

and said unto them, 

Take heed that no man deceive you.

Indeed.

Michael Kofman? 

Zero credibility 

at this point sir.

Zero.

Zilch.

Nada.

I thought they were out of missiles?

 

Russia’s airstrikes, intended to show force, reveal another weakness

Oct 14th 1 AM EDT

"...no matter how many times Russia fires at Ukraine, pro-war Russian nationalists want more, even though targeting civilian infrastructure is potentially a war crime."

"But the hawks, who are demanding publicly on TV broadcasts and on Telegram to know why Russia does not hit more high value targets, won’t like the answer: The Russian military appears to lack sufficient accurate missiles to sustain airstrikes at Monday’s tempo, according to Western military analysts.

(Baloney. your Western Military analysts are flat out wrong. The reason they aren't hitting more high value targets is to draw this conflict out as long as they can, and only a select few know it, that's why the Russian war hawks aren't being told and wont be told whats going on. Mob bosses dont go around telling every lieutenant exactly what they are up to. Too many cooks spoils the dinner etc...)

“They are low on precision guided missiles,” said Konrad Muzyka, founder of Gdansk, Poland-based Rochan Consulting, offering his assessment of Russia’s sporadic air attacks. “That is essentially the only explanation that I have.”

(Sandbaging for the real conflict is not even a possibility there Mr. Muzyka? Really? Nobody else is even considering this?)

"The experts said the reason Russia had yet to knock out electricity and water service across the country was simple: it can’t."

"Since May, Russia’s use of precision guided missiles (PGMs) has declined sharply, with analysts suggesting then that Russian stocks of such missiles may be low.

(Opps. That was six days ago. Look at what is going on now:

Ukrainians told to 'charge everything' as power grid hit by Russia

Not one "expert", not one? is even suggesting that the Russians are sandbagging for the real conflict when it comes? Why? Not even one is suggesting as much? Why?)

“If Russia had a limitless supply of PGMs, I think that they would still strike civilian targets, because that’s what the Russian way of warfare is,” Muzyka said.

("They dont fight wars like we do.")

"He said analysts did not have confirmed information about Russian missile stocks or production levels, and judgments were based on the decline in usage of PGMs and Moscow’s greater reliance on less accurate missiles."

(Thats faulty logic, black or white thinking, it is ignoring the possibility of other options that do exist.

Another example: Russia isn't using as many precision guided missiles as it was before, therefore it's stockpiles of such weapons must be running low. That argument just flat out ignores the other possibilities that exist.)

"But a clue lies in Russia’s failure to destroy the kinds of targets that Ukraine is able to hit using U.S.-supplied HIMARS artillery. “If we take a look at what HIMARS has done to Russian supply routes, and essentially their ability to sustain war, they’ve done massive damage to Russia’s posture in this war,” Muzyka said. “So technically, you know, if the Russians had access to a large stock of PGMS, they could probably inflict a similar damage to Ukrainian armed forces, but they haven’t.”

(Again, that is a logical fallacy. The argument is being presented as either or when in fact other options do exist.

"if the Russians had access to a large stock of PGMS, they could probably inflict a similar damage to Ukrainian armed forces, but they haven’t."

Maybe because they want this conflict drug out? 

Because it benefits them and hastens the fall of the US and the West?

Thats not even a remote possibility as to why they are engaging in this conflict in the manner they are?

No "expert" ever thought of that?

I have a hard time believing that, I really do.

Remember the Fiona Hill interview piece I did a few days ago? What did she say?

"Time is not on our side."

So if you could destroy a country pretty much at will, but dragging it out benefits your side long term and hurts more serious foes abroad than the foe you are engaged with? why wouldn't you conduct the conflict in such a manner as is being waged?")

“They actually failed to,” he continued. “They even failed to interdict the main Ukrainian supply roads. They failed to destroy bridges, railway, railway intersections, and so on and so forth.”

(Yeah, they are saving it for later...duh...)

“Russia lacks the missiles to mount attacks of this sort often, as it is running out of stocks and the Ukrainians are claiming a high success rate in intercepting many of those already used,” Freedman (Lawrence Freedman, professor of war studies at King’s College London) wrote. “This is not therefore a new war-winning strategy but a sociopath’s tantrum.”

(Maybe Mr. Freedman should read the news today:

Ukrainians told to 'charge everything' as power grid hit by Russia

"President Volodymyr Zelensky said three energy facilities had been destroyed on Wednesday and energy companies were preparing for "all possible scenarios" for winter. He was due to address a summit of EU leaders, who are trying to reach an agreement on bringing down gas prices.

(Ukraine is worried about survival and the EU wants to lower gas prices...nice.)

Serious damage was reported to power facilities in Kryvyi Rih in central Ukraine and Burshtyn in the west. Ukrenergo (is an electricity transmission system operator in Ukraine and the sole operator of the country's high-voltage transmission lines.) said there had been more attacks in the past 10 days than in the whole preceding period since Russia's invasion on 24 February."

They are running low remember? 

Or are we just wishing they were? False prophets of the media etc...

Those quotes are from the article in the link above, not the article I'm currently going through :-). back to the task at hand.)

Putin’s “need to calm his critics also explains why he has lashed out against Ukrainian cities,” Freedman wrote. “The hard-liners have been demanding attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure for some time and they now have got what they wanted. But they will inevitably be disappointed with the results.”

(That I agree with. Recent attacks serve Putin's purposes, drag out the conflict, make Ukraine suffer, pleases his hardliners etc, so that makes sense.)

“These attacks could well be repeated, because it is part of the mind-set of Putin and his generals that enemies can be forced to capitulate by such means,” he added. “But stocks of Kalibr and Iskander missiles are running low.”

(Well they are being repeated...just like they said, they have started a new phase of the conflict. "But stocks of Kalibr and Iskander missiles are running low.”...Remember what the article said earlier? "Analysts did not have confirmed information about Russian missile stocks or production levels, and judgments were based on the decline in usage of PGMs and Moscow’s greater reliance on less accurate missiles." So just how does Mr. Freedman know PGM stocks are running low? They are just now starting to get started. God help us all.)

"One apparent goal of Russia’s strikes on six electrical substations in Lviv, western Ukraine, was to stop Ukraine exporting electricity to Europe, Shagina said. The strikes also crippled the city’s power supply."

(Lviv, it's practically in Poland for goodness sakes, so why didn't they hit it earlier if they could? They obviously had the capability the experts were saying they didn't have. So which argument makes more sense, "They are not hitting them because they can't." Or, "they weren't hitting them  before because the goal is to drag this on as long as possible?" Discernment yo.)

"Muzyka said Russia, ignoring international conventions, has consistently targeted civilian apartment blocks and infrastructure in two Chechen wars, in Syria and Ukraine.

(They dont fight wars by western standards, they just don't, haven't, and wont.)

“Definitely they focus on the power grid as a way of making civilian lives miserable,” he said. “For Russians, striking civilian areas, residential areas and anything that can potentially impact the lives of civilians is a military objective, because for Russia, the war is total.”

(They were all in from the get go, I listed seven of Putin's goals in the Fiona Hill piece, there will never be a negotiation, Ukraine will have a nuclear weapon detonated on its territory or The West will stand down...Again, there are no really good options are on our table.)

This

 

one is going to be like writing a book.

Almost every paragraph gets a comment.

WARNING;

(I'm going to say a lot of:

'I said..."

It wasn't me saying it but the Holy Spirit working through me to say it.

Just try and keep it in mind. :-).

Western intelligence shows Russians amassing aircraft on Ukraine border

"Nato allies to prioritise rapid shipments of air defences and ammunition as conflict enters new phase.

(It's been going on a year

but now we decide they need:

"rapid shipments of air defences and ammunition"

(Im not even out of the headline and I'm commenting...probably a pretty good indicator of where this one is headed...)

(Please use the sharing tool lol...

Hey?

Sue me, 

I live in a garage, 

like I care, 

I wouldn't even have transportation to court etc?

Seein' the built in advantage for livin like I am now?

Anyway...)

"Intelligence shared among Nato allies shows that Russia is amassing fixed-wing and rotary aircraft on the border with Ukraine, according to two officials briefed on its contents.";

"In meetings with allied countries supporting Ukraine on Tuesday, US defence secretary Lloyd Austin highlighted the threat of Russia’s significant remaining air force."

“He was very clear that we have a short window of time to help the Ukrainians to prepare for an offensive and that they had some pretty specific needs,” a senior US administration official said.

(If the Ukrainians need air defenses?

And Russia's air force is largely intact?

Why wasn't it being utilized in such a 

"FULL SCALE"

 invasion?

And why diont the Ukrainians have adequate Air defenses bt now?

I brought all these point up a pretty good while ago in a "presentation" I did.)

“The Russian land forces are pretty depleted so it’s the best indication that they will turn this into an air fight. If the Ukrainians are going to survive . . . they need to have as many air defence capabilities and as much ammunition . . . as possible,” the official added.

(“The Russian land forces are pretty depleted'

Baloney. maybe the ones right there are.

But They have used only 2 out of 10 army units.

This has largely been:

The Wagner group, 

Draftees, 

inexperienced units with limited training, 

prisoners, 

volunteers, 

militias from the eastern providences of Ukraine 

and Chechens.

Notice the official said:

"If the Ukrainians are going to survive..."

Not:

"If the Ukrainians are going to be victorious" 

but :

"If they are going to live."

basically.)

"In a news conference later on Tuesday, Austin said the US did not see imminent signs of a “massive aerial attack” from Russia on Ukraine, but that Washington and its allies are rushing as much air defence capability to the country as they possibly can."

(Why wasn't this done a long time ago? 

We wouldn't be in such a rush rn. I mean I flat out said that all they (Ukrainians) had was old soviet era stuff for air defenses and that Russia wasn't using it's Air Force and this was a good while ago.)

“We do know Russia has substantial aircraft . . . and a lot of capability left,” Austin said. Ukraine’s current air defences were “not enough and we’re going to keep pushing until we get more because that threat is out there”, he said. “We want to make sure they have the ability to protect themselves in the event Russia decides to introduce its air force into the fight.”

(We do know Russia has substantial aircraft . . .I'd be curious to know what was said where the ...was put in that statement.

And?

"...in the event Russia decides to introduce its air force into the fight."

That's the US secretary of defense talking.

Anytime somebody wants to come and explain to me how a 

"FULL SCALE INVASION"

DOESNT INCLUDE AN AIR COMPONENT IN IT?

IM ALL EARS...

"...in the event Russia decides to introduce its air force into the fight."

I've said since the convoy stalled on the way to Kiev:

"They are sandbagging."

 (= deceptive behavior intended to lower someone's expectations 

so that they can be taken by surprise later.)

Well guess what?

Looking like later is about here already according to NATO.)

(I mean:

“We want to make sure they have the ability to protect themselves in the event Russia decides to introduce its air force into the fight.”

Since the first weeks of the war, following President Vladimir Putin’s full-scale invasion on February 24 last year"

(Those two sentences are back to back in different paragraphs.

So how was it a "Full Scale Invasion" again?

 If it didn't include but only a small portion of the Russian Air Force?

I'm all ears... 

I got a table and a chair for who ever wants t come explain it to me.)

"Russia has used its sizeable air forces sparingly, relying instead on long-range missiles, artillery and land-based troops.

Western analysts had speculated that this could have been due to a fear in Moscow that Ukraine’s air defence systems posed a threat to Russian aircraft, or because its fleet was in poor condition."

(One:

"Russia has used its sizeable air forces sparingly..."

Defines sandbagging basically.

Two:

"Western analysts had speculated that this could have been due to a fear in Moscow that Ukraine’s air defence systems posed a threat to Russian aircraft, or because its fleet was in poor condition."

No. Not at all. Thats the dog that dont hunt they tried to sell ya.

I mean if that's the best Western analysts can do?

The we need a whole new set of analysts cause that is so far off as to be laughable at this point.)

"But intelligence assessments indicate that Russia’s air force is “actually quite preserved”, a senior Nato diplomat said.

“More than 80 per cent probably is safe and available . . . So we are expecting that they’re preparing to launch an air campaign and they’ve been trying to [disable] Ukrainian air defenses with attacks,” the diplomat said.

(All that you heard about the Russians:

"attacking civilian infrastructure"?

They were, don't get me wrong, but they knew there were  reconnaissance drones circling their positions on the ground and providing "real time" information and coordinates about their troop locations and movements so that they could be targeted. The relay towers relaying that real time information from the drones to  on the Ukrainians on the ground has been all but taken out at this point. So that, along with Elon Musk taking down the Ukrainians Starlink access? Yeah they have been disabling Ukrainian air defenses for a while. This will not be like it was a year ago and they are still using inexperienced, ill trained and ill equipped draftees. Still sand bagging.)

"The US is expected to announce another assistance package later this week, which will mostly include air defence and ammunition, according to people familiar with the matter."

"Ukrainian and Nato officials have in recent days warned of ammunition shortages, with western capitals growing concerned at the effect of strained defence supply chains and dwindling domestic stockpiles."

(Ever occur to any of these highly esteemed "Western Analyst" that this was part of the game plan all along? 

1st? They probe to see what your tactics will be in response. Then later (now) at their choosing? They adjust tactics based off what they have learned. Then? They get you depleting your weapons stockpiles, cause they knew the "Real" big one is still coming. They use the aforementioned hodgepodge of armed services members, (Chechens, prisoners', etc...) They use old rations, old ammo/equipment etc...Not because they were out but because they were saving it for when it matters the most. No "Western Analyst" can figure this out? Nobody reporting on it anywhere etc? Makes perfect sense...I mean where are peoples brains these days?

Where is the guy that is making more sense? Is my question.

I got a few things I wanna ask him about.)

"These immediate needs trumped longer-term requests for materiel such as fighter jets or quicker shipments of western battle tanks, officials said, given Russia’s new offensive, which Nato said on Monday had already begun.

“​​What Ukraine tells us that they really need is ammunition and additional air defence capabilities,” a western official said."

(This was over before it started. Other people don't fight wars like we do. Some countries don't care about battlefield losses. Some wars are drawn out on purpose to "break" the other side and that's exactly what this is doing, its a war of attrition the West was not prepared to fight post Covid.)

"President Joe Biden has said the US will not send F-16s but American officials concede they are likely to provide Ukraine with more sophisticated air power as the war drags on — or at least give a green light to the transfer of F-16s from other powers.'

(Were conceding that this gonna drag this now...)

"The allies’ meeting could also include talks about a greater number of more direct contracts between Kyiv and western defence companies, brokered and financed by allied countries, two officials said. That would streamline the flow of supplies from production line to deployment, while also acknowledging that western militaries have little more to give from their reserves."

(Think its an accident they launched their new offensive when they did?)

It's old school 'attritional warfare" and were loosing and were gonna continue to loose.

I still want somebody come explain to me how a 

FULL SCALE INVASION" 

doesn't use an air force? 

I love you baby.

TTYS honey.