First Year of War: What We Learn from Ukraine

It's been really weird seeing how quickly the modern air war has gone from thoughts of Flankers/MiGs/Frogfoots prewar to the TB2/munition/kamikaze drones. Strange that the only things that mostly stayed constant were the cruise missile strikes.

A couple of takeaways for me; one is well known: air space control is really important, and the conflict has shown why NATO rightly puts a strong emphasis on the neutralisation and suppression of air defenses.
Secondly; the use of various types of drones for kamikaze attacks, scouting and artillery spotting are likely to be a permanent aspect of conventional conflicts.
And thirdly: gun-based anti-air systems like Gepard previously believed to be obsolete are likely to have a renaissance because of the 2nd point because they seem to be the most efficient and cost-effective counters, with perhaps the Tunguska becoming the norm, ie combination short-range missiles and large caliber autocannons

I think one of the main takeaways from the air war in Ukraine is that SEAD/DEAD is one of, if not THE, most important mission sets a modern air force has to prepared for. From our western perspective, we view this topic through the lens of Desert Storm and the intervention in Serbia, where we significantly overmatched our opponents both qualitatively and quantitatively. In a near-peer environment, NATO air dominance will not come as easily and we have to be prepared for it. This also means that we have to invest heavily into GBAD to improve resilience of air defense as a whole, in case we face scenarios in which the airspace is heavily contested. I fear that we currently rely too heavily on the assumption that potential opponents will simply be smashed on the ground or outfought in air.

I feel like one major lesson from this war is "Don't skimp on pilot hours/maintenance/gear and have an overkill approach to air power". I feel like decisive air power early on really can't be understated. I dunno though, this is me making a super-simple/general take and I could very well be wrong.

A most informative and concise summary of the air war thus far. And just 17 minutes too, a record for a German.
Strange seeing such a mix of technology and tactics in this war. Nothing ever turns out the way we expect.

Great Summary. Social Media shows us 100% of the UAV attacks that succeed, and 0% that fail (slightly exaggerated), this is something to keep in mind when pundit claim that UAVs are the future of warfare.

Thanks for a short and informative analysis!
What I find most telling, is that complex operations are hard to do, and requires the right equipment, the right logistics, the right command and control, the right intelligence, and the right training and preparation.
Furthermore, that the efficiency of your forces falls dramatically if complex operations are out of reach.
Secondly, the increasing role of drones and various unmanned systems. It appears to me that the prospects for air campaign are increasing, while the necessary roles to be filled by manned platforms is decreasing, telling me that unmanned systems may be more important than manned systems in the not so distant future, even if manned systems still have an important role to play.

Wow, really glad you did this video, I am much more aware of the situation now than I was before. 1) Actual air Superiority is now a dream, manpads are small light and effective and are a constant danger. 2) For these medium wars conventional airfields continue to be effective. It appears at this level that VSTOL is not yet required. 3) It is possible to intercept and destroy drones but the ammunition requirement is quite high, if widespread protection is desired an increase in the interceptor base by a factor of 10 seems likely. This is an unusual conflict in that normal civilian life more or less is going on. Something like London in the blitz or Berlin in late 44.

Personally, the one surprising thing that both sides seem to be doing a fair amount of is those indirect rocket attacks (from SU25, Mi-8, Mi-24, etc.). There has been just a few drone shots of their impact area and while the accuracy isn't that bad, the dispersion is quite strong and the payload per rocket isn't that big (even for the S13), so their actual effect on target must certainly be quite low. I would have assumed the tactics to not be worth the precious flying hours. Initially I thought it made sense at least on the UKR side, just to show everybody that they still had an airforce but now I'm just puzzled really.

Great analysis! Straight forward and about as accurate as can be attained so far. Well done.

Greetings from India. During Kargil war in 1999, we found out that unlike old wars where it was necessary to provide close air support to ground forces, it's better if airforce operates almost quasi-independently, destroying strategic targets and such like logistics hubs. PGMs were a massive multiplier , specially when enemy had decentralised air defence ala MANPADS cause those PGMs help in doing strike missions outside their envelope . The Pakistanis fired 100+ stingers at us but managed to hit only 3 planes, of which 2 were destroyed. It seems VKS has very little place for re-evaluating their tactics and have proper contingency plans compared to Western or Indian Airforce. You should read "Airpower at 18000" by Carnaegie institute to properly understand more what I am talking about. We used a MiG- Mirage combo back then, where an LGB would be dropped, and using GPS+ stopwatch combo, dumb payloads would also be dropped on the same target at once.

The biggest takeaways for me are the new role and importance UAVs play. Not the TB2 so much but more so the irregular, often commercial drone assets. These play a role in: reconnaissance, harassing the enemy forces, and information war. It is difficult to assess their true importance, but they seem to have a pretty big impact on information gathering and morale. One wonders what the future of these small menaces will be...
My second takeaway is my surprise that the air forces of Ukraine actually seem to have managed to bring Russia to a stalemate. Very few people saw that coming before the war.

Thanks for providing the facts. It’s clear both sides puff up or deflate certain statistics which is expected but makes accurate analysis difficult. It would be nice to see things come to an end soon but it’s unlikely to happen. Interesting to see how both sides change and adapt their tactics.

This has shown the value of aircraft operating at high altitude with large powerful radars and long range missiles to push strikes to extreme ranges. Both air and ground assets have been targeted this way. This seems to validate large high firepower aircraft over smaller point defense dog fighters in modern air combat. The radar size and this relationship with effective range seems to be a crucial factor.

I think it's important to acknowledge the dramatic effects of both ship-based surface to surface missiles and shore-based anti-ship missiles. The destruction of Moskva, the flagship of Russia's Black Sea Fleet put a stop to plans for an amphibious attack near Odesa.

Very nice breakdown of the air war
Shows a very unbiased perspective for both sides, telling the good and bad. Also shows the truth in some myths we’ve been hearing from mainstream media. Thank you for a great video

Small detail, but around the implementation of weapons like AGM 88, it saw the return of the TB2 briefly in a combat role, guiding strikes against naval assets and in the front. Russian positions turning off some of their radars to avoid targetting.

Thank you for the work you put into the channel. Your audience appreciates you.

Sidebar : thoroughly enjoy your diagnostic approach man, so much initial info last year with few waiting for the dust to settle a little bit before taking to tweets. Really appreciate a bit of study and objectivity 👍
I find the visuals pair well with the context your offering - it's my paint-by-numbers brain asking this, but would there be a chance of giving the negative or disadvantage icons a red wash or outline ?
It's likely my brain seeking to do the least work possible, as usual, but I figured there's no harm in asking.
It's good content and comparable videos are either all talk and defense contractor product trailers or tend to lose me in a sea of info I can't hope to read into that deeply before the video shifts focus. There's a lot to be said for simplicity, and the presence of a genuine, forthcoming presenter 👍🍻🇨🇦

This is a great breakdown of the air war. Thanks Chris for this information.

Danke, this clears up many aspects of the aviation side of things. Very interesting and helpful in understanding what's taking place.

From what information did you conclude the change in Russian proficiency of creating (small) strike packages? Is there a source from which we can learn more about the composition and (rough) tactics and strategies they utilise?

Thanks. I did not know these details about drone history. This area of the the war seems to be evolving fast. I didn’t know so many were shot down. You wonder what anti-drone defenses have been developed. Can radar even pick them up?

My takeaway: (1) Old fashioned war aims lead to modernized old fashioned war with drones, artillery, tanks, bombings, trench fights. (2) Russian Airforce seems to be much weaker, than anticipated or air defence of Ukraine is much better, than previously thought. (3) -Modernized artillery regained most of its importance and fighting distance matters a lot (4) Drones makes it difficult to hide the preparations for new actions, (5) The flow of information, fast information processing, fast provision of information to the troops and the ability to use this information in time are crucial for success. These data will be analyzed later. (6) Even Ukraine war is a modern war, big numbers of soldiers, artillery rounds fired result in a hard and bloody achieved success for Russian troops (7) The easiest way for Russia to win that conflict is to cut the political support from western allies and Russia tries hard at the propaganda front.

Wonderful analytics - condense, with attention to details and providing support to most points.

Good summary- thanks! Seems like "Air war over Ukraine = stalemate" is a win for Ukraine. We have yet to see what air power in combined arms offensive means on todays battlefield.

Given what I've been able to see my armchair analysis is that achieving air superiority relies heavily on SEAD/DEAD being effective. If it's not, then modern(ish) SAMs will shoot your entire air force out of the sky.

An excellent presentation, thanks for the effort!

Low level flight is much harder on airframes no? That could explain maintenance challenges.
Also one of the most frustrating things is the utter lack of anything regarding the Phoenix Ghost drones. The US continues to include them in large numbers in aid packages, so they must be doing something but you'd think even if Ukraine kept it quiet, that Russia would have been bound to get their hands on something regarding it but we've heard nothing from them either. A total information black hole!

For my own thoughts, I was surprised from the beginning that Russia was not attempting to overwhelm Ukrainian AD by pushing large numbers of planes forward and how little their SEAD efforts really did in providing them access to targets overall. Also, it is almost impossible to know what the operational plan actually was for the Russians, from an American perspective it appears that air power was never really considered as a primary contributor. Is this due to innate Russian weaknesses, overestimation of strengths, or fear of AD capabilities? One can only wonder.
Going forward, the keys to mitigating the drone/UAV threat will likely be found and Ukraine will get it first. Hundreds of big brains at DARPA are likely already finalizing those mitigations/systems. It may also be likely that if Russia's inability to win a decisive outcome on the ground continues, they may turn to airpower and "eat" the losses. Assuming, of course, the losses have already crippled real capabilities.

Great video. This conflict is very intereting in so many ways. Reminder that this is the first big war in Europe since 1945. The Cold War fears of nuclear exchange are back. And it's arguably a proxy war between Russia and the West at this point. The capabilties of the Russian military have gone from opaque and overestimated, to mostly transparent and brings back jokes about Russia, like with the USSR, "Stalinium" and the perception that Russia is a super-power juggernaut on par with the USA. We can now see how good Russia actually is in a near-peer conflict because it can't seem to win over a supposed inferior nation. Westerners have been reveling in the problems of Russia, it's corruption leading to crappy equipment or just things straight up missing from their inventory. The reliance of Russia on western tech to make their own weapons also brought into the question the idea that Russia can sustain a war long term. Their stock of guided munitions and missiles is running dangerously low because they can't buy the chips necessary to make new ones. They have had to buy second grade weapons from the few remaining allies they have like Iran and North Korea. The Information War needs an entire video series on its own. So much to say but basically Russia can't control the narrative of its own invincibility anymore. Especially with mutiny, riots and desertion inside their ranks that we have seen occurring, showing that Russia is losing its grasp on controling the information to their own citizens and soldiers. My opinion is that as long as Ukraine doesn't collapse and lose to Russia, the REAL winner seems to me to be neither Russia or Ukraine but NATO. NATO gets political ammunition and real justification for its existence. NATO gets to fight Russia without actually having to fight Russia on the battlefield. NATO gets to indirectly eliminate high ranking russian officers and generals by sharing intel with Ukraine and its special forces doing the dirty work. NATO also gets to test weapons, strategy, tactics, technology, communications and vehicles against their russian equivalent without sustaining actual losses, just the equipment sent to Ukraine. New countries are lining up to join NATO while everybody else is condemning Russia for their actions and they are losing political influence and allies rapidly. Europe is trying to rid itself from Russian energy, increasing reliance on the US instead, which would reduce russian energy income and have to instead sell their energy cheaper to China. The support of NATO to Ukraine in this war also sends a very strong message to China that wants to do the same with Taiwan at some point in the near future. Germany has reversed cutting spending on military, Japan is expanding its military.
Oh and one last thing : The equipment sent to Ukraine is "Lend Lease" like during WW2. Meaning Ukraine is not getting military equipment "for free". It's a lease, they are gonna have to pay it back eventually and for decades to come. For reference, the UK finished paying it's loans from WW2 (from the US) in 2006, that's 61 years later.
So, am I incorrect that the biggest winner in this (as of right now) is NATO? If you disagree in any way, go on comment and explain to me why I would be wrong.
Again great vid, and fascinating topic. I hope you'll make another one of these in a year's time if the conflict is still going by then.

Three keys to a successful air assault operation are surprise, air superiority (at least locally) and support. Air assault operations can deliver elite infantry rapidly to a weak point or a strategically important target and, if the enemy is disorganized, these troops and their supporting gunships can quickly overwhelm and capture the point. However, while air assault troops are generally elite, they are also very light meaning that they need to be rapidly relieved by heavier mechanized/armored forces. In addition, if the enemy is prepared and/or has aircraft/air defenses, then the air assault is almost certainly doomed to fail as helicopters are relatively easy prey for enemy fighters, MANPADs and ground-based small arms fire. By launching their air assault on 24 February, the day of the invasion, Russia didn't really give their air force any time to soften the Ukrainian defenses. This was an incredibly poorly conceived operation as it would have launched without giving Russian intel the chance to conduct an accurate BDA, as well as giving no time to gauge Ukrainian resistance against the supporting ground forces that were attacking from Belarus. In other words, the Russians tossed the air assault troops onto helicopters and said 'good luck, everything will be just fine....'
Therefore, I don't think the Russian air force can really be blamed for the Russian humiliation in the Battle of Kyiv. The Russian military barely gave their air force enough time to attack their initial targets, let alone conduct an accurate BDA, develop additional targeting and conduct follow-on strikes. Notably, in 1993 the US-led Coalition conducted an air campaign for WEEKS before crossing the berm with ground forces into Kuwait. This time frame allowed the Coalition to gain air superiority (arguably air supremacy) and steadily degrade Iraqi air defenses and defensive positions over time. By the time Coalition troops crossed the berm, Iraqi forces were already nervous at best, terrified at worst of roaming Coalition strike aircraft. Command and control, communications and air defense sites had been heavily damaged or destroyed. The Iraqi air force was worn down by attrition and either destroyed on the ground or pounced on and destroyed in the air. The Russians gave their air force not time to conduct a similar operation and their ground forces paid the price.
Why didn't Russia do this? Part of it has to do with doctrine. The Russian military has generally viewed their air force more like artillery than an arm capable of winning a war. From the training manuals and debriefings of Russian defectors, there's strong evidence that Russian pilots may lack the training to utilize their own initiative in the way that US pilots do (especially in the USMC). The other factor that keeps cropping up is the lack of precision-guided ground attack munitions. Russia doesn't seem to have started the war with a huge stockpile of these weapons, which would have been necessary to conduct a US-style air campaign to weaken Ukrainian defenses. These two factors probably combined to make Russian commanders bank primarily on ground operations with the Russian air force playing a supporting role. In all, there was likely also political pressure from the Kremlin to bring the campaign to a quick close before the West could rally in military and economic support for Ukraine. These factors led to a hasty, rushed campaign. Overall, the Russian air force is hard to judge because they were never given a chance to succeed.

Should’ve talked more about the Saky airbase attack. I remember it was a game-changer and everyone wanted to know what happened and how it happened.

I have noticed a sharp separation of viewers that quickly realize they are watching a simulation, and because of the quality of those simulations having reached an astonishing level in such a short time, PLUS the sheer talent of those who produce these videos in terms of believability often are motivated by mere ego-feeding rather than some abstract political passions, have been the source of much confusion and misinformation. Besides succumbing to a certain amount of it myself, I see many comments alluding to just how many viewers just can’t seem to process the fidelity now available to the skilled gamer, nor are they able to handle the concept of something they see as life-and-death, and of profound importance, being used as a pretext for the entertainment of some clueless kid who can’t even tell you the name of the vice-president of their country. This is at least 2nd order confusion and misinformation.

A bit off topic, but My grandfather fought For Finland in both winter- And continuation war. Only thing he Said about The Finnish Air forces was that they were never there when they were needed. I wonder how different The situation is nowadays from infantrymans perspective

This is excellent... Though I don't know why I am surprised, since this channel is consistently very high quality....
Keep it coming! (And (1, of course)

It's nice seeing that my personal theory that drones werent as effective as they were being portrayed in social media be proven right by a reputable source.

Excellent summary! Thank you!

i highly recommend the channel of "operator starsky" he covered many aspects on the hostomel air assault in his past content. he's the press officer of the local national guard brigade, so maybe even someone to reach out for if any questions.

Watching your video covering the air war in Ukraine and HistoryLegends channel of the ground campaign is providing a much more accurate report on the actual events; moreso than the mainstream media - who, here in the UK, seem only to be interested in cheerleading for one side while its military experts over exaggerate Ukrainian victories and vastly over estimate Russian losses.

Excellent summary Chris, thanks.

"Flying around 500 feet"
So technically even within the range of Pavel the random civilian firing his Makarov at a Flanker.

Drones are here to stay and you better have economical counters. And airspace control is actually super difficult against a near equal peer military.

Excellent and thoughtful presentation...many thanks

Great concise analysis thanks

While Shaheed drones have been highly visible in media and has been used to cause strategic disruption (and well, terror warfare) the Lancet-3 is probably the most successful use of Loitering munitions. While the Lancet was introduced during the summer the adaptation to use it successfully starts in November, and since then it's probably one of the main threats to key Ukrainian assets such as SPGs, radars and short/medium range AA assets.

Nicely summarized. I would suggest placing the video referral cards at the end of the videos so as to not interrupt the flow of the current video.

Great use of iconography, really easy to follow.

Could you be more specific about the misconceptions you mentioned at the end of the video? What conclusions did you draw prematurely?

We all hope there will be historians in the future to write about what we going through now...

This was a very good summary of the air war in Ukraine.
I just wonder how Ukraine was capable of protecting its aircraft on the ground, since the SU-27 and mig 29 were definitely strategic targets of Russian rockets and cruise missiles. Furthermore, I am surprised that Russia was not capable of suppressing the Ukraine ground based air defence using HARM missiles. Does the Russian airforce lack this capability?
Last but not least, UAVs appear to have changed warfare on the ground considerably, since the attacker has little chances of surprising the defender given the constant surveillance of the battle field by drones. The concentration of troops in preparation of a large scale attack can be detrimental, since it is likely to be discovered by the drones. These troop concentrations are an ideal target for the artillery.
This appears to be one major reason for the war of attrition similar to the first world war. Thus, the development of very precise artillery in conjunction with very good reconnaissance using drones has shifted the advantage to the defender. The lack of effective combined arms warfare in the Russian army must also be seen as a contributing factor to the successes of the defence.

Hello,would you please recomend a book or file about jet engines?Especially the ones like the p80 or the de haviland vampire.

perfect ! well done.

Having been in air defense myself, hopefully the Ukrainian ADA crews arw employing limited and controlled sweeps to offset ARM lockons.

Excellent summary!

Should add a note about the percentage of russian strikes apparently dedicated to killing or attacking cities in a general way instead of actual military targets. Either they lacked dynamic military intel to assign military targets and were just hitting missile launched quotas or??? In reality it was more likely a terror campaign against civilians. Thus hardening the population against them further and wasting strike weight/opportunity that could have furthered pursuit of actual military objectives

I wanna imagine being someone seeing this video in 80 years the way we look at war analysis films from 80 years ago today

The development of means of unmanned warfare has been foreseeable for a long time and will not only have a significant impact on air combat, but also on armored vehicles. It is only a matter of time before drones are developed specifically for combating main battle tanks, and these then have to be made significantly smaller and more mobile as targets in order to still have a realistic survivability in the battlefield in the aftermath. --- But this development was foreseeable years ago. The size of equipment of warfare have been steadily decreasing for decades with the same effectiveness and are usually significantly cheaper and more flexible than their classic counterparts. Air and ground drones (or highly mobile modern tankettes) are just a logical step in the development of modern ordnance for a small price tag per piece when produced in masses. The wars had become too expensive along with all the fancy developments on the equipment side already. Smaller gear, just as powerful but harder to detect and engage, will sooner or later be the new trend already for sheer cost reasons. The conflict in Ukraine just accelerates the development that is going to take place in the future anyways.

Great Work!

Very well done, sir

I think the VKS simply failed to meet our NATO/US expectations of air war. Its not doing a really bad job by USSR/Russian standards, but it seems like Russia would have much worse trouble in a war with a western military than we previously thought, because its airforce simply can't keep up with the pace, in which we (the west) would do air combat. And much less if its about a conflict that lasts longer than a few weeks. Which is all one reason more, beyond the logistics/economic perspective, to give Ukraine western jets, but much more, Ukraine would also need western experience and know-how in operations. Because one day, Russia might figure it out by itself and it would be better, that Ukraine learns it first.

Time seemed to be completely ineffective for the K series, only Mi survives, this is due to the fact that infantry with MANPADS must determine their own or someone else’s and only then shoot, while seeing the K series it is destroyed by heavy fire from the entire MANPADS, heavy machine guns, anti-tank systems. That is, there are heat traps and they work, but for example, a magical Russian IR searchlight with an automatic system for fixing MANPADS launches does not work, which practice shows.
K series cannot be confused with Mi, moreover, working in the K series group unmasks the Mi series and signs their sentence.
PS You can only learn one thing here if you see Gopnik, you need to beat him, and not be afraid of the mythical escalation.

Hello from the Philippines, really excellent video thank you. I have a question: for how long can Western powers keep sending weapon systems, ammunition to Ukraine before their OWN stocks start to run low? Just to the north of us is Taiwan....a tinderbox in the waiting. Is China waiting till USA's massive (but finite) stocks of Javelins, HIMARS, artillery shells etc. run low before looking to Taiwan? Its a very worry I have, is it a valid worry?

This war has brought to us that the grisly reality of attrition warfare is still a thing. Technology alone will not deter a foe which simply does the math and conclude that he can win because he has way more equipment and manpower than you

Yeah, I think that AA might just be too good for anything except 5th Gen aircraft. It's just far too dangerous for high value assets, now.

11:52 cut error. Thank for making these videos!

Very much appreciate the return to objectivity

No, the war started in 2014, it escalated 24th February 2022.

That was a good caveat at the end. Needed.

Since most static targets were mapped and attacked, shouldn’t western countries focus more on an airforce and airplanes that are more mobile and capable of off-airfield operations? Are the planes in the current inventory (like F-16, Eurofighter, F-35,…) even capabele of this? Maybe countries like Sweden made a better choice to develop Grippen and survive a modern war where airfields would be the first targets that get destroyed?

good analysisthis sums up one year of war

The main takeaway, in my opinion, is supremacy of ground air defense over air offense, at least as far as traditional airplanes. If you do not posses stealth technology, you are a glorified booster stage for missiles. If you do posses stealth, you are so ridiculously expensive it might be more rational to buy a tens or hundreds of cheaper drones instead.

I would like a whole breakdown from you

So given how lots of people started harping on how tanks are supposedly obsolete due to this war, how come people aren't claiming the helicopter is obsolete?

a Well balanced report and mostly accurate. Thank you.

RGD-5 is getting a new lease of life.

We learned we won't be home by Christmas.

ДЯКУЮ! Гість- глибоко "копає". Клас!
АЛЕ я підтримую Ваші висновки, Анатолій!
З Боглм!

5:40 The battle for Gostomel airport arguably saved not just Kyiv but the entire Ukraine.

The takeaway is that the VKS was never able to establish Air Superiority and what little mid range missions over Ukraine has been shoved back to just front lines. CAS is no longer a viable Air Mission (contested air space) unless you have Precision Weapons. The incredible aspect is Ukraine fought the VKS to an aerial draw (or worse) and that is a fantastic outcome for them. Aerial missions over Russia were never feasible long term and keeping it a draw or contested over Ukraine is outstanding. Unmanned Aerial Munitions is really a separate aspect and is Unmanned Recon.

You touch on the topic about ”Western” help to Ukraine, but not much on similar support to Russia from Iran for example.
It would be nice with some kind of additional analysis of what impact this ”external” support have meant for the war and what would have been the situation without it..

I didn't hear you mentioning the later tactics by the Russians using old Mig31's to intercept low flying Ukranian aircraft from within the Russian territory.

Nobody seems to learn from the past, we're doomed to repeat ourselves

The Ukrainian Air Force is one of the biggest surprises of the war imo. I‘d never thought that they‘d be able to challenge the VKS over a prolonged period of time yet here we are one year later and they‘re still very much alive and active. May god bless them and the other defenders of Ukraine.

Chris I consider you a trusted friend please take care of you!

Thanks Christoph, very good take

So, there was footage during the first couple days of a Ukrainian and a Russian jets chase, was that ever confirmed to be real?

I'm wondering how effective F-16's and similar aircraft would be in Ukraine. An article in RUSI argued that advanced western aircraft wouldn't be worth the investment. It seems to me that the introduction of a significant amount of western armor and air defenses offers a more realistic chance of turning the tide in Ukraine's favor.

I suspect the new undies for the Bundeswehr arrived in time for Valentine's Day, and like so much else, have already been forwarded to Kyiv? So, well done for how Germany has been standing up. I was watching a video yesterday with hundreds of units of NATO armour rolling off in the lovely port of Klaipeda. I never get tired of seeing that, as my kith and kin in Lithuania no longer have any tanks to roll up in? Perun has shown us the exhaustive list of military goods your country has already sent in a time of great need by most of our allies. My main take-away? Time for us in the US and NATO to get serious (like Estonia sending all of its artillery) and help Ukraine win this: send Ukraine another 800 or 1000 M2 ODS Bradleys (we have 2800 in storage, and another 700 brand new M2A4s just ordered), 142 Stryker MGS (retired to Ukraine), another 150 Abrams tanks, more Paladins, 100 tons (we have 446,000 units) of our unused cluster munitions, longer range precision munitions, ALCMs (say Rapid Dragon?) and 250 F-16 Vipers to carry them. When we send our 260 remaining A-10's, our AF will give silent but grateful thanks. Time for us all to win. Why else have we been saving this 40 year old kit?

So Ukraine stopped using the TB2? I haven’t heard about it recently

Outstanding work!

Interesting briefing.

my takeaway is that we need more Javelins

Winners
-Artillery in all forms
-Ground based Air Defense in all forms, especially Manpads
-ATGMs
-Light and Motorized Infantry
-Drones
Losers
-Attack Helicopters
-Tanks and IFVs

it is not “Hosmotel”, it is Gostomel 😂

My main takeaway Chris is that Ukraine is still fighting and Russian forces seem to be desperately trying to adapt to what their enemy is doing rather than imposing their intent upon them.
We shall see but I fear this needless horror show will continue for far too long.
The Russians have lost - even if they achieve their aims of eastern Ukrainian usurpation.
I refer you to the latest presentation by Perun.
A medium nation still convinced it’s an empire.
As a Brit I get it …
But… 🤔

Question, why are you IGNORING, that some wussian jets crash after take off, their cruise missils malfunctioned at a very high rate almost hitting the launchers. Also, you overlooked the wussian ship that got sunk by Ukraine. The moskvar or some asinine name.